Wikipedia:Village pump/June 2003 archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I'm confused. I have just renamed an article called Thrust SSC to its correct name of ThrustSSC by using a Redirect done via the Move command. However, as a result there's a problem. The ThrustSSC article, correctly, shows the redirect from Thrust SSC but, when I do a search on Thrust SSC I get no results at all. Why not! It seems that the Redirect page is not indexed. Should it be? Adrian Pingstone 08:40 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedias Without Logins

How do we register accounts on underdeveloped Wikipedias, like Latin, Estonian, and Simple English? Or do our account names automatically carry over when we log into the English WP? --Menchi 11:30 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Afaik, all login accounts are different and individual on each wiki. Be they developed or underdeveloped. I might add that a pc and nicer expression would be in-development wikipedias :-)
So how do we get an account on in-development wikipedias? --Menchi 13:55 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ahah, Menchi, I see you are probably a quite recent user :-)))
The in-development (or waiting for someone to take care of developing them) wikis you are refering to, are still in phase I (the french wiki was still in phase I until the 31 of oct 2002). In phase I, there is only one space, where everything is mixed. Articles, meta pages, users pages...That is one of the fun things to fix once the wiki is updated to phase III. I recommend what we did : prefixing every meta article with a "wikipedia:xxx" so that makes easier to identify articles from meta pages. French wikipedians pages just had similar look that articles pages till we upgraded phase III (that is not until we where phase III that articles about Curry and Anther were created since User:Curry and me occupied the place of an article :-). You might identify yourself with a prefixed user:xxx, but honestly, when the wiki is small, it is of little interest.
I edited once or twice the simple english a good year ago, so I went back there, and created an account for test. Go check it. http://simple.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?RecentChanges
What you have to do to create an account, is to go to "preferences" (upper right). There, you enter your name, and a password. Confirm. And there you are. Your account is set. Next time you want to connect, you go back to preferences, enter your login and password, and that is it !!!
Oye, I feel "old" today. Memories...
If you need to delete pages or ban users (sigh!), you need to ask Jimbo for a password. There are no tech things to identify admin. Admin are virtual, their power relies in a password, the proper urls for deletion and banning, as well as the code to do so (note that deletions are permanent...*that* was scarry). If you need more info, drop a word on my talk page User:Anthere

So you have to register in Preferences! I didn't try that because it's very different in all the established Wikipedias, where we need to log in & register, not from Preferences though. I've registered on Simple English site. --Menchi 16:26 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)


Several of us (Amillar, Stan and me) are engaged in a discussion at Talk:List of people regarding the possibility of adding some kind of meta-data to biographical articles, in order to (among other things) ease the maintenance process for exceptionally long (and high-maintenance) lists like List of people. Suggestions would be welcome, especially from any developers that have ideas about how such a thing could be implemented. Thanks! -- Wapcaplet 00:24 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Could someone update Wikipedia:Recent Changes? It seems to be quite out of date (though that may just be a consequence of my having non-default settings that I don't remember setting), and it says nothing about blue arrows. Smack

What are blue arrows? Theresa knott 09:33 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The blue arrows are what you get when you click on "enable secret really cool options" in your preferences. And they are mentioned in Wikipedia:Recent Changes:
Enhanced Recent Changes - with this option enabled, multiple edits on the same day to a single article are grouped together on the Recent Changes screen. All the edits except for the most recent one are hidden, but can be revealed by clicking on the blue arrow next to the article. This option uses JavaScript, and won't work in every browser (see Wikipedia:Browser notes).
--Tim Starling 09:48 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Wow that is cool! I shall have to start looking into all the other options in my preferences to see what other good stuff I've been missing out on.Theresa knott 10:05 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
You're probably smart enough to work this out yourself, but Wikipedia:User preferences help has descriptions of what the options in your preferences do. — Paul A 01:34 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] WikiContest #342L

Jiggy and Bonquisha are new users to the Wikipedia. Assuming that the number of articles remains constant at 130,000 - calculate the probability of Jiggy and Bonquisha editing the same page (over the course of a year), given that they each edit 100 articles per day. Pizza Puzzle

Well, that depends. Do they (like most Wikipedians) check Recent Changes often, engage in discussion on Talk pages, get interested in single articles and make lots of edits to them? Or do they just make singular edits to randomly chosen articles, whether the articles need editing or not? -- Wapcaplet 12:57 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Even if you assume they make random edits, we still need this question answering- On day two are they allowed to edit a page that they edited yesterday or do thay have to edit 100 new articles ?Theresa knott 13:03 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Jiggy and Bonquisha make 100 edits a day, to random articles. They can edit the same article more than once. Assume that if Jiggy and Bonquisha edit the same article at least 10 times each - then they will have "interacted"-For extra credit, calculate the liklihood of Jiggy and Bonquisha interacting. Pizza Puzzle

I'm new to wikipuzzles. Are we supposed to go away and work it out all by ourselves or are we allowed to put up partial solutions for others ot work on? Individual glory or collaboration? Theresa knott 13:26 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Collaboration is acceptable-thats the whole point of the wiki. Pizza Puzzle

If the edit the same article 10 times each (Jiggy edits Foo 10 or more times, and Bonquisha also edits Foo 10 or more times)? Or if, say, Jiggy edits Foo and Bonquisha edits Foo; Then Bonquisha edits Bar and later Jiggy edits Bar, and so on like this 10 times? -- Wapcaplet 13:50 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Either way, I'll go ahead and say that this looks a lot like the Birthday paradox - we should approach it as a question of, what are the chances that, on any given day, the articles that Jiggy and Bonquisha edit are different articles. From there, we can find the probability of them editing the same article on a given day, which can be used to determine the probability of editing the same article in a year. -- Wapcaplet 13:55 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
that was the lines I was thinking along Theresa knott 14:16 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In order for there to be a proper interaction at Foo- both Jiggy and Bonquisha must have edited it at least ten times AND there must be overlapping edits: for example J J J J J J J J J J B B B B B B B B B B is not an interaction; however, J J J J J J J J J B B J B B B B B B B is an interaction. Editing 10 seperate articles one time each is not an interaction. Heh, now its even more complicated. Pizza Puzzle

Right let me think out loud. In the course of a year Jiggy will edit N number of articles where N< 36500 since he can edit one article more than one time.
if we now consider any one of those articles we can calculate the probability that Bonquisha will edit that article by calculating the probability that they will not hit it as 129999/130000 per edit. Since Bonquisha will make 36500 edits over the course of a year we raise the above fraction to the power of 36500.
(129999/130000)36500= 0.755 if I've done it ok

so probabilty that Bonquisha will edit that particular artilce is 0.245 Theresa knott 14:24 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)Bloody 'ell that's high have I made a mistake?

What I think you have done, is considered that J will edit any article. Then the question is, now that we have article X, what is the probablity of B hitting it after editing 36,500 articles. Since 36,500 is about 25% of the wikipedia, you can expect that any particular article would be edited about 25% of the time. I would hypothesize then that its very likely B and J would both edit the same article at some point. Pizza Puzzle

I think Jiggy and Bonquisha should move to Meta and stop hogging the pump. -- Tarquin 14:47 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)


Indeed, the probability approaches 100%. Over the course of a year, B has edited about 25% of the articles in the wiki. So, for each article J edits, there is a 25% chance it is one that B either has edited, or will later edit over the course of the year. So we have 1-(1-.25)36500 for the probability that they ultimately edit the same article, which is close enough to 100% to exceed the precision of my spreadsheet. For more rigor, we could figure out the distribution of probabilities for the various number of articles B might edit (could be anywhere from 1 article 36500 times or 36500 articles one time each with most of the probability clustered towards the top) and calculate the 1-(1-x)36500 seperately, mutiply, and sum. But, as a practical matter, the answer is the same. 209.150.193.201 19:29 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

My apologies if this suggestion is in the wrong place or has already been addressed, however I think it would be better if wiki links were not case sensitive. Its annoying having to either make a redirect page, or fix a bunch of links due to capitalization discrepancies.Vroman 22:06 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)


Is there a discussion somewhere of the scope and topic suitabilitiy of the project?

Given no space limitations, what is the most appropriate approach to deep subjects? One could write volumes on many topics. How do we divide up articles that are lengthy and have logical subtopics? Even simple, noncontroversial topics, like cattle, have had volumes written about them. Must all pages be general interest? Where do we stop? Why?

Are articles on topics of narrow, professional interest encouraged? E.g. legal, accounting, medical, or other fields. If not where is the line drawn?

I observe that some of the most active editing has been on topics related to human sexuality. Is there a consensus (or a summary of the positions taken by whatever various schools of thought there may be on the subject) regarding the division between appropriate and inappropriate material for this topic?

I have seen some isolated stylistic recommendations, "the passive voice is to be avoided" (-: and "include all relevant content in one article rather than breaking it up". I can't find a summary of this information, and the style guide is no help. Is there one? Or shall my prose have to suffer such edits at the hands of others for me to understand the framework??

Kat

Hi Kat, welcome to Wikipedia! If you haven't already, I would suggest checking out Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Some of your questions may be answered there. As far as general versus narrow professional interest - there is a place for all of it here, provided it can be presented in a neutral, encyclopedic format.
As for writing "volumes" on some topic, it depends. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost. A thorough treatment of any subject is desirable, but no article should really turn into anything too huge. Typically, if the article on a subject is getting that long, it can be broken up into several sub-topics. Use your best judgement. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not gives a pretty good overview of what is generally not desirable content for articles. -- Wapcaplet 18:48 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Could a developer check to see if User:Eddie is loging in using User:Michael's ip range (i.e. 152.163.25x.xxx)? He has been reverting articles of User:Michael's back to user Michael's content in a sneaky way. I just want to make sure it is or isn't User:Michael. If it is him, please ban the account. Thanks. MB 17:38 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

For those who are interested, there has been some talk on the mailing list about putting a Content Advisory label on the Wikipedia. I have created Wikipedia:Content advisory so that the entire community can help develop the advisory. No decision has been made about whether we are actually going to put this up, so discussion should be had at Wikipedia_talk:Content advisory. MB 01:38 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Please can an admin undo Michael's page move of Crass to Crass (band), many thanks. quercus robur 17:19 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


Done, and talk page with it. -- John Owens 17:35 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Thanks quercus robur 18:08 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It has occured to me the photo on Mooning could be considers as offensive as the photo linked to on Clitoris. Therefore I move that we come to a concensus on photos exposing Intimate parts and follow it with all such articles. Please note, that IMHO to be totally NPOV, we should openly show any images. MB 20:25 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Many war-related pages have a banner attached:

History -- Military history -- War -- History of Russia -- World War II

I wonder where its best form and placement is discussed. Does anybody know?<br> -- Ruhrjung 21:03 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

best placed at the top Pizza Puzzle

If we follow a convention of writing 1.2E31 instead we can avoid the problem of having a break in the quanity...1.2 x

1031 Pizza Puzzle

Use &nbsp; if it bothers you so much. -- Tim Starling 04:23 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The E form is just a hack - use the proper standard form. CGS 04:25 6 Jun 2003 (UTC).

[edit] Ogg Format

Slashdot style morals aside, is it practical to upload an Ogg audio clip at the moment and expect the typical visitor to be able to play it? Can Windows Media Player decompress them? CGS 07:11 6 Jun 2003 (UTC).

I think this was discussed at wikipedia talk:sound help... Martin 09:33 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I know winamp supports it, and a lot of Windows users use it. Most Linux users can listen to ogg. All that is left is Mac users. MB 14:55 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Macs have OGG support available from a number of apps. I'm not sure if it's built into iTunes. -- Tarquin 16:36 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=62.60.78.153 ? -- Tarquin

Hmm... some of his stuff is fine, Richard Curtis for example, but what are they doing with Civilization et lingua universal? A whole page in French. CGS 08:44 6 Jun 2003 (UTC).
No, it isn't French. I know Latin, and could certainly recognize French, Spanish, Italian, and probably Portuguese, and it isn't any of those. I've been wondering about these myself. Certainly a Romance language, of course. -- John Owens 08:53 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Given the title of the page. Perhaps it's some kind of universal language ?Theresa knott 09:15 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Esperanto is the only Universal language I've heard of... Emperorbma 09:21 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Read international auxiliary language. Become educated. Martin 09:28 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
It does mention Interlingua repeatedly. But then, it also mentions Esperanto and a few others, too. -- John Owens 09:25 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Heh. Call yourself a Wikipedian, eh? Wikipedia in Interlingua
Darn it, my link doesn't work. Smack
It's a language called Romanica
Adrian Pingstone 09:31 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah... Whatever it is, what's it doing in the English Wikipedia, not being in English? CGS 11:42 6 Jun 2003 (UTC).

I uploaded an audio file, why does Wikipedia think it's an image? I never told it that it was an image, and the extension clearly shows it's an audio file. CGS 11:54 6 Jun 2003 (UTC).

I dunno if this has anything to do with it, but as the Special:Upload page says, the preferred format for media files is Ogg Vorbis (no patent issues and whatnot). Check out Wikipedia:Sound help. -- Wapcaplet 13:36 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The Ogg version is the same. CGS 13:56 6 Jun 2003 (UTC).
Curious... maybe there is no special facility for handling audio files? Are they always treated like images? I suppose it doesn't matter, as long as you can download/play it, but it is a bit confusing. -- Wapcaplet 14:27 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Just use media and colon-image links.
The only thing image-specific about the upload system is the word "image". Just ignore it. :) --Brion 16:55 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

My !!! Just to say hi. I just look at the 50 last contributions. And I fear about 40 of them are about fight against vandalism. Horrible. My virtual support. Ant

I found a bug. When moving Favorite pages of banned users to Wikipedia:Favorite pages of banned users and using the move talk page where aplicable option, it moved Talk:Favorite pages of banned users to Talk:Wikipedia:Favorite pages of banned users, which is not the correct page.
P.S. I made Wikipedia:Favorite pages of banned users so that we could easily track when our favorite vadals have been making changes without cluttering out own watchlists with thier favorite pages (i.e. this works like a group watchlist).
MB 18:59 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever did the update of Special:Wantedpages. One problem: After I created Eddie Cantor, I went to remove him from the list, only to find it couldn't be edited. And Eddie Cantor is still a red link there. -- Infrogmation 23:21 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

They used to immediately become Blue once you created them. That was better. --Menchi 23:47 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Something's wrong with the database. The only place I can think of where I can reproduce it every single time is my very own talk page. Smack

Error: Fascism takes several screens of no text between mightiest and best-known. There is no reason why it should, having looked at the actual wiki. Is Mozilla at fault here, or is it Wikipedia? Emperorbma 03:49 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Looks fine here (Mozilla Firebird 0.6 on Linux). Force a reload (ctrl+shift+r) just to double-check that you don't have a broken copy in your local cache. --Brion 04:51 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Same problem. My version is 1.3.1 Windows version if that is relevant. Emperorbma 07:22 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm now looking at it in Mozilla 1.3 on Windows 2000. Looks okay still... I've made a trivial change to the page (linked an instance of World War II in the third paragraph), check the page again. If it doesn't show that link, you've got a stuck cache or something; if it does show the link, and it's got that weird display, I suspect other browser problems... --Brion 07:35 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Mozilla 1.4rc1 also displays this page OK. -- The Anome 07:39 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Still isn't working. I copied the 20 page blank spot and pasted it... it pasted a regular space. Emperorbma 07:54 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I made some (probably irrelevant) formatting changes. Does it always break in the same place? Try resizing the window to see if it breaks elsewhere (sometimes there's an extraneous table tag or something that causes weird formatting in some browsers. BTW, the page validates as correct HTML 4.01.) -- Wapcaplet 13:42 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Resizing moves the location of the break. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the HTML (view source) which would indicate a cause for this breaking... Emperorbma
Perhaps I have a broken installation, since no one else reports this. Emperorbma
Hmm, most curious. I just tried it in my Mozilla 1.3.1 for Windows, and it looks fine, until you get it down to around less than 600 pixels wide - at that point, the heading stuff (Wikipedia logo, search box, language links, etc.) all start to overlap and look really bad (due to table formatting issues, no doubt), but no big empty space such as you are getting. Tables do pretty nasty stuff when you mess with their intended size (which is why all the reasonable web authorities recommend against using them for formatting). I don't know if it's a table that's causing the problem on your browser, or something else. Do any other articles do it? I suppose the only solution I have for you is to upgrade your browser. Though, if Fascism is the only article that causes problems, it's probably not worth fussing over :) -- Wapcaplet 17:36 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

New Bad jokes/deleted nonsense page

Suggestion: that a third Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense page be created. The More bad jokes and other deleted nonsense is getting to be too long. Arno 11:27 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Better still, why don't you do it? *-- Tim Starling 16:27 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Am I allowed to do it? I wasn't aware of that. You seem to have assumed that I was. Arno 05:49 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Yes, you can do it. It's not protected. -- Tim Starling 08:45 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

After doing the painstaking work of adding references to a number of articles, I'm thinking that maybe it doesn't get done enough because it's complicated, especially for books that have been around for a while and have long printing histories. So I was wondering what people think about a policy of routinely creating articles for references, especially for those that are useful for multiple articles? For instance, the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships article makes DANFS easy to cite in all the articles about ships, and very often Bede is linked to from Anglo-Saxon articles because his Ecclesiastic History is the primary source for the article's info. In addition, the article can expand on the value and scope of the reference work, or mention a preferred edition. So many articles have nothing that enables readers to go beyond what they've just read... Stan 12:27 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You mean create articles for sources to which we commonly refer to? Excellent idea. -- Tarquin 16:16 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I suspect the controversial part is to "create articles first and ask questions later". :-) Many will likely be stubly and with only one or two links at first, so stub-haters will dislike, but they're still useful since their purpose is to encapsulate messy biblio bits. At some point it might also be useful to have a list of reference works as index. Stan 17:10 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Question on Tables: I noticed that the figure of speech page, which (like many wikipedia pages) has a lengthy list, has had the list formatted as a table in order to make it into three columns (more attractive than one long list streaming down thep age).

This strikes me as fundamentally wrong, since what it is is not a table but a multi-column list. Is there a wikipedia policy to only use tables for actual tables, or do we translate the html practice of using tables for all formatting?

-- Tom

I've just had a look at figure of speech, but I must say I don't see the problem. Of course this is a list rather than a table. It seems you can/have to use the "table" formatting if you want to create columns, but you only see that when you edit the page. So again, waht exactly is it you're not happy with? --KF 16:04 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
HTML was designed to describe the structure of a page (information organized in paragraphs, lists, tables, etc.) rather than the precise formatting. The client/browser then decides what the page should look like. Unfortunately, this hasn't been the case with web design, and it's standard practice make layout that looks good on a given browser (or set of browsers) without regard to the structure of a document (e.g. using tables to create menus or columns). The problem this creates is in nonstandard situations -- an unusual browser, accessibility software (e.g. for the blind), etc. For a long term project like the wikipedia, I think we should focus on the structure of content in the pages and worry about appearance issues later (e.g. we could introduce standard column-creation for pages with very long lists based on some intelligent browser-aware method in the future). --Tom
Tom is exactly right. Every competent web authority strongly recommends against using tables for any kind of layout. If a bunch of stuff is supposed to appear in a list, then it should be in list markup. Some lists, if they are long enough, and contain enough different kinds of information, might be more appropriately formatted as a table (for example, if you have name/birthdate/comment for a list of people). Tables for things like placing an image on the right side of the article is (to me, anyway) totally unacceptable: DIV tags with style alignment works just fine (in modern browsers) for that kind of thing, and I replace it wherever I see it. Anyone who thinks layout can't be done without tables should check out W3C or Wired, just to name two. (stepping off soapbox) Obviously this isn't usually an issue on Wikipedia, since the majority of layout is done for us, but it's nice to keep in mind :) -- Wapcaplet 17:36 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
tables are a pain to edit, and there is no guarantee of the reader's screen width. I've removed it. -- Tarquin 16:12 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Thanks Tarquin for fixing that.

Hey folks, what do you do when you find an external link is broken? Do you just delete it? Leave it there in hopes that it will fix itself? Put a note next to it on the page that it is broken? Post something on the talk page? --Nelson

Here's what I try to do:
  1. Try to fix it! Very often a broken link is broken just because someone restructured their site and forgot to leave redirects to handle old links. If you remove a layer or two of directories and poke around, very frequently you can find the page in its new location.
  2. Check google. Sometimes poking around isn't enough (say, if it moved from one domain to another), but the pages have been put up somewhere else. If you know enough about the page (like knowing it's called "Bob Frummel's Guide To Physics" or what have you) a web-wide search can turn it up.
  3. If you can't find the same resource, you might look for an alternate resource that provides similar information.
  4. Also check the Wayback Machine. These folks archive a fair chunk of the web, and if they've got the page you need you can link to the saved copy (it's more stable than linking to the google cache). Not all pages are archived, though.
  5. If you can't find anything and there's no sign that the site is coming back, consider moving the link to the talk page with a note. Someone else might know more about the situation and be able to track it down.
--Brion 18:29 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm uneasy about a very wide picture of the Severn Bridge I've put on to Suspension bridge. Does anything strange happen on an 800 by 600 screen? I can't change my 1024 by 768 screen to check because all my icons pile up in a heap when I return my screen to 800 by 600 and it takes ages to return them all to their previous positions. I'm particularly concerned about what the screen looks like if a Skin has been set in Wikipedia preferences that has a menu list down the left side of the screen.
Thanks Adrian Pingstone 18:58 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Adrian - With an image that wide, you may want to consider posting a smaller version to the article itself, with a link to a larger version. On smaller screen sizes, this image will run off the right side of the page (though, some browsers, such as the newer versions of MSIE, tend to automatically re-size images that are too large for the screen). Check out the image use policy for suggestions about reasonable image sizes. Also, if you want to check what a page looks like in smaller screen sizes, why not just resize your browser window to 800x600 or smaller? -- Wapcaplet 19:22 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I'd imagine it would get rather hairy for people with the floating navbar, like I have. I think the best solution is to replace it with another image with more tractable dimension (IIRC there's a good one in Golden Gate Bridge). I don't particularly like the Severn Bridge pic, because you can't even see the vertical suspension cables. -Smack 02:20 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the two answers but has anyone actually seen a screw-up with Suspension bridge as opposed to thinking it might happen?
Adrian Pingstone 07:46 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
On my computer, the image does go off the edge of the screen at 800x600 if I have the quickbar turned on. An image width of 600 would be OK. --Zundark 08:47 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
On 800x600 with the floating sidebar, the image goes off the edge of the screen. On Internet Explorer, the text follows it, requiring horizontal scrolling in order to read the text. On Mozilla-type browsers the text stays within the visible window, but you need to scroll horizontally to see the right-hand end of the image. In either case, horizontal scrolling with the floating sidebar produces odd effects, but not until you scroll over to the right. Screenshots (with IE): media:Screenshot Suspension bridge IE left.jpg and media:Screenshot Suspension bridge IE right.jpg --rbrwr
Thanks for the screenshots Rbrwr, and thanks Zundark for your reply as well. I'll make the pic smaller when I have time.
Adrian Pingstone 11:49 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

When and why did the IP address disappear from the top right of each page when you aren't logged in? -- SGBailey 22:59 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Answer is right at the top of Wikipedia:New server madness. --Brion 23:13 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

OK & Thanks (I had done a search for <IP address> but hadn't found that reference. How do I find out what IP address I am / Others are? -- SGBailey 23:29 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Advice on lists, please. There are lists of country musicians at List of country musicians, country music and Alternative country. There is a great deal of duplication. Is it better just to leave this and cross reference or would it be better to have a comprehensive list at one page with a link to that page? Tiles 00:22 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It is better to put the list at List of country musicians. You may want to mention a very small number of the most-popular names on country music if there is something noteworthy to say about them. But don't duplicate all the names in both places. -- Amillar 02:16 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/l/Wikipedia%7EVillage_pump_June_2003_archive_2_bc03.html"