Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive AM

Village pump
- Policy
- Technical
- Proposals (persistent)
- Idea lab
- WMF
- Miscellaneous

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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump.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

Yaargh!

I was just experimenting with My Preferences and something's gone horribly wrong. I've lost the link that's usually on the left of each page to My talk, plus those links have all moved around and it seems the page is a different colour, and some of the links at the bottom of each page seem all bunched up now, and I don't know what else. The only two things I changed were I unchecked Underline links and checked Show edit toolbar. I've changed both back, but nothing. Any suggestions? Exploding Boy 14:15, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

I've just realized that the search box has also moved from the left to the top right. It almost looks as if I'm not logged in, but I am. Exploding Boy 14:29, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Go to Preferences and to the "Skins" section. Set your skin to "MonoBook". This is an annoying bug I encountered too, but I figured it out on my own. Johnleemk | Talk 14:53, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

YESSSSSSSSSSS! But just so anyone else having problems knows, the Monobook skin turns everything into something resembling the blue screen of doom. It's the Cologne Blue skin that you want. Thanks Johnleemk. Exploding Boy 14:58, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

AFL dot com spaming

http://www.conigliofamily.com/AFLdotcom.htm

I think people who are associatied this website are using Wikipedia to promote their group. I just removed a para from the NFL which seems to be continously put back into the article. That para appears on this group website as a quote of what others are saying about the AFL. Basically implying that some neutral 3rd party thinks the AFL was so much better than the NFL.

Now I realize we are only talking about a couple of football leagues and not some hugely more important issue but spam is spam Smith03 13:56, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I made the above link into a text only link. The VP does not need to advertise them, either -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph in question seems to be:

The official scoreboard clock, two-point conversion, player names on jerseys, network-televised games, gate and television revenue sharing, and imaginative offenses were all elements of pro football that the NFL adopted from the American Football League. Even its first modern expansion, into Minnesota and Dallas, would likely have taken years longer if it had not been precipitated by the emergence of the AFL as a serious competitor to the NFL.

The first sentence would appear to be an assertion of fact. Is it true, or not? It's a little tendentious but it seems to me to be OK if factual. The second sentence is a little iffier.

The website in question, AFLdotcom, looks like a reasonably rich and interesting resource, clearly an AFL fan site and clearly "pro-AFL." The site's counter contains only 10,000 hits, not an awful lot. However, the site doesn't seem to be selling anything, and the generally amateurish presentation (e.g. they haven't bothered to shell out $9 to one of the GoDaddies of the world for a real domain name) looks to me a like an authentic labor-of-love production.

It doesn't appear to me that anything at all is being sold on the AFLdotcom site. Spam is usually defined as unsolicited commercial email. To me, this is not an issue of spam, it's an issue of whether this is a vanity site and whether it is notable. Personally, I'd leave the link in, because the site looks as if it could be moderately enjoyable for an AFL fan.

As for the paragraph it looks to me like a case for editing, rather than removal. When faced with POV material, one of the best ways to avoid edit wars is to try to edit it so that it still presents the factual point that the contributor was trying to make, while toning down the interpretation. I don't know enough about the AFL or NFL to do this myself. What is the paragraph really trying to say? Something like this?

Fans of the AFL credit the league with pioneering important elements of American football, and complain that the NFL has done little more than copy what the AFL has done. For example, the official official scoreboard clock, two-point conversion, player names on jerseys, network-televised games, gate and television revenue sharing, and imaginative offenses were all elements of pro football that the NFL adopted from the AFL.

Just my $0.02. Dpbsmith 15:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the link and site are information filled but if you check all additions that these users add not only to the NFL page but other football related articles, they have an agenda that sadly I believe because it is related to a sport is not being challenged by wikipedias. this comes from there website: It gives the appearence that some other source has come up with this conculsion instead they just wrote, regardless if they are selling something or not they are using wikipedia to further their cause.

Below are excerpts from several sources on the influence that the American Football League has had on modern professional football.

From Wikipedia, on-line encyclopedia:

Some innovative rules changes were also put into place, such as the two-point conversion (later adopted by the NFL in the 1990s); the use of the scoreboard clock as the official game clock (adopted by the NFL when the leagues merged--prior to this time, the official game clock was maintained by an official on the sidelines, and often did not match the scoreboard clock very closely); the use of player names on jerseys, (also adopted by the NFL); and the sharing of gate and television revenues between home and visiting teams (also adopted by the NFL). In short, the NFL adopted virtually every pioneering aspect of the American Football League, except its name.

By the way college football had adopted the two point conversion in the late 1950s, so the AFL "borrowed" that idea from them. One could argue that the talent level in the early years of the AFL was so poor that it lead to point a minute offensives because the defenses was so poor, Someone could write on the AFL page that they borrowed from the NFL the idea of divisions and a championship game, the idea of a college draft, a post season all star game, harsh marks, and seperate offensive and defense units, but that would be silly and pointless. I do believe that these users have provided a great deal of information but they have also slip in their agenda that gee the NFL really stoled everything from the AFL. I agree the AFL added a lot to modern day football but don't overstate it. Smith03 18:00, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On requiring users to sign in

Has there been any discussion of this anywhere? Specifically I'm wondering whether it's ever been suggested or debated whether we should require all editors to have a user name before editing? I ask because it would make recognising, tracking, and blocking vandals a lot easier. A quick look at the Block log shows that nearly all the accounts blocked for vandalism and other bad behaviour are anonymous. I think it would be fairly easy to implement such a change. Any thoughts? Exploding Boy 10:57, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

IIRC there have been such discussions before (can't provide much help tracking them down, though), and in short, the answer is: This is a Wiki. Wikis are built with the idea that anyone can contribute. I dobut we'd have as many good editors as we do now if we made logging in mandatory. A scoutmaster who copyedited Persekutuan Pengakap Malaysia anonymously was reluctant at first because he thought registration was required, until I pointed out that it's not necessary. Making registration mandatory will only turn away helpful editors and not stop determined vandals/trolls. Johnleemk | Talk 12:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See m:Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles. Angela . 12:06, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. I do like one of the suggestions (linked to the above) that anonymous users would be limited to a certain number of edits per day until registered (but not the bit about web-based email addresses).

How about coming up with some more ways to encourage people to sign up for user names? What about creating a {message} to place on anonymous users' pages? Perhaps something like:

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, and gives you many benefits, including:

The use of a username of your choice
The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
Your own user page
Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you emails without knowing your e-mail address
The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
The ability to rename pages
The ability to upload images
The ability to edit specific sections of a page
The ability to cusomize the appearance and behaviour of the website
The eligibility to become an Administrator or Sysop (can delete and undelete pages, protect them from being edited, edit protected pages, and block users for violation of our policies)
The right to be heard in formal votes and elections, and on pages like votes for deletion

We encourage you to create an account!

What do you think? Exploding Boy 12:35, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

An excellent idea, I first thought, until I realised it continued after the first sentence. :p Personally I think that "many benefits" should be a wikilink to another page describing them, similar to your bulletpoint list. Sounds like a good idea as long as it's unobtrusive (Something Awful's notice for registration is simply horrid), especially since users will be alerted to the fact that they don't have to login to edit articles. Seems win-win to me. Johnleemk | Talk 12:48, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There actually is a page that lists the benefits already, but in very long form. Since the idea is to encourage people to create an account rather than remain anonymous, I thought it would be good to make a short(ish!), easy to read list of the benefits of signing up, in an effort to lure people into doing so. And since most anonymous users don't use their user/talk pages (maybe because they don't know they have them?) this will also draw their attention to that. And if it's too long, they can always delete it! Exploding Boy 12:56, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but then having this message on every page would be quite obtrusive and disturbing. Or perhaps I misunderstood you? Johnleemk | Talk 13:12, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, not on every page, just on anonymous users' talk pages. Exploding Boy 13:25, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense I suppose. Johnleemk | Talk 13:29, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I likewise heartily endorse this idea. -- Stevietheman 18:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to go ahead and give it a try Wikipedia:Template messages. Exploding Boy 13:41, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

External links to H2G2 entries

Recently an anon edited Homeopathy by adding an external link to the H2G2 Edited Guide Entry on the subject. A quick search showed several other places where H2G2 is in the external links. We should certainly keep the ones in the H2G2 article itself; there might be a reason to keep some other particular link (e.g. we might link to an entry on a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy topic if it was written by someone who had a unique personal connection with the subject). Despite these exceptions, I think most of the links should be removed. They don't meet the general standard for external links. Before I remove any of them, though, do people think we should apply a different standard to H2G2, e.g. as a courtesy to a somewhat similar project? JamesMLane 09:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Seeing as it is a similar project in which anyone can write anything, that makes it all the less credible to link to. Unless you want to link to a sepcific revision of the document (if I understand how H2G2 works). Ilyanep (Talk) 12:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would take it strictly on an article-by-article basis. Is that H2G2 article particularly good and relevant? That sort of thing - David Gerard 13:21, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. --bodnotbod 18:25, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

using content in discusion forum

I run a UK Discussion forum/online community. Within my forum I have subforums for each and every city/town in the UK. The forum is designed to be an interactive resource for the UK. However, I am in need of basic content to kick start these regional boards.

My question is: Can I use the content available here in my forum by posting it? If I can, what steps do I need to take?

Thanks

Sure. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Users.27_rights_and_obligations. Johnleemk | Talk 06:43, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Notice of poll opening for managing disruptive or antisocial editors

Polling opens on the proposed new policy for managing disruptive or antisocial editors at midday (UTC) today.

A number of us have been thrashing out the details for the policy for the last two weeks and I previously invited everybody at the troll polls and here at the pump to participate. There has been some healthy debate and the policy is now locked for two weeks to allow us to vote.

There are still some points that will need a bit more discussion and these may produce secondary poll questions or we may put them off until after the policy has been tried for a while.

Please come and vote! (from midday UTC)

Be warned this is a relatively complex proposal for a difficult problem. So if your initial reaction is to vote against the proposal then I urge you pause before voting. There is no rush. Voting is open for two weeks. Take the time to read the frequently raised objections on the talk page and re-read the policy. If the FROs dont deal with your concern then please raise it again on the poll or policy talk pages. Hopefully one of us can then explain the rationale for why policy is as it is and we can work through alternatives. We may also be able to frame a secondary poll question if needed. Best wishes to all and see you at the poll! Erich 04:38, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

where are the images?

I tried to add Image:HAtomOrbitals.png to the quantum mechanics article, but images don't seem to be showing up right now; not even the VP picture in this page is showing up for me. Ancheta Wis 00:38, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The picture is showing up for me; so it must be a problem with your browser of CSS settings. Have you been messing around with your user CSS lately? [[User:Mike Storm|Mike Storm (Talk)]] 01:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The picture is showing up for me, too. I added it to the quantum mechanics page, and the picture is showing fine. Please check the caption. --Chris 73 | Talk 01:34, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you both for your information. The VP image is showing up now, with no actions on my part. I will look at the QM article. Ancheta Wis 07:59, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The caption is good. No acceleration of the electron is implied, so we don't have to explain away any radiation from the charge, etc. Ancheta Wis 08:04, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The caption is not good. It uses terms not explained in the accompanying article. Please rephrase and link to the hydrogen atom article which explains the notation and the image. Gdr 23:23, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

Child Safety and Wikipedia

Is there a policy in Wikipedia to deal with the inclusion of material that may be considered unsuitable for children?

Obviously Wikipedia is about open sharing of information. However there are entrie that will inflame some parents and terrify school administrators. (see Oral sex) What will inflame some parents will not cause a stir among others. Wikipedia and censorship to not go together, however it will be a tragedy if Widipedia is blocked in its entirity from schools.

Yes. The policy is that this is an encyclopedia, and it's up to parents to monitor what their children read, not us. RickK 23:38, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

So, for example, does a list of which movies Drew Barrymore appears nude suitable for inclusion in an encyclopeadia? Paul Beardsell 23:41, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, because the information is sub-trivial. That she has appeared nude, and even a semi-nude photo of her, would be of value to the encyclopedia, but a list of someone's opinion as to whether she was or was not nude is not. And besides, you've only given half the information. Was it full frontal nudity, rear nudity, side, partial, see, your trivia could get even more trivial, so why stop there? RickK 23:53, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wikipedia relies on self-censorship. That is an ethic that I subscribe to. I don't believe that formalising the system will make any difference. On the other issue, all I can say to Paul Beardsell is "Grow up". Noisy 23:59, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If resorting to bowdlerism is being grown up then I want none of it. Presumably Noisy actually knows what side of the argument I am on. Paul Beardsell 00:04, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, why stop there? [1] Paul Beardsell 00:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is so much useless sub-trivia on Wikipedia. Why are we discussing only nudity references? Paul Beardsell 00:09, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are two legitimate concerns here - protecting Wikipedia from being blocked by censorware vs keeping our content as accurate as possible. Our ad-hoc policy is one of common sense - if you go to penis, don't be surprised if you see an explicit photo - it's assumed that you knew what you were getting into by going to that article. By and large, it's generally understood that clinical anatomical pictures are OK, but that's about as far as we're willing to go.

Also, we only put that kind of content in places you would "expect it". By the same token, there's a concern that we shouldn't "push" that kind of content onto people, which is why it is unlikely that such a picture will ever make it to the main page.

As far as a list of nude pictures that Drew Barrymore has appeared in - a text list isn't even close to something we'd need to censor. →Raul654 00:16, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Besides, thats a hypothetical example of the problem of unecyclopedicness and superficiality - not of decency. ;) -SV

Well, where in Wikipedia would one expect to find a list of the pictures that Drew Barrymore appears nude in? I too am not entirely sure that the list is important enough to be included, but somebody thought so. What I was objecting to was the removal of that information, the Wikipedia default being that info is not removed. It is accurate info, presumably. That there is som much seemingly useless trivia in Wikipedia does not lead RickK to delete that. When he does the nudity but leaves the rest then that is nothing less than Bowdlerism. Paul Beardsell 00:30, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Good point. (Sorry about the edit conflict - things can be hard to post here on the pump.) About keeping info versus deleting it, I tend to lean toward keeping, but in the context of a useless trivia article, triviality is fine. In the context of a biographical article about an actress, a separate list of where that actress appears nude is rather trivial. I agree theres a lot of trivial stuff on wikipedia - Pruning the category list ought to be a top priority, but there needs to be better ways to visualise it in order to get to it. -SV

This is a very topical subject these days on Wikipedia. In the general sense, the extreme ease by which materials are avaliable on the web will have a reconciling effect on the extreme interpretations of decency. On the practical side, the battle is between what should be done (according to common sensical, moderate, and agreeable standards) and what can actually be done about it. Artificial control means are completely antithetical to WP, and everything done here has to be done in the name of NPOV and openness, or it just doenst have resonance. If Wikipedia is to appeal to parents for their children's use, the basics should be considered; even vulgar topics are not to be treated profanely here, and articles that are problematic could be categorized as (adult) of (mature) in nature, and not included on certain DVD distributions of WP. If kids are online, they have access to any number of possibly profane things, and WP is the least of those. IMHO "A child-safe internet" is an oxymoron, wo then how much is Wikipedia expected to be like Netnanny or AOL, rather than what it is? -SV 00:34, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that wholeheartedly. But that very good point does not apply. We are not talking about porn or even the use of swear words. There is no way that I wish a first time user of an encyclopedia (a very advanced 6 year old, say, or an average 10 year old on their first independent school project) to be protected to the extent that (s)he is not allowed to know that sometimes people appear nude in movies. And that Drew Barrymore actually has a vagina! (Although that point does not yet appear in the article.) Paul Beardsell 00:48, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, I disagree - its not about that at all. Your talking about defending superficial use of a list - which is a methodology intrinsic to categorization; categorization must be encyclopedic. Sorry if I misunderstod the topic.SV

RickK is not removing a list but simply removing (censoring!) half a dozen occurrences of the word "nude" from the list. That lists are or are not desirable really is not the issue here. Paul Beardsell 01:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the consensus of opinion is that there is no good reason to censor the article. Who disagrees? Paul Beardsell 02:25, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it trivializes an article on a legitimate actress to highlight, in the list of her movies, which ones she appears nude in. This is not something we normally include in profiles of actors and actresses, nor shoudl we. It's one thing to discuss nude appearances, in the text of the article, where they are relevant to a person's career, and another to turn the list of what films someone has appeared into a "hey, if you want to see her naked, rent this movie." -- Jmabel 04:29, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

What would be wrong with that? It is (by definition) prudish to object to what you are objecting to. But, by your own measure, this issue is pertinent to her career and thereby acceptable. Paul Beardsell 13:35, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a generic article of Nude scenes of famous actresses would be somewhat appropriate; it *is* somewhat, vaguely, in a certain dimension and when you're looking at it with one eye closed, encyclopedic. At least for a perv like me. On a side note, every time I see "Drew Barrymore's nudity" in my Watchlist, I come here thinking someone's finally posted an example. Meanies. --Golbez 09:31, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a PICS label [www.w3.org/PICS/labels.html], or do we already? Kokiri 16:04, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The people here on this website do not care for children or about morality. As I have stated earlier, this is an adult playground and it has much filthy content that no child should read that many libraries and schools should censor this website but the great amount of contributors and the owners do not care about this. It is about them having fun. Another sign of the sickness of this society. I do not know why they think this ought to be a *source* for highschoolers. This is an anarchistic website.WHEELER 15:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure anarchy is known for its desire to create a large population of Administrators. --bodnotbod 18:16, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

More to the point, the people on this website do not care to write exclusively for children or decide what is "moral" to show tro other people's children, and realize that an encyclopedia intended for adults will -- must -- contain content not suitable for children.

The "filthy content" might briefly shock a child (assuming she even understood it), but I wager she'd be wakened by screaming nightmares for a month if she read Holocaust and saw this picture, or this one, or this one.

Should we remove those pictures from Wikipedia to "protect children"? Turn the Holocaust survivors' "never again" into "never again seen"?

Or what about Khmer Rouge and this picture of victims, some of them children like those you want to protect? Will throwing that picture down the memory hole make Wikipedia more "moral"?

What about sanitizing inconvenient pictures of American and Iraqi Casualties in the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. Are children too young for those pictures of their country's "accomplishments"? Shall we censor those pages too?

Or maybe it's a better idea for parents to sit with young children while they browse wikipedia or any site?

Truth, which is what Wikipedia aims to present, is incompatible with censorship; a Wikipedia "suitable" for children is not a Wikipedia that is useful for adults. And who decides what is suitable? You? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? The Wiccans? Fred Phelps? The Human Rights Campaign? The Republican Party? The Democratic Party?

Better to let each parent decide for his own children, rather than attempt to decide what is "moral" or "suitable" for others' children by censoring Wikipedia. -- orthogonal 16:53, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The children will be entirely safe once freedom is entirely destroyed. -- Stevietheman 17:59, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While you're making wikipedia safe for children to read, why not also simplify the language the articles are written in? Oh wait, that's already been done.

 (Thanks Orthangonal for the excellent essay above!!!!) --ssd 05:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, protecting children from TV, books, magazines etc. is their parents' job, not ours. "Children safety" should not be a concern. This is not a "family" encyclopaedia.

Secondly, use common sense. Listing all films where Drew appears nude on Drew Barrymore is like listing all films where her hair is blond. Non-encyclopedic, sub-trivial and entirely off-topic. I can understand it being mentioned in articles on individual films, if they deserve articles.

Thirdly, avoid bad taste. "Wow! She's nude, dude! nudge-nudge-wink-wink." Zocky 07:35, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do you want this resource to be used? What parent wants their children exposed to "penetration this" or "penetration that"? What libraries are going to link to this website with fist fucking and gerbil insertion techniques? Is this a playground for perverts or for the general community at large? While our site is going to remain de-linked, other online encyclopaedias are copying our work, posting it on their website and getting credit. How about establishing a family wikipedia?? a child-safe wikipedia? or a Christian wikipedia? That libraries and families can safely link too. Otherwise I feel, this site is going to be taken advantage of others and be sidelined. Has Wikipedia been turned into an adult playground for academic perverts and homosexual propagandists?WHEELER 15:11, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As often, I think that WHEELER has gone over the edge. Hear that, "academic perverts" and "homosexual propagandists"? In my humble opinion, those who obsess about "perverts" (and, worse, "academic perverts") and homosexuals are probably those who have a skewed view of reality.

If you wish to create a Christian Wikipedia, feel free to do so. The material is available under the GFDL; just find servers to host you.

I also differ with your opinions that "libraries and families can safely link" a "Christian Wikipedia". I suspect that in countries such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, a "Christian Wikipedia" would be considered inappropriate for children. This is an international web site, not just a conservative US Christian site. May I remind you that in certain locales, merely showing a photograph of a bare-headed woman is already considered indecent? David.Monniaux 06:50, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wheeler, while being quite emotional, has a legitimate point. We are striving to be an encyclopedia; that in mind, an encyclopedia is something that a child will wish to use. There is no way to mark something as unsuitable for children in this encyclopedia. Yes, what one person considers unsuitable for children may be different than what another person considers unsuitable for children. Yes, we should have all the content available, even objectionable content. However, I feel it would be a good idea to label certain pages as being unsuitable for children. Samboy 00:53, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that we add categories for classifying material that are considered potentially harmful to children in some locales: explicit description of sexual techniques, explicit anatomic photographs, discussion of religious and political propaganda. There would be different categories, so that filtering systems could make fine-grained decisions. David.Monniaux 06:50, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Whatever the ultimate solution, transparency is always better than censorship. Give people the tools to filter out "indecent" content, but beyond that, we have to keep this content FREE (as in freedom). -- Stevietheman 19:36, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Censorship sucks. And this is an international encyclopedia. In Europe, showing breasts is not considered porn. Salasks 22:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

CSS problem

I've been creating a new custom user CSS which I call "Neptune". The background code is:

/* Main body */
#content {
    margin: 2.8em 0 0 12.2em;
    padding: 0em 1em 1.5em 1em;
    background: #0099ff;
    border: 1px solid #00ffff;
    border-right: none;
    line-height: 1.5em;
    position: relative;
    z-index: 2;
}

This is supposed to make the background blue. The weird part is, on the main (or article) namespace, the background is white. On every other namespace (Wikipedia, Template, User, etc.) the background is blue (which is correct). All the other CSS code works correctly in all namespaces. How do I fix this? The entire code can be found here. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike Storm (Talk)]] 21:31, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Any suggestions? I'm having this problem too porge 11:32, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I guess it's just the specifity of the selector, background: #0099ff !important; or a more specific selector should work. -- Gabriel Wicke 00:39, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, that fixed it porge 06:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

how to pick a piece of the wikipedia

i've been searching this on the faqs. i'm writing a open software and want that in a certain moment it picks displyas information from pages in the wikipedia. i want to control it's appearance, and also add one image if there's one. so three questions:

1-where do i learn how to do it? is it a crawl? shall i use a simple bot or what?

2-well some images are copyrighted. i'm not making money of this soft, how do i know if i can use them?

3-in the end i want to link back to wikipedia. what precautions should i have to avoid bringing a horde of barbarians (i don't know who is using my soft but could be a bunch of crazy teens) who don't know anything about wiki?

thanks. i promise to move everything to the right section after. --Alexandre Van de Sande 16:44, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I personally can't help you with the technical side, but I can tell you that image use shouldn't be a problem. The vast majority of our images are under the GFDL licence. Some are used with the concept of "fair use", and if we can get away with it, so should you. If you want to play it safe and not have fair-use images at all, then don't use them; they are clearly marked. If you know how to write bots, it should be easy to automate their exclusion.

I wouldn't worry about barbarian hordes. We get huge amounts of traffic from Google already. This isn't an lite thing. If people commit vandalism, we'll just revert it. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 17:08, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

External links vs External link

I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (headings) about using the singular vs plural form of the ext lk section heading in articles with one link only, where I make a case for the latter. Please comment. --Wernher 13:54, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User persists in re-publishing squicky clothing material

I've been working on the clothing page intermittently and running into problems with Pedant17, who is extremely attached to his original article -- which strikes me as the work of someone sexually aroused by smelly torn clothing. Whatever I do to address his concerns, he retaliates by re-publishing his original work. Now it's up as "Sociology of Clothing" -- which it isn't. I'm editing out the link to his page from the Clothing page, but leaving his page up. I could use a mediator! Advice! Anything!

Zora 07:59, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've reviewed the (recent) changes on the clothing page, and the Sociology of Clothing page (You might have provided the links!) and I think that you are blowing this out of proportion. I have minimal interest in the subject, but the contributions by User:Pedant17 look very useful, and the sociology of clothing is a massive subject with vital implications in some societies. Consider Punk and Goth: the adoption of clothing styles that separate these groups from mainstream society is a major part of their lifestyle choice, and thus intensely relevant to any discussion of clothing. My opinion (for what it's worth) is that you revert your changes and include the link back in (and the stubs to all the other potential regional clothing style pages). Both items look encyclopedic to me! (I don't think much of the content of Sociology of Clothing at the moment, but over time I'm sure it will develop.) Noisy 08:31, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Had a quick look at this; article is deficient, and needs much more work but is a beginning. Should probably be marked stub in terms of content since it doesn't really have a proper introduction, a context, or anything else much other than a list of conditions which clothing can be. Sjc 08:39, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But it's NOT sociology of clothing -- the persistently re-published article is about current youth culture markers for "deviant" clothing. "Sociology of clothing" would have to be about clothing as communicator for all cultures and times, and is probably better handled in history of clothing and also regional styles. I put in a section on "Western counter-culture" clothing which repeated a lot of Pedant17s points and put them in historical perspective -- but it seems that nothing but his wording will do.

I would give way *instantly* to someone who sewed and/or had valid anthropological/sociological/historical knowledge of the subject, but I having problems deferring to more parochial visions, which are at best "native informant". Zora 11:04, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've slept on the issue and figured out what's bothering me so much about all this: the lack of any community of knowledgeable people on clothing/sewing topics. The more knowledgeable people involved and contributing, the greater the chance that the article is going to be state-of-the-art. But Wikipedia is still heavily biased towards a Slashdot demographic (not my observation -- it was someone on Usenet who'd used Wikipedia for this and that), which means that the geeky topics are well-done but others may be sketchy. I've noticed this not just with the "fashion" articles, but also with literature and the arts. IF there were others besides just me and Pedant17 working on the Clothing article, the Clothing: Talk page would be the venue for discussion and we'd probably hammer out something acceptable. But when there's just the two of us, we're stalemated. He thinks I'm a snob and I suppose I am; I'm not deferring to someone who can't tell a peplum from a toga virilis. But there are many thousands of people out there in the real world who know a heck of a lot MORE than I do -- how to get them involved in Wikipedia? Zora 21:55, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

Somewhere on the web there are message boards that are dedicated just to the subject of clothing: hunt them out (it may be hard, and you may have to learn new skills just to find them) and invite them to help. (e.g. newsgroups)
Look at Wikipedia:Village pump#Other encyclopedias copying from wikpedia, above. Is there any way that you can help?

Otherwise, raising the issue here is a good place to start. Just seeing the issue here may cause some people to contribute. Good luck. Noisy 23:27, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Summarised sections

todo list for articles --> Wikipedia:Todo list
Standardising article names --> Wikipedia talk:Lists (stand-alone lists)
Wikipedians in Wikipedia --> Wikipedia talk:Auto-biography
We MUST Americani[s/z]e Wikipedia. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump&oldid=4921375#We_MUST_Americani.5Bs.2Fz.5De_Wikipedia. Archived in page history. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style for spelling guidance.
Old features removed in new skin; Categorizing: No more [edit] link for the first section. Type {{PD}} to mark an image PD. Request features at SourceForge.
Range blocks: Don't block AOL (or not for too long? Guanaco is experimenting with one hour blocks)
Hiding Text --> User talk:Dainamo
Are Congressional Archives Copyvios? --> Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...
II, III --> User talk:Golbez
How? Regarding {{The Beatles}} template. See Wikipedia:Template messages or use a category instead.
Other encyclopedias copying from Wikipedia. They're allowed to. See Wikipedia:Copyrights.
Countermeasures --> Wikipedia:External search engines
NOTICE: New type of stub. See Wikipedia:substub. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Substub
Issue on Isle of Sheppey. See Talk:Isle of Sheppey
Page disappeared. Question mark bug. Should now be fixed.
http://www.wikibooks.org gives GoDaddy holding page (fixed!). Wikibooks is now on split domains. It was inaccessible for a few days whilst the DNS changed. Should be ok now.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. See MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css. To add edit links at the end of a page, see m:User styles/bottom tabs
Mediation Committee: New members needed.
Should we ban JPEG images? --> Wikipedia talk:Image use policy
New language sister project. Wikisource is on one domain, so just create a page in a new language to start your new Wikisource. For other projects, see m:How to start a new Wikipedia.
How to revert a page after vandalism. See Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version
Etiquette for Dealing with Troublemakers. See Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism or list them on list it on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress
Alexa --> User talk:Ilyanep
Headbutting. Is there an article? See Scottish kiss
Why are the Wikistats pages so far behind? The statistics are generated from the most recent dump. This may be up to a week old. They cannot be done in real time, and running the stat scripts loads the server quite a bit. There may also be errors in the stats.
What links here (Abced) --> Wikipedia talk:What links here
Arbitration Committee elections coming soon. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004
Can image files be renamed after they are uploaded? No. Re-upload it and list the old one at Wikipedia:Images for deletion

Secret societies

Surreal. Isn't there a Wikipedia:Silliest comments on talk pages yet?

Summarised sections

Summarised sections --> [[
User persists in re-publishing squicky clothing material --> User talk:Zora
External links vs External link --> Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (headings)
how to pick a piece of the wikipedia --> User talk:Avsa
CSS problem --> User talk:Mike Storm
Child Safety and Wikipedia --> Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer
where are the images? --> Picture missing. Now returned. Try Ctrl F5. Caption needs improving.
Notice of poll opening for managing disruptive or antisocial editors --> Wikipedia:Dealing with *disruptive or antisocial editors/poll
using content in discusion forum --> See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Users.27 rights and obligations
External links to H2G2 entries --> Wikipedia talk:External links
On requiring users to sign in --> Wikipedia talk:Why create an account?
AFL dot com spaming --> Talk:American Football League
Yaargh! --> Skin looks funny? Try changing it to Monobook in Special:Preferences
Political Color Coding? --> Talk:United States Senate
List of XXX necessary? --> Categories complement lists, not replace them.
What links here wierdness --> Known bug in the links table.
Remove top whitespace, mv category+interwiki links to bottom --> Wikipedia talk:Categorization
Common sense on MainPage, please. --> Wikipedia talk:Editing the main page
Add references, please --> A reminder to cite your sources
New project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish literature
Wikipedia Publicity Committee --> m:PR department
Categories --> User talk:Nichalp
Weird templates --> User talk:Grin
Americocentrism --> Wikipedia talk:USPOV
Modern Library --> Category talk:Modern Library 100 best novels
Britain = United Kingdom ? --> See User talk:KF#GB.2FUK

Categories broken

Is it just me or are categories broken? I just went to Category:Political divisions of the United States and the list was empty and saw the same thing with a quick sampling of several other categories. older≠wiser 14:39, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not just you, all categories I checked are broken. The breakage occured less than an hour ago. Anárion 14:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I thought it was me too. They're still broken now. Is anyone looking it or should we post something about it somewhere? Guess I'll wait before adding List of supercars to Category:Supercars now anyway. [[User:Akadruid|akaDruid (Talk)]] 15:26, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There's at least one developer on the job at the moment. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:56, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The bug has been found, we're working on a fix. -- JeLuF 19:22, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Gabriel has fixed the bug. Should be fine now. -- JeLuF 20:22, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Still not fixed, Category:Athletes for example show all the athletes in alphabetical order but just in one long sentence instead of under sections A, B, C etc Scraggy4 20:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All categories I found that were broken have been fixed, and I can't find any new ones. However, there are so many that there may well be more out there and I'm not going to be able to find them all. So assistance is welcomed/needed. Also, if they really are all fixed, could Tech support give me a confirmation?

Ones that have been fixed since I mentioned them = (Category:Films by year), (Category:Celebrities), (Category:Feminists), (Category:Ballet), (Category:Antenna teminology), (Category:Clear Channel radio stations), (Category:Clear Channel Communications), (Category:Mosques), (Category:Sportspeople), (Category: Fictional Jews), (Category:Fictional gays and lesbians), (Category:Islamic mythology), (Category:Christian music), (Category:Aliens), (Category:English athletes), (Category:Environmental law), (Category:English actors), and (Category:Campaign settings). -Erolos 12:55, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

###note:### the following part of the thread, about category sorting, will be moved to a thread below which primarily discusses that part of the "bug complex" ###

Is this bug also responsible for the stuff I've been seeing the last couple of days, which is that several categories have more than one section for a given alphabetical letter? For example, Category:Software has two separate occurrences of "F", with some subcats living under one section and the rest under the other. Same trouble with several other categories above/below/"to-the-side-of" the Software one (the part of the category tree where I've been working lately). I really, really, really hope that this bug (or maybe bug complex) is generally fixable ¹ -- i.e. that one doesn't have to redo stuff ad aeternum...? --Wernher 02:15, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

( ¹ not at all having studied the wiki-software, I would nevertheless strongly assume that the category pages are regenerated regularly -- and that, if the wiki was a small one, they could in fact be regenerated on demand, i.e. per visit )

If you mean when one letter is shown at the bottom of one column, and again at the top of the next column along, that isn't a bug - it is just about fitting the articles in alphabetically. -Erolos 12:55, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No there are actually two "F" sections in the sub-category list: one in the normal place and another at the end. --Phil | Talk 13:20, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't follow the link before. I don't think it's part of the same problem, but it is a problem. Do you have links to the others? -Erolos 13:37, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I notice the misplaced sub-categories both use the "piped" syntax: [[Category:Software|File formats]]. I wonder if that's something to do with it? --rbrwr ˆ 13:56, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good point. I removed the piped File formats, and the two subcategories went into "C" without creating a new "C". Putting them under "F" was illogical, anyway. But, still, they shouldn't have done that; even piped they should have gone under the first "F". -Erolos 15:33, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Putting them under "F" was illogical, anyway. Nope, it was in fact very logical -- the word "computer" in those cases, and inside that category, is of no informational value whatsoever, so 'pipe-sorting' the subcats was the only sensible thing to do. I will therefore put it back. However, we agree of course on the main thing here: such alphabetical category sorting is most probably meant to work! :-) --Wernher 21:45, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Categories with sort keys are not sorted properly

The Category:todo have articles with sort keys (i.e. [[category:todo|<sort key>]] or piped format), but it does not look correct to me. For example, "Talk:One-time pad" has a "T5" sort key, but comes before "Talk:Train station" that has a "T1" sort key. (these codes are meant to sort the articles by priority). Strangely, others are sorted correctly though, so that it is not a repeatable problem.

Has this problem been seen before ? Is someone working on it ? Should I report it somewhere else ? Pcarbonn 20:07, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(OT "linguistic" subthread moved into subsub "Todo is not a word" at the end of this thread)

"Categories broken", above, has drifted onto this topic. --rbrwr ˆ 20:33, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Great! Category:todo works now. However, Category:todo of popular articles still does not work... Could anybody help ? Pcarbonn 19:39, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Todo is not a word

"Todo" is not a word. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 13:43, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=todo&r=67. It is a word. Even the computer jargon meaning of the word is widely used (5m+ English language google hits for todo). Pcb21| Pete 09:22, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

yes, it's a word, but with another meaning... I guess we should use "to-do" Pcarbonn 19:39, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some brainstorming...

First off, I want to say that I discoverd wikipedia yesterday and am estatic over it. I think the principals of "community cooperation" found within wikipedia, open-source software, creative commons and everything GNU are going to revolutionize the future in a HUGE way and will save all of us from ourselves....

But anyway, a couple of quick questions popped in my head about wikipedia that I couldn't really find an answer to:

1) As we've all seen in history (and no I can't really find a good example), it has been possible for a large group of people to, over a period of time, slowly believe something as true which very well may not be. Now I understand that fact is fact is fact. And I got the vibe that things like religion and such are explained in a very unbiased manner, as they should be. But my only concern is that I feel it IS possible for an entire population to believe something as true that isn't if its very slowly introduced to them. Like a very slow public "numbing to truth brought on by thier ability to believe whatever they read." Now I can't even begin to think of a scenario where that might happen, even if it's possible. But I just wanted to throw that out there.

That's an interesting point. Are you saying that, given enough time, Wikipedia might develop its own set of myths that it will defend against reasonable argument? I hope that doesn't happen, but it's a possibility. -- Heron 08:33, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There's been some discussion about whether this might already be happening with the issue of Vampire watermelons. --ALargeElk | Talk 08:54, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I checked that article out and can't see how its "bending truth" or creating myths (maybe I've fallen victim to exactly that condition which I introduced, who woulda thunk it). The first line even says its a myth. The only way I can see a problem with it is if the actual existence of that particular myth is in dispute. If so, could another example of this potential problem be if someone decided to add thier little two cents to history and really just create it on the spot? Maybe they talk about a small tribe in Norway around 200 A.D.that was the 3rd tribe to create fire in that region. Chances are, no one is going to really care about that fact enough to really challenge it. So those reading take it to be true. It's basically the adding of pointless, possibly untrue, and definetly undisputed facts. (not registered yet) --68.170.38.222 07:34, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism such as that will most commonly be done by anon. IPs, and most of the time, there are people checking anon. IPs' edits as they happen, or at least have the pages on their Watchlist, so they see the anon. IP edit next time they log on. If it is done by a registered user, it might be a little tougher to catch, but watchlists help protect still. Ideally, every wikipedian should add all the articles they create to their watchlist, so that every article is monitored by at least someone. —siro χ o 11:35, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Ideally, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. Perhaps it will become (is?) the broadest and most detailed encyclopedia, but it should still be an encyclopedia. Meaning newspaper articles, books, letters, and journals will probably always contain more detailed specific, and true information than Wikipedia. If we have a dedicated army of wikipedians checky facts that seem off, this creation of myth will hopefully be uncommon. —siro χ o 09:11, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

2.)Advertising. What if someone writes up a pizza page and explains how to make it and such, then talk about history and blah blah blah. Then at the end put a http://www.dominos.com. Eventually someone will take it off because it's biased and advertising. Pretty simple. But what if everyone likes dominos? (just using it as an example, replace dominos with anything widely excepted). Then that opens up a way for people to advertise. Again, I can't really see that happening because there is nothing that everyone agrees on, even God, or god, or gods or allah or no god or aliens or etc,.

I'm just trying to find ways to scrutinize the system because I like it so much. I'M TRYING TO FIND FAULT AND CAN'T. By its very design, it WILL become the most in-depth, complete, and unbiased source of information on the planet. Good job guys.

You are of course preaching to the converted, so we certainly agree with your final point. :) As an example of (2), Dominos is indeed listed in the Pizza article, which links to its own article and only in there is a Web link. But it is sufficiently removed from the general pizza page such that it cannot be construed as gratuitous advertising for that company. This is the convention that has evolved, and has become quite accepted in the community. It balances the goals of expressing what is commonly accepted as "the truth" and resisting commercial tendencies. Fuzheado | Talk 07:51, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Blantant advertising is consistently removed by users. If User:A wrote an article on how to make pizza and then only added a link to Dominos, it is likely User:B would come along and delete just the link to Dominos, not the whole article (assuming the article was of good quality). Blatant advertising does happen here, but editors (like you) are pretty swift to delete it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:31, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Where is my Purple GBC?

I can't find my Game Boy Color! If you find it, send it by E-mail.

Proposed disclaimer

I propose that all pages describing a potentially harmful activity that the reader may like to try (chemistry experiment, sport etc...) should carry a disclaimer linking to a long version such as this proposal. In the past, there has been a number of people, generally older teenagers, who have harmed themselves or others trying to do stuff they had read about in a book (like making explosives). Even if Wikipedia is not legally liable for this (and this even remains to be seen, depending on the jurisdiction and how courts rule), there's a definite risk of adverse publicity. The media can well blow such incidents out of proportion: "Online encyclopedia a cookbook for explosives", "Youngster experiments as described in online site, loses both arms", etc... David.Monniaux 07:46, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There's already a general disclaimer on every page. Isn't that adequate? - Nunh-huh 08:22, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) (click link at bottom of page to read it) -- Nunh-huh 08:22, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I know, but we already have specific disclaimers for medical and legal issues. You will tell me that any person with common sense would not do a dangerous chemistry experiment based on some vague Web encyclopedia content, but the same applies to medical and legal advice. David.Monniaux 13:14, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's my impression that the specific disclaimers were/are not to be used. Though I suppose they keep getting re-added because they seem like a good idea to people. - Nunh-huh 21:14, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that anyone who wants to make explosives will try to do so regardless of any warnings. A specific disclaimer would probably be more aimed at protecting Wikipedia than its readers - a question of legal liability, and of publicity. From a publicity point of view, I could see a short notice being more useful than the proposed long screed: obvious and easy to understand. On the other hand, the boundaries of "dangerous activities" are rather ill-defined, so it's not clear how many pages might end up with disclaimers. If sports are to be tagged, then almost anything can be. --AlexG 17:01, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Request for bot permission

Since i requested permission to run a warnfile on en three days ago and have not yet recived any reply i would like to draw some attention to the requst here so people wont go all postal when/if i actually run it.

Here goes. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:59, 2004 Jul 31 (UTC)

"substubs"

It seems to be the utility of "stub" and "substub" messages is...limited, and that the recently developed "substub" message was rude and reflected poorly on Wikipedia. I have discussed this at more length at template talk:substub and ask that others voice their opinions. I'm going to have a go at making it less off-putting. - Nunh-huh 02:51, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I personally find your message rude and off-putting. There has been a lot of discussion about substubs recently. Stub messages have had a long lifetime on Wikipedia, and your description of their utility is purely your opinion, and should not be purported as the consensus of Wikipedians at large. Furthermore, all discussion about substubs themselves should be on Wikipedia talk:substub. The template talk page is reserved for discussion of the template message. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 01:03, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a press source

For a good laugh, see my latest addition to the Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_press_source#July_2004_.2818_articles.29 :))) Nikola 00:47, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Categories with sort keys are not sorted properly

###Note:### OT "linguistic" subthread moved into subsub "Todo is not a word" at the end of this thread.

The Category:todo have articles with sort keys (i.e. [[category:todo|<sort key>]] or piped format), but it does not look correct to me. For example, "Talk:One-time pad" has a "T5" sort key, but comes before "Talk:Train station" that has a "T1" sort key. (these codes are meant to sort the articles by priority). Strangely, others are sorted correctly though, so that it is not a repeatable problem.

Has this problem been seen before ? Is someone working on it ? Should I report it somewhere else ? Pcarbonn 20:07, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Categories broken", above, has drifted onto this topic. --rbrwr ˆ 20:33, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

###Note:### The relevant subthread of "Categories broken" has now been moved here, see below.

Great! Category:todo works now. However, Category:to-do of popular articles still does not work... Could anybody help ? Pcarbonn 19:39, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Moved from "Categories broken":