Wikipedia:Village pump/January 2004 archive 6

Broken link?

Can anyone spot what I've done incorrectly on the John Hanson (disambiguation) page. The links to minor Hansons show up as missing articles. When I click on one (e.g. the John Hanson (musician) ) the pedia gives back an edit page with the existing article. The reverse seems OK, in that the [[John Hanson (musician)]] list of what links here shows the disabiguation page. I've built several of these disambig pages but never encountered this problem before. Thanks, Lou I 18:27, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It should display OK now. I wikified a couple of links on the page to force it to save a new version (because it ignored me when I tried to save with no changes). Did you make the disambig page before you had created the new pages John Hanson (musician) etc? I think wikipedia remembers whether a page was blank at the last save or something? Hopefully someone who's not just speculating will come along and explain in a moment... Fabiform 18:50, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

War Quotation

Who said "I am going to Heaven because I have seen Hell" while fighting a war and in which war.

You're probably better asking quote-type questions of our buddies at Wikiquote - here's there Village Pump: http://wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Village_pump (they don't appear to have a reference desk). -- Finlay McWalter 19:57, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Your quote is wrong -- it's "God, if I should die today, I know I will go to Heaven, because I already did my time in Hell." by Rene A. Hebert during WW II. - Davodd 23:38, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Only Move-this-page used but history now gone

Obviously i'm confused, bcz i'm convinced i've found some sort of anamoly in the system. I believe the only action i took was using "Move this page" to reverse what i thot (and would still think, but for the inexplicable situation i now see) was another editor's "Move this page" action.

In a line, neither List of people by name: Mas-Maz nor List of people by name: Mas now includes the history

that Mas-Maz had yesterday,
that i believe Mas had this morning, and
that i believe Mas-Maz should have now.

Yesterday there was an "article", List of people by name: Mas-Maz or Mas-Maz (hereinafter, "the original"; not a conventional article, but a page in the article name-space that was (and i think again is; this note is more urgent than checking) a leaf in the tree whose root is List of people by name). The following extract from about 16:33, 2004 Jan 21 reflects an effort by another editor to turn that leaf into 4 new leaves, to replace the original (i.e. collectively list the people who were listed in the original), each new leaf having the same ancestor as the original:

14:32, 2004 Jan 21 M List of people by name: May-Maz

14:29, 2004 Jan 21 List of people by name: May-Maz

14:27, 2004 Jan 21 List of people by name: Mau-Max (top)

14:23, 2004 Jan 21 List of people by name: Mau-Max

14:23, 2004 Jan 21 M List of people by name: Mas (top)

14:20, 2004 Jan 21 M List of people by name: Mat (top)

14:19, 2004 Jan 21 M List of people by name: Mat

14:16, 2004 Jan 21 List of people by name: Mat

14:13, 2004 Jan 21 List of people by name: Mat

14:11, 2004 Jan 21 M List of people by name: Mas

14:10, 2004 Jan 21 List of people by name: Mas

14:07, 2004 Jan 21 List of people by name: Mas-Maz (moved to "List_of_people_by_name:_Mas") (top)

14:07, 2004 Jan 21 Talk:List of people by name: Mas-Maz (moved to "Talk:List_of_people_by_name:_Mas") (top)

14:06, 2004 Jan 21 List of people by name: Mas

13:57, 2004 Jan 21 List of people by name: Mas

My judgement was that

this editor got confused, gave up, or set it aside temporarily despite not having finished,
there were two copies of part of the list reachable by following links from the root, and
the new configuration should not persist, due to the prospect of editors adding and deleting sometimes from one copy and sometimes the other, and readers consulting one of the resulting conflicting lists without being aware of the other (and therefore not realizing if they consult different copies on different occasions).

(I think i like the other editor's concept, but it needs to be checked, repaired, and evaluated, at leisure, rather than as done, on the copy that is in use.)

I am mystified by the two earliest entries, which appear to me to imply the need for a deletion of List of people by name: Mas if the two entries above them really reflect (a single?) "Move this page" action.

I am more mystified by the fact that my "Move this page" of Mas (back) to Mas-Maz, which i understand to have succeeded bcz of Mas-Maz being a history-less link, lacks any history but the other editor's move. (Yes, i understand why it doesn't reflect both moves, tho i heartily disapprove of that design decision.)

(While not definitive, this helps bolster my illusion of having a dim grasp of what's going on: related stuff that's obviously a place to look.)

I am loath to do anything toward rehabilitation of the data structure and names without resolving the history problem, tho of course users will before too long track mud all over it anyway.

Help!

TIA --Jerzy 20:08, 2004 Jan 21 (UTC) I said (emphasis added), just above the tabular extract above

Yesterday there was an "article", List of people by name: Mas-Maz or Mas-Maz (hereinafter, "the original"; not a conventional article, but a page in the article name-space that was (and i think again is; this note is more urgent than checking) a leaf in the tree whose root is List of people by name). The following extract from about 16:33, 2004 Jan 21 reflects an effort by another editor to turn that leaf into 4 new leaves, to replace the original (i.e. collectively list the people who were listed in the original), each new leaf having the same ancestor as the original:

But i shouldn't have needed to check: my plan after my "move this page" was to revert to my own last edit, which would have hidden the main (and probably all) links thru the tree to the new leaves; if the history had been intact as i expected, i'd have had the old version to revert to, and i forgot that having nothing to revert to was what led to this appeal. [shrug] --Jerzy 20:37, 2004 Jan 21 (UTC)

The history hasn't gone, it's at [1]. You probably need to Wikipedia:clear your cache, or at the very least click here. Hemanshu moved it to List of people by name: Mas-Maz, you moved it back. -- Tim Starling 01:53, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

Marking births and deaths

How should we be marking births and deaths on the anniversary pages? (eg January 21) people born on this day who are now dead have their year of death marks as († YYYY), (+ YYYY) or (d. YYYY) (each page seems to be different). For people who have died on this day, births are often not marked, or they use the convention (* YYYY), (+ YYYY), (b. YYYY) or (YYYY - YYYY). I had been changing all the death symbols to the dagger (†) as I thought it was a good symbol of death (stab, stab) and * for births, but another user pointed out that both † and + could be seen as Christian symbols and there was a policy to avoid them. I can't find any policy on this in the manual of style. Fabiform 20:21, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

NPOV is the policy you seek. We need not have a Christian bias here when it is not needed. See related talk at Talk:Historical anniversaries/Example --mav 20:36, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm not Christian and it hadn't occured to me people would see the dagger as a cross instead of weapon. But I do of course want to be NPOV which is why I asked here. Thanks for pointing me toward the relevant talk page. I see the consensus on the talk page is for (b. YYYY) and (d. YYYY). Cheers, Fabiform 20:57, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

When I saw the symbol I thought it was supposed to be a cross. But, whatever, I don't care one way or another for that reason. The dagger is unclear, though. I'd prefer (yyyy-yyyy), or alternatively, (died yyyy). Anthony DiPierro 01:54, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) is better. We use (yyyy-yyyy). de.wikipedia uses the format with * and crosses. Secretlondon 20:44, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

The issue at hand is on pages like January 21 (as indicated) where there is a ==Births== section. In that section, if the person born then has since passed on, it's common to list the year of their death. In what manner should this indication be given. Of the above options, (d. YYYY) is my preference. - UtherSRG 20:55, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

ah but (YYYY - YYYY) would duplicate information in this case

Today we have this entry for example- Births

1738 - Ethan Allen, American patriot († 1789)

Changing this to (d. 1789) is one thing, but this would look odd IMO-

1738 - Ethan Allen, American patriot (1738 - 1789)

Fabiform 20:58, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The dagger (†) notation for many English-speaking users is a footnote notation. Its use to mark a death is archane and unclear to modern readers. When I see a "†", I start looking for the footnote explainer. My vote is for the standard (YYYY-YYYY) WP style. As for the Ethan Allen Link above -- the death is not germane to the list topic unless he died on his birthday. Otherwise, it should be in his bio entry article. Davodd 21:48, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that the mention of Ethan Allen's (and everyone else's) year of death is out of place on the anniversary page. It adds context. Either way, these dates are all over the anniversary pages and written in many different formats, so I think it's worthwhile to tidy them up (rather than remove them). Of course, if lots of people jump in and second your comment, I'll bow to the consensus. Fabiform 22:31, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think that including the death dates on the year page for someone who was born that year is a TERRIBLE scheme. If you want to know when they died, read the darn article. The only reason to have that year link there is to jump people to that year page, but presumably people aren't interested in reading about the magical connections between 1738 AD and 1789, but in reading about Ethan Allen. I beg, beg, beg people not to do this (+1789) thing. Among other things, it looks unprofessional, it clutters the page and we have enough work maintaining those timeline pages already, without having to add in a death date everywhere we put a birth date and visa versa! Please. Stop. (And delete all the junk that's already in there. Thank you kindly. jengod 02:36, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

proposition regarding article length

I'm kinda new here but I have an idea. An author could write an article on a subject such as Computational complexity theory that could take an hour to read. Some people might want an article that long. Some people would rather spend 10 minutes reading the article, others might want to spend 5 minutes and some would only want to spend less than two minutes. I propose we create a system where articles would have different versions with different lengths. One could choose what version they want based on their needs, and we could even have a setting in the prefrences page where users choose what their default size would be. I realize that this might cause problems with minor edits (applying them to each version), and such, but I think we should give it a try. We could only use this system on articles that might need it. I think we might have 2 or 3 versions at most for each article. Tell me what you think. Thanks, and happy editing!. Sennheiser

Well, a well-written section should essentially do that already (and something that's kind of enforced by how nasty it is to edit a large article), with sub-subjects farmed off to other pages. Good information design would suggest that the largest single article should take around 5 or 10 minutes to read (heck, probably less). That does seem to be the case, at least in the overwhelming number of cases. I figure if some article were to rise to the titanic proportion you suggest, the correct solution would be to radically refactor it. IMHO the same information shouldn't ever be in more than one article. -- Finlay McWalter 23:28, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is no need for separate articles. An abstract at the top of the article would be ok, I think. Optim 01:00, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd go with Finlay on this one: if the article gets too long, it should be split into seperate articles. My justification is that ease of cross-referencing is an obvious advantage of hypertext: since you don't have to turn lots of pages to find another article, you lose little by having to go from one to another. That's not to say we should have a million one-paragraph articles; and as they grow, it does become important to add abstract-style introductions; but really big articles should be split section-wise. - IMSoP 01:18, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. I disagree with this very strongly. Breaking up long articles on single topics into multiple pages is *not* an effective use of hypertext: it unnecessarily complicates usage and leads to duplication of information, difficulty of indexing and general tangles. From a user point of view it makes it impossible to know when you have seen all pertinent information or completed an article. Moreover, No size limits is an early and basic tenet of the Wiki [2] . So how do we prevent the problem originally raised by Sennheiser? Sectioning, resulting in effective tables of contents (these serve all the purposes of hyperlinks between pages with none of the disadvantages) and news style (which, done properly, yields exactly what Sennheiser is suggesting in one article).Jgm 02:30, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You are correct, Jgm, but extreme length also has its problems: higher risk of edit conflicts, of internal inconsistency, broken anchors etc. Also my experience is that very long articles are often viewed as "set into stone" - people are more cautious about editing them.

Generally, we try for each article to have a maximum size of about 30,000 characters. At this point, it usually makes sense to summarize the individual section and split them away into individual articles (e.g. Germany). For a 30K article, an individual abstract section is really not necessary. A couple of carefully worded intro paragraphs should do the trick.—Eloquence 12:18, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

This topic is (tangentially) adressed in Wikipedia:Article series. Elde 09:18, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Abstract

How do you think about adding an abstract on some articles? Optim 01:14, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That is a good idea I was actually thinking of introducing that idea, but I was busy with something else. Sennheiser 02:41, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Could you give us some examples of where that might be appropiate... an abstract and an introduction are not the same thing and I would've thought the latter is most appropiate for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia doesn't try to demonstrate anything, more discuss what others have demonstrated. When I think of an abstract I think of "This article demonstrates/proves/presents evidence that..." Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:21, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What I mean is: One paragraph which will include all the useful information contained in the article, so that the reader can get the info in less than 1 minute without even having to scroll, and it will be written in a way that will motivate the reader to read the article. A summary. See [3]. Another way is a bulleted list with the main facts, without motivational text. Optim 08:34, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is anything stopping you from just doing it? Why not do it, to an article that you think needs it, and let us look at a specific rather than a generality. If we really hate it, we can always revert it. (Of course, if it is literally true that it is possible to put "all the useful information contained in the article" into a single paragraph, then there's no need for the rest of the article, is there?) (BTW, what does Britannica 3 do? Do they ever have both a "micropaedia" and "macropaedia" article under the same heading?) Dpbsmith 11:38, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't imagine somebody not to like the idea, and I was planning to add intros/abstracts/summaries to some articles. When I added the first abstract (which wasn't so good in my opinion, but I was about to make it better it later), it was reverted, so I asked here in order to see what's your attitude on this matter. It seems that for some reason the idea is not considered good, so I am not going to add any more summaries. Optim 13:03, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the idea. I think it's the right style for a report or scientific paper, but inappropriate for an article. In any case, the most important facts should already be in the introductory paragraph. -- Tim Starling 12:08, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

I don't like it either. An article is already, if you like, an abstract inasmuch as it attempts to summarize knowledge from a variety of sources in a single text. The implicit assumption of this idea is that articles contain not-useful information. Bmills 12:12, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think an introduction or overview is important for articles that are long and detailed; for example, the Voltaire article could do with one! --Sam

I'm afraid I'm also not keen on the idea. Really, the opening sentence or two (heck, there's a policy document for this, but I'm damned if I can find it) should say a) what the thingy is, b) in what context, and c) why I should give a damn. ("Finsville is the capital of Finlandia, and is its largest city. It is noted for its preponderance of unicorns, and for its lack of wise men and virgins."). Frankly, we're very bad at doing this already, with lots of articles getting launched straight away into history or controversy. This alone should be enough to tell some reader who has chanced upon the article (particularly from a search engine) whether this is the thing they're looking for. Beyond that, I think the article should take its own, linear, course. -- Finlay McWalter 23:54, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you mean abstract is a short summary of what is actually in the article I think it's nice for really long articles (greater then 10 sections) ilya 23:59, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

10 sections? That is too many. Nearly every non-stub article should have a summary/abstract. I do this. See titanium, Lassen Peak, United States. Their lead sections act as abstracts. This will be useful for Wikipedia 1.0: A script could be used to extract just the first section from every page in the 1.0 queue. That would automatically create a concise version of Wikipedia that would be useful on PDAs and print. --mav 12:51, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Attention clean-up crew: This thread should be moved to Wikipedia talk:News style. --mav 12:51, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Picture copyright?

If I have a scanned film picture that I give to wikipedia, what have I given to free domain then?

The scanned copy and any derivate of it?
The original film picture?

Same for a digital picture. I give a cropped and resized version, do I still have copyright of the original or not?

Stefan 02:49, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

(IANAL)You retain the copyright to anything you post to the 'pedia. You have only released that particular version under the GNU-FDL, which does not say you can't release it under some other terms later. Any source you have, such as an uncropped and unzoomed version of a picture, is not included in what was released, and so you retain all rights to them. I think. Gentgeen 07:22, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That's certainly what Wikipedia:Copyrights says, so that's probably the best legal information available to Wikipedia. Onebyone

Thanks did not find that last link when searching. Stefan 01:00, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion of formatting toolbar

I notice that in the most recent clearing of this page, the discussion of the proposed Javascript edit toolbar has been archived. Am I alone in feeling that this discussion was very much still 'alive', and should therefore be carried on somewhere else if there is no room here? If I am, feel free to remove this comment. - IMSoP 15:19, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The top of this very page states: Do not raise bug reports or suggest features here. Submit them to sourceforge or discuss them at Meta. Javascript is off-topic on the village pump, imo. Martin 00:21, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just a quick note that I have read your comments, and I plan to make some changes that will hopefully make the toolbar more useful. Note that it can be disabled in the prefs.—Eloquence

thank you wiki.. i love you! ce.

Image copyrights

The featured article on the V1 flying bomb is great, but I was a little miffed to see no copyright or source details in the image description page of the photo. IMO this is a real slap in the face for those of us who are putting a lot of work into providing properly GPL-ed images for Wikipedia.

I think the featured articles should be examples of what we want, and I don't think this one currently qualifies on these grounds. Sorry! Andrewa 00:02, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And it's happened again. Bob Dylan this time. Just because a picture is "widely available on the web" that doesn't make it public domain. Or does it? IANAL.

If this is an acceptable way to obtain and document photographs, then our policies and guidelines should say this. Andrewa 08:59, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Cf Wikipedia:possible copyright infringements. Best thing, I find, is to talk to the uploader - most are happy to add the info. If not... well then it's trickier. Martin 01:38, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Agree. I've done this in the case of the person who provided the V1 picture, which has no details whatsoever, at the same time I posted this originally. No response yet.

In the case of the Bob Dylan photo it's a bit more complicated. They have provided a justification, it's just that I don't think it's an adequate one. I'd like comments on this before raising it with them directly, or following the rather confrontational process of posting the recommended notice. But you're quite right, we do have a procedure and eventually I'll follow it.

In both cases, the reason for raising it here was more that both these articles appeared on the Main Page list of featured articles. I don't think this is good, for the reasons given. But again I hoped for some discussion. Andrewa 05:22, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

access request

I received a request to permit access to my computer while on Wikipedia. As I did not know it I refused the request -- it was from "mega something.." and sheer habit made me deny acess automatically and miss the full bit -- is it your computer?

thank you

Ray Stirling

Probably it is not Wikipedia's server. AFAIK the only communication between a user and the server goes thru the standard HTTP port. I suppose the message you got was about another TCP port. Optim 07:45, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It was probably one of the Windows Popup spammers - you are using Win2000 or XP, right? You should disable the messenger service (not the Windows Messenger, that's a different program), or use a firewall which blocks connects to port 137/139. andy 08:43, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Question - language dictionary

Can I create one? I'm linking it to Japanese_language

No one's answered... I guess I will. If I'm not allowed to, tell me asap by User_talk:KevinJr42.

I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean within the Wikipedia namespace? RickK 03:01, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

He/she means this: Japanese Dictionary. Optim 07:31, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I suggest to move it to Wiktionary. Optim 02:22, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Looks like several other people on vfd agree. Tempshill 05:28, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Question?

How do you comment on other people's suff or leave them a message on their page? I would really like to be able to do this but can't figure it out. Katie Salyer User # 4.8.161.217

Click the "edit this page" link in the bottom left of any page to edit it, and type your comment. Messages for a user go on the page called "User talk:" plus their user name. For example, mine is User talk:Onebyone. Onebyone 01:35, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you find yourself on someone's userpage (you click on their name) then you can go to their talk page by clicking 'discuss this page' (at the bottom, or in the left hand menu at the side of the page), then click 'edit this page' to leave a comment. Fabiform 02:50, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you have a comment on an article, click "Discuss This Page" at the bottom of the page, and then you'll see the "talk page", where there are comments on the article posted by other people. Then click "Edit This Page" at the bottom of the article and you can add your own comments to the talk page (to the bottom of the page, please). Tempshill 19:47, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Web-Dictionary.org

Has Web-Dictionary.org been added to Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content, or is it one of the few "undiscovered" ones? It seems to be trying to be compliant, except that its GNU FDL link is broken... If it's not listed, can someone add it for me? At 72Kb, that page is a bit of a pain to edit. --Minesweeper 08:55, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've added it to the list, under "to be assessed". I guess someone'll have to ~~demand~~request that they fix their licence page ASAP... - IMSoP 20:40, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Watchlists

What is wrong with my Watchlist? It looks like this:

My watchlist (for user "Adam Carr")

24 Jan 2004

Adam 14:05, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

many people have this problem, including me. seems to be some database problem, maybe. Optim 14:10, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Was there anything after the date? Like, a saved watchlist, for example? -- Tim Starling 14:33, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

yes there is a saved version of the watchlist, but it doesn't update. Adam 14:52, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK, it's fixed now. Instead of saying "<wlsaved>" it should say "this is a saved version of your watchlist". It should refresh once every hour. Saved watchlists are an emergency performance feature which have been used on and off for the last week or so. I hope it's not causing too much inconvenience. -- Tim Starling 15:04, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thank-you

I wasn't sure where to place this comment. Regardless, I would like to immensely thank you for allowing internet users like myself to access this wealth of information for free. One simply doesn't know the scarcity of free educational information anywhere anymore. Furthermore, your content is tacit, to-the-point, and readily understandable. I, and many others, greatly appreciate your hard work in making "wikipedia."

U welcome! Optim 06:51, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Good to know that people are making good use of the place. Bmills 10:16, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"tacit"? Adam 11:09, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Santa spam

The Wilfredo G. Santa article is currently flagged as listed on Wikipedia:Inclusion dispute but not actually listed. It has previously been listed on VfD.

In view of the latest comment on Talk:Wilfredo G. Santa by Ruiz, I've little doubt myself that the article should be deleted. But I'm not sure how, or whether, to proceed.

Can I have some advice from older, wiser hands? Andrewa 16:08, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inclusion dispute uses backlinks, not a VfD-style listing. In due course, it'll become a category. Martin 23:15, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK. So, where does further discussion take place? On the talk page? Is there a mechanism for relisting on VfD? Andrewa 18:38, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)

I think consensus has developed on Talk:Wilfredo G. Santa to delete the article. Another sysop should proceed with deletion and keep the talk page archived for future reference. --Jia ng 00:23, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re: Other Languages

How does one create an "other languages" link at the bottom of an article? In other words if I translate an article I've written?

If you write an article on Athens in the French language, go to Athens and add a link: [[fr:Athènes]]. for linking to English Wikipedia you do this: [[en:Athens]]. Optim 08:41, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Interlanguage links for more details. --Brion 08:43, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

how obscure?

Just how obscure does a topic have to become before it's deemed unworthy of being written up on Wikipedia? I mean, obviously no one needs an article on my cat, but what about things like small schools, small towns, obscure books, songs, and things of that nature? Exploding Boy 14:01, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

I'm guessing that if it were to be added to a regular encyclopedia, it would have to be here. I'm not sure if there's a policy on that. But there are some small articles too...there's an article on Carol Stream, Illinois for example, a very small suburb of Chicago, and obviously nobody plans to write an article on Bob's computer shack in Carol Stream or Geroge Whatsit Middle school in Normal, Illinois, while there are articles on Best Buy or Harvard University. It's a fine line. Ilyanep 22:11, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, there are very often debates on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion as to whether or not a particular article should be included - schools being a case in point, since people tend to want to add their own. My own (rather loose) criterion would be that it should be included (or covered, potentially in a combined article, with redirects) iff there is some non-obvious information that could be in the article.

For instance, if I were to make an article on Cavendish School, Eastbourne saying little more than "Cavendish is a school in Eastbourne..." it would add no value. But if I was able to claim that it had some historical claim to fame, and fill a paragraph with such, I should. And yes, I do realise this would exclude all the raw US town articles created by the Rambot, and in my opinion they don't belong in the same project as human-written articles. But as I say, this is all much debated, so I should stop rambling here.

- IMSoP 23:41, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What links here

Is it absolutely necessary to disable "What links here"? This effectively puts a moratorium on all deletions and moves. Is it only off during peak hours; I think it's been off all day now. --Jia ng 06:09, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The following pages need to be orphaned once the function is enabled:

Yeah, I'm confused about this one. According to the error page I get, it should be enabled now but isn't. Maybe someone just forgot to put it on a re-enable list or something?. —Mulad 07:59, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I find editing, contributing, and checking new articles awkward and in some cases not practical to do while this is turned off. Is this really such a serious drain on resources? If the server isn't up to doing the "what links here" function, I'm tempted to say we should just go ahead and disallow submitting new articles until Wikipedia is in good enough shape to have this back up. I find I really depend on this feature as part of editing Wikipedia. -- Infrogmation 21:52, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Good jokes

Is there a place for good jokes? I like, from samovar, "this compares with the Japanese tea ceremony, but only superficially." Unless I wrote it, in which case never mind. --Charles A. L. 22:08, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

That would be Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. There's really some hysterical stuff in there. -- Finlay McWalter 01:59, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

thank you

you are probably annoyed to have to read this because I'm sure they're are many people who need help, but, well, that's really too bad. I just want to say that this site is awesome. I've been in a class for a quarter now and hardly learned anything. This site taught me what I needed to know for my final project. Without this I would be in trouble. With this site I am leaving my class with an A (hopefully) and with KNOWLEDGE! Thanks everybody!!!!

hey, we mostly hear from angry, crazy, and stupid people, so we're glad someone's happy :) I'm curious which class you took? - I do hope it isn't "Arboreal Humanoids 101" (sorry, dumb wikipedia in-joke). -- Finlay McWalter 03:09, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

external links

Is it possible when adding a link to an external site to make it open in a new browser box instead of having to completely leave the wikipedia site?

Steve nova

Just shift-click it. Forcing people to open a new page is irritating, especially since tabbed browsers do not always treat these new pages correctly. All external links are clearly marked at the 'pedia. Jo r 11:48, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Or command-click on a mac, depending on preferences. I find tabbed browsing works particularly nicely with wikis. --Spikey 13:44, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Does that work in Internet Exploder, or do you need a real browser? (I'd check, but until wine iexplore.exe works, it's a no-go). Also, on a note to Darkelf/Jor: it could always be added a prefrences option: Open external links in new window. (Myself, I routinely promote Firebird anyway. :) - Fennec 14:45, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Shift-clicking works in Internet Explorer. Alternatively right-click and hit "Open in New Window". Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:17, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Web pages are not supposed to dictate how the user navigates - just provide the links and let the user and their agent worry about how pages are displayed and navigated. CGS 20:25, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC).

Images

In Tamil Wikipedia, the normal wikipedia formats to include images seems not working. Could anyone Help in this. See http://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/துபாய் I just included the URL there. Mayooranathan 19:22, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The magic word in the image link can be translated - in english it is [[Image:...]], while in German it is [[Bild:...]]. So maybe you just need to find the right word in tamil... andy 20:17, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You need to use படிமம் rather than "image", so படிமம்:Deira-2 small.jpg will work over there. Angela . 22:16, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

It works. Thanks to andy & Angela. -Mayooranathan 09:09, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

International Student looking for MSC

Hello sir

this is RAM MOHAN RAO ADDURI from INDIA. i want to do a MSC in an international university. i also took the TOEFL EXAM through CBT TEST. in that i got 190 score. I am a MECHANICAL ENGINEERING student so please send me all the details.

thanking you sir,

ram mohan rao adduri

For the record, I googled for MSC and the only relavent hit I got was for Mathematics Subject Classification →Raul654 07:19, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, 'Master of Science' (MSc) is the intended meaning. The first Google hit seems to be Number 38. Andres 08:06, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, for MSc, see Master's degree - looks like it's usually called MS in North America, which may have caused the confusion. - IMSoP 12:28, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

By the way: with respect to the names of degrees granted and the initials used to represent them, there is much more variation among U. S. universities than people sometimes realize. They are not standarized. For example, a bachelor of science is an SB at some institutions and a BS at others. Dpbsmith 13:06, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have a condition if it is proved fermat's last theorem will disprove.

contact me at vaka@kerala.cc

Your condition is probably false. Onebyone

Wikimedia BB Problems

I'm posting this here since I can't post to the board itself.

Is anyone else having a problem where they can't post or reply to the Wikimedia bulletin board???

It seems that the two buttons under the text box where you would type your message (which, as I recall, said PREVIEW and SUBMIT) are blank and small and don't seem to do anything except hang the website OR to return you to the posting page with a new blank text box.

Having some not fully diagnosed problems with that web server. The boards should now be back online, running from another server. Give a shout if they're not working.

Any chance this is a MyDoom issue?

Not likely, as MyDoom attacks Windows machines of which we have none. --Brion 20:19, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Registering for multiple language editions?

I'm registered on the English site but also would like to edit pages in another language (Hungarian). To get the benefits of registration, do I need to register separately?

(Yes, yes, RTFM but found no answer anywhere...)

--jtg 10:24, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Dysprosia 10:28, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)