User talk:Wavelength

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck! JFW | T@lk 06:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

PS Could you please start contributing content, instead of adding external links?

Contents

[edit] Cruise ship

Hi Wavelength,

I removed the external link you added to Cruise ship. I don't have a problem with discussing the negative impact of Cruise ships, but it should be done in an NPOV way in the article, not just an external link. -- Solipsist 07:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of environment topics

It appears that you're determined to link every article in Wikipedia to List of environment topics. Why? Josh Parris ✉ 05:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps your life would be easier if you discovered many of these topics are collected under Category:Environment, Category:Ecology and Category:Environmentalism and as such do not need to point to a list that points to them. For more information, read wikipedia:category and perhaps involve yourself in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecology or Wikipedia:Categorization projects (current). Perhaps also of interest is Wikipedia:Merge some redundant lists to categories. Josh Parris ✉ 07:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Josh Parris. If the links which I made to list of environment topics were inappropriate, I apologize. Thank you for the links to pages with information about categories. Wavelength 17:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I am not sure whether the links were such a great idea, there was nothing inappropriate about your actions. Some of Josh's actions, on the other hand, did seem a little inappropriate. Don't worry about it, Be Bold in your editing, and don't let impolite comments get to you. Guettarda 20:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is great that you have been diligent on the List of environment topics page. You have pipped me to the post on updating the article. However, I feel that you are a little too zealous in adding articles to the list. For instance I have deleted two ships that are responsible for oil spills since they are covered in the oil spill article which was also listed. With your rationale we could list every single aspect of human endevour since environmental effects are wide ranging. But as already pointed out: Be bold.Alan Liefting 08:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for what seems like a compliment. I was unfamiliar with the expression "pipped ... to the post", so I searched with Google for web pages with each page having both of the words "pipped" and "post" anywhere on the page, and, according to [1], it seems to mean "narrowly defeated". A choice of preposition is indicated at [2]. I want this to be a collaboration, not a competition.
I have been increasing the list of topics in order to give readers a more complete view of the environment (because a holistic view of its many challenges helps us to understand its interconnectedness), and in order to encourage the writing of new articles. I possibly seemed to be impolite in ignoring a question from Josh Parris above, but answering "Why?" after an exaggerated statement seemed to imply accepting the exaggeration.
Why have you moved one paragraph of the introduction to the list of environment topics to the talk page? It seems to me that it was more useful where it was, guiding editors on what should be listed and what should not be listed. Wavelength 23:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whether to capitalize list items

Wavelength, you are right. The section at Wikipedia:Lists#1_-_Title_and_bullet_style_or_vertical_style does say "Do not capitalize list items ...". I don't think you have misunderstood the policy. I have approached capitalization of list items from a typographical perspective. The See also sections of articles are a list of links to related articles, and aren't arranged as a list for linguistic reasons. Liguistically, the Wikipedia:Lists policy is absolutely right: lists are another representation of a semi-colon seperated sentence, and as such capitalizing the first word is generally inappropriate. But in my view, See also sections aren't another layout of a sentence, but instead a typographical list of related articles - an example of which can been seen at the bottom of Wikipedia:Lists, where the links to articles, by name (as opposed to in passing within a paragraph), is capitalized. I believe this is because the articles are being explicitly referred to. Josh Parris ✉ 08:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ideas for improving Wikipedia

[edit] Editing

The editing process can be programmed to report (when a page is edited) the number of wikitext characters (including spaces) deleted and the number of wikitext characters (including spaces) added. These numbers can appear beside the edit summary, and beside N for a new page and m for a minor change.

[edit] Subject (difficulty) level

Each page on Wikipedia can be given a rating for difficulty of subject matter (distinct from difficulty of language, although simpler language would be less able to be used for expressing more complex subject matter). Most pages would have the simplest rating (possibly indicated by the number 1), and higher levels of difficulty might be indicated by 2, 3, 4, and so forth. This rating can appear as the last part of the page title (possibly in square brackets: [1], [2], and so forth).

Each page can begin with a row of levels for any page(s) which otherwise have the same title (apart from disambiguation differences). All levels except the current page can be shown as links. Each page indicated in such a row can be a prerequisite of any following page(s) indicated in that row. An additional wikicode can be devised in order to save editors the time used in repeatedly typing the same title in these instances.

A typical row might appear as follows: level 1 level 2 level 3 level 4 level 5

Each page can next show a list of links to any other page(s) considered to be prerequisite to understanding the page in question. If Simple English Wikipedia has a page corresponding to the current page, this fact can be highlighted here (in addition to there being a link in the language list in the left column).

If the context of the article contains any link which is considered to be such a prerequisite, it can have a notation to indicate this fact.

Likewise, each page can have a separate section (like the sections for "See also" and for "Internal links" and for "External links" and for "References") for pages on other topics to which the current page is considered to be prerequisite.

These matters of rating and prequisiteness would have some degree of analogy with book chapters and with school grade levels. Someone would decide the ratings and the prerequisitenesses.

Wavelength 02:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Some ideas similar to these have been expressed at Talk:Mathematics road map Wavelength 22:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Watchlist folders

Some editors with very long watchlists may benefit from being able to organize their watchlist items into folders. If that is not possible now, maybe it can be made possible. Wavelength 01:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Environment

Hello. As someone who has contributed to articles on the environment can I recommend that you join the Wikiproject Environment? Alan Liefting 05:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the recommendation. Wavelength 13:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Environemntalism to be moved to Category:Environment

Hello. As a user who has an interest in the environmental articles can I suggest you gave a look at the voting at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 30#Category:Environmentalism to Category:Environment. Alan Liefting 09:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. Wavelength 07:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of environmental topics

Hello. I wanted to get back to Josh Parris' point about categories. Wikipedia has an inbuilt tool which handles these kinds of lists a lot better. If you just categorise environmental articles under [[Category:Environment]], they will automatically fall into alphabetical order. This also makes management of the lists a lot easier. I hope this helps. Cnwb 10:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I notice that list of environment topics already has the wikicode for that category and for another one. Also, I am aiming for alphabetical order rather than ASCIIbetical order. Wavelength 12:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Since the great majority of articles start with an alphabetical letter the fact that the category system is ASCIIbetical is irrellevant. Alan Liefting 06:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of environment topics:F-G

Hi, List of environment topics:F-G was deleted and the edit history lost for some time (which goes against the GFDL) until I contacted User:Xaosflux, the admin who deleted the page and it was restored into List of environment topics:F. From the restored edit history, it looks like the edits [3] and [4] were instrumental in the deletion.

Instead of blanking the page and deleting, a redirect to List of environment topics:F should have been placed. Now that the edit history is restored, nothing else needs to be done. I just wanted to inform so that care is taken in future to not delete such pages. Thanks! -- Paddu 06:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the edit history; I apologize for the temporary loss of the edit history. I am still new to this particular feature of editing. Unfortunately, (if I understand correctly) the same situation applies to most of the other initial letters from A to M, so I would be grateful if someone could restore their edit histories also. Wavelength 20:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like there are at least 4 more pages which have lost edit history — List of environment topics:0-9 A-B, List_of_environment_topics:D-E, List of environment topics:H-K, List of environment topics:L-M (please check if there are no more such pages). Apart from that, whenever a page is started with content copied from another page, a link to the other page has to be provided in the edit history so that people know where the past history of the content lies. Some pages like [5] don't seem to have followed this convention. For such pages, you could add a note to the talk page saying from which page that page was split off. For the deleted pages above, you have to contact an admin to restore edit history. Actually, pasting the past history into the talk pages of the split pages might be "enough" and that is what is done for pages which are moved from one project to another (Wikipedia:Transwiki). But within a project restoring edit history can be looked upon as a "better" solution since we get to have a look at the past versions, but requires some effort on the part of the admin. You could add a request to WP:SPLICE to e.g. merge ":0-9 A-B" with ":0-9", ":D-E" with ":D", etc. and add a link to ":0-9" in the talk pages of ":A", ":B", a link to ":D" in the talk page of ":E", etc. -- Paddu 06:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
FYI, All the edit histories have now been restored, thanks to User:Xaosflux, User:UkPaolo and User:Sceptre. -- Paddu 21:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of environment topics watchlist

As this list of topics has been split on List of environment topics, how do you propose to "monitor changes to the pages by following the Related changes link"? —Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, I'm watching, here. —Viriditas | Talk 12:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added {{listintro|topic=the [[natural environment]]}} to each of the 28 subsidiary pages (counting "0-9" and the 26 letters and list of environmental topics lists). Wavelength 00:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your response. Unfortunately, the message about monitoring "changes to the pages by following the Related changes link" still appears at List of environment topics, and as you are aware, now appears at list of environmental topics lists. Neither of these messages are helpful and should be removed. A live watchlist of most if not all active articles currently appears at Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Viriditas/watchlist which is composed of the following: {{:list of environment topics:0-9}} {{:list of environment topics:A}} {{:list of environment topics:B}} {{:list of environment topics:C}} {{:list of environment topics:D}} {{:list of environment topics:E}} {{:list of environment topics:F}} {{:list of environment topics:G}} {{:list of environment topics:H}} {{:list of environment topics:I}} {{:list of environment topics:J}} {{:list of environment topics:K}} {{:list of environment topics:L}} {{:list of environment topics:M}} {{:list of environment topics:N}} {{:list of environment topics:O}} {{:list of environment topics:P}} {{:list of environment topics:Q}} {{:list of environment topics:R}} {{:list of environment topics:S}} {{:list of environment topics:T}} {{:list of environment topics:U}} {{:list of environment topics:V}} {{:list of environment topics:W}} {{:list of environment topics:X}} {{:list of environment topics:Y}} {{:list of environment topics:Z}} {{:List of environmental topics lists}} . Instead of using my userspace for the watchlist, would it be possible to copy the above to List of environment topics, and also include a page self-reference header which allows people to edit the sub-pages? Let me know. This will restore the watchlist. —Viriditas | Talk 03:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I just ran a small test, and this seems to work. The only issue are the subheadings, which I recommend removing on all subpages. Finally, a new message should be added to the top of List of environment topics requesting that all new articles be added to the appropriate subpage (users won't be able to add them to the page anyway). —Viriditas | Talk 03:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Even better, create a template for the TOC subpages. —Viriditas | Talk 04:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned several points, so I have been busy at preparing a response.

I believe that the message about monitoring "changes to the pages by following the Related changes link" at list of environment topics is helpful by informing users of changes to any of the 28 subsidiary pages. It helps me to monitor changes to the list, as when I need to re-alphabetize a redirected topic. It seems to me that someone interested in environment topics would likely be interested also in a (divided) list of them, as well as in list of environmental topics lists. Although those two pages do not now list environment topics in the same direct sense that the other 27 pages do, they do have a close relationship to environment topics; therefore, they can be considered to be "articles related to the natural environment" indirectly, and so the wording of the notice about related changes is probably adequate although not perfect. Alternatively, maybe the wording of the message can be adjusted to conform better to each of those pages.

As I remember, it was probably in early December 2005 that someone put a notice on list of environment topics recommending that it be split for the benefit of users with browser and/or connection limitations. My response to that notice can be found above at Progress report. If you would like there to be a consolidation of all the topics on the 28 pages mentioned in double braces {{ }} in your comment above, I recommend that they be copied to a new (additional) page with "list of environment topics on one page" as title. I mentioned this idea at Progress report (see "Here is another idea" near the bottom of the section). A warning about page size can placed on list of environment topics. By these means, there can be a "Related changes" message about the articles for the convenience of some users, and a similar message about lists of topics for the convenience of others. If you have no objection to that additional page, I will probably start it soon.

I have been adding subheadings because I understand that Wikipedia favors them on large pages for easier reading and easier editing. You said that they are an issue, but I do not see an issue with them. Could you please explain?

I like your point that "a new message should be added to the top of List of environment topics requesting that all new articles be added to the appropriate subpage". If I had thought of that when I deleted some pages, I could have avoided deleting them. I commented on the removed links to the deleted pages at Talk:List_of_environment_topics#Removed_links_to_pages. This was discussed at User_talk:Wavelength#List_of_environment_topics:F-G and I hope to have a comment ready soon for that discussion.

I do not understand your last point about creating "a template for the TOC subpages". What did you mean? Wavelength 02:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of environment topics articles.

See Talk:List of environment topics about the List of environment topics appropriateness in the Category:Environment. Alan Liefting 10:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time available for editing Wikipedia

I have been too busy recently to edit Wikipedia, and I am not sure of how much I will be able to do in the next few months. Wavelength 01:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC) ... that is to say, during the next few months. Wavelength 03:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This sort of info is usually put on the user page or highlighted using some tables/colours at the beginning of the talk page. Right now it just looks like another talk page conversation and might get ignored by most. -- Paddu 22:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environment topics lists:0-9,A, Environment topics lists:B, Environment topics lists:C, etc.

What is your primary purpose with these pages that you created? I ask because you should consider the guidelines at Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits. When you transclude a number of articles onto one page, there is a direct cost in terms of machine resources and the web server load.

If the sole purpose of these pages is to use Special:RelatedChangesLinked, it is more efficient, and less of a server load, to use actual internal links (e.g. [[List A]]) instead of tranclusion (e.g. {{:List A}}). RelatedChangesLinked still works that way.

If your primary purpose is to load over a dozen or so large articles onto one page at once so you can see them all at once, what is the benefit of doing that? You must realize that it takes much longer for the MediaWiki software to generate and load the pages, putting an unnecessary burden on the web servers.

You also realize that by doing these tranclusions, the page Environment topics lists:0-9,A, for example, is also listed on all of the same categories, on all on of the same "WhatLinksHere" lists, as the articles that were transcluded. In other words, Environment topics lists:0-9,A is also listed on the categories that list of agricultural organizations is in, is also listed on the categories that list of all-time high and low temperatures by state is in, etc.

For example, when I look at Category:Lists of organizations, it lists Environment topics lists:0-9,A on there. Why? Because List of agricultural organizations, which has the actual category link, is transcluded.

I ask these questions because sooner or later, they may be put on AFD for these reasons. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • In the meantime, because I do not see a considerable benefit under WP:TCB at this time, I have converted all the transclusions on these pages to regular internal links. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • My sole purpose was to use the "Related Changes" feature for the articles linked in the lists and not for the lists themselves. If the method which I used was inappropriate, then maybe we could use the substitution method described on the page Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits. What your change has done is to duplicate on 16 pages what is already available on one page, list of environment topics lists. If there is no acceptable way to achieve my purpose, then I guess we should delete the 16 pages as superfluous and also the paragraph linking to them.
    • Incidentally, many topics which could have been listed on list of environment topics (and later its 28 subpages) have been listed on the lists listed on the page list of environment topics lists. (Some are listed in both places.) Since the 28 subpages have been recombined at list of environment topics on one page for the "Related Changes" feature, it seemed to me to be reasonable to combine, for the same purpose, the pages listed on list of environment topics lists. Wavelength 00:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fishing topics

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article List of fishing topics, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at Talk:List of fishing topics. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Probably, I will simply wait to see what happens, and then make any necessary revision(s). Wavelength 18:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested articles

I have requested these articles.

  • flowchart of environmental problems
  • flowchart of environmental solutions
  • flowchart of societal problems
  • flowchart of societal solutions

Wavelength 13:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of sock puppetry on the Center for Science in the Public Interest page

Allegations of sock puppetry have been made against some of the accounts that have edited the Center for Science in the Public Interest page. I have instigated the wiki process for handling such allegations. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin. As someone who has contributed to the CSPI page, please add your views to the Comments section. You have up to 10 days to make comments on the allegation. Nunquam Dormio 19:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not contributed to that page. Can you provide a link to such a contribution? Maybe you are confusing me with someone else. Wavelength 10:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You made just the one edit [6]. BTW, my original message to potentially interested parties could have been worded better: there's no suggestion of any impropriety on their part. Nunquam Dormio 11:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I was mistaken. Wavelength 13:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of environmental news sources

I have proposed this article for deletion. --Brianyoumans 19:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/v/User_talk%7EWavelength_c343.html"