Wikipedia:Village pump/May 2004 archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Summarised sections

This is a list of discussions that have been summarised and moved to an appropriate place. This list gets deleted occasionally to make room for newer entries.

[edit] Making small links of long links

www.tinyurl.com Very handy. Andries 09:49, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Also great for hiding pornolinks, shocksite links, and affiliate program links. Very handy indeed. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:07, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
But what happens if tinyurl go out of business or stop offering a free service, all the links stop working and there is no indication where the link is supposed to go to. -- Popsracer 11:59, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Full links should be provided here. -- Stevietheman 15:22, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
They claim on the webpage that the service will not stop. Andries 15:37, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
And we're soooo sure they won't go out of business - do they even have a revenue source? Not to be a pessimist here, but I don't see what's the point, since it's only a minor inconvenience to use the appropriate wiki markup. Johnleemk 16:42, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, the Wikimarkup allows you to display the link in whatever guise you like anyway so I don't see any advantage there. TinyUrl comes into its own in emails and forums where clients routinely leave you cutting and pasting - but that's not a problem here. --bodnotbod 18:41, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
Once there was a similar service, IIRC it was http://shlk.com. They went out of business. Why add a vulnerability when it is totally unnecessary? pstudier 23:45, 2004 May 22 (UTC)

[edit] How Far Should the Extent of Writing Articles About Places Go?

Not sure where else to write this, so I'm asking here: How far should the extent of writing articles about places go? Let's use Malaysia as an example. There's district level (Petaling). Or you can go for subdivisions, or mukim in Malay, which would be, for example, Damansara. And some subdivisions have several townships in them, so you might have an article like Bandar Utama. How far should this go? I see some villages in the United States which have populations in three or four digits, and yet have articles, and as townships presumably have a comparable if not even larger population, I presume such articles are ok. Is this alright? Johnleemk 10:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

In short, yes, it is. Anything that's NPOV and verifiable is all right, particularly if it has some historical significance - and it's safe to assume that each and every settlement on this planet of ours has historical significance, if only in the date it was conquered by whoever conquered it last. Feel free to include every town you can think of. As for the US articles, in case you wondered, most of these were generated by a bot - an automated software - that imported US Census information (copyright-free, like most US publications) into Wikipedia. -- Itai 15:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
There have been some unremarkable parks and localities given their own articles. When these have been listed on VfD I believe the consensus has been that these should not be deleted. What seems to happen is that a newbie, or just an ethusiast thinks it would be fun to include details of their local park or area. Someone argues, not unfairly, that is unencyclopaedic. But the consensus (I think) has been that;
  • They do little harm
  • A new visitor who finds their local shopping centre listed will think "wow! Wikipedia is amazing!"
  • There are far worse edits being made to take up Admin time
That's just the way I've observed it - I'm sure there's an opposing view. --bodnotbod 18:49, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
When I click for a random page, it seems about half of the articles I get are content-free pages on insignificant American villages and small towns. The are the scourge of Wikipedia. Their pointless existence wouldn't matter so much if only they could be excluded from the random page link. — Chameleon 16:16, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pronouncing Wikipedia

So apropos of a discusion on Talk:Wiki it turns out that not everybody pronounces "Wiki" the same way. I think it's "weekee" but to some it seems to be "wicky". Possbily there are even stranger variants out their. Shall we have a poll?

The obviously correct way to pronounce "Wiki" is:

  • "Weekee:"
    1. --DrBob 03:09, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
    2. --Nat Krause 04:53, 26 May 2004 (UTC). This is just like pop vs. soda. I'm surprised so many say "wicky." I say "weekee" when it's by itself or else "wick-uh-pedia".
  • "Wicky:"
    1. --Wyllium 17:51, 2004 May 27 (UTC)
    2. --Sam [Spade] 03:30, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
    3. --Phil | Talk 17:20, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
    4. --Exploding Boy 01:25, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
    5. --pstudier 02:52, 2004 May 27 (UTC), Not strictly correct but much easier to say.
    6. --bodnotbod 18:21, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • "Wikə:"
    1. --SimonP 03:48, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
    2. --Dpbsmith 20:28, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
    3. --Zoney 16:25, 26 May 2004 (UTC) pronounced this way as a prefix in wikipedia. On its own, or in other prefixes, 'wicky'. (I'm tempted to say, on its own, 'wiki').
  • Other (please state):
    • However you want to pronounce it. RickK 03:12, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Ditto. "Weekee" is closer to the word's Hawaiian origins, but "wicky" seems more natural in English, so I'd consider both to be equally valid. -- Vardion 03:28, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
    • "Wicky" when using the word by itself. When pronouncing Wikipedia, I say "Wik-uh-pedia" →Raul654 03:57, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Hmm. See, I would say that the "correct" way to pronounce it is "wiki" (wee-kee), but I never, ever say that; I say wɪki (wikee). (Just as I can believe in the who/whom distinction while only observing it part of the time.) So, make of that what you will. Also, I think I say wɪkɨpidiyə or possibly wɪkɪpidiyə. Certainly I don't say wɪkəpidiyə. Of course, I probably just botched that IPA in several places... -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 04:18, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • I think the important question is how the heck to pronounce कुक्कुरोवाच. :-). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
        • Just occured to me that that could possibly interpreted in a negative way. I sincerely didn't mean that - just genuinely interested in how to prounce it and how the characters translate into sounds. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
          • No, that's cool. You shouldn't feel bad, as "kukkurovaca" isn't a name or word in any real language, though it's in a perfectly real script (Devanagari). The roman transliteration is kukkurovāca, and it would be pronounced kookkoorowvaachuh, more or less.
            • No, no, you've got it all wrong. I just say "square-square-square-square-square-square-square", so that's obviously right. Hmmm, maybe I would be better off if I actually had the Devanagari font. - Nat Krause 04:53, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Combination of above. I understand the "correct" pronounciation is "wee kee", but never use it. For the word by itself, I use "wicky", and for this site's name, I've probably used every variation between "wick eh pedia" (or "wick a pedia" [short "a"]) to "wick uh pedia". Niteowlneils 14:40, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
    • The first wiki says wee-kee, see http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiWikiWebFaq. So this is "correct", but I have a terrible time not saying wicky. Perhaps we should list both. pstudier 01:23, 2004 May 26 (UTC)
    • Combination of the above. It always comes out "wicky-pedia" when I say the whole thing, but when I'm telling people about it & the origin of the name (which I find myself doing a lot when photographing their dogs), I carefully say "wee kee pedia as in the Hawaiian weekee weekee", and almost always the person lights up and says, "Oh, as in quickly!" Amazing how so many people (Californians at least) seem to be familiar with the Hawaiian term. Elf | Talk 05:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Official Wikipedia song?

A bit of fun: what do people think should be Wikipedia's official song? -- ChrisO 17:25, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Crystal Method - Busy Child. Bensaccount 18:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC) (Esp. for the "Did you know" section.)

  • Bob Dylan, Too Much of Nothing; Frank Churchill/Larry Morey, Whistle While you Work; Paganini: Moto Perpetuo and/or Johann Strauss II, Perpetuum Mobile; theme from the movie "The Neverending Story." Dpbsmith 20:37, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
I actually thought about this before! The best one I've found so far is 'The Hope Within Us' by Paul Spaeth. (See - the title fits too :) →Raul654 20:42, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
Elvis Presley / Junkie XL - A Little Less Conversation, a little more action. Mark Richards 21:12, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Hotel Wikipedia. But that's the Wikipediholic version. Elf | Talk 05:27, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Seem to me all the above songs have got nothing to do with Wikipedia, except maybe A Little Less Conversation. We need something with the words information, encyclopedia, text, community, etc, in the title. For starters, Freedom by George Michael is better than anything suggested up to now. --Wyllium 18:04, 2004 May 27 (UTC)
I like With a Little Help from My Friends, but it doesn't meet Wyllium's criteria. Johnleemk 12:13, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Actually, that's a great one. I love it, let's make it the Wiki song. (title suggests community and working together, so it does pretty much fall into my criteria) Wyllium 23:01, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Whatever we choose needs to be free of restrictive copyrights. That really narrows our choices. Guanaco 19:29, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
None of you will have heard of it, probably, but it fits--"Information Travels Faster", by Death Cab for Cutie". Meelar 19:30, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
"Encyclopedia Brown" - Guttermouth (Lyrics). Maybe not... - Lee (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Loaded (articles)

Usually when perusing Wikipedia and reading articles for the first time, I'm pleasantly surprised by the quality of writing and information. I've learned all kinds of things on all kinds of subjects — I'm sure everyone else here has had the same experience — and this has given me high expectations for the quality of the Wikipedia’s content. Unfortunately, I've lately been stumbling upon pages in very bad shape. My first reaction of course is to try to fix them. But, in another departure from the normal Wikipedia, these articles are practically impossible to edit.

The articles I'm talking about have one thing in common: their titles themselves are loaded. Take a look at Political Correctness, Anti-American sentiment, and Terrorism. The articles read as though they were written by a committee whose members despise each other. Some people say this, others assert that, etc. Over time, these articles don't improve; they just get longer, less structured, and less coherent.

It's not every controversial subject that suffers so. I thought that Noam Chomsky might be a battleground, but instead it's a nicely written and informative article. The same goes for Hiroshima, Hiroshima and Adolf Hitler. The Wiki system works its usual magic there.

The problem with the other articles is that their titles overshadow everything. Half the people reading (and writing) at Political Correctness can't stop thinking about how the name itself is unfairly applied. The other half can't stop laughing — and adding dumb jokes to the article text — about how great they think the name is, especially with its communist overtones.

What a waste of everyone's time! I don't want to fight with other people over the content of these articles, but I also don't want the encyclopedia as a whole devalued by their juvenile content. I recommend that we adopt a policy for articles whose titles fit the loaded (language) definition. First, if there is an uncontroversial name for the subject, use it. Problem solved. (This is generally not the case; slanted language is the fundamental problem.) Otherwise, do one two things:

  1. Point to Wiktionary, where a short definition describes the term and notes that its use is controversial.
  2. Provide and require the use of a “Debated:” namespace, where people and argue over anti-Americanism until they run out of energy. Unlike the disputed point of view warning, this quarantine would be permanent.

This problem spans languages, by the way. Stay away from fr:Terrorisme unless you want to see Allied bombing of Germany in WWII equated with the 9/11 attacks.

Nathan 11:46, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

It's not immediately apparent to me why the allied bombing of Germany and Japan in WWII is not at least in the same class of action. Mark Richards 17:17, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Mark, that's exactly why the Wikipedia should not even be in the business of making these distinctions. No one can agree on these things. Nathan 18:11, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
True. Mark Richards 21:34, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Wiki-Link Game

Maybe this has been invented already, and maybe this isn't the best place to mention it, but...

If you are currently visiting Wikipedia as an excuse to waste time, you might be dissatisfied with the Random page link due to the high likelihood of arriving at some obscure little town in Arkansas (hopefully fixed in next version of Wikipedia which looks like it might have article categories).

As an alternative why not try The Wiki-Link Game. For the moment I've but the rules on my user page. -- Solipsist 13:12, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

It's a nice enough game. I played for the first time, picked N=5 and started at James Lick, went to Piano, then harpsichord, then back to Piano, and got the loop ending. However, I think you missed a loosing condition, you click a link and get the All Wikipedia servers are down page, which should be called the Wikipedia can't support waisting time right now ending. Gentgeen 13:33, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Red links for images

I noticed to my surprise today that links to nonexistent image pages (of the form [[:image:this_is_not_an_image.png]]) do not show up in red: image:this_is_not_an_image.png. --Smack 00:25, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Looks like a bug. Have you tried on the servers running Mediawiki 1.3? -- Cyrius|&#9998 02:26, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism in Progress page

All of Wik's machinations have cause the history of the Vandalism in Progress page to be lost. It appears to be at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress (other than Quagga's). Can somebody figure out how to get the history back and at the same time keep the current version of things on the ViP page? RickK 02:07, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Isn't this what those delete/move/delete/restore merges are for? Never actually tried one myself, but I've seen it described. -- Cyrius|&#9998 02:25, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
I've been trying to pull this off for a good 20 minutes, and mediawiki refuses to delete the page. The query just times out. The process is described on Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves. -- Cyrius|&#9998 02:47, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
It's been an hour and I still can't get it to go through. I'm giving up for the time being. -- Cyrius|&#9998 03:35, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
I tried merging it with the new software. It seems that the entire page history somehow vanished. I deleted the current WP:VIP and moved over the old WP:VIP/History. I checked the history and found that there was only one edit listed and no deleted edits. Guanaco 20:06, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/l/Wikipedia%7EVillage_pump_May_2004_archive_2_90a0.html"