Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive AK

< Wikipedia:Village pump
Village pump archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU

Is Wikipedia democratic or aristocratic?

How about explicit voting for everything? Right from featuring an article to selecting the anniversaries to appointing the administrators? I know this falls within the domain of setting up a democratic system, which is not without faults either. Using the same principles as in real world politics, till the democracy matures, minorities should be represented in a balanced manner, by giving advantages. The results of the elections should be openly declared, when are where needed. I would also support a veto power for select administrators. Administrators' term must be short-lived and elections can be made dynamic rather than 'on one day'. Computers can make this magic possible (dynamic elections). However universal suffrage is mandatory for everyone who is registered (of course that would mean a little more of identity verification), right from the begining, unlike real world politics. Am I living in utopia? Or am I pointing to the right direction? Only time will tell. --Drbalaji md 05:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
As has been said many times over - Wikipedia is *not* a democracy, owing to the fact that (a) for technical limitations of the internet, we cannot established one-person-one-vote, and (b) we operate based on discussion driven consensus, not polls. Administrators *are* "voted" on at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, however, the final decision to promote is left up to beauracrats who have been given authority (by poll) to weight votes to determine what 'consensus' is (in other words, they can choose to ignore trolls and sockpuppets) - typically, 75% or more. The featured articles for the main page are chosen by me (and only me) from a community selected subset (The featured articles), because the necessity of choosing a new one everyday makes the overhead for daily elections unfeasable, if not impossible. The idea that wikipedia is a democracy tends to foster an enviroment where people think that their ideas are valid just because they believe them, that every POV should make it into an article and be represented in our rules and procedures-- let me assure you, this is *not* the case. →Raul654 05:58, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
This dictatorship and beaurocracy, is exactly what I intend to fight against. One person cannot be an embodiment of world knowledge, on whom rests the decision making capacity to project an article or suppress another. It will end up as a Raulpedia, not wikipedia, eventually. I am not intending to change the way the articles are generated or the discussions are conducted. But, I am targeting three things,
  • 1. Selection of administrators
  • 2. Selection of front page articles
  • 3. Selection of feature articles
Of course, the list can be lengthened to include other issues as time progresses. I do not know the reason why you resist change. Technical factors, although do exist, are not unresolvable with sufficient contribution from the open society (I am quite sure that many 'free' poll applets are available on the internet). Resistance, revolution and implementation of new ideas have brought this open community into existence today. I think we must acknowledge this vital fact. Otherwise there is no difference between wikipedia and copyrighted encylcopedia like Microsoft Encarta!(Alteast Encarta has more number of Rauls!)--Drbalaji md 06:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
And round and round we go. Let's try this again
  1. Speaking as a computer engineer - there is *no* software *anywhere* to establish one-person-one-vote - it is technically impossible to do it just with software. Every possible system relies on tying some outside source of information (SSN, credit cards, etc) to a particular user account. This is an unncessary invasion of privacy, and it would be prohitive for anons to participate. Therefore, it is also unwiki-like. Period.
  2. As I said above (which you apparently did not read) the community DOES have input into selection administrators. However, because of the limitations I just named (for the second time) some users must exist to seperate the votes. The decision to enact such a position was done after consensus in the community.
  3. The featured articles go through a peer-review process which I know for a fact that you are familiar with, because you have posted there. The community does choose these.
  4. Articles are selected for the main page by me because (again, as I said above) the idea of daily voting has been shouted/laughed down (again and again across about a half-dozen discussion pages) as costing way, way, way too much overhead - it is (at best) unfeasable. Moreover, since they are selected from the FAs (and checking by category, it's obvious that they are a representative sample) if there is bias then it comes from the peer review process, and the fact that we do not have an across-the-board sample of good articles in the database as a whole.
  5. Just because your ideas are "new and revolutionary" doesn't mean they are good. Quite the opposite - one of the fundemetnal principles of engineering is that is something works, you don't screw with it. Rule changes are inherently a bad thing.
  6. (Again, as I said above) Polls are generally regarded as a bad thing - we strive for consensus based on discussion, not voting.
  7. I just reread your statement, just to be sure, and I notice that you seem to be making sweeping pronouncmenets without a shred of evidence to back them up. Could you please give one credible reason (Note - an opinion is not a reason) for us to do what you propose? →Raul654 07:04, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)


It is disheartening to read your statements.
  • "Rules cannot be changed" - what an ignorant remark! Only a person with absolutely no knowledge of the world history can state that! Didn't you notice how GNU changed the rules by rejecting copyright and implementing copy left?
  • "Polls are generally regarded as bad things" - Do you mean to say communism/dictatorship is better?
  • "In engineering you don't mess up with working things" - We should have been living in caves and hunting wild boar, if mankind had followed your principle, Mr.Engineer.

What you just proclaimed in those above few lines, is against the very philosophy of Science and democracy. The creed that prosecuted Galileo still lingers around, claiming that the earth is flat! I saw one of them today. "It is the questioning of the un-shakeable beliefs, that has led us to the pursuit of truth" claims the preface to Grays anatomy. Change is the rule of nature, not the exception. "It is only those weak-hearted tyrants that are afraid of losing their authority in the face of rebellion. On the contrary, resistance to change strengthens a movement, just like the magma of a volcano builds up pressure to blow up the entire mountain to peices" - a politician's view.

I strongly differ from all of your above statements. Your point of views do not constitute the world (Neither do mine). --Drbalaji md 08:03, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The following is a link to an article regarding the Dutch open-source online e-voting software: http://www.ososs.nl/article.jsp?article=9698

The following is a link to the news regarding the same software: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/23/open_source_voting_software/

Now we can deduce that there is atleast one software, which you said was non-existent, thereby proving that your first statement is indeed, closed-minded. Hope there are any true open source activists around who can research the above link and find out the feasibility of incorporating it into wikipedia. Since, I am familiar with computer architectures, software and hardware engineering also, I know the hurdles in implementing a new open source endeavour. But I hope there are noble souls around, that can help. --Drbalaji md 09:14, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Re:"Rules cannot be changed" - if you look carefully, you'll notice I said that "Rule changes are inherently a bad thing." and should be done only when necessary. This does not mean that they cannot be changed, but that it should be avoided unless necessary, which your assertions fall *far short* of, and for which you have given no evidence for the necessity of besides broad philosophical claims.
  • Re: the open source voting program - The software you cite compares a user to a complete list of registered voters (thus tying to "some outside source of information", *exactly* as I said above). On Wikipedia, everyone is (by definition) a registered voter, and could potentially be many more. Therefore, we are back to the *exact* same problem I described above. What you need to impliment your ideas is a magic black box that would limit a person to one (and only one) wikipedia account, and such a thing does not exist.
  • In science, ideas are judged on their merit. You want to replace a time-tested system that by all accounts works pretty well (Ie, a meritorious idea) with an untested idea that you have given no evidentiary support for. Therefore, your idea has no scienctific merit. →Raul654 09:47, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
Raul, I'm sorry to butt in, but a lot of what you have said here doesn't hold water. The last things you said regarding science disregards the whole scientific process, which is the arcstone of science. Regarding "Rule changes are inherently a bad thing." What? There's nothing inherent about this. We wouldn't have any rules if there was not at one point a change from non-rules or different-rules to current rules, so you're tacitly implying that rules themselves are bad, for rules imply change of rules. (that is, it logically follows) "Inherently" bad? This is completely unsupportable. There is nothing neccessarily good or bad about conservation just as there is nothing neccessarily good or bad about innovation. The two dichotomies, good-bad, and stasis-dynamis, exist and function completly independantly of one another. As for the rest of the discusssion, i'm inbetween you two on this - i don't think it is possible or optimal to have a pure democracy on wikipedia, or anywhere else for that matter, but i do think that democratic principles and efforts are important and valuable, and that creative ideas should be encouraged, and not met with violent opposition. Kevin Baas 16:27, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
No, what I think Raul is saying can roughly be summed up as "If it's not broke, don't fix it." Although users periodicly grouse about various aspects of Wikipedia processes, Drbalaji md has not presented any specific evidence concerning what it is s/he thinks is broken about Wikipedia (I do not consider vague rants about the lack of democratic process to be substantial). older≠wiser 16:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that Drbalaji md thinks that wikipedia is really broken in any way. i think drbalaji is just trying to think of ways that it could be improved, and throwing the ideas out in order to get feedback so that he can refine them. maybe in the end, s/he will decide that there is nothing to be done. Maybe something will be done. In any case, people's minds will be made richer, and the issue will be fleshed out.
I generally agree with your sentiments, though Raul has made statements quite beyond "if it's not broke, don't fix it." For instance, he talked about change of rules as "inherently" bad, which is not only a value judgement, and therefore already beyond the phrase "if it's not broke, don't fix it", but is worded as an objective statement (which in itself is logically flawed, for values de facto cannot be objective). But I am repeating myself - rephrasing myself.
First, I agree that in the abstract, rule change is not inherently good or bad. However, in specific contexts, there is an inherent bias towards conservativism--i.e., in a situation where 1) the rules are more or less clear; 2) have been accepted by most users; and, 3) most importantly, there is not a demonstrated exigence for changing the rules. In such a case, rule change often results in confusion, especially if enacted arbitrarily or without consent. Now, if we want to work for an orderly, gradual, consensus-driven rule change, that's another matter--but Drbalaji's rhetoric seemed more revolutionary than evolutionary. older≠wiser 19:23, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree with everything you say here, except what's after the last --. I think the fact that he sought to discuss it before taking any action shows that he is interested in a due process solution, arrived at by consensus rather than revolution. Indeed, he explicitly purports democracy! He has never expressed or implied any intention of arbitrary rule change or rule change without consent - this is purely a product of your imagination. Kevin Baas 22:34, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
Though even the statement that you purported "If it's not broke, don't fix it." isn't logically supreme. One can just as well make the statement: "If the improvement does not break it, then go ahead with it.", or "If there is no reason to not make an improvement, make the improvement.", or, more simply stated: "Why not?". An example of this is the creation of Wikipedia. It wasn't "broke", but we fixed it anyways. ;) Kevin Baas 18:02, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
Once one starts analyzing the logic of common language, one quickly arrives at the position that nothing makes much sense. In order to get by with ordinary human communications, there has to be a bit of sympathetic reading. Sure if there is a need, the a case can be made for taking action. Drbalaji raised some questions, and Raul attempted to respond (perhaps just a little snippishly at times, but overall with, IMO, considerable patience) and to try and catch Drbalaji up on things that have been discussed ad naseum previously. Drbalaji responded with baseless provocation and things degenerated from there. older≠wiser 19:23, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
My heart will not let me contribute money to a system, which explicitly proclaims itself to be undemocratic and unscientific. I do not want to nurture a communist/dictatorship based closed-minded community (Just my POV). I do acknowledge that, I might have been an insignificant contributor. But, drops of water make the ocean! I am quite sure that there are others, albeit a minority, who share my view. --Drbalaji md 22:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Bkonrad, I don't see wht you're trying t say with the first two sentences in the above para, nor (perhaps consequently) their relevance, so I am ignoring them. My interprepretation of the responses of Raul and Drbalaji is roughly inverse to yours. Raul's language was more aggressive, rhetorical ("baseless" rhetoric, such as the comments on science and conservatism), and prejudicial. Drabalaji's language was more tempered and criticaly-minded, although i do admit they were tinged with overt insults, such as "ignorant" - but i see this merely as him being somewhat loose-lipped and lacking an alternative means of expressing his thoughts, and i don't detect the undertones of aggression in Drabalaji's language that i do in Raul's language. (For one, Raul is laquocious while drabalaji's is laconic, which suggests hostility and disguised intent on Raul's part[1].) Drabalaji's frustrations, though not expressed appropriately, were not disguised. I appreciate the fact that Raul responded with some history and some reasoning. He should have left it at that, perhaps pointing to old discussion if there had been such. His purposes should have been to inform, not debate. This is when things degenerated. This is when Drabalaji had to point out the logical fallacies that Raul had acrimoniously expressed, and was not satisfied with the answer, as it did not express a desire to cooperate, which is what he was looking for. Kevin Baas 22:26, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
Drbalaji, I urge you to stay and contribute to wikipedia. I assure you that the members of wikipedia seek due process and democratic operation (as much as practical or feasible). I think that this is just a misunderstanding. We all have the same goals as you, noone wants this to be a dictatorship. You are welcome here and your contributions are appreciated and respected by the community, which you are a part of. Kevin Baas 22:26, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
If I was snippy, it's because his ideas are patently bad for the reasons I've mentioned (imagine that, supporting statements with reasoning? How original!) and that he (Drbalaji md) has not yet offered a single shred of evidence to support them, and apparently doesn't read what others say when they debunk his broad philosophical decrees (which is why I have to keep restating the same things several times over) →Raul654 23:39, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

See:Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Consensus

Does wikipedia represent the entire world?

Dear Open-community,

I am just waiting for the day when wikipedia will recognize the dates of institution of medals of honor of other nations (ex. Param Vir Chakra). Because, I have to prove two dumb idiots that their opinion about wikipedia are indeed wrong. One of them is my friend from "no man's land". He was telling me that they have a medal of honor too, for which they risk their lives. He says wikipedia is only for people living +2 hours and -6:30 hours from the greenwich meridian, ignoring the African continent (how stupid he is!). And the other friend is from "far far away (far east)". He took a vow today not to see this site again! He told me it is unfair to recognize a particular award being given by a particular government, projecting it as a global phenomenon. I told them to wait before coming to an ignorant conclusion. I have challenged them that wikipedia will recognize all their medals and will make them feel ashamed. How superflous and ignorant those idiots are? We are an open community and we represent all the nations of the world as equal and we give equal weight to everybody...dont we? --Drbalaji md 02:50, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not really, it is very western biased since it's mostly written by white,us;european, geeky types with far too much time on their hands. Your friend can improve on that balance of course, which is whats good about it. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:00, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
My friends are so happy that there is one other individual who recognizes this disparity. They also like your insight. But the one from "no man's land" appears a little too smart. He says, he is yet to see his country's articles being displayed, on clicking the 'random pages' so many times, even though, wikipedia uses an 'unbiased' random number generator (I think he is weak in mathematics). The other guy from "far far away (far east)" says he is changing as much as he could but could never see the articles related to his country being projected or featured (I think he is myopic). But, I am waiting for the earth-shattering opinion from one of those geeks you mentioned, that will send those two dumb guys to where they came from. --Drbalaji md 03:13, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There are plenty of folks who agree that the front page selection of news and featured articles is too biased towards US-Europe. Fuzheado | Talk 03:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oh no. My friends have started rejoicing. C'mon geeky to my rescue! --Drbalaji md 04:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Even if you don't indend to write a biased article it kind of leans that way if thats how you feel about the issue, of course we cover some issues better than others simply because more people are interested in writing about those things, it's no deeper than that, there is no secret consensus to not write about something, people just stick to their interests, the reason nobody has written about the medal you mention is that it's just not notable to most current wikipedians, and will stay that way unless someone writes about it. If you're unhappy about the coverage of an issue — improve on it.
Of course the content reflects the demographic, the article about StarTrek character Data's cat was bigger than pop singer Tina Turner's article last i checked, western issues are largely covered while asian, not to mention african issues fall in the shadow simply because there are more people from the west on wikipeda. But, more international users join the fold every day which is really positive and can only add to the spectrum. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 05:14, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
Pardon me, but we are not discussing about the content of individual pages - if you meant it that way. --Drbalaji md 22:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
First, to state the obvious: if you don't like the choice of anniversaries, you can change it.
Second, the type of information that wikipedia includes is a function of the type of people who contribute (disproportionately white/western/anglosaxon), so even the date articles are bound to be biased towards events in western/anglosaxon world. OTOH, the choice of articles for the main page shouldn't reflect that strongly. If there are more than 4 worthy candidates, geographical distribution should be a major factor in selection. Zocky 04:36, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes agreed we can change the 'pool' of anniversaries. But who/what selects them for the front page - Just curious, ignore my remark if you find it ignorant :) . --Drbalaji md 22:17, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think they are chosen by (the) (unbiased) bot. --ganesh 23:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes it does, we do represent the world, we also represent outside our world. Wikipedia has countless thousands of contributors from all around the world. I am from the UK. coverage. First of all, this is the English Wikipedia, which is naturauly targeted at an english speaking audience. But the are English speakers from all over the world, so we get articles from around the world. You may also be interested in Wikipedias in other languages, where languages from all around the world have a Wikipedia, and if a language you speak does not have one, it can easily be created. So yes, we do represent the world, but we need more contributors from areas that are not as comprehensive. So tell your friends to help, rather than criticize. There is an "edit this page" link on nearly every article, so please click it. Krik 13:23, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Translating the same/similar content in different languages is not culture-sensitive publishing, but just an eye-wash! --Drbalaji md 22:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In general (although I'm sure there are specific cases where this is not true), articles are not translated from one wiki to another. An article written in the German language wiki tends to be from the German point of view vs. the same article in the English language wiki. RickK 22:10, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
Again, I am not targeting the 'content' of the 'individual pages'. I am talking about the 'content' of the 'front page'. --Drbalaji md 22:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I wonder why even after repeated remarks by User:Drbalaji_md that he is not refering to 'contents of articles', but the 'front page' issues, no one is answering his queries in that perspective. Yet another instance of closed-mindedness? --ganesh 23:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Or could it be because the user is more interested in stirring up controversy than trying to have a reasoned discussion? RickK 23:03, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
So you do acknowledge that drbalaji_md's concerns are controversial, not entirely fallacious. --ganesh 23:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't feed trolls. RickK 23:11, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
Me too sorry. Being not so expert in english, I typed the word "controversy" in m-w.com and got a meaning that doesn't imply controversy to be "something fallacious". --ganesh 23:16, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If, bringing to light injustice amounts to "stirring up controversy", I am very happy to be accused of that crime! --Drbalaji md 00:14, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is it the established norm...

to move pages from village pump to a specific user's talk forum? Again, who am I to question you mighty comrades? Ah, the beauty of communism. --Drbalaji md 06:36, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What Wikibooks is not?

The discussion above at Rules for card games has made me aware of a curious anomaly. We have had much conversation about what Wikipedia is not, which gives folks a few handy boundaries. But at a first pass I can't find anything about what Wikibooks is not. It makes for a lopsided discussion when someone says that a Wikipedia article of mine should be moved to Wikibooks. They can say that my article isn't encyclopedic, but I can't say it isn't Wikibook-ish. Shouldn't we draw up some boundaries for the Wikibooks project too? If there aren't any boundaries, mightn't the Wikibooks project suffer in the same ways we suppose Wikipedia suffers when non-encyclopedic information creeps in? Thanks in advance. --Fritzlein 06:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Opt-in Google-ads?

Today there was a Slashdot interview with Wikipedia founder Jimbo. In the comments, there was one quite intriguing suggestion: adding the possibility of having relevant GoogleAds shown on the page in an opt-in manner. Users would have to specifically request ads to be shown to get them. As the poster said, "sometimes there could be some intresting stuff from google ads on some weird pages."

This, of course, goes against the Wikimedia policy of not using ads, but I can't see how somebody could object to advertisements that you specifically have to enable. On the other hand, Google ads are so well targetted that many people in the more active wiki croud might enable them (I for one would). And a little more money to Wikimedia could never be a bad thing.

What are your thoughts on it? At least I'd prefer opt-in Google ads to the red box suggesting making a donation that I can't easily make - since I have no credit card and live overseas.

(I put the comment here since it's closely related to Wikipedia policy, feel free to move it somewhere better suited.) -- Anon. Wiki Gnome 62.142.184.203 21:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be a great idea - as a newbie of sorts, I'm not all that well-versed with Wiki philosophy - would it be that serious a violation to have non-intrusive ads (opt in or not?)--inks 22:03, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
So long as they're opt-in, I don't see why this would be a problem. It would require some additional work for the developers, but it seems worth it. --Wclark 22:05, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
I think the idea is wonderful. I'd opt in just to help raise some $ for the wiki, esp. if I could opt out again if it started to annoy me. The donation bar should only be on the main page, IMO, BTW. Sam [Spade] 22:14, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'd love to be able to help wiki without parting with the money I'm supposed to be saving for grad school. Bring it on! [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:22, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I am definitely for it, provided ads are opt-in and clearly separated from the contents of the articles (which is usually the case with Google's AdSense sidebars and banners). I see this idea not only as a way to raise some money for the foundation, but also as a value-added service for Wikipedia. Google's AdSense program is pretty smart at returning contextual ads, provided the hosting webpage is detailed enough. --Alexandre 23:54, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Whenever this idea (opt-in ads) is suggested, I don't really get it. People promise to have the ads on their screen but they also say "great I won't have to pay money to help wikipedia." Presumably you actually have to click on the ads and buy something (i.e. spend money) or there's no point in having them in the first place? Pcb21| Pete 23:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I was under the impression that merely having "X Users view our ads" would generate revenue, independent of sales. Perhaps it's my mistake, though. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Nope. This is a pay-per-click program. No need to buy something to make the click worth a few cents. --Alexandre 00:22, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Interesting. I am tempted to say there's no such thing as a free lunch. Given that Google is heading for a multi-billion dollar IPO based on this business model, I am pretty sure their system is not easy to game. Now they can block the most trivial attack - a small group of users repeatedly clicking ads on their own website by analysing IP addresses. With Wikipedia however, the IP addresses are distributed. If the proportion of ads displayed that get clicked on, is usually high, they will certainly be able to measure that to look for cheaters. However the really important statistic, proportion of ads converted to sales, might be unavailable to them... or do ad buyers report back somehow? Note this digression is only important to the "opt-in, but don't buy" model. If ads were shown to everyone, this would all become line noise. Pcb21| Pete 00:34, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
P.S. For odd reasons related to eBay I have my "primary currency" at Paypal in USD but what money I have in that account tends to be in GBP. What is the most cost effective way for me to donate? Transfer money to USD at my side and donate, or send GBP and have wikimedia exchange it at its side? Pcb21| Pete 23:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Most of the audience is readers, not contributors. If ads don't start as opt out, most of the potential viewers will never see them. It could be arranged to have a check box which turns off the ads, which would work for anyone, logged in or not. Jamesday 00:28, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'd definately support opt-in ads, or even opt-out ads. I know the money generated from the ads is going to an excellent technological cause, and besides, AdSense ads are not an eyesore in the least. Lastly, while opt out would generate more funds, but be a larger shift in policy than opt in, so I'd prefer opt-in. —siroχo 04:31, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
I could live with OptOut ads, if they pay for more servers. OptIn would be more effort than profit, i think, as most people would not opt in. --Chris 73 | Talk 06:01, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Would OptOut ads wind up being beneficial in the long run? People would register to turn them off, and then maybe try their hand at creating a few pages. It's not as if Google ads are high bandwidth, intrusive, or tasteless...--inks 10:28, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's not about how much money ads would bring. It's about whether we want to provide services for money or not. The current business model (i.e. no business model) works and there is no reason to turn wikipedia into a commercial business. Zocky 12:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think it's a great idea. When reading an article on PhotoShop, for example, a link to buy it would appear (if they have it enabled). If the user wanted to purchase it after reading the article, what could more convenient than having a button right there to do just that? That's a service! — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:51, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
It's worth noting that if ads of any sort were added, they would have to be optional, because otherwise readers would flock to a mirror site without ads. Also, these sort of ads function by very wide exposure, so I think they'd only really be effective if, say, unregistered users viewed them by default - this wouldn't be so bad with unobstrusive Google ads. Don't forget that adding Google ads requires paying Google money, so enough people would have to see them to justify that cost. More troubling, if Wikipedia starts reaping a profit, they have to change their status from a non-profit organization to a business, and while this might mean a better website for us all, it would also be a lot of legal work. Derrick Coetzee 19:01, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Derrick, what do you mean by saying "adding Google ads requires paying Google money"? If you want ads to be displayed on your site, you don't have to pay anything. You pay to have your product advertised in the AdSense program, but not to show the ads. There would be no cost for Wikipedia to display the ads. --Alexandre 19:21, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There are no mirror sites without ads. They are all for-profit. Pcb21| Pete 19:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

wow, it seems like were unanimous? Is this the fabled "consensus" we've heard so much about? ;) p.s. making it "opt-out" w the ad's default for anon's sounds like the best way to make it payoff. Also we wouldn't stop being non-profit if we spent all the $ ;) Sam [Spade] 19:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well the opt-in model is not unanimous because my concern that it was basically an attempt to game Google. (Click on ads for the sake of it, not to buy things). It is premature to talk about the opt-out model as a done deal, as most people didn't comment on that, but we haven't heard any objections yet. Pcb21| Pete 19:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't think you get money just for people clicking on links, but actually making a purchase, otherwise it'd be way too easy to make money off of Google. Even if clicking were the money-maker, people would tire of doing it after a few minutes. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:54, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
Apparently this indeed is the model - see above. Pcb21| Pete 20:08, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why do you guys assume nobody would buy anything? I buy stuff... I most recently bought this (and am very happy w it BTW ;) Sam [Spade] 19:55, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was responding to comments like "I'd love to be able to help wiki without parting with [..] money..." above and similar comments every time this idea is suggested. Pcb21| Pete 20:08, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Advertisers know full well that most people don't buy an item from any one particular advertisement. They still want as many people as possible to see them tho, since a certain % will buy. I've done my share of sales & marketing, and know well enough that google will have few worries about attempts to "game" the system. They want you to see the ads, and are willing to pay for that alone, I'd assume. Sam [Spade] 20:11, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I refer you to this from the mailing list. Sam [Spade] 20:13, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't support this idea. I believe it would "cheapen" Wikipedia by making it seems like another vehicle for advertising -- even if it were opt-in. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:37, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Minnam

Go to the bottom of European Union page, you'll see a link to the page in another language that isn't displaying properly. I'm not familiar with the language codes and can't figure out why that link isn't displayed in the side bar. Voodoo 17:36, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that "minnan" or "minnam" are not correct ISO 639 codes for any language. Also, I'm not sure that this language, which I think is Hokkien or Fujianese, has a Wikipedia, so there is nowhere for the link to lead, as far as I know. OK, I've just looked and there is indeed such a Wikipedia. Do you have other links successfully pointing towards it from the English one? In the mean time, I have commented out the link. — Chameleon My page/My talk 18:03, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
---
Bug #980963
chocolateboy 00:02, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Does wikipedia represent the entire world?

Moved to User talk:Drbalaji md

Opt-in Google-ads?

Concept Summary

On June 12 there was a Slashdot interview with Wikipedia founder Jimbo. In the comments, there was an intriguing suggestion: have an opt-in user preference to have GoogleAds shown on article pages. Users would have to specifically request ads to be shown to see them. As the poster said, "sometimes there could be some intresting stuff from google ads on some weird pages."

This goes against the Wikimedia policy of not using ads, but I can't see how one could object to advertisements you have to specifically enable. On the other hand, Google ads are so well targetted that many active community members might enable them (I would). And a little more money to Wikimedia could never be a bad thing.

What are your thoughts? I'd prefer opt-in Google ads to the red box suggesting making a donation that I can't easily make -- since I have no credit card and live overseas. -- Anon. Wiki Gnome 62.142.184.203 21:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Summarized Responses

Why Not? (Opt-in sounds good.)

  • I think it would be great... would it be that serious a violation to have non-intrusive ads (opt in or not?)--inks 22:03, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • So long as they're opt-in, I don't see why this would be a problem... additional work for the developers, but seems worth it. --Wclark 22:05, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
    • I think the idea is wonderful... esp. if I could opt out again if it started to annoy me. The donation bar should only be on the main page, IMO, BTW. Sam [Spade] 22:14, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd love to be able to help wiki without parting with the money I'm supposed to be saving for grad school. Bring it on! [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:22, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd definately support opt-in ads, or even opt-out ads. I know the money generated from the ads is going to an excellent technological cause, and besides, AdSense ads are not an eyesore in the least. Lastly, while opt out would generate more funds, but be a larger shift in policy than opt in, so I'd prefer opt-in. —siroχo 04:31, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Seems like a value-added service for users

  • I am definitely for it, provided ads are opt-in and clearly separated from the contents of the articles (which is usually the case with Google's AdSense sidebars and banners). I see this idea not only as a way to raise some money for the foundation, but also as a value-added service for Wikipedia. Google's AdSense program is pretty smart at returning contextual ads, provided the hosting webpage is detailed enough. --Alexandre 23:54, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, I think it's a great idea. When reading an article on PhotoShop, for example, a link to buy it would appear (if they have it enabled). If the user wanted to purchase it after reading the article, what could more convenient than having a button right there to do just that? That's a service! — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:51, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

How does AdSense work?

  • Whenever this idea (opt-in ads) is suggested, I don't really get it. People promise to have the ads on their screen but they also say "great I won't have to pay money to help wikipedia." Presumably you actually have to click on the ads and buy something (i.e. spend money)? Pcb21| Pete 23:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Nope. This is a pay-per-click program. No need to buy something to make the click worth a few cents. --Alexandre 00:22, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Interesting. I am tempted to say there's no such thing as a free lunch. Given that Google is heading for a multi-billion dollar IPO based on this business model, I am pretty sure their system is not easy to game... they can block users repeatedly clicking ads on their own website by analysing IP addresses. With Wikipedia however, the IP addresses are distributed. If the proportion of ads displayed that get clicked on, is usually high, they will certainly be able to measure that to look for cheaters. However the really important statistic, proportion of ads converted to sales, might be unavailable to them... or do ad buyers report back somehow? Note this digression is only important to the "opt-in, but don't buy" model. If ads were shown to everyone, this would all become line noise. Pcb21| Pete 00:34, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • There isn't extensive feedback from smaller ads customers; but probably enough to identify coordinated cheating. I think most of their filtering of fake clickthroughs is statistical, based on origin, timing, and other patterns. In any case, if they suspect our ads account is being inflated artificially, they can just cancel the account and keep/return the last month's ads-revenues that were in it. +sj+ 20:40, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Well the opt-in model is not unanimous because my concern that it was basically an attempt to game Google. (Click on ads for the sake of it, not to buy things). It is premature to talk about the opt-out model as a done deal, as most people didn't comment on that... Pcb21| Pete 19:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think you get money just for people clicking on links, but actually making a purchase, otherwise it'd be way too easy to make money off of Google...Frecklefoot | Talk 19:54, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Apparently this indeed is the model - see above. Pcb21| Pete 20:08, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What about opt-out?

  • Most of the audience is readers, not contributors. If ads don't start as opt out, most of the potential viewers will never see them. It could be arranged to have a check box which turns off the ads, which would work for anyone, logged in or not. Jamesday 00:28, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I could live with OptOut ads, if they pay for more servers. OptIn would be more effort than profit, i think, as most people would not opt in. --Chris 73 | Talk 06:01, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Would OptOut ads wind up being beneficial in the long run? People would register to turn them off, and then maybe try their hand at creating a few pages. It's not as if Google ads are high bandwidth, intrusive, or tasteless...--inks 10:28, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I would not like opt-out ads at all. Let's try opt-in ads, seen by a small minority of potential viewers. Later perhaps we can have a campaign to get anon and casual users to opt in, like any other donation campaign. +sj+ 20:40, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It's not about how much money ads would bring. It's about whether we want to provide services for money or not. The current business model (i.e. no business model) works and there is no reason to turn wikipedia into a commercial business. Zocky 12:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about this.

  • ...If ads of any sort were added, they would have to be optional, because otherwise readers would flock to a mirror site without ads. Also, these sort of ads function by very wide exposure, so I think they'd only really be effective if, say, unregistered users viewed them by default - this wouldn't be so bad with unobstrusive Google ads. Don't forget that adding Google ads requires paying Google money, so enough people would have to see them to justify that cost. More troubling, if Wikipedia starts reaping a profit, they have to change their status from a non-profit organization to a business, and while this might mean a better website for us all, it would also be a lot of legal work. Derrick Coetzee 19:01, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Derrick, what do you mean by saying "adding Google ads requires paying Google money"? To display ads on your site, you don't pay anything. You pay to have your product advertised in the AdSense program, not to show the ads. There would be no cost for Wikipedia to display the ads. --Alexandre 19:21, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • There are no mirror sites without ads. They are all for-profit. Pcb21| Pete 19:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • wow, it seems like were unanimous? ... p.s. making it "opt-out" w the ad's default for anon's sounds like the best way to make it payoff. Also we wouldn't stop being non-profit if we spent all the $ ;) Sam [Spade] 19:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        Not unanimous, but there is some definite support for opt-in ads. +sj+

Other donation comments

P.S. For odd reasons related to eBay I have my "primary currency" at Paypal in USD but what money I have in that account tends to be in GBP. What is the most cost effective way for me to donate? Transfer money to USD at my side and donate, or send GBP and have wikimedia exchange it at its side? Pcb21| Pete 23:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Why do you guys assume nobody would buy anything? I buy stuff... I most recently bought this (and am very happy w it BTW ;) Sam [Spade] 19:55, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was responding to comments like "I'd love to be able to help wiki without parting with [..] money..." above and similar comments every time this idea is suggested. Pcb21| Pete 20:08, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's like watching ads on TV. You don't *think* you're spending money when you follow those links, but you're really just monetizing tiny increments of your own eye- and mind-share... (ugh, I feel dirty just using those words.  :) +sj+

Advertisers know full well that most people don't buy an item from any one particular advertisement. They still want as many people as possible to see them tho, since a certain % will buy. I've done my share of sales & marketing, and know well enough that google will have few worries about attempts to "game" the system. They want you to see the ads, and are willing to pay for that alone, I'd assume. Sam [Spade] 20:11, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I refer you to this from the mailing list. Sam [Spade] 20:13, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't support this idea. I believe it would "cheapen" Wikipedia by making it seems like another vehicle for advertising -- even if it were opt-in. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:37, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

People, people. You need to drop the enterpreneurial stance. Why does wikipedia need to make money? What would it be for? The trickle of donations is more than adequate so far and grants are just starting to come. Wikipedia will never need to advertise to cover its costs. OTOH, if anybody wants to do encyclopaedia with ads, hey, all your base are license under GFDL. Copy the content, start a site and see how much money you make on ads. I'm sure nobody has tried that before. Zocky 20:48, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One of the current banner links gives a different story: Our growth is pretty simple: when we're fast we grow to use all the capacity until we're slow again.
If that's true, then the trickle of donations is exactly what is limiting our current growth, and diverting people who might otherwise stay and become contributors to Wikipedia mirror sites, some of which are quite legally advertiser-supported. Food for thought? Andrewa 21:40, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Do you really think that opt-in ads would diver people to mirror sites? Which mirror do you like best? +sj+ 22:47, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yet another policy page

I welcome feedback on Wikipedia:How to create policy at its talk page. Pcb21| Pete 16:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rules for card games

If you check out the article on card games, you'll notice that many of the games linked from it are mainly rules and how-tos. It seems like how-tos are generally thought of as non-encyclopedic, and therefore do not belong in Wikipedia proper. Perhaps a good idea would be to make each of these articles containing rules of card games into encyclopedic articles about the background of these games; then move the rules into Wikibooks articles, freelinking to them from the Wikipedia articles. We could even create a whole Wikibookshelf dedicated to rules of card games or rules of games in general. Everything in its right place... —siroχo 15:55, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

We should borrow best practice from the people who've been writing the chess articles. They manage to give us a certain amount of "how to"-like advice, which adds to the article, but generally still read encyclopedically. Pcb21| Pete 16:03, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I see your point here. Chess is certianly a large enough phenomenon that its common rules and techniques can be made encyclopedic—they have a history to write about and common examples to give. Card-game-wise, there are several games that have enough history to write encyclopeic articles about them and thier strategy. But I think a mere rulebook for any game, regardless of its popularity, is a piece for Wikibooks. The analyses of strategy and technique, and even the history of the rules can often make for encyclopedic articles, however. So I still belive that the rules themselves should go to Wikibooks, certainly linked to from Wikipedia. —siroχo 16:23, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
Siroxo isn't the first to have commented that, while any given game's history and description belong in an encyclopedia, its complete rules do not, and neither do strategy guides. They say only an outline of the rules and a dash of strategy is appropriate as part of the game's description. I partially agree, but it isn't clear to me that the material belongs in a textbook instead. Textbooks, unlike encyclopedia articles, are large and layered. They develop a deep understanding in stages, e.g. first let me tell you X so you will be ready for me to explain Y. You are not supposed to read Chapter 2 of a textbook without having read Chapter 1, but the rules of a game are self-contained, and don't require you to have read anything first. I can imagine the fellow writing a physics textbook would be bemused to see a "canasta textbook" appear alongside his, if the latter consisted of just the rules of canasta. There is a stronger case for saying, "That material isn't textbook-like," than for saying, "That material isn't encyclopedic."
Strategy guides are another matter. Once the material becomes sufficiently long and comprehensive, it reads more like a textbook than an encyclopedia article. Chess strategy and tactics is perhaps the most textbook-like of the Wikipedia articles on games. If it were to be expanded several times over (without being broken into smaller, self-contained bits) then I would nominate it for wikibooks. But small strategy articles such as Settlers of Catan, Strategic considerations don't nearly rise to that level.
Yes, many people (including me) have an intuition that an encyclopedia explains how things are but not how to do things. But moving all content of the nature of how to do things to wikibooks doesn't solve the problem. The information might be even more misplaced over there. Wikibooks should not be a dumping ground for information just because that information isn't traditionally encyclopedic. Maybe there should be a project type "WikiHOWTO", if people are determined that game rules and such find a new home.
Peace, --Fritzlein 23:42, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I do like the idea of a Wikihowto, although I thought that was part of what wikibooks was for. The front page says "free, open content textbooks, manuals and other texts." Howto guids certainly fall somewhere under the "manuals" section or at least "other texts". If you take a look around Wikibooks, there are guids for bicycle repair, getting a girl, and the computer game Civilization. Certainly the spirit of wikibooks is far beyond simply textbooks, and I think rules and strategy guides for card games could go quite well there. In fact someone seems to have started the inital steps of a card game strategies page, although not followed up on it yet. Lastly, I agree that wikibooks is not just a dumping ground for non-encyclopedic stuff, and I think that game rules and even strategy guides do have a place there. —siroχo 04:43, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
Now I see the "manuals and other texts". Clearly the purpose of Wikibooks is in flux, because if you read the article Wikibooks it only talks about textbooks, not about manuals or other texts. Maybe putting game rules in Wikibooks is in keeping with the existing trend to have more stuff be defined as a Wikibook, but that sounds basically like saying, "Since there is non-textbook stuff at Wikibooks, it's obviously within the spirit of Wikibooks." I could reply just as well that, "Since dozens of Wikipedia articles consist partly or entirely of game rules, that's obviously within the spirit of Wikipedia." The real questions are Should Wikibooks have game rules among the texts? and Should Wikipedia have game rules as articles? Maybe the answer is no to both, or yes to both. I don't know. But my intuition is more towards no on the Wikibooks than towards no on the Wikipedia articles. --Fritzlein 05:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Are there commercial books that discuss rules of and strategies for card games? Of course. So why wouldn't such text be appropriate for Wikibooks? As for what is encyclopaedic enough to include in Wikipedia, don't forget that Wikipedia itself redefines what an encyclopaedia can be. If we can include lists of things (which I very much favor, personally), we should certainly be able to include text on card game rules and strategy. It seems to me the only real issues are:
  1. Should we expect to have descriptions, history, rules, and strategy all in a single Wikipedia article? (Answer: If it's a simple game, making for a relatively small article, probably so. If it's sophisticated or has a lot of history, perhaps a separate article for history and complex rules is appropriate, unless it's really complex, at which point the details can be moved to Wikibooks.)
  2. If both Wikipedia and Wikibooks articles are viable, then where does one focus one's efforts?
All of this is easily handled in Wiki style: each person contribute what they know and have time and interest in writing. As each card game topic develops, discuss changes (expanding into one or the other Wiki; dividing Wikipedia articles into base and strategy components) in each game's Talk page; and discuss general guidelines for card game articles in Talk:Card game. (In fact, this whole discussion should be moved there.) Nothing need be cast in stone before it is written, n'est pas? The only other issue is that Card game itself really should have material on basic concepts and the history of card playing. -- Jeff Q 06:03, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That red box

The donation-soliciting box at the top of EVERY page today has horrid grammar! "If you'd like to donate to support the Wikipedia, please visit the fundraising. To see how we spent past donations, What we use the money for" - please!

Could somebody make it:

If you'd like to donate to support Wikipedia, please visit our fundraising page. To see how we spend donations, see What we use the money for.

...or something otherwise sane.

(not sure how to code that first link)

Radagast 14:54, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

More to the point, what's it doing there anyway? I know that Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation are permanently short of money, but surely we don't need to push it this hard on every page. I must admit that my first thought when I saw it (possibly partly prompted by the bad grammar) was that it was a phishing scam. -- ALargeElk | Talk 15:06, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The wording is being discussed on IRC. As for why it's there, we might take another /. beating soon, and we could use some money for new hardware that's being planned. Dori | Talk 15:15, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

That red box

It's total overkill, to my mind. In the absence of IRC, I'll use this as my channel to say that I think it should go and it should go NOW. It looks extraordinarily unprofessional, it will piss people off (it already has done with me) and I doubt it'll achieve what it sets out to do and actually bring in much more money. If it has to be there, put it at the bottom of the page, or in the sidebar - but not between the title and the content of every article. -- ALargeElk | Talk 15:25, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I used to have the same exact view, alas we need to money or the site will become unusable, and this tactic seems to get it. Dori | Talk 15:32, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
Don't mind too much - it takes some getting used to. If donations are up it can stay :)--inks 21:22, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes, donations are way up. Over $2K since the message went live. --mav 22:18, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Regardless of its efficacy, the wording has definitely improved. The English student in me still notes you're missing the ending period. Radagast
Sorry, but this pervasive red box is just exasperating... If fundraising is so important, why don't you replace the "Today's featured article" for a while with a clear explanation about why Wikipedia needs donations? I am sure that the homepage is the entry page of most users and a paragraph or two describing the situation there would be more effective that these two sentences in their red box. Wikipedia just does not look professional anymore with this box between the title and the text of each article... --Alexandre 00:20, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This may be minor, but I'd really like to see this ad (and similar site notices) above the name of the article, rather than breaking up the article from its text. I understand and agree with having such a request on the pages, but I think this move changes it from being the type of ad that gets inserted without regard for positioning (like the ones in the middle of news stories) to being a proper ad for a site that lives on donations. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 13:04, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely! I agree completely - it's enormously exasperating as it is. If it has to stay then it's got to move (if that makes any sense). ALargeElk | Talk 16:40, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Out of interest, how was the decision taken to include the box? I don't recall any discussion - it just suddenly appeared. ALargeElk | Talk 16:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What's worth covering?

Added note: the following question is asked with the presumption that information exists to write a long stub or full length article on the topic. When is a topic not worth covering at Wikipedia? For example: -When does a location become too small to write an article on it? -What policy exists on which websites can have an article? -When is an event too minor to deserve an article or a mention on a timeline? -When is a business to small to not be the topic of an article? -When is a person not important enough to deserve an article? -When is something so boring or so uninteresting that it really doesn't deserve any coverage at Wikipedia? I can't quite work out what is acceptable to publish, and when something becomes so uninteresting that it stops becoming a contribution and starts becoming spam. User:Icurite

If it hasn't made the local newspapers or TV and isn't representative or well known in its field for some reason, the chance that it doesn't merit an article rises. If ten people know about it, it's unlikely to merit an article. If you're not personally involved with it in some way but still find it interesting enough to write about, the chance that it is of enough interest to merit an aricle rises. If a million people know about it, it's more likely to merit an article. The exact limits vary with the individual contributor and are the source of near-constant debate. Write about what interests you, so long as it isn't you, your family or your employer. If there's something on the news, do we have good covearage of the related topics yet? If not, maybe you'd like to imoprove them? If it interests you enough to spend the time, it's passed the first hurdle: someone is interested. Jamesday 11:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
My own view is that subjects that are currently known to only a small number of people but that have potential significance in wider fields are worth articles. An example of what I mean can be found at Mary Devenport O'Neill who only got one Google hit (clearly failing the Google test) before I created the article, but who is of great interest to students of W.B. Yeats, the occult in literature, writing by women, the development of Irish poetic modernism, etc. Bmills 15:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You might have a look at whats In whats Out for one attempt to address this. The idea was to distill what actually happens in VfD. It hasn't really taken off, and needs some cleaning up to put it back into alphabetical order and correct a few indenting and bolding problems (or change the instructions to conform to what is actually happening). Andrewa 16:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

smartpedia.com

I noticed wikipedia is also on http://www.smartpedia.com . The crediting source link back to wikipedia.org is broken. Did anyone see this site yet? They have google ads on it. Hosted by worldvillage.com. BF 02:52, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In some articles, like railway stations, (e.g. Spencer Street Station), previous and alternative names of the station are bolded in the text. Is that an acceptable style or not? TPK 11:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The rule of thumbs seems to be to embolden all names which should also exist as redirects to the article. See Timur for an example. Zocky 13:36, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Certainly in articles about books, it seems to be common and acceptable practice to embolden character names on first mention, particularly if there is no corresponding article. --Phil | Talk 13:10, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Bold

As a student, I have been taught to highlight keywords while writing my answers. I want to know if it is an acceptable practice to highlight (bolden) keywords (including links) so that at a glance, a reader knows the major points of that heading. ¶ nichalp 20:55, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Jamesday 21:46, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You haven't given a reason why not. ¶ nichalp 20:48, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "Sometimes it is useful to have an explicit cross-reference in the text, for example, when a long section of text has been moved somewhere else, or there is a major article on a subtopic. In these cases, make the link bold so that its significance is easier to recognize."
It seemes that it is acceptable to bold text occasionally in long articles to highlight something of great importance. But it would be prudent to exercise discretion and not do this too often.
Acegikmo1 00:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
True, I'll have to use discretion, else the entire reason of using bold text would be lost. Now say for example I am writing a history sub heading (6-8 lines) and I want to highlight the major rulers of that era. Can I bolden the dynasties? ¶ nichalp 20:48, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

New database server in use

About half an hour ago the site was switched from using Suda as the main database server to using Ariel. It should be faster now. Suda used six 10,000 RPM SCSI disks and 2GB of RAM for the database. Ariel is using six 15,000 RPM disks and 7GB of RAM. There will be periodic load tests during the day to prove that Ariel can handle everythng we can throw at it. You might see slower speeds during those. Jamesday 14:55, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There was a problem with large watchlists. A setting has been adjusted. Please let the developers know in IRC at #mediawiki or here if you see an error like this: from within function "wfSpecialWatchlist". MySQL returned error "1104: The SELECT would examine more rows than MAX_JOIN_SIZE. Check your WHERE and use SET SQL_BIG_SELECTS=1 or SET SQL_MAX_JOIN_SIZE=# if the SELECT is ok. Jamesday 15:17, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I have gotten this error. I got it earlier today, then it seemed OK for a while, and just now I got it again. older≠wiser 22:55, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I keep getting this, too. Everyking 03:58, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. Please let me know on my talk page if you still see it - or ask in IRC if that's convenient to you. In IRC I'll be able to quickly make a change and ask you to let me know if it did or didn't fix it. Jamesday 07:56, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Clicking on "my watchlist" no longer works. It kicks back an SQL error about too many rows in the SELECT statement.

Presumably the solution is to edit the watchlist to reduce the number of pages watched. To do so, you click a link on the watchlist page... except the watchlist page won't come up anymore, so you can't get to the link to click on it!

To get around this it's necessary to go directly to the "edit watchlist" page at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Watchlist&magic=yes

It's really stupid that the SQL error page leaves you with no way to recover.

What's the new limit on the number of pages watched, anyway?

-- Curps 07:54, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looks as though you got this before my last adjustment. The limit hasn't been changed but the new server is being adjusted. Please let me know on my talk page if you still see the problem. Or ask in IRC if that's convenient to you. Jamesday 11:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anne Frank

Why has the article Anne Frank suddenly appeared in my watchlist as a new article, when in fact I know it has been around for a while? This article is often changed and often arouses controversy, yet the current history shows it as a brand new article. Can someone explain and rectify? Thanks, --Woggly 06:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) P.S. I'm putting this on pump because I didn't know where best to raise the issue. If there is a more appropriate forum, please feel free to transfer this discussion and let me know. Thanks.

It may have been moved to another article title, and then a new article written in its old place. Other than that, no idea. Derrick Coetzee 06:26, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From the deletion log:

01:29, 11 Jul 2004 UtherSRG deleted "Anne Frank"

Besides there are 146 deleted edits in storage. Maybe UtherSRG has an explanation? --User:Docu

Yup. I deleted it by accident, then restored it. I apolgize for the mistake and the ensuing confusion! - UtherSRG 08:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
But the history still hasn't been restored. I don't know how to do that. It really ought to be there, particularly with an article that has a rather convoluted history, and is often targetted by vandals. --Woggly 10:08, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's restored now. -- User:Docu

Consensus?

Wikipedia:Consensus?

Wikipedia Lookups from IE Address Bar

I've discovered a cool way to directly go to Wikipedia articles from the IE address bar in Windows XP. First go here and download TweakUI.exe on the right-hand side:

Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP

Install it and then run it. Open the Internet Explorer node on the left side, then click Search. Click the Create button, and enter these in the fields: 

 Prefix: wp
 URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:search?search=%s&go=Go

For the politically-minded of us, you can create a similar shortcut for going to Wikipedia namespace articles, like this: 

 Prefix: wpw
 URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:search?search=Wikipedia: %s&go=Go

Then you can type, for example, "wp Wikipedia" in the address bar to visit the article on Wikipedia, or "wpw Village pump", for this page.

Derrick Coetzee 05:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's cool! --Yacht (talk) 05:50, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

...and from Mozilla

How to do the same thing in Mozilla, Firefox, etc.:

  • Choose "Manage Bookmarks" from the Bookmarks menu.
  • Press "New Bookmark".
  • Fill in the Location field with one of the URLs given above (exactly the same format).
  • Fill in the Keyword field with the prefix you want, e.g. wp.
  • Press OK, and close the Bookmarks Manager.

That's it-- you don't need to download anything. Marnanel 16:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rant: "Box of chocolates" linking considered harmful

Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, uses plain and straightforward hyperlinking.

If a link has underlined text "Foobar", then almost without exception, clicking on it will take you to a page called "Foobar" (or "Foobar (toothpaste)" or "Foobar (floor wax)" etc).

Many of the exceptions are for brevity:

the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections in the United States

Here we realize from context that "2000" will not take us to the year 2000, but to the 2000 election.

This is a no-surprise, "'what you get is what you see" linking style that is basic to the nature of an encyclopedia. It makes using the encyclopedia easy and fully predictable. You always know where you're navigating to.

There is another linking style, sometimes seen on weblogs or popular websites, that you could call "box of chocolates" linking (from Forrest Gump: "life is like a box of chocolates... you never know what you'll get").

In this case, there's no obvious connection at all between the linked text and the linked-to webpage. In some extreme cases of this style, there is a "sea of blue" as many if not most of the words in each sentence are hyperlinked, including even adjectives and adverbs. The goal here is entertainment rather than information, with bored users clicking on links hoping to be amused.

This is fine for general websites, but in an encyclopedia it kills predictability and usability. Not to mention, it annoys many users, since what one person may find quirky and humorous is just irrelevant and annoying to another person, as in "give me the last five seconds of my life back".

An example is the following link:

it was revealed that some demons use kittens as a comestible currency

which is a link to a page about the 2003 provincial election in Ontario, Canada, from a page about Miss Kitty Fantastico from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Maybe it's marginally humorous, but it just doesn't belong, especially not as a "box of chocolates" link, and probably not even as a "see also" link. It's a non-sequitur. Linking in the reverse direction might be appropriate, but link relevance is not commutative: even if a B->A link was relevant or appropriate it doesn't mean that the A->B link would be.

It's a usability issue — every such link directly reduces the usability of an encyclopedia — and a feature much too easily abused if everyone started to exercise their "creativity" in this way.

"Box of chocolates" linking should never be OK on Wikipedia. Every link should be a WYGIWYS link.

If this isn't mentioned in a style guide, it ought to be.

-- Curps 01:59, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Something similar is mentioned in Wikipedia:Manual of Style:

Never use "click here" as the text for a link (since Wikipedia articles could be printed) - it conveys no information at all. The text of the link should be the subject to which the link leads.

You make a good point, though. Keep in mind that the manual of style is, of course, editable. -Etaoin 02:10, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
---
Please see the discussion on the Talk:Miss Kitty Fantastico page.
Keep in mind that the manual of style is, of course, editable.
Thanks. I will.
Never use "click here" as the text for a link
"Click here" is redundant (the opposite of "box of chocolates"). It has nothing in common with the MKF link...
"Some demons" links to an article which refers to one of those demons. Some readers may find the linked article amusing. The Miss Kitty Fantastico article serves exactly the same harmless purpose. The cat is only a Buffy character in Facetious World.
Wikipedia would be the poorer if it consisted entirely of chocolate hyperlinks.
It would be even poorer if it eliminated chocolate entirely from the menu:
  1. If we decide that no attempt at a tiny smile is ever allowed on Wikipedia it will be a very sad day. One of its delights is where people have allowed a tiny bit of humour to creep in, without spoiling the sense of the article. It adds rather than detracts.
  2. I would give you examples of lots of places where other people - not me - have written things which express precisely what is meant in a perfectly, er, professional way but also permit me a small smile at their way of saying it or at an interesting metaphor. However if I did so this list would undoubtedly be used by some humourless person as an index of articles urgently needing attention to make them into proper WikiNoHumour(TM) articles, so I won't.
  3. Professional - whatever it does mean (if anything) does not have to mean po-faced. Po-faced is boring and bad and pompous. Po-faced limits understanding and makes things grey and meaningless.
chocolateboy 03:03, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree that box-of-chocolate links are annoying and misleading. They are occasionally humourous, but this is simply unprofessional, partly because the cracks are a form of POV. As another example, I once read an article somewhere on Wikipedia that referred to "friendlies" and "hostiles," both of which were linked to Native Americans. I mistakenly clicked on them, thinking it might actually tell me what it meant, with some more details, but it was just a dumb joke. Less of these. Derrick Coetzee 04:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the problem with the December 2003 page. The Freedom Tower page does it right, so I copied the wording from there.

The style guide says not to use a redundant, meaningless link text like "click here". It follows that it's even worse to use a misleading, falsely meaningful link text. The style guide should reflect that.

"Some demons" links to an article which refers to one of those demons.

It's not good enough to link to an article that refers to "some demons". If the link text is "some demons" it must link to an article on the topic of "some demons".

Some readers may find the linked article amusing.

The linked article is not the problem. Nobody is clamoring for its deletion. The link, and the "box of chocolates" form of the link, is the problem.

If we decide that no attempt at a tiny smile is ever allowed on Wikipedia it will be a very sad day.

Humor is not the issue, apart from the POV minefields and somebody somewhere inevitably taking offense. I'm not campaigning to eradicate humor from Wikipedia. I'm talking about the form of links.

In an encyclopedia, links must be WYGIWYS ("what you get is what you see"). Link text "XYZ" must link to a page on the topic of XYZ. This predictability and consistency is a basic usability requirement for encyclopedias. Weblogs and personal pages often use a "box of chocolates" linking style, but they're not encyclopedias.

-- Curps 04:44, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the problem with the December 2003 page. The Freedom Tower page does it right, so I copied the wording from there.
Thanks for fulfilling a prophesy:
I would give you examples of lots of places where other people - not me - have written things which express precisely what is meant in a perfectly, er, professional way but also permit me a small smile at their way of saying it or at an interesting metaphor. However if I did so this list would undoubtedly be used by some humourless person as an index of articles urgently needing attention to make them into proper WikiNoHumour(TM) articles, so I won't.
It follows that it's even worse to use a misleading, falsely meaningful link text.
"Some demons" is neither.
It's not good enough to link to an article that refers to "some demons". If the link text is "some demons" it must link to an article on the topic of "some demons"
The Manual of Style disagrees:
It is possible to link words that are not exactly the same as the linked article title, English for example.'
So do redirects.
In an encyclopedia, links must be WYGIWYS ("what you get is what you see"). Link text "XYZ" must link to a page on the topic of XYZ. This predictability and consistency is a basic usability requirement for encyclopedias. Weblogs and personal pages often use a "box of chocolates" linking style, but they're not encyclopedias.
I agree with this as a general rule, but that doesn't make it Wikipedia policy.
No demonstration of the supposed "irrelevance" of Clem to the Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet story (or vice versa) has been given. In contrast, evidence has been given of a link between the two. [4]
chocolateboy 05:39, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a joke book. To actually engage in an edit war over trying to retain this ridiculous link is beyond the pale. OK, you thought it was funny the first time you did it, but why in h*ll would you keep doing it? RickK 05:46, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

The link wasn't a joke. The two articles, however, are. Wikipedians are not Gradgrinds. [5] [6]
chocolateboy 06:09, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One of the meanings of "English" is "English language". The link text "English" points to a page on the topic of English. What point were you trying to make?

Your Google link shows that it's relevant to link from ERKEFAP to Buffy... but you already do that. Now try the reverse: Google "some demons" and tell me how many pages mention the 2003 Ontario provincial election. Again, what point were you trying to make?

In an encyclopedia, people expect a link that says "XYZ" to go to an article on the topic of XYZ, because that's the way encyclopedias work.

-- Curps 06:26, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One of the meanings of "English" is "English language". The link text "English" points to a page on the topic of English. What point were you trying to make?
"Some demons" linked to an article concerning one of the demons. Redirects and the Manual of Style show that the link is not required to duplicate the title of the linked article.
Your Google link shows that it's relevant to link from ERKEFAP to Buffy... but you already do that. Now try the reverse: Google "some demons" and tell me how many pages mention the 2003 Ontario provincial election. Again, what point were you trying to make?
I didn't link the isolated words "some demons". I linked the demons referred to in the Miss Kitty Fantastico article i.e. Clem and co. What point were you trying to refute?
In an encyclopedia, people expect a link that says "XYZ" to go to an article on the topic of XYZ, because that's the way encyclopedias work.
Encyclopaedias typically don't have hyperlinks, so I doubt the problem arises very often. Adding value to a document by attaching germane links is, however, how web authoring, and Wiki authoring in particular, have always worked.
chocolateboy 06:59, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Your comments would be valid if the link were germane. It is not, therefore your comments are moot. RickK 21:31, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a joke book. To actually engage in an edit war over trying to retain this ridiculous link is beyond the pale. OK, you thought it was funny the first time you did it, but why in h*ll would you keep doing it?
Your comments would be valid if the link were germane. It is not, therefore your comments are moot.
Your spittle-flecked, apoplectic Gradgrindism is not Wikipedia policy and is therefore moot.
chocolateboy 22:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Your ricidulous edit warring over an unimportant point got the article protected, didn't it? RickK 04:42, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
chocolateboy 10:52, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Copyrights and Public Domains

When writing articles about specific ships and information is used from the Naval Vessel Register is it necessary to obtain permission from the DoD prior to its use because in the disclaimers they say they make no guarantee that the information is on a public domain or is it acceptable to used the information without asking and leave a citation?--YanA 22:34, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BC vs. BCE for dates?

Debate moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

SLOW!

It's taking about 5 minutes to get to a new page every time I click on a link. RickK 19:17, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

International Version of Wiki

A lot of softwares today are made international, giving the users the privilege to choose the language their UI they prefer, but this feature is not yet developed in Wiki. I guess some users (esp the one often does interwiki) would like the UI remains the language they familiar when working on other language of wiki. just like i am upset to find the corresponding features in Korean Wiki or Hebrew Wiki, because their alphabets make no sense to me. So i am suggesting that, if wiki can integrate ALL languages into one, and let the users to choose whatever language they would like to use in whatever language Wiki (e.g. I would like to use English Wiki UI when working on Chinese WP). Once this is done, the Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese argument will die out soon. --Yacht (talk) 15:05, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Terry Baum

If anyone out there is familiar with the case of Terry Baum, would you please check the article I just posted? Of particular interest to San Francisco residents and Greens. Thanks, Tualha 23:18, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have been doing some disambuguating and the "what links here" pages do not seem to be working today. That's a pretty crucial tool for a dismabiguator. Anyone know anything about this? Kevin Rector 20:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This could be the same problem as the section above with links not being updated. Angela. 21:01, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Must be, because I went to the pages that no longer link there, added a space and then voila, they are disappearing from the "what links here". What a pain! Kevin Rector 21:21, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Speedy deletion not working?

I added the {{delete}} tag to a few nonsense pages but they're not showing up in CAT:CSD, so presumably no sysop has found them. Not sure why. The pages are Fock, Tortele, 0day, The herb. Rhobite 20:03, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

According to Jamesday, we had a bug from 14:48 to 20:11 UTC preventing any links being updated. An automatic script will be run to correct those links so there is no need to do it by hand. I expect this might be the cause of the pages not showing up in the category. Angela. 21:01, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Database weirdness

Last night, I was trying to add the "vfd" Template to Crowd. I added it twice, but it never showed up. I had to cut and paste the actual verbiage into the article to get it to show up. Now I look at My Contributions, and I see:

23:27, Jul 8, 2004 (hist) Crowd (VfD)
23:26, Jul 8, 2004 (hist) Crowd (VfD) (top) [rollback]
23:26, Jul 8, 2004 (hist) Crowd (VfD) (top) [rollback]

How can the the two times BEFORE my cut and paste show up as the top level edits, when the most recent time doesn't?

And when I look at the history of Crowd, I see :

(cur) (last) 05:11, Jul 9, 2004 Jay (more usages)
(cur) (last) 23:27, Jul 8, 2004 RickK (VfD)
(cur) (last) 23:23, Jul 8, 2004 63.105.26.148
(cur) (last) 23:22, Jul 8, 2004 63.105.26.148
(cur) (last) 23:22, Jul 8, 2004 63.105.26.148

The two failed edits don't show up at all.

Just what is going on?

RickK 19:10, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

I can't see newly-created articles

When I click on newly-created articles from Recent changes, I get "(Wikipedia does not have an article on this topic yet. To start the article, click edit this page", even though the article is right there in Recent changes.

For example:

(diff) (hist) . . George Andrew Olah; 23:35:30 . . Tyler McHenry (Talk) (Link to USC)
(diff) (hist) . . N Yemenite Jew; 23:35:29 . . 63.168.169.142 (Talk | block)
(diff) (hist) . . Vending machine; 23:35:27 . . Random832 (Talk)

Yemenite Jew is a new article, but when I click on it, I get the error message. RickK 06:39, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

This looks like the same issue as above under the heading "Differnet Browsers - Differnent Content". Are you using IE? — Chameleon My page/My talk 08:08, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I'm using IE. But it just started happening in the middle of my session last night. RickK 18:50, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
Sometimes you will also find that a new article that appears in Recent Changes has been deleted before you get to look at it. It's surprising how often that happens. DJ Clayworth 14:07, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No, when it's been deleted there's a link to the deleted article at the top of the page if you're a sysop. These articles dont' have those links. RickK 18:50, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, stop using IE. Secondly, we need some geek to figure out why this is happening. — Chameleon My page/My talk 20:18, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This is getting onto those strategic issues I was talking about above. IMO we need to support IE5.0, IE5.5 and IE6 at least so far as the default skin is concerned. Otherwise, we should put a notice on the Main Page "Please use the browsers we like. If you can't or won't comply to this request, get lost. You can't even complain as the pages that would let you do this are the very ones your browser won't support. Goodbye."
Seriously, I have this sort of conversation with website designers regularly. One responded (to a question about screen resolution) "less than 10% of the Internet is affected", to which I replied "let me paraphrase that: One user in ten can't use our site, and we don't care". Let's have in-your-face features by all means, but they should not compromise the basic functions working reliably on a wide variety of platforms. This includes consumer packages that have never been upgraded and never will be. Basic functions IMO means the default skin, the others are frills. Food for thought?
This is getting beyond the Pump I think. What is the proper forum? Andrewa 20:57, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You seem to be implying someone is saying the bug should not be tackled. Nobody is saying that. Wikipedians should simply use non-IE browsers to solve the problem. Then, the geeks should get their thinking-caps on to fix the bug so that the plebs can use the site correctly. — Chameleon My page/My talk 21:08, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Telling the majority of the world to stop doing something because you can't get your website to work is absurd. Make the website work. RickK 04:20, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
One of the fascinating things about Wikipedia is that there is no clear distinction between plebs and Wikipedians. Many registered users are just here for a look (and a few for some more sinister purpose). Some regular contributors are anons.
I guess I qualify as a Wikipedian, I've added myself to a couple of lists of Wikipedians, created a gushing user page and recently been given admin priviledge. And, I'm probably a technically competent one too. But I don't want to spend a lot of time finding out which browser will work! I have little enough time for editing as is. I've done the obvious upgrade, it was no help (introduced some extra problems in fact, no surprise) and is unlikely to survive my next system rebuild. I've tried several other browsers over the years, and rejected them for various reasons. The only response I have had to my request for help as to what to try next wasn't very helpful.
What I do object to are statements to the effect that IE is flawed. These are both vague and irrelevant. In terms of Wikipedia's aims, IMO it is more important to support IE than to support every other browser on earth. OTOH you can't blame the techies for developing and testing on the browsers they prefer, and obviously these will tend to be Unix-based and standards-compliant... the very opposite of IE.
Lots of issues here. I'm not saying be IE-compliant, even if we could tell what that means. I'm just saying, the default skin should generate conservative HTML that will work well on any platform. And of course SQUID and other configuration decisions need to support this strategy as well. Andrewa 20:42, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't know who you're explaining this to. The site is already as IE-compliant as it can be. There just appears to be some bizarre recent bug affecting new content. I'd fix it myself, but I'm not a developer/hacker (just knowing XHTML is obviously not enough). We all agree that whoever has the technical know-how should get onto this problem. — Chameleon My page/My talk 21:26, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
At the risk of replying to an implied and probably rhetorical question, I'm trying to explain both to you and also to anyone else reading this.
I'm glad if you believe that it's important (or even possible) that the site should be IE-compliant. I don't think it's that simple myself, and it's not the impression I gained from your earlier advice. I think that there are lots of management and strategy issues here that are becoming more relevant as Wikipedia grows. I'm a bit disappointed nobody has yet referred us to any existing discussions or policies in the Meta. Andrewa 00:33, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Copy pictures

Is it a copyvio if I copy a picture/photo from a different language wikipedia site.  ??? eg. from nl.wikipedia.org to eg.wikipedia.org

To the best of my understanding, mostly no. Most images on Wikipedia (and all text) are released under the GFDL (although I believe it is possible to dual-license images somehow, and some images fall under fair-use, which is country defendant), and as such you may not only import images from other Wikipedia sites, you may also, if you cite your source, use them in private ventures of your own. Each image page should contain a copyright notice at its bottom (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for examples). The only thing that is advised is that you insert other languages tags in both the original image page and the one you created, so as to prevent images from being imported twice, and to enable updating them in all Wikipedias if changes are made. -- Itai 03:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
How do I link a de. page to a en. image? Or alternately, make a de. copy. I suppose I could download and reupload it, but that seems awfully clumsy.
--wwoods 17:16, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's clumsy, but that's how to do it. — Chameleon My page/My talk 18:05, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Requested : music

Oh man...apparently last night I somehow really really borked up Wikipedia:Requested articles/music. I'd fix it, but I think it's a little bit beyond my scope to do so..there have been a few style edits since I worked on it, so I'm not sure of what to do. Please help! Rhymeless 19:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Suitable Licencing of my own images

I'm a sometime semi-professional music photographer. I do make money from commercial licencing of some of my old images to magazines, books etc., often through commercial picture agencies. I own the copyright to all my images and register them with the Library of Congress. I would like to donate some images to the Wikipedia. I believe that I'm happy with the GFDL for the images that I'll upload as they will be 72dpi, 400px tall images that are entirely unsuitable for publication, and the publication-quality images will not be covered by the license and remain only available from myself or my agents. Am I right in thinking this or am I putting myself at risk of losing control of the images?

I'm curious about the (slightly more restrictive) Creative Commons licenses that would guarantee me credit and possibly restrict commercial use? Are these acceptable to Wikipedia?

I'd appreciate thoughts. Palnu 19:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is not really my cup of tea, but I've been able to dig up m:Guide to the CC dual-license. Note that this refers to dual-licensing, which means that the images will still be available under GFDL. Once upon a time it was possible to grant copyrights - "permission", if you will - exclusively to Wikipedia, but I gather, going over old discussions, this is no longer possible, and images thus uploaded are being phased out. -- Itai 03:40, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Attribute change backlog

There's a large and growing backlog on Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit. Would some of the developers please spend some time reducing it?

Thanks, Tualha 18:59, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Setting that page up was a mistake. The workload was too high, I can't spend that much time on such a thankless job. I said on the talk page that the bulk of the work does not need to be done by a developer, and I outlined the tasks that need to be done. But no-one has taken the hint. If someone could check all the requests and carefully construct a list of necessary database operations, I could run those operations. But I can't afford to double-check each one. -- Tim Starling 02:21, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't think to check the talk page. Thanks for the info. Tualha 03:46, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Differnet Browsers - Differnent Content

Yesterday I edited the article about Munich using Firefox and everything was fine. By pure chance I tried it today with IE and it seemd to show the old content (without my changes). Back in Firefox it was the new content, even the history was different. Note that this is not a browser cache issue, since I tried it, besides others, on newly installed machine which I had at hand by coincidence.

Try Munich with Firefox or Mozilla and IE and serach for FHM to see what I mean.

How can it be that different browsers show different content?

I have found this too. Bizarre. — Chameleon My page/My talk 18:22, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It may have nothing to do with the particular browser. I think we have some chronic problems with caching, for example at present my most recent changes to VfD aren't showing up regardless of clearing my own cache, refreshing, forced refresh, whatever. I see them viewing the individual subpages, but not on the VfD page itself. Andrewa 00:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I really find it only occurs in IE. I get old content even for pages I have never visited in IE (and therefore it is impossible for them to be in my cache). — Chameleon My page/My talk 08:05, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I'm using IE6, having upgraded from IE5.0 in the vain hope that Wikipedia would then behave on some other glitches. It seems to have made no difference to my problems, and others are raised below by other users. I guess we should raise them on Sourceforge, but the developers seem to have more urgent problems and I think this is going to raise some difficult strategic issues. Andrewa 20:10, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This seems to have been raised on Sourceforge, request ID 987901 is this explicitly, but 982773 is IE too and sounds like it may be the same problem to me. Nobody has taken either of them on yet. Three questions:
1. Is this a problem with the MediaWiki code, or is it the way the current servers are set up? Or is it a bit of both? (Yes, I know that in the opinion of some the only problem is with IE.) It's pointless raising it as a code problem if it's not this at all.
2. Can anyone give me a suggestion as to a browser that will work reliably with Win98SE and the current English Wikipedia setup, and preferably (negotiable, I said preferably) will also coexist with some version of IE (which seems to work fine on all other sites I visit)?
3. IE6 seems worse affected than IE5.0, but not enough to justify going back. Is anyone in a position to comment as to whether IE5.5 would be any better? Andrewa 17:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ad 2: Any browser can peacefully coexist with IE (even different versions of IE can coexist on one system, despite MS trying to convince us of the contrary; see http://www.skyzyx.com/downloads/ ) – in theory at least, it is my experience that you can never predict what will actually happen in Windows, so please don't blame me if something goes wrong ;-) – "Remember me" 19:21, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, and the link. But, without wanting to doubt (or endorse for that matter) what you say, I was really hoping to hear from some Wikipedian who is currently using a 3rd party browser on Win98SE. I guess I should add, preferably with Eudora... incompatibility with Eudora has been one of my gripes with one other 3rd party browser... but that's not a show-stopper.
As you say, it's hard to predict what Windows will do (IMO Micro$oft want it that way!). I think your generalisation assumes that some CM rules are obeyed... don't reuse DLL names for an obvious example... and even M$ themselves haven't always followed these in my experience. Some previous browsers were highly incompatible, I had to rebuild the OS to remove one and install a stable rival on one occasion. I'm prepared to believe that current browsers are all compatible, but I'd still like to hear from someone who has actually done it before relying on it. Andrewa 21:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have no idea how relevant the differences are between SE and ME, but I can report that I installed several versions of both Mozilla and Opera on ME and never ran into any troubles with that. Sorry I can't help you any further. – "Remember me" 16:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Is there any particular version of either of these that seems to work well with the current Wikipedia and Windows ME?
Windows ME is Millenium Edition, which was intended to replace Windows 98. Win98SE is Windows 98 Second Edition. Relatively few people stuck with ME, and it was always unpopular with OEMs, both for good reasons IMO. However Win98SE still has its fans particularly with people such as myself who think that XP introduces some worrrying features designed to strengthen our reliance on Microsoft. Andrewa 22:02, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The above comment is fairly correct, except it should be mentioned that Windows 98 leaks memory like a gunshot victim loses blood ;) →Raul654 22:05, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Could use some help with naming an article

This is the best place I found for this: In spring 2003, an esteemed Finnish psychologist by the name of Raisa Cacciatore accused the Dragon Ball manga series, the first albums of which are circa PG-13, of containing pedophilia. Those who had actually read them dismissed the allegation as absurd, but it managed to whip up a media panic and the comic was hounded out of the country. And now I wish to write an article about it, but being a non-native speaker naming isn't my forté and I know I have a tendency to be incomprehensible at times, so could I get some suggestions at to what I should call it? -- Kizor 08:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Under a header == Controversy == in the Dragon ball article? Anárion 11:48, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Most likely this isn't significant enough to warrant a mention in the main article. Dragon Ball's extremely big, and this farce only affected one country which didn't have a significant readership. The comic even returned next January, with a low profile. -- Kizor 17:46, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Why not write an article about Raisa Cacciatore himself, which would naturally focus on his accusations against the series? Jwrosenzweig 19:10, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Because she's done a lot of other work that's held in high regard. That'd be quite unfair. -- Kizor 23:31, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That red box

Please discuss at m:Talk:Fundraising site notice

I need an image ...

... is a frequent request at Wikipedia. Last month there was a discussion on the VP, and some wikipedians were happy to receive tips about how to get an image from Google or somewhere else. I think there is the need for a summary of such kind of advice, and since I was doing a lot of work on Wikipedia:Requested pictures, I had some experience and wrote a Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial. Please let me know if this is useful, and feel free to add links and (hust) fix my grammar and spelling (hust). happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 05:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to see a Request for Diagrams page. I'd like to make diagrams for many pages that need them, and have already done so for many pages I've found, but I don't know which pages need them most. Derrick Coetzee 05:18, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A diagram is an image, so just add it to the Wikipedia:Requested pictures. I have added images for a number of diagram requests there -- Chris 73 | Talk 05:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Weird timestamp of 1969

Image:Hit.bmp shows a timestamp of "23:59, 31 Dec 1969". How come ? Jay 07:17, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I want to put a link from the German Page Commodore Produktubersicht to the Product line section of the Commodore International page. I tried [[Commodore International#Product line]], but that didn't work. I tried [[Commodore_International#Product_line]], but that didn't work either . Salasks 03:36, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

MERGE TIME!

The Mirabal sisters and Mirabal sisters need to be merged. Thanks and Ggod bless you1

"Antonio (singing like Elton John) Merger life!! the Merger of life..lol! Martin"

Pronouncing highlighted words

PS - I'm trying to sign this! Please bear with my/our newbieness! Sincerely, hotdiggittydave (and Lauria)

Bot request

How do you make a Bot Request? I want to link all the Paralympics games in English to the Paralympics games in German by using the [[en:]] and [[de:]] tags, but it's too many to do manually. Salasks 14:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bot request

Bot request moved to Wikipedia:Bots --Wclark 15:05, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)

Watchlist is broken again

Watchlist


A database query syntax error has occurred. This could be because of an illegal search query (see Searching Wikipedia), or it may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

SELECT cur_namespace,cur_title,cur_comment, cur_id,cur_user,cur_user_text,cur_timestamp,cur_minor_edit,cur_is_new FROM watchlist,cur USE INDEX (name_title_timestamp) WHERE wl_user=44727 AND (wl_namespace=cur_namespace OR wl_namespace+1=cur_namespace) AND wl_title=cur_title AND cur_timestamp > '20040714155744' ORDER BY cur_timestamp DESC

from within function "wfSpecialWatchlist". MySQL returned error "1104: The SELECT would examine more rows than MAX_JOIN_SIZE. Check your WHERE and use SET SQL_BIG_SELECTS=1 or SET SQL_MAX_JOIN_SIZE=# if the SELECT is ok".

If it's still broken, please let me know on my talk page. Jamesday 14:28, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bug reporting

At this juncture before I go on I'll just comment that the instructions for reporting bugs in the software are as clear as mud. But that's a separate issue.

Earlier today someone moved all the text from Glasgow Underground to Glasgow Subway using cut and paste, then several people continued to edit the new article at its new location. I took note of the changes, then deleted the pasted version of Glasgow Subway and moved the underground article as it should have been done in the first place. No problems there.

The problem arose when I tried to revert the Subway article from a redirect to the original article, and got the history of the page that I had just deleted. And it won't go away. So 'underground' is a redirect to 'subway', 'subway' is a redirect to itself, and there doesn't appear to be a way of fixing it. Does anyone have any ideas? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:35, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think you left out an "undelete" step on the subway article (which I've just done). You should find the history there now, and you can choose (or make) the version you want. - Nunh-huh 22:41, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ok my fault. I'll remove this comment but I will replace it with a bug reporting issue: it needs to be made easier to report these things without going onto IRC (which, btw, I don't have the software to access). -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:45, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Image change request

Can someone chop off the blank lower half of File:Africa-northern-countries.png? Thanks. Neutrality 22:57, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done. Radagast 23:05, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Can somone crop this?

File:USAF.jpg

Can somone crop this so that it's only the logo? Thank you. Neutrality 04:04, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm on this. Derrick Coetzee 04:12, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Also, please add some license information. This photo is rather suspicious. Derrick Coetzee 04:13, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Air Force is rather protective of their seal [8]. But if you're going to use it, I'd suggest using theirs [9] instead of trying to crop a photograph. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:02, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can somone crop this?

File:USAF.jpg

Can somone crop this so that it's only the logo? Thank you. Neutrality 04:04, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm on this. Derrick Coetzee 04:12, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Also, please add some license information. This photo is rather suspicious. Derrick Coetzee 04:13, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Air Force is rather protective of their seal [10]. But if you're going to use it, I'd suggest using theirs [11] instead of trying to crop a photograph. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:02, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can't edit WP:VFD

I just get a database error. I do however, need to add the following:

Zyzzva

Dr. Ani Jones

Caché

Well it won't flipping go on the vfd page! Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:40, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ghey

Extended warranty

Same problem for the above two entries here. Lupo 14:49, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Shall we set up a page at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/temp? Can someone with the power to do stuff with whizzy things and the like sort this problem out? Is the page too long? Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:54, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This has been going on for quite a while. Does anyone understand what is happening? Is there an estimated time for a fix? -- Jmabel 06:22, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
Per suggestion above, we are now using Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/temp until WP:VFD is fixed.

Usage of Request for Comment

WP:RFC is a rather useful page, but I'm not sure how to make use of the subpages for disputes regarding users' conduct. Can someone give me a quick runthrough, as another sysop has asked me the same thing and I was only able to give an "I think..." answer? From what I gather, if somebody has been directly involved in discussion with the user in question, and attempted to resolve the conflict, they are permitted to add their own summary of events and various proofs to the "Statement of dispute" section. Is this true? Also, WP:RFC is rather vague on what sort of action will be taken after a user has passed the two negotiator threshold, which brings me to my next question: How can one achieve this threshold? Is it by adding one's summary of events to the "Statement of dispute" section as I discussed above, or is it possible too to count somewhat unrelated experiences in "Outside view" to what is mentioned in the "Statement of dispute" section, but related to violations of the policies the user is alleged to have broken? Thanks for any and all help — and if this is any indication, I think the page should be overhauled, because I had enough trouble trying to figure out the formatting for subpages (thank goodness there's an example). Johnleemk | Talk 12:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dumb question

How does one find out the current size of a page? Bmills 11:34, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In what sense? — Chameleon My page/My talk 11:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Number of bytes. Bmills 11:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dumb answer: Go to edit mode, select all text, copy to clipboard, open notepad.exe (or any other plain text editor), paste, save as file, select file in explorer, watch properties. OK, quite a lot of steps to do, but AFAIK the only page which shows the size of an article is the special:NewPages. andy 12:02, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Page size might be helpful too. TPK 12:04, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What a good use for the Search facility! Thanks all. Bmills 12:12, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In a very long article, you will get a warning about its size, with the size displayed in Kilobytes. Its a handy way to know when to split up an article. Krik 14:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC).

Weird timestamp of 1969

Image:Hit.bmp shows a timestamp of "23:59, 31 Dec 1969". How come ? Jay 07:17, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Images that don't exist show the beginning of the Unix epoch as their timestamp. Maximus Rex 07:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Redirects on RC and NP

I don't know how technically feasible this is, but it seems to me that it'd be very handy for the Special:Recentchanges and Special:Newpages to show when an entry simply contained a #REDIRECT. As someone who patrols RC regularly and NP occasionally, I think it'd be good to know at a glance which entries can be disregarded completely because they're just redirect pages. Sometimes people indicate this in the edit summary, or by marking a new page as a minor edit (so that it shows up as "Nm" on the list), but this isn't always that consistent. Could we get some kind of notation on the lists (maybe an "r" where "N" and "m" go?) or, failing that, a push for more widespread usage of the new-and-minor convention? —Etaoin 06:30, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Trouble is, is it really safe to disregard anything if you are on the lookout for vandalism? I am sure we all know of cases where something that can be marked as innocuous and might be disregarded has had a more serious effect than you'd think, at first sight. As the system gets cleverer the vandals will too ... <sigh> --Nevilley 07:12, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
On the newpages the redirects are already filtered out - only those redirects show up which are for whatever reason broken - like #redrict [[target]] - and thus if you spot a short page on NewPages which looks like a redirect it is a redirect which needs fixing. However not all redirects are good - I recently had to override some with disambiguation pages, as the one who created those redirect did not check what articles linked there and did not notice that the lastname of a famous person was also the name of a city, and then a link to that city led to a totally unrelated article. Thus they should be listed on recentchanges at least. andy 07:14, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial

I need an image is a frequent request at Wikipedia. Last month there was a discussion on the VP, and some wikipedians were happy to receive tips about how to get an image from Google or somewhere else. I think there is the need for a summary of such kind of advice, and since I was doing a lot of work on Wikipedia:Requested pictures, I had some experience and wrote a Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial. Please let me know if this is useful, and feel free to add links and (hust) fix my grammar and spelling (hust). happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 05:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to see a Request for Diagrams page. I'd like to make diagrams for many pages that need them, and have already done so for many pages I've found, but I don't know which pages need them most. Derrick Coetzee 05:18, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A diagram is an image, so just add it to Wikipedia:Requested pictures. I have previously added images for a number of diagram requests there -- Chris 73 | Talk 05:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is jacked UP!

It's not as bad as it was earlier, but it still looks crizzappy. For some reason, the category list content is getting stuck inside the "shortcut" box. Don't know why. Someone take a look at it, will ya? blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:02, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It went funny when the shortcut text was replaced by the Template:Shortcut template. Don't know why. I've hardcoded the template contents in there for now, hopefully someone more knowledgeable can take a look? —Stormie 02:50, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. blankfaze | (беседа!) 03:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Minnam

Minnan links do not show as real interlanguage links. This is a known bug. (summarised)

Okruzi and Template:Okruzi

What is the policy with terms from other languages. As this is en.wikipedia, shouldn't this be listed as Districts of Serbia? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:52, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Zocky 20:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The policy is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Gdr 21:43, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)
These articles have been moved by User:Grunt. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:38, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Promotional buttons

I created a page called Wikipedia:Promotional buttons as an example of how we could encourage promotion of Wikipedia via the web. I'm no graphics designer so they're not great buttons, but they get the point across. Please go to the talk page to help decide if this is a good idea. —siroχo 11:25, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

You might want to put those in the public domain or free-distribution at least. It's a bit of a trauble to follow the GFDL just for one button, distrubute a licence and such. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:29, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)
Would we want to do that? Isn't the logo trademarked? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:23, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You don't have to use the Wikipedia logo in the buttons. It makes it a lot easier for other sites to display banners and buttons if they don't have to think about the GFDL. Might I remind people that there is also a Wikipedia:Banners and buttons. Dori | Talk 13:31, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
I've been bold and merged those two pages. — Chameleon My page/My talk 17:48, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I had never seen that page, thanks for merging them. Perhaps there should be a link to that page from the community portal. —siroχo 00:02, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Section editing broken on ref desk

Section editing on Wikipedia:Reference desk seems to be off by one. That is, when I go to edit the section on clouds, I end up editing the question about the Peace Cross, and I have to go to the next question to talk about clouds. I've seen this before, something about comments in headings or something? Anyone know how to fix it? moink 00:34, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nevermind, I fixed it. moink 00:36, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
How'd you fix it? I noticed that meta:MediaWiki 1.3 comments and bug reports was off by 2 a day or so ago. --ssd 05:24, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If a HTML comment precedes a header, it'll act as if the header is still there. Each commented-out header has to be "escaped". I think that's the reason, I can't remember for sure. Dysprosia 06:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There was a header that wasn't quite right a while up. I'd rewrite it here, but I'm worried that even with nowiki it would mess things up. Here, this is the fix: [12] moink 21:03, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

VFD dupe problem

So9mething has gone wrong with VfD in the last half hour, probably at least a partial duplication. E.g., there's a block of new stuff after a block of inter-lang links. Perhaps just repair under way, but intro section shows as new material. --Jerzy(t) 00:28, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

Doubling (Tripling) problem

OK, I obviously just tripled the above poll. What causes this? I can only guess it has something to do with using the "Show Preview" button, because I previewed twice, but maybe something else is at work. Peace, --Fritzlein 00:13, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Or could it be that the 'almighty' wants this poll to reproduce itself (may be that is the only way to act democratic here!) --Drbalaji md 00:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Does wikipedia represent the entire world?

and related sections moved to User talk:Drbalaji md

Deleting items from my watchlist

I am unable to delete items from my watchlist using display and edit the complete list. I click the right buttons, and am told that the items have been removed from my watch list, but they stay. I am using mozilla firefox 0.8 (actually mozilla webgiraffe, but never mind :))Thue | talk 23:18, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Carrying on a discussion with another user, back and forth between his User_talk and mine?

What's the generally-accepted method of carrying on a discussion with another Wikipedia user? Say someone adds a comment to my User_talk page... if I reply beneath it, he doesn't get any notification that I replied, does he? So I go post to his User_talk page instead, and then posts his reply to mine, and I post my reply to his... and then each of our User_talk pages has half a conversation, and someone wishing to read the whole conversation has to keep jumping back and forth between two pages. Is there a better way, short of resorting to email? Or does Wikipedia have a way of letting me know if someone's replied on his User_talk page to a comment I left there? Brian Kendig 23:17, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you post something at some users talk page tick the 'watch this page' box, this will inform you when he/she responds. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:21, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
Generally, you can reply to them and just say "see reply on my talk page", letting them know that the conversation will continue there. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I usually answer on the other talk page, but cut copy so my talk page has a complete conversation for reference purposes. -- Chris 73 | Talk 05:56, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I never no what to do... (it gives me the same anxiety I get about if I'm supposed to shake hands or not) :-) Erich 08:53, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Once the discussion is over (and hope it gets over!) copy the bits and parts and format them on your user-talk page. If your talk partner/s are interested, they can do the same with their user-talk pages. Jay 17:08, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Opt-in Google-ads?

Please discuss at m:Opt-in Google-ads

Vandalism

I'm sorry if the answer to this problem is easy (and I daresay it is), but I've had a look through various sections on Wikipedia, and am unable to find a page for reporting vandalism. There are various offensive remarks on pages related to Seinfeld, such as Jerry Seinfeld, Jason Alexander and Michael Richards. Should I go into the page history and revert these pages to their previous versions? And where should I report the offender?

As I say, I'm sorry if this query seems somewhat plebian, but help would be appreciated!

Yes, you can just go into the history and revert any vandalisms, see Wikipedia:Revert, and for reporting vandalisms, see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Dori | Talk 19:09, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
The fact that someone looking for such a page could not find it is indicative of a problem with the interface. Could you describe your experience, what you tried and so on? It would be helpful feedback. Derrick Coetzee 05:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1938 in film

Would someone mind going to 1938 in film and fixing the page. Thanks. JillandJack 17:52, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is it OK now? — Chameleon My page/My talk 18:36, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Text jumping to new lines

I've noticed that the text beside wikilinks has strangely appeared on a new line in List of Governors of Massachusetts and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. What's going on?

Acegikmo1 16:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That red box

The box is now editable by sysops at MediaWiki:Fundraising notice. Full details at m:Fundraising site notice. Discussion at m:Talk:Fundraising site notice.

Wikipedia for Cell Phones

I am wondering if there is any type of movement toward developing a cell phone web interface for Wikipedia?

I have spent significant time developing for and doing research with cell phone technology, and truly believe that providing a cell phone interface (text based, possibly just read-only) for Wikipedia (or an information source like it) could be a dramatic step forward in information sharing and availability world wide. With the broad use of cell phones, and their increased internet access, I believe that the opportunity to carry the world's largest and most dynamic encyclopedia around in your pocket might be incredible. (Additionally, a phase 2 operation that allows users to enter articles and post images from their camera phones, has the potential for an exponential increase in wikipedia data)

I am new to Wikipedia, so do not know exactly how all of the business management works, but would be more then happy to lead this initiative if it has not already been started, assuming that the idea receives interest from others.

This is a great idea. You'll want to contact the Wikimedia software project about it, since that's where it would inevitably have to plug in. It may also influence the hardware infrastructure if it were put in. The trickiest part would be designing an efficient interface for the smaller screen. Good luck with this. Derrick Coetzee 20:51, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This has been mentioned a little over at meta:Mobile_subdomain. I've personally had good success accessing Wikipedia with the 'MySkin' skin on my Treo, although I guess you're probably talking about adding some sort of WAP interface. --NeuronExMachina 01:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Image doesn't exist, yet does

File:HarryP.jpg

This image was uploaded by the vandal User:John Smith.

If you click on it, you'll get the "Wikipedia does not have an article on this topic yet", and there's no history. So the image doesn't exist, but you're viewing it just the same.

An admin apparently was deleting it at the same time I was slapping a "speedy delete" tag on it, and weirdness ensued.

No, that wasn't the reason. For images there are two deletions necessary - one is the image description page, and the other is the actual image itself. While the first one works the same as the deletion of normal articles, the image itself must be deleted via a second "delete" link next to the image revision list. Apparently not all admins know about that - I myself did wrong deletions until I discovered a mention of the "correct" deletion on the German village pump. Maybe the "deletion successful" text should have a note about images? andy 10:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This question inspired me to write the Administrators' how-to guide which explains how to delete images properly, along with other things new sysops might not know. Angela. 00:54, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That's really a good page. I can remember that when I became an admin, I was wondering a lot what this new "rollback" button is supposed to do, and only after searching through several pages in the wikipedia namespace I could find it, so a list like that one would have helped me a lot. Now we just need to make sure every newly created admin is guided to that page. andy 07:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

When going through the diffs on my watchlist, I noticed that in some cases, after I'd clicked on a diff link and refreshed the page, the diff link would appear in the a:link color instead of the a:visited color. To put that differently, the links I've clicked appear in purple instead of blue (like they should). Is there any reason for this?

Also, I'm wondering who keeps modifying monobook.css. With the current style, the difference in color between visited links and regular links is very small, so it's a bit hard to differentiate. Where would it be appropriate to discuss issues like this (and that strange blue background that seems to have disappeared)?

Acegikmo1 01:55, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See MediaWiki talk:monobook.css for changes to the skin.

Summarised sections

Ampersand

I can't reach Slaughter & the Dogs on either the Dutch or the English Wikipedia. I guess the problem is due to the ampersand ('&'). What am I to do? (I want to read about Slaughter & the Dogs every day in englisk as well as in dutch or else I'll turn into a werewolf-kind of creature.) BvdP 

::(Just noticed this problem was mentioned before. Sorry.) BvdP again (not yet werewolf.)

Getting (More?) Academics Involved

Hi. I'm vaguely thinking of starting a project to encourage academics to contribute to Wikipedia (via university e-mail and poster campaigns perhaps). Although Wikipedia is certainly an excellent resource, it is still greatly lacking compared to subject specific encyclopedias ([www.rep.routledge.com The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy] is one I have had personal experience with). Academics have had years of experience explaining their subject areas to those with little prior knowledge and many have already contributed to other encyclopedias. It seems to me there are two factors stopping them from contributing: 1) ignorance of Wikipedia 2) technical barriers. My thought is that if we could set up a kind of "middle ground" between the willing academics and Wikipedia we could leave them to do what they're good at (writing about their subject using a format and media they're used to) while Wiki-volunteers take what they give them and beat it into a format appropriate for Wikipedia. I'm conscious of the fact that someone has almost certainly already had this idea, and that asking for help from people "with names" so to speak may seem anti-thetical to the Wiki spirit. Thus all comments/suggestions/flames are welcomed.

Wikipedians in Wikipedia

I wonder if there is any wikipedians who has an actual entry on him-/her-self in wikipedia? (What i mean is an valid entry) SYSS Mouse 16:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How?

I wanna do something like this:

Prince Hall

I messed up nicely here: not realizing that Prince Hall Masonry was covered under the Freemasonry topic, I created a separate Prince hall topic. However, Prince Hall is a person, and this link should probably go to him. Unfortunately, I don't know much about him besides what's already covered in the Masonry topic. Suggestions? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan 03:08, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've written a short stub on Prince Hall and moved Prince hall to Prince Hall. If you want to merge some of what you wrote with Freemasonry you could take a look in the history. Hope this works out. -- Solitude 09:41, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looks reasonable. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan 16:16, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Broken images

It is probably nd IE 6.028 issue as much as anything, but it looks like there is a problem on Wikipedia that kills image rendering on IE6. For example if I visit Leonardo da Vinci, I usually won't get any futher than the thumbnail for [[Image:Monalisa.jpg]] being rendered. And after that, no linked images in IE6 will be displayed, until I restart the browser. -- Solipsist 23:09, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but it seems like you need to clear your cache...Ctrl-F5. Ilyanep (Talk) 01:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This is more than a cache problem; IE6 has a bug in its image-rendering engine that crashes it when certain re-sized jpgs are loaded. I can't recall the fix offhand; my best suggestion would be to use a different browser. :-) Radagast 23:28, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
MSIE v6.0.2800.1106 works for me in Windows 2000 for this article (as does a "different browser"), with all "Windows updates" installed. --Zigger 14:23, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)

Internal error

Ugh, this can't be good, getting an error when uploading an image:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Could not copy file "" to "/usr/local/apache/htdocs/en/upload/2/27/Tuned_Honda_CRX.jpg".

Solitude 22:09, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wow, Wikipedia uses Linux! hehe, sorry, random astonishment. Ilyanep (Talk) 01:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hehe, Wikipedia's slow response because of its popularity does make it look like it's running on Windows ;). -- Solitude 09:43, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

new design

I've been off wikipedia for a while and have only just come back lately. I have been meaning to say that the new look given to wikipedia is absolutely fabulous. The page layout is clean, the placing and boxing of pictures very professional, headlines excellent. If only hardcopy encyclopaedias were as well designed. Full marks to those responsible. (This may already have been discussed ages ago when the design happened, but please accept a belated congratulations. JtdIrL (the user also known as FearEireann but who can't type the 4 little squiggles because of a crap keyboard on this public computer.)

66.2.146.0/24 blocked for 48hrs

It said to announce it here on Range blocks, i've blocked that range because of extreme unpoliteness to say the least to two user pages, Lucky 6.9 and Noisy, you can read the history yourself but it's not pretty. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:17, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)

Belongs to Allegience Telecom. Secretlondon 21:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
One wonders how someone actually finds it worthwile to invest time to write such utter nonsense? -- Solitude 21:54, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
it's pretty easy to write nonsense. You don't have to spend time researching the facts, or even thinking about what you are going to say. Even the tubgirl link is a very easy URL to remember. Takes almost no effort. Why they want to do it is beyond me. There is no hack value vandalizing a wiki. Some people are just strange. theresa knott 22:14, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
They do it for the same reason someone has just smashed the lights on my bike. People are cockheads. — Chameleon My page/My talk 22:24, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Oh, the examples I could list. This is a bitter, uneducated little freak we're dealing with here. Such a man. I'd love to see the look on his face if he was standing in front of me! What's more, I went and looked at the edit history and I wasn't mean to the guy regarding my delete vote. I even said it was a nice gesture! - Lucky 6.9 23:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The dude really likes to vandalize my user talk page in the early hours of the morning, when he knows I'm not on. Mike H 01:26, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Save, VFD, Save

I keep on getting database errors when saving VFD. It's getting annoying. JFW | T@lk

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/temp. Apparently, it's a database error. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:53, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This is fixed now. Sorry it took so long. -- Tim Starling 05:59, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Bot request

Bot request moved to Wikipedia_talk:Bots --Wclark 15:05, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)

Pronouncing highlighted words

Hello, This is my first time writing at any website, so here goes... I am wondering if it is possible to include the proper/standard pronounciation of a featured (highlighted) word.

Specifically: I clicked on "cloture" from the cover page and was wondering if it is pronounced as it would be in French, or if it has been Americanized. (With the accent on the first or second sylable/hard or soft 'u'?)

(I know there is a dictionary here, as well,... but thought it might be useful to include a quick reference pronounciation so that you don't have to jump around so much; as I find this website so engrossing that I often spend WAY too much time semi-mindlessly grousing from one place to another...)

PS - I'm trying to sign this! Please bear with my/our newbieness! Sincerely, hotdiggittydave (and Lauria)

If you are logged in, you can sign using four tildes (~~~~). Angela. 14:25, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Personally, I love when people include pronounciations; my only beef is when they use obscure systems for writing it. Please feel free to edit articles you know, and include pronounciations. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:11, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What do you mean by "obscure systems"? What we definitely don't want is the proliferation of ad-hoc pronunciations such as "pruh-NUN-see-ay-shuns", since they simply don't work for non-English speakers, or those with regional accents, etc. The International Phonetic Alphabet and derivatives of SAMPA are much more useful since they attempt to establish some absolute sound values. SAMPA isn't perfect but until Unicode is totally pervasive it's probably the best we can do. Graham 06:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
P.S. It's "CLO-chure". HTH.

Thanks for the tips/clarification and Welcome!!! Keep up the great work :-) ```` -hotdiggittydave and Lauria

Wikipedia advertising

I believe some of the money we donate should go to t-shirts' posters and the so...I could talk to Jimmy Wales about it if you guys think its a good idea. I was thinking of Black shirts for the guys, with the Im a wikipedian in white on front and Are you Wikipedia.org on back, with the same for girls but inverse colors on shirt and lettering. The idea would be for us wikipedians to buy these products , hats, posters, shirts, 9specially clothes items) and wear them on our reunions, school, trips to the mall, in oder to promote the site to other, future writers. We could also have bumperstickers in our cars, etc etc..

I believe we can be the Sex and The City of the 2000s, the thing people will talk about most when they remember our decade and when I love the 2000s is madeby MTV we should be there.

What do you guys think?

Thanks and God bless!

Sincerely yours, "Antonio, Mandy and Tiffy are the 2000s! Martin

See Wikipedia merchandise at CafePress if you haven't already. David Remahl 12:34, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Glad to see there's already some merchandise because I think the phrase Are you Wikipedia.org stinks. What does it mean? And why no question mark? --bodnotbod 15:43, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
Since we are not yet at the end of 2004, goodness knows what will define the nostalgia for the "noughties"? A case in point is the "sixties" of which popular culture is now more weighted on the images and ideas of the decade's second half. Dainamo 08:17, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

MERGE TIME!

The Mirabal sisters and Mirabal sisters need to be merged. Thanks and God bless you1

"Antonio (singing like Elton John) Merger life!! the Merger of life..lol! Martin"

We have an entire page for listing duplicate articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of Wikipedia:Sandbox

I should really be asking this at Wikipedia_talk:Sandbox but I doubt too many people have that on their watchlist, and it is liable to get trashed. I think it would be a good idea to rename the sandbox to Wikipedia:Test area. At least in the UK, the word sandbox is not widely known - it is generally restricted to computer-savvy users for whom the sandbox is a common concept. As happily WP now has lots of non-computer-savvy editors, it would be good to help them out. I think a test area would be more widely used than the sandbox, thus reducing the clean up burden on RC-watchers.

I have a feeling that sandbox has a wider usage in the US? Even if this is true, Americans will still understand test area, so I see this as no-lose change. Sound ok to you? Pcb21| Pete 08:07, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sound good to me, at least :). Thue | talk 11:09, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sandbox. It's a box. Has sand in it. Little kids play around in it and make sandcastles. :) - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 12:32, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yeah... it's not international enough. Pcb21| Pete 12:51, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In England that's a sandpit. "Sandbox" is unknown. Marnanel 14:34, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't like it. Sandbox is a feature of any wiki, and it's well known as such. Dori | Talk 12:59, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
It is aimed at being helpful to the general reader, rather than those already familiar with wikis (who probably don't need to use it! :)) Pcb21| Pete 13:12, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's also been mentioned as a Sandbox in many news articles. It will confuse those first time readers who come looking for a Sandbox and have trouble finding it. Dori | Talk 13:21, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
I really don't buy that at all. I think it is more that you just like the old name better. Pcb21| Pete 15:07, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Isn't that what a REDIRECT is good for? Actually I think someone's already done it, so unless there's one of those war thingies over it, this is now a moot point. --Phil | Talk 13:33, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
I agree completely with what Dori said. Having a sandbox is as much part of a wiki as having "edit this page". Please don't change it. Angela. 14:20, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What's next? Will we be moving Wikipedia:Village pump to Wikipedia:Talk area? I strongly concur with Dori and Angela. Please move it back. -- Hadal 14:25, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Another 'vote' to keep it the way it was and has always been. As my own English is a mixture of British and American English, I never realized there was a difference in what a sandbox is called. Which brings me to the point: what is the sand-filled box in a playground called in the United Kingdom? This is only a matter of curiosity. No matter what the response is, I think the page should remain where it is. - David Remahl 14:28, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's called a sandpit.
I personally find the reasons to move it back utterly unconvincing. Wikis traditionally have a sandbox because they grew out of computing background where there is a history of using this word with (roughly) this meaning. No-one has told me why my original point about accessibility was wrong, only said something about "wiki tradition". Wikipedia is about the least wiki wiki there is! Pcb21| Pete 15:07, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[Daily grumpy-ometer reading : high] Maybe we should also note this sacred wiki tradition on our article on wiki. Pcb21| Pete (against IRC groupthink since 2004)
Fair 'nuff, move it back again. Then we can have a REDIRECT at Test Area to satisfy those who like that name, and everybody will be happy... and later on in the show, a troop of monkeys will fly out of my butt singing the Hallelujah Chorus --Phil | Talk 14:35, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
Basically US english speakers will know what a sandbox is. UK english speakers will known it is some sort of computer test area (if they've come across it). Until recently I had no idea that a sandbox was a sandpit. I just presumed it was jargon. Secretlondon 20:11, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Test area is far too suggestive, at least to my mind, of nuclear testing. Do we really want to go there? A redirect is okay, but certainly not renaming. By the way, I've created Wikipedia:Sandpit as another redirect. --Michael Snow 17:56, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Given that the nature of the page means there is no need to preserve the data on this page, we can easily support both names. -- Jmabel 01:17, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm sitting on the fence here. As a British, non-technical person I found Sandbox not at all intuitive. However, I think it's cute ;o) But I do feel that any time you have two names for one thing confusion reigns. The uninitiated are bound to assume that the two names refer to different things. --bodnotbod 15:32, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
"Sandpit" would be cute. "Sandbox" is incomprehensible. "Test area" or "Testing page" is neutral. It should be moved back to a standard and international location. — Chameleon My page/My talk 15:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can't edit all sections of an article?

Maybe it's just me, since I just started looking on this thing today, but I could swear that there is no way to edit the first sections of articles. An example of this is that the first editable section of the entry for Bakersfield is Geography, while there is a whole paragraph above that. Specifically, I was wondering what to do about the factual error(s) in the heading for the "Jesus" entry.

Hope I'm not just being a newbie... but that's what I am.

Instead of hitting the [edit] button, hit the "edit this page" tab at the top. You should be able to edit anything there. Fuzheado | Talk 06:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that loads the entire page, which may not be entirely desirable. This bug has been submitted at sourceforge. Dysprosia 06:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What I usually do is to load the first edit button, then change the "1" at the end to a "0". Annoying, but better than nothing. Ambivalenthysteria 06:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I want to put a link from the German Page de:Commodore Produktübersicht to the Product line section of the Commodore International page. I tried [[Commodore International#Product line]], but that didn't work. I tried [[Commodore_International#Product_line]], but that didn't work either . Salasks 03:36, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interwiki links to sections do not work, except with external link style. Hence, the link has to be in the page, instead of in the edge (done). The HTML has the code %23 for #, which does not work.--Patrick 11:02, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Categorizing images

  • Hello I am a user from to Wikipedia in spanish. My propose it´s show you that I discovered two days ago.
  • The images may to be categorized, and then it´s more easy for users to find the image what they need for those article. In "enWikip" you have 11360 images, and so it´s very difficult to find one image for to put in one article. If you will be categorize all images, for theme (topic), then to search the image it´s easy.
  • How?: In the page of the image you must edit and to put the [[Category: Topic (image)]] where "Topic" it´s the category like it to have in the articles, but adding the suffix (images) (witn a space between). So in all images. Each images accept several categories, it´s very "recomendable" what not only edit one category, but also all categories which the images "in".
  • The categories so creates, they must categorized in the three o subcategorized, where the category master it´s : [[Category:Images]] . This category, and the rest of subcategories, appear in the page of categories but, they difference from categories of articles, in the suffix (images) .
  • I have create the category images and i have introduced one image for to show you like this to do. You can to see Category:Images for details.. in the Spanish Wikipedia, y have categorized around 80 images and you can to see there, if here you don´t understand the "how" : http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Im%E1genes
  • I´m sorry , what you now for me you hace more work , but it´s one step more, for to arrive to our "meta"...
  • If you have any doubts quetion me, (in the wikipedia spanish, please : shame user), but me english it´s bad... lucky: .. --Crescent Moon 22:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • One more thing: you must to tel this to another wikipedia´s in another countries ... --Crescent Moon 22:31, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oddity in a table

There's an oddity in the table on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ID where the first line "Bali" is indented, by way of having extra spaces in the html <pre> even though in the wiki source I can't see a reason for it. ;Bear 21:25, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

Seems due to the tabs in the wikitext, hence it seems better to use spaces.--Patrick 23:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nude Pictures

Is there a policy? I think as long as they are not porn pictures we should be able to post them

  • It has pretty much been decided that clinical-esque photos (such as those on penis and clitoris) are just at the edge of what is acceptable. →Raul654 03:15, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Eh? Decided where? Don't remember that at all. I don't think we have really visited the question at all. I think that the question would merely be of showing that there is a reasonable rationale for the image, and that it is suitable for the subject of the article. For example images of porn have been posted in articles, but mostly only from "classical" era or previous. This question has yet to be seriously tested. -- Cimon

  • I think each picture would have to be discussed on its own merits, probably on the talk page of the article the image is added to. What are you proposing? Everybody will have their own boundaries of taste. For example, I'd readily accept a black and white nude photograph taken by a respected photographer if it was indicative of his work and we had permission to use it. However, I don't see that a picture of full, penetrative, amateur sex is going to add much to pornography. --bodnotbod 15:25, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)


We allow people to link all sort of pov links both pro and con to certain people and topics why can we not allow people to post extral links to nude pix?

We do accept images of people without clothes -- Penny Rimbaud hasn't offended anyone for months. --Zigger 14:35, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)

I would say that Penny Rimbaud is an example of appropriate use. From what I can tell, that photo is actually not unrepresentative of who he is and what he's about.
In contrast, I refer you to the history of Reese Witherspoon, where there are over a dozen attempts by (I believe) one user to link a nude screen cap of Reese in the one movie I know of where she actually did nudity. There are also over a dozen reverts by 7 or 8 different users. Did she do a nude scene? Yes. Is the image representative of her work? No.
The poster's rationale was "The human body is beautiful" as far as I can tell. (Now his rationale is probably "let's see how many times I can post this and annoy people" but that's a different question.) He's not contending that it's representative of her work or personality, just that it's a cute picture.
Would you argue that this is an acceptable place to put a nude photo? - Kenwarren 20:48, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

yes i think any picture of a nude person is acceptable place on wikipedia look at some of the articles we already have why not allow nude pix. How do we know it a he? I think it is representative of her personality I am sure Reese is probably naked everyday like most people are naked everyday.

I would say that including a link to that photo isn't really right, as it's nowhere near representative of her work. That said, images of a porn starlet should probably be hidden behind links, but available, as reflective of her work. Also, unlike Bodnotbod, I think pornography would be more NPOV with a better external links section and perhaps a few examples--again, hidden behind links. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I just don't see what the big deal of including nude pictures along as the person knew they were being taken of them and they are not pornographic. It doese not have to be the main picture or the only pix but really it is only the human body people also why do people automatically associate porn pictures with nudity?

Many people would be suprised and even offended to see nudity in articles unrelated to nudity. Why offend them just because we don't think it's a big deal? It's part of the Neutral Point of View -- we present the facts relating to an issue in a neutral way, without trying to win people over to any opinions we hold ourselves. It would be kind of like putting pictures of bacon in articles about Israel; to me, "it's just bacon", but to many people interested in Israel it would seem like an insult. It wouldn't add anything to the article and is likely to make people question the neutrality of the 'pedia. Lunkwill 18:27, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is a good point about the bacon but So why do we allow links to pages that are "anti that person" that might offended a reader as well

I'm not proposing this is the right approach, but if the article is about bacon a picture of bacon is appropriate, so surely if an article were on a specific subject relating to porn then a picture of the subject could be portrayed, provided of copurse it were not illegal. There seems some logic in this and to suggest otherwise would surely be POV? In fact I cannot think of a reason that is not POV in some way. In interests of decency we may not wish to porray it in a similar fashion that a picture of "vomit" under an article of the same name name (I have not checked) but even this is POV. Hence, for better or worse, Wikipedia cannot ever be 100% NPOV in its approach. Just an intersting, if not useful, point :) Dainamo 22:46, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I would agree with this. In fact, since the image is marginally relevant in that case, I've left the link our anonymous editor added to the Twilight article. - Kenwarren 14:03, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Info needed on wiki specifics

  • I need to know how to edit the boilerplate links eg {India}} ?
  • I once came across some wikipedia user statistics showing the most active contributors, and other such data. Where do I find it?
  • The Snow article contains records which seem to be US records? Are these the world records or US records? If the latter, can corrections be undertaken by someone?

Thanks ¶ nichalp 20:35, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Boilerplate text accessed by {{India}} is in Template:India, and so on. Marnanel 20:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits lists data and also links to several relevent pages, although the data listed on the current page may not be accurate. Acegikmo1 21:10, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Editing offline with a text editor

Is there any software I can download to enable me to see texts I am editing whilst off line? I make use of stuff from 1911 Encyclopaedia, edited in NoteTab Pro, which enables me to get foreign accents and also the spelling right. I would like to be able to do this and then go online to upload only when I am satified the job looks right. Apwoolrich 19:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was working on an application called WikiEdit that would allow you to WYSIWYG edit text (and images, tables, etc.) for Wikipedia. It'd let you see the rendered text in one pane while editing with Wikimarkup in the other pane. It also had spell check and such. The text would then save out in wikimarkup, ready to be uploaded to the 'pedia. But no one else seemed interested in it, so I abondoned the project. I haven't heard, but perhaps someone else has such an editor. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:32, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
I'd be interested in such a project, even if it wasn't full WYSIWYG. At present I often copy from an edit box, in order to get the unformatted Wikitext, and then edit that offline using a dumb editor. It wouldn't be hard to improve on that, surely! On the other hand, it seems to work quite well, perhaps because I'm accustomed to using the edit box online, which is also a dumb editor (even dumber than the ones I use offline) and seems to work well too.
But the main problem with the approach I currently use is it doesn't even warn of edit conflicts, you need to check for these manually. I see a potential problem there if a smarter editor was available for offline editing use than for online editing. The prospect of a generation of newbies all innocently editing offline with no edit conflict warnings is horrible to contemplate. This is IMO not a trivial thing to solve, I may be wrong there. Andrewa 21:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That would just be divine. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 03:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Edit conflicts are a concern, but it is rare that I edit an article and run into one (I guess I don't edit popular articles often). That being said, since conflicts are a concern, the user would need to check to see if anyone edited his article since the time they "grabbed" the text from the edit box (I envisioned taking existing text from the edit box to get the current wikimarkup). If not, they could paste their text in with no worries. If they authored a brand new article, however, no worries. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:13, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with MozEx? :) --ssd 04:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Text editor support for more info about MozEx and discussion of wikipedia support in emacs and vim. - Brona 02:29, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Permissibility of Including Promotional Images

I was wondering, for articles on such artistic creations like comic books and films and related articles, is it permissible to include images of magazine covers and video packages in the articles? These are images that are supposedly meant to be freely displayed in a marketing effort.

IANAL, but I'm fairly certain that use of such images is covered under fair use. That is, pictures of such things are covered under fair use, but I am not certain you can just lift an image off a web site and use it here. But I have used scans I've made of covers of books and such in several articles, and they are covered under fair use. If you want to use someone else's scan, for example, contact them and ask for permission. If they give it, include that information with the image when you upload it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:37, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
It is hardly "anal" to request clarification on a matter of image policy. - User:Kchishol1970
Hehe. IANAL = "I am not a lawyer". I'm pretty sure that covers are Wikipedia:fair use as well. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:22, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry about the acronym. I've found this site, AcronymFinder, pretty helpful for acronyms I don't recognize. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:16, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Deleting

If anyone is in the mood for deleting some copyvios, Wikipedia:Copyright problems is pretty full. I just don't have time for that big a task right now. Dori | Talk 17:27, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

I just removed a bunch of spam links to [13] that had been posted by two different anon IPs to seemingly random pages (for example, Stevenage and Leisure Suit Larry). Is there any way I can search within the content of external links to see if this URL has been posted from any other IPs? I've tried a Google search, which found me one of the IPs (and enabled me to remove some spam for the same site from the Belorussian and Polish Wikipedias - my first international edits!) -- ALargeElk | Talk 15:55, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The only way to search for these is for a developer to run an SQL query across all the wikis. You can request this at m:Requests for queries. To have a site added to the spam filter, ask at m:Non-development tasks for developers. Angela. 21:40, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Summarised sections

Ampersands in article titles broken?

I seem to be having trouble accessing articles with ampersands in their titles, for example Blohm & Voss BV 222 or Pratt & Whitney. Is this a known bug, or is it something on my end? Haven't had any trouble with this before today. --Rlandmann 02:27, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I can't reach Slaughter & the Dogs on either the Dutch or the English Wikipedia. I guess the problem is due to the ampersand ('&'). What am I to do? (I want to read about Slaughter & the Dogs every day in englisk as well as in dutch or else I'll turn into a werewolf-kind of creature.) BvdP 

::(Just noticed this problem was mentioned before. Sorry.) BvdP again (not yet werewolf.)
OK - not just my problem - I'll file a bug report. --Rlandmann 02:43, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This should be fixed now. -- Tim Starling 04:17, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Countermeasures

I wasn't sure about something, and wanted to bring it up here. Basically, mirror versions are appearing much higher in google than we are. The explanation people give for this is that they're somehow manipulating the pagerank system. My question is not "how" (I'm not technical enough to really grasp), but rather "Could we do this too?". [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:44, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

One key way they seem to do this is by including a series of phrases such as (for an article called Stuff): "What is Stuff? Information about Stuff. Stuff definition..." — Chameleon My page/My talk 15:07, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How could we do this without putting it in the article text? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:42, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Pronouns

Our policy with regards to articles on pronouns, and other very common words, needs to be rationalized. Currently we have three systems in place:

  1. Than, The, Who, We, It, and A, an all have their own articles. In the past these pages have been defended as being encyclopedic in that they included information on origin, pronunciation, and usage [14]. I would argue that this makes them very good dict. defs., but still not encyclopedia articles.
  2. Some like He and And redirect to more general articles e.g. He redirects to Gender-specific pronoun. Some like That are disambig pages listing multiple uses.
  3. Many like Their, Our do not exist in any form or, like Them, are disambig pages with no mention of the word's use as a pronoun.

My opinion is that (2) is the best option and that the extant articles should be transwikied to wiktionary, which does not yet have articles of such quality on these words. Redirects to a general article on that type of word should then be made. For instance, The should become are redirect to Grammatical article. Finally almost all pages that link to these words should be checked as most of them break the "do not link everyday words" rule. (e.g. [15]) What do others think? - SimonP 02:39, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

"He" redirecting to "Gender-specific pronoun" is pretty peculiar. A redirect to "pronoun" would be better, unless we're devoted to "agenda-specific redirects". - Nunh-huh 04:15, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've changed it to #REDIRECT Pronoun. The other article has an obvious agenda. — Chameleon My page/My talk 09:06, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Speedy Deletes

In an effort to maintain the quality of Wikipedia, I often go through the new pages to see which ones are usuable and which are useless stubs or worse nonsense (I just saw one entitled HolographicWiki with text qzzdz--that is the extent of the article). How can these be speedily deleted? I am not a sysop, and I don't really want to become one anytime soon. How can I get rid of these quickly without posting them on Vfd?--naryathegreat 01:04, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

  • I share your concern, and the designers of wikipedia do as well. So they invented the {{delete}} tag, take a look here: Wikipedia:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion, some guidelines are presented as to what signifies a "speedy delete". Good luck. -- Solitude 01:51, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The {{delete}} tag is great. I usually review the "new articles" page at the end of the day and can quickly use this tag to mark candidates for speedy deletion. On the other hand, I find that the procedure to post an article on VfD is way too long and complicated: put {{subst:vfd}} on the article, go to the VfD page, copy/paste the boilerplate at the end of the page, insert the name of the article, edit the post, etc. I think it is too much work for silly articles that cannot be speedy deleted. Don't you think so? --Alexandre 08:44, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You should've seen VfD back in the day before we had this complex system. You couldn't vote without an edit conflict. It was a constant race to see who could vote first. Therefore, we've had to impliment this system. Edit conflicts were supposedly fixed in this new version of MediaWiki, but sadly this form of edit conflict resolution merely removed sections of the page at random. So until we can come up with a better system, VfD will stay complicated, sadly. Johnleemk | Talk 15:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Guanaco

Someone please ask this person to check the edits before just reverting all entires made by AOL users thanks 64.12.116.134 00:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

why not create an account so we can all get to know you? Erich 02:16, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I do check the edits. This person is complaining because I reverted the insertion of empty section headers. Guanaco 05:25, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

They are currently empty because it a new team and once more players are added they will be used. Do you go thru ever page that some people write "more information is needed" and delete that.13:59, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

errr, I say again, why not create an account so we can all get to know you? like they say: its free and takes seconds. Your edits will get more benefit of the doubt if you let us get to know you. best wishes Erich 01:09, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
errr I don't like free and easy and seconds is too quick

dealing with difficult behaviour proposal

While there is debate about how significant a problem disruptive editors actually are on Wikipedia, many of us believe we could handle them better than we have been. So a few of us have been tinkering with a formal approach at Wikipedia talk:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors (WP:DWDAE). This idea aims to improve on the proposals at Wikipedia:Dealing with trolls and Wikipedia:Trolling poll, by providing a framework more in keeping with principles of natural justice. The policy should place a fair system in the gaps between the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process, Wikipedia:Banning policy, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism policy and the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. It does not seek to replace any of the above, but allows efficient management of recalcitrant, difficult, problem behaviour.

In summary, an ad hoc tribunal of three admins may summarily block a user for 24 hours for repeated antisocial or disruptive behaviour, if they follow due process.

  1. First warning to user and notice to community that a user may need direction
  2. Final warning to user if problem edits continue
  3. Presentation of two edits made after final warning, followed by institution of block

Users that repeat problem behaviour despite previous blocks, or sock puppets attempting to bypass blocks, are given less leeway and may be blocked for up to 96 hours.

The time line for refining and considering this policy:

  1. Editing by all interested parties until about midday UTC 23 July 2004
  2. A minor edit only cooling off period of 48 hours (to prevent any deliberate last-minute subversion of consensus) lasting until midday 25 July 2004
  3. A two week voting period finishing midday UTC 8 August 2004
  4. If there isn't a clear consensus, but hope of reaching one then this cycle may repeat until an acceptable consensus is reached or hope fades.

On first read the proposed policy is complicated, so it does need a bit of your time to consider it. But if accepted this proposal would be a significant change in the way things work. Please come and have a look, especially if you think you may have trouble supporting it. We still have until midday UTC 23 July 2004 to get it right. Best wishes Erich 23:38, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

cleanup vs. merge vs. copyvio?

I was looking for something to do, and happened across Aramean. I did a search on Google and came up with http://www.elexi.de/en/a/ar/aramaean.html, from which Aramean appears to have been copied, then minor edits performed (rearrange, change a word here and there, etc., but nothing substantive). There's a comment in German at the bottom that may say that the article was based on information from Wikipedia, but I don't read German. Should I list it as a copyright violation?

Also, I applied a cleanup and rewrite to Abraham Merritt for similar reasons earlier. Was that appropriate?

Thanks! - Kenwarren 23:22, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

The text at the bottom of http://www.elexi.de/en/a/ar/aramaean.html translates as: "This article is based on the article 'Aramaean' from the free encyclopedia Wikipedia and is released under the GNU Free Documentation License. The list of authors is available in the Wikipedia at this page, the article can edited here." (with links) -- Jitse Niesen 00:12, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Search function

I've just written a stub on Fay Weldon's novel The Life and Loves of a She-Devil. I do remember reading the title spelled slightly differently (i.e. probably wrongly -- "Lifes" or "Lives" or no hyphen, I don't know) in another Wikipedia article some days ago, but there is no way I can get at it through the search function ("Go", "Search", or whatever). Who can help? <KF> 19:54, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Placing your search terms in quotes works. Hence searching for "she devil" turns up Dillie Keane. - 20:08, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
Great. Thanks an awful lot. <KF> 20:13, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Michigan

I'm taking a trip in Michigan now, and I've been thinking of taking some pictures for Wikipedia. I'll be spending the bulk of the time in three places:

Are there any Wikipedia articles that are about landmarks near those places, where the article has no picture? If so, I might be able to come there and photograph it. We're considering going to a Tigers game, and I notice Comerica Park doesn't have a picture, so if we go, I'll take a picture for Wikipedia. But are there any other articles that could use pictures?

Also, should airport articles have pictures? 4.165.192.87 18:56, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) (User:LuckyWizard who didn't take the time to log in)

ANY article can benefit from a picture that adds to the understanding of the subject matter. Airports would benefit best, likely, from layout diagrams and such; if the architecture is notable, then a photo would certainly be in order; or any other unique and beneficial visual information. Just my 2 cents on that. Radagast 22:57, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

British summer

Jesus, it is absolutely pissing it down out there. This has got to be the worst summer in Britain on record. Mintguy (T) 10:28, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hehe it's really nice in Denmark, sitting on my patio with a beer and Wikipedia stretched outbefore me. NM, I guess I will get rained on in a few weeks when I come back to watch Plymouth Argyle F.C. in action at the weekends Sjc 10:35, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm in London and it's warm in an oppressive way. I suppose I don't help myself much in that I tend to walk very quickly and wear my moleskin jacket (otherwise I have no pocket to put my mp3 walkman into). I end up returning home with steam rising off my back like a racehorse. --bodnotbod 15:53, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Good or Bad?

I found that more and more foreign-made words are being poured into English WP as entries. I don't know if these words make sense to English speakers, and I am wondering if it's good or bad for the developement of English WP? --Yacht (talk) 10:17, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Examples, please. David Remahl 10:31, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can't give you the accurate examples, because English is not my mother tongue, i just come across some words i don't think they are normal English words, or foreign-like words (like Führer, Fribytaren på Östersjön, Yuri, Yuzu etc.) I don't know if they are already widely used in English, or just neologies (aren't there any corresponding English words for them? I don't even know how to read them). I am just worrying if this may happen: every language creates the corresponding synonym entry for that in English.--Yacht (talk) 16:16, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

I believe the policy is to use the English name if it exists and it is more popular. Otherwise, the local name is used with any appropriate redirects. Dori | Talk 16:39, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

You could make a case that a large part of English stolen foreign words! 'I', 'Found', 'word' all come to Old English from proto Germanic roots, 'foreign' and 'pour' are from old French, 'made' comes to English from West Germanic, 'entry' is from Middle French. Wiki of course is Hawaiian, 'pedia' probably from Greek, misunderstood by Latin scholars. You were 'wondering', which comes to us through old English from proto Germanic, whether this affects the 'development' (a French word). Interestingly, noone seems to know where 'bad' comes from, but 'good' is another proto-Germanic word. I wouldn't let it keep you up at night. PS. Yacht is from Norwegian! Mark Richards 17:17, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There's quite a well-known and oft-quoted saying: The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary. [16]. Führer is a commonly understood word from the events of the 1930s and 40s; the second example is the title of a Swedish book which I'm unfamiliar with, though the article gives a translation; Yuri I've not come across, while Yuzu apparently is a Japanese fruit, so it's not surprising that there isn't an English name for it. I thought Yacht came from Dutch! [17] -- Arwel 18:33, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could be Dutch - probably one of them stole it from the other! It's actually good to have the vigor which comes from importing words, it helps to keep language vibrant. The point about mapping Latin grammar is also good, the Victorians thought that latin should be the model for languages. In Latin you CAN'T split and infinitive, so in English you shouldn't? Go figure. Mark Richards 18:49, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

the purity of English is one thing, while what i am concerning is another. I hope people don't think English WP is a romanization version of their own languages, and create thousands of entries in their romanized languages that should be in English (just like i created an entry Nie Zi for Crystal Boys, but later, i know there is an English name for it, so i deleted the Nie Zi which may make no sense to English speakers). About Yacht, i think it's a German word, and that's why i chose that. :) --Yacht (talk) 18:03, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Main_page link to wikiquote (at the bottom) might be wrong.

Sorry, I don't know where to post this, but the link there goes to quote.wikipedia.org. I thought maybe it should point to wikiquote.org since the quote.wikipedia.org does not exist. Dijiyd 09:49, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

The interwiki link "Wikibooks:" does not work anymore, it goes to the non-existing http://en.wikibooks.org/ instead of http://wikibooks.org/ ! I changed the redirect in   for now, but lots of links must be broken!--Patrick 18:57, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

http://en.wikibooks.org/ may exist quite soon if there consensus at Wikibooks about it, so don't worry about the changing the links just yet. They will probably work again soon, and if Wikibooks doesn't split to sub-domains, the shortcut link will be fixed to point to just wikibooks.orrg again. Angela. 21:20, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I see. Odd that an interwiki link definition is changed on the basis of a possible future new domain.--Patrick 00:11, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't realised I changed it. We have a redirect set up from *.wikibooks.org to wikibooks.org, but apparently it doesn't work because wikibooks.org is another incorrectly configured domain name owned by Mav rather than Wikimedia. The links should be fixed shortly. -- Tim Starling 10:49, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
OK, thanks.--Patrick 11:44, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Uh.. I see. Is this the same case with the http://quote.wikipedia.org and http://wikiquote.org as seen in the sister sites?

Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other volunteer projects:

Here. -Dijiyd 12:13, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

VfD precedents

I spent the day scanning through the history of VfD from late 2001 until September of last year. I did so to gather information to make a new page: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents.

This page is an attempt to make a collection of precedent setting VfD decisions. These decisions are the first time I noticed Wikipedians confronting a certain issue, or the first time a convention breaking decision was reached.

While pages like What Wikipedia is not play an important roll in VfD decisions the body of precedent we have created also plays a crucial roll. However, those precedents tend to be only vaguely remembered and only by veteran Wikipedians. It is hoped this page can act as a quick reference to remind old users and educate new ones of previous landmark VfD decisions. - SimonP 05:10, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Should we rename you SimonP Wendell Holmes? -- Jmabel 05:59, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Nice, makes for quite an interesting read, although I think Wikipedia policy and standards change faster than law, so we should keep it in perspective. -- Solitude 08:49, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Congratulations on a useful piece of work, it must have taken a very long time to prepare - Adrian Pingstone 08:59, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What would now be a good idea would be to review some of these decisions by renominating pages for deletion. For instance, under current practice there is no way Puchland or MineSweeper3D would have survived VfD. - SimonP 15:50, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
Very interesting analysis thank you. Proof if it were needed that vfd has become steadily more deletionist. Perhaps the question is not so much to review old nominations but to review current practice. Pcb21| Pete 08:54, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump/Archive_AK&oldid=1180230371"