Wikipedia:Village pump/January 2004 archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Vietnamese casualties, Vietnam War``

Can anyone tell me the number of Vietnamese dead and woundded from 1965-1973 (the Vietnam War) and cite source and page number?

Murray Polner buber@optonline.net

  • Vietnam War#Casualties - The lowest casualty estimates, based on North Vietnamese statements which are now discounted by Vietnam, are around 1.5 million Vietnamese killed. Vietnam released figures on April 3, 1995 that a total of one million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed in the war. The accuracy of these figures has generally not been challenged. It is unclear how many Vietnamese were wounded in the war. --Raul654 15:34, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Other extensions?

- Do we own and non .com, .org extensions? We should buy up any major ones, like ca, de, uk, all those, just so we don't have spammers buying them and gaining money from our name. -- user:zanimum

We have a few but they're expensive. A number of Wikipedians have bought the relevant domain in their own country and donated it (or provided it for use) to Wikimedia. -- Tim Starling 03:46, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia guide to the See also lists

A question was posed in Talk:Microsoft_.NET concerning whether it is appropriate to have links in a "See also" list that are already in the body of an article. I did some searching in the Style Guides, but couldn't find a clear answer to the question there (it was mentioned in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#See also and Related topics styles but was mixed with the topic of "When articles are short and don't have headers..." Is there a clear Wikipedia Style Guide entry to cover this? If not, what should it say? Bevo 17:15, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a rule, but i'd imagine that if a link is already in the article, then it isn't a see also. Adding any link twice in one article is a bit like overkill, IMHO. Bmills 17:19, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What about if a page is linked as part of a natural sentence, but also should go in 'see also'? E.g. "John Doe's father suffered from paranoia, which had a large influence on young Doe." and then later a link to 'See also: paranoia', if Doe had done some studies in that field? (Yes I suck at giving examples) — Jor 18:46, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
I would (and do) include a link in the text and in the see-also section, when it is a rather long text and when the link links to something really relevant for the page. -- till we *) 18:52, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
In order to provide an example, can you cite an existing Wikipedia article where this dual linkage is in effect? Bevo 19:30, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Take a look at Artificial script for a short example: conlang is linked both as linktext, and under 'see also'. Short example still (the article needs expanding), but proves the point. — Jor 20:17, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
One example could be The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the section is Related Articles), another Sociology. Probably not the best examples ... -- till we *) 20:26, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
Here's an example: fluid dynamics. Many links at the end, and a good number of them (e.g. Mach number, Reynolds number) are already linked in the text. I think it works; if someone insists on changing it I'll have to make a list of fluid dynamics topics. moink 20:36, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The answer is no and no. I think we're told not to link the same thing mutiple times. --Jiang 22:21, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I thought so too. I just can't find a definitive statement today saying so in the Wikipedia Style guides I've reread. Bevo 22:41, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Please tell us what to do in cases where what we're told is wrong. Specifically, people are making arguments here on a case-by-case basis, which I don't think can be entirely dismissed just by asserting a blanket ban. That said, "see also" does rather suggest a list of things which haven't been mentioned yet, and something which has been linked to has in particular been mentioned. "Related articles" might be better in such cases. Onebyone 22:55, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Not answering OneByone's question, but I'd say that there are some circumstances where it's perfectly appropriate to have duplicate links, even in the "body" of the article. For example:
  • In a long article with multiple sections, someone may very likely skip an entire section to get to what they're interested in. Why make them search for a link?
  • It's almost a necessity in "chronology of" or "year" artilces. Take 2003 as an example. Supreme Court of the United States is linked numerous times -- and it should be. It would be worse than pointless to force someone to search in January for a link related to something that happened in December.
That being said, it certainly is possible to put in too many links. However, I'd hate to see a blanket prohibition.
Perhaps what would help is an automatic list (similar to "what links here") that shows all the links away from a page, preferably using the text as it appears in the article. -Anthropos 23:38, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I like that idea. WormRunner 04:20, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's not a blanket ban or prohibition. The manual of style states that its edicts are not in any way mandatory and that flexibility should be allowed. I personally add duplicate links within the text for long articles (provided these duplicates are spaced far apart). It's just a suggestion... --Jiang 00:06, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Right. The present discussion is just about the "See also" list of links, not links in general. To me, the word "also" strongly implies that the link has not already been used within the article. I see that Wikipedia:Manual of Style now has some unambiguous suggestion regarding the content of the "See also" lists. Bevo 04:07, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Inline links are good but I might duplicate some with See Also entries where a particular topic is worth highlighting as of particular interest. I can't think of a case where I've done this, though... Jamesday 08:50, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd consider "See also" to be completely different from "Related articles". "Related articles" can have links that have already been mentioned in the article. "See also" should not duplicate the links. There need to be policy distinguishing these two terms and their usages. Or there should be a convention that the terms can be used inter-changeably. Jay 16:13, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed more articles lately that have the "Related articles" section, either in place of, or in addition to a "See also" list. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#See also and Related topics styles doesn't give much advice on when to use one or both of these lists. That guide is especially vague about the "Related articles" list. It seems to imply that there is a special need for that list, but from looking at articles that employ it, I can't tell how it differs from "See also". Bevo 21:25, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re your query about the artificial script article and the linked conlang, you really don't need two links to the same article. Especially, in this case where you have a redirect from conlang to constructed language anyway, why would you want two links to conlang?. If you feel the "see also" gives it more emphasis, then just use that one only. --Dieter Simon 00:10, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • I think that See Also can include important links found in the article text. Providing an important link in the main text andnot including in under See Also assumes that the readers do read the whole aticle. This is an incorrect assumption. For example, I rarely read the whole text of a long article, and I use See Also to find other articles I am interested in. If See Also does not provide all the important links, I am forced to read or search the article text (but Mozilla does great job listing all the links for me). I think the See Also should be broken into two lists, the firt with the links not included in the article and the second with the duplicate links. Optim 16:40, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but "important" shouldn't get out of hand. It should also be See also instead of See Also. Why capitalize? --Jiang 22:28, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Socialism

Someone please revert the edit Ed Poor made to Socialism while protected. --Wik 17:49, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

Socialism was unprotected by Eloquence about three minutes ago. -- Cyan 18:11, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
As soon as I read that, the words "And they're off" comes to mind :) --Raul654 21:41, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes, well put. (;-> Andrewa 09:49, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RMS Lusitania rewrite?

Apparently RMS Lusitania is an ancient copyright violation that's since been wikified and edited heavily, but still largely resembles the copyrighted text. See Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements#December 23 for more. Is someone knowledgeable willing to rewrite the article, salvaging any non-coypvio text if possible? At the very least the image ought to be out of copyright, and some of the text may be. --Delirium 23:20, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

Comparing the texts, this one needs a complete rewrite even if it includes the same facts. Way too much in common at the moment - I'd remove almost all but the first paragraph, image and vital statistics as infringing... Jamesday 09:04, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Link Names

I really think the wikipedia page link system could be improved.

I have recently written an article which made reference to the peasants revolt

I have to try about 8 variations before I hit upon the correct version - or do I mean the way that was choosen by whoever set the page up first. most of the variations were caused by capitization.


i had similar difficulty with references to Henry VI part 1 and King Henry VI

and difficulties to describe a put name

is the pub the George or the George or The George

The point being most of these are tedious difficulties which should really be automatically dealt with

i.e. can't the engine be told to ignore (the's a's an's) etc. at the beginning of a link

can't it be told to ignore capitals (I know this is a unix thing but unix is wrong in human terms, in a search in a dictionary capitals are irrelevant.)

  • I partly agree. Why are links case-sensitive? There should never actually be two articles at the same location differing only in case, so links should be case-insensitive. Articles themselves could continue to reside at case-sensitive locations. --Delirium 09:22, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • The situation where you might reasonably have articles differing only in case is where one is a word and the other an acronym. But disambiguation could always be used to deal with these cases if article names were case insensitive (as I think they should be - not just linking, but the names themselves). Onebyone 11:19, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, wrong. It is perfectly OK to have Quantum Leap and quantum leap as separate articles. Captialization tells the reader that one is a proper name and one is a common term. Newbie should see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. --mav 11:38, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • It's perfectly OK, but it isn't necessary since if we didn't have case sensitivity, those two would just be disambiguated. The question, then, is whether the advantage of disambiguating by case alone is worth the problems caused by case-only errors. Onebyone 16:24, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • I think it is. Redirects should be made to make linking in the above cases easier. True, there are problems with the current system, but I don't think case insensitivity will solve them. We follow normal English capitalization rules, so I don't see why there should be any more than minor problems resulting from case sensitivity. I also disagree with the suggestion that the software should ignore grammatical articles (e.g. the) at the beginning of titles -- this would then require moving The Animals to The Animals, a far less than ideal title because it is disambiguated and means that The Animals would redirect to animal, and no one would ever link to The Animals in an attempt to link to the article on animals. Tuf-Kat 18:40, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't see how it's "wrong", mav. I do not think it's "perfectly okay" to have Quantum Leap and quantum leap. In fact, this is a terrible idea. People often search in lowercase in the search bar, in which case they get the wrong one; search-engines are case-insensitive; etc.; etc. It's a much better solution to have quantum leap and quantum leap (tv show) and have everything case-insensitive. --Delirium 01:16, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • The information entries should be Quantum Leap and quantum leap. Don't confuse the information with metadata, the information which describes the information. The software should present the metadata in an appropriate manner, such as having case-insensitive searching, automatically inserting "see also" links, and showing such items reasonably in browsing screens. Indicating that Quantum Leap is a show by means of capitalization is actually overloading the character set for a non-text use. There should be different markers (keywords?) for the meanings of the phrase. Capitalization does not suggest thirtysomething was something. SEWilco 09:23, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I think that's a good approach. The aim of the standards for article names should simply be to give the best possible access to the information. See below. Andrewa 19:54, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

On the subject of capitalisation, I think article names should be mostly case-insensitive. This is because, as I said above, the aim of the article name is to give the best possible handle to the article, to enable it to be retrieved most easily.

I say mostly because I think there is a correct way to capitalise, and that we should follow it. So, I don't think the software should be case-insensitive. After many years of study of Formal Logic (note the caps) I know that there is a big difference between 'the university of Sydney' and 'the University of Sydney', but most of our readers don't know or care, and it's not our job to force them to find out in order to use Wikipedia.

And prescriptive linguistics is on the way out anyway, so it could be argued that the difference I've cited above does not even exist for most of the population. Usage is everything.

This is how I think it should work:

  • All article names should be 'correctly' capitalised as at present.
  • If there's only one article by a particular name, case-insensitive, then all searches and links should point to it, case-insensitive.
  • If there's more than one, then there should be a software-generated disambiguation page that links and "go to" will find. Searches will simply find all the occurrences.
  • There should be an additional link syntax that allows an editor to make a particular link case-sensitive. But if this link fails to point to anything simply because it is case-sensitive, then it behaves case-insensitive.
  • In the case of two or more articles such as the Quantum Leap/quantum leap articles that are distinguished only by case, there should be software-generated links at the top of each pointing to the others.

Lots of details to work out here but I think it's doable. Andrewa 19:54, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] How to disambig people with the same name?

An article which I recently rewrote, Racak incident, includes a link (carried over from the previous version of the article) to William Walker. This turns out to be an article about a 19th century American rather than the present Ambassador William Walker. How do you disambig two separate people with the same name? -- ChrisO 11:35, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I had this problem with Robert Kelly (poet). My inelegant solution is kind of self-evident. Bmills 12:50, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Bmills is exactly right. In the case of people with the same name, you either seperate them based on middle name or occupation. --Raul654 13:13, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
And link on top of the more famous William Walter ''Alternate meaning: [[William Walker (diplomat)]]''. --Jiang 01:01, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reusing image of one language in other

I wanted to add image of Shirin Ebadi to the Tamil version சிரின் எபாடி. As the image is already in English version, I don't want to re-upload it for the Tamil version. Could anyone tell me the syntax for reusing the image of English verion in Tamil version --- Rrjanbiah 12:36, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, currently you have to upload it again. There is some discussion on Meta about the pros/cons of a (maybe additional) central image repository, as many images are language-independent. andy 13:11, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, but... I could see almost all other language versions are resusing the images without uploading it again. For example, you may visit தேசியக் கொடிகளின் பட்டியல் to see how they have reused the images of English version. Do you think, it's wrong?Rrjanbiah 04:24, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes I do think it is wrong. For what I understand, this is a page in Tamil in the English WikiPedia, isn't it?
Sorry...The link should be http://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/தேசியக்_கொடிகளின்_பட்டியல் -- R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah, Rrjanbiah 09:16, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
BTW, I second your question: I had the same concern with the French WikiPedia and e.g. the picture of David Hume. Marc Girod 08:52, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Do remember to add interwiki links to both versions, in case it is suspected/discovered to be a copyvio. --Jiang 00:59, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Jia, I couldn't get your point about "copyvio". Could you please elaborate why interwiki link is necessary? Rrjanbiah 04:24, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
If another language wiki discovers that this image is a copyright violation, they'll be able to track down the image elsewhere on wikipedia and have those images deleted. If we suspect that image to be a copyright violation here, we'll have a link to where it came from, so we can ask the user from the other language wp where he d/l'd it. --Jiang 04:45, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tilde

Hi, this is User:Optim. I just discovered that I cannot sign my posts with the fou tildes when I am using my new laptop. It has an Italian keyboard, and AFAIK there is no way to type the tilde without using some software or ascii code. Yes, really the italian keyboard has no tilde key, and it is not the only key that is missing. is there any HTML code I can use to type the tilde? does MediaWiki support another way to sign, without using the tilde? if some Italian is reading this, I would appreciate it if you could tell me how I can type the tilde with italian keyboards. thanks, Optim

You could cut'n'paste this: ~~~~ -- Finlay McWalter 15:43, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
or (if you're running windows): hold down ALT and type 126 on the numeric keypad (not so easy on laptops) -- Finlay McWalter 15:47, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC) If that doesn't work ALT 007e might work (probably won't though) theresa knott 15:50, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I've just had another idea - If you have Word you can go to insert them symbol, find the tild and click on the shortcut key. Here you can customise the keyboardb to make say ALT t print a tilde. theresa knott 15:54, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
or you could just set the keymap your familiar with, and magic-marker the keyboard. -- Finlay McWalter 16:03, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thank you all for your useful replies! I decided to use Fn+Alt+126. BTW what's the code for ` ? Thank you very much and Best Wishes for Peace Profound ...Optim 18:27, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You can use the numbers from This table -- Finlay McWalter 18:31, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thank you Optim 19:01, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Change the keyboard layout from "Italian" to "Italian (142)". This only moves the €[]@#{} keys around (used with right-alt), and makes the ~` keys available. To get the keys at the new location, type Right-alt+3/5/7/8/9/0/q/e/+/ù for #/€/{/[/]/}/@/€/~/`, respectively. Κσυπ Cyp   00:53, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Interpreter Application for Windows?

Is there any? I have been having problems accesing the website ultimately (hint: announcements & server status), and lost a few articles because I forgot to save them up in a TXT file while trying to get a preview of them. C'mon, it shouldn't be that hard to develop! :p

- Maio 18:43, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If I understand well you want a software application that can translate Wiki-code to HTML (that is, '''Bold''' to Bold). After you get the HTML code in a file you will be able to preview it with any web browser. I could develop this software in VB.NET, Java or C, after my exams if I have time. Leave a comment on my talk page so that I will remember you when/if I build something and inform you. But dont expect something before I finish with my exams (25th January) Optim 18:55, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This is something frequently discussed on the mailing lists and once or twice here too. I think there are about half a dozen half finished interpreters in Java, Python, C et cetera. None of them usable. Of course if Wikipedia was XML everyone could have a copy of the stylesheets and offline translations would be a piece of cake... CGS 20:46, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC).
A failed browser connection should not cause you to lose the article. Just hit the "back" button, and your browser will show the text in the textbox again (at least, this is what happens in my Opera 6). Alfio 23:01, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
IE loses the text (unless you have done preview). Mozilla doesn't. Secretlondon 23:38, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
I used to use IE on a Mac, and it kept the text if I pressed "back", though I know IE on a Windows at my old school library lost it. Tuf-Kat 04:35, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
Magnus Manske has written one in C++, for Windows. It's called "Waikiki". It seems to basically work. Originally there was a binary distribution available, but I think that's offline now. The source code is in sourceforge cvs, see [1]. -- Tim Starling 02:25, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
Whenever I'm aware that I've typed into a browser's edit window for more than about five minutes, I do a "select all" and a "copy." Then when I press the action button ("save page" and "show preview" in the case of Wikipedia) and notice an ominous pause, I usually have the presence of mind to bring up a text editor and do a "paste." I don't say this is the best solution. I don't say this is a substitute for a powerful Wikipedia server, or a browser that works properly (Safari seems to), or an offline WIkitext renderer. I don't say it always works for me. I just say it's what I do. It's also an observation of mine that when I "lose" an hour's work due to a text editor crash or whatever, it really only takes about ten minutes to redo it—and, despite Ellen Feiss, the result is usually better (it basically enforces one more rewrite). Again, that doesn't mean that server or application crashes are actually a blessing in disguise; I'm just saying that the loss usually isn't as big as it seems in that first horrifying moment. Dpbsmith 02:40, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


[edit] HMS Illustrious

As I was going through wiki, I noticed that we have an article on HMS Illustrious, which is essentially an overinflated disambig page. However, some pages link to the different forms of the ship's name (Invincible_class_aircraft_carrier). Certainly, we have lots of pages for individual ships. So do we move the entry on the Illustrious page to the specific page, or do we leave it as-is? --Raul654 03:41, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd say leave it. There are certainly individual pages for the current Invincible class, but the current Illustrious page is more than a glorified disambiguation page for the earlier ships. I note that it contains consolidated battle honours for all the ships. -- Arwel 13:49, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
That's not an overinflated disambiguation page. It's a history of the ships of the same name, a long-standing naval tradition being naming of ships after predecessors and using that history for morale and tradition purposes. Articles which want to refer to a specific ship should refer to the specific ship. If there isn't an article on the specific ship, the one from the history of the name article would be a fair start. Jamesday 02:52, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Manned mission to Mars

Just saw this on slashdot - Bush to Announce New Missions to Moon, Mars. Think it deserves a place on the main page, but I wouldn't know what article to link to. But it's great news nonetheless --Raul654 05:27, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd wait till you actually does that announcement. A lot of media already expected the same for the centennial of the Kitty Hawk flight, but he said nothing in his speech then. And I guess he will announce a return to moon, and more unmanned Mars exploration, with the long term goal of a manned Mars mission, not a manned Mars mission directly. But don't forget his father also announced a return to moon plan, and nothing happened. andy

[edit] Tamil Wiki - language issues

I could see that the Tamil Wiki found at http://ta.wikipedia.org used some hard/old Tamil words. Personally I think, only few Tamilians can follow the articles easily. It seems that they've tried to find some new words for non-existing Tamil words; and I think, for such words it is better to go for "transcription" than "translation". But, I could also see that English Wiki has also "simple" version. So... my question is: Is it Ok to use such hard/odd words especially in Tamil Wiki?--Rrjanbiah 05:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


You might want to contact the person that did the translation: m:LanguageTa.php. Some messages may be fixed by editing these: ta:Wikipedia:All messages, but you have to be an admin, for that you might want to leave Brion a message here: m:User:Brion VIBBER/Todo list. hth, Dori | Talk 05:49, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
It is a matter best discussed by literate Tamilians. Such language/culture-specific policies, as opposed to the fundamentals of Wikipediaism, should be left to be devised by the native speakers. The English WP has no control over the Tamil language. Though it may be the case that the majority of the English speakers agrees to use "simple" version in some of its articles, by no mean should it be what the Tamilians obey as well without question.
The general idea is that our encyclopedias should be understood by most literate native speakers (sure, there are always some who cannot). I assume that the original author of those Tamil articles you spoke of is a native Tamilian as well? Perhaps such matter is better discussed with him, with opinions of other native Tamilian Wikipedians. Autonomy is a good thing, since our experience is uniquely English and cannot dictate yours, as it may not apply. Be Wiki, be free. --Menchi (Talk)â 05:51, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)‪
As I am the one who either translate or wrote fresh most of the articles found in the Tamil Wiki, I like to clarify certain issues relevant to languages like Tamil. Tamil is a very old Language with an impressive array of litterature to its credit. However, it is fairly weak in expressing modern knowledge, as it always have to create new words to cope up with the fast growing knowledge base. It is obvious that many of these words will take time to be accepted and go into wider circulation. This process is very slow due to the fact that for the vast majority of the world Tamil population who live in Tamilnadu, India, the medium of education is English not Tamil. However the situation in Srilanka where the native Tamil speakers are comparatively small in numbers, technical words related to modern knowledge are understood better as the medium of instruction for them in school is Tamil. The lack of co-ordination between Indian and Sri Lankan Tamil scholars in creating new technical words also affects the widespread understanding of tamil words.
I am a native Tamil speaker from Sri Lanka, who had my education in Tamil medium. I do not think this fact pause a serious problem in communicating to Indian Tamils in Tamil. I do not deny that my style of Language and translation too had caused concern to Rrjanbiah. It is a problem only because, at the moment I am the one who contributed or translated more than 80% of the 80+ articles in Tamil Wiki. I am sure More and more people, particularly from Tamilnadu will get involved as contributors and solve this problem. --Mayooranathan 07:28, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This is not about criticism or lack of coordination or rant. This is the concern about the useful nature of Wiki. My question was: Is it ok to use such hard words in Wiki according to Wiki ethics? As you said, we can improve it when many people join this venture. -- Rrjanbiah 08:18, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In that case, I'd say that the answer is yes, you can use hard words. Someone else can always come along and explain what the hard word means if they think it is too difficult for too many readers. Onebyone 10:49, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think you answered the question when you wrote that most Tamil are in India and educated with the English words. If you follow the English (most common usage) guide, that means that the articles should be named by the most common (meaning English for difficult words) form and should use the created or difficult Tamil word in the first paragraph and have a redirect page from the difficult to the easy form. While the Wikipedia isn't about language evangelism, even if evangelism is desired, you can't evangelise if most people don't find the article which will tell them the Tamil word you want them to use.:) Jamesday 03:22, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable?

Is this site entirely reliable for research purposes? Meaning the content is reviewed and checked before accepted, or can any moron out there just write some BS about the topic and put it up?

Anyone can write anything, and anyone else can (and usually does) correct or remove the incorrect info. Dori | Talk 06:39, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
There is junk here, but there is junk in all textbooks, no matter how good. Wikipedia has the advantage that the disagreements are out in the open. If you want to do research, read the article and then the talk pages. And make corrections if you see something wrong. WormRunner 06:46, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
For each subject area, some authors are better than others. Like anything else on the Internet, YOU have to evaluate how reliable an author is...Pollinator 06:48, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Factual errors do get into articles. The articles are reviewed by non-experts, so subtle details (especially in the more technical articles) may be incorrect. That said, errors can creep into even "reliable" sources like Britannica (See Making fun of Britannica). Wikipedia has a quantity-oriented mentality - you'll find a vastly more information here than you would in a paper encyclopedia --Raul654 06:53, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Downloading Wikipedia

I am an avid user of Wikipedia. I use it regularly on my laptop. The problem is I am not always connected to the internet. Therefore I would like to be able to download a local copy to my laptop for use when offline. Is this legal ? Is it possible by using apropriate software ? (I have used HT Track to do similar tasks before). I will of course keep on using the online version when possible :-)

        Frode, Norway
See Database download. A Website Sider/Grabber like HTTrack is too heavy on the servers,don't use it. There are some older static-html dumps,but only up to date database-dumps. Martijn 14:39, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
There are no official offline distribution. There are regular backup dumps, but to use them you need to setup lots of special software - basically, recreating an entire wikipedia on your laptop. On the Wikipedia:Database download page there are links to a couple of experiments to make html versions out of wikipedia. Alfio 19:49, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Refreshing Brilliant Prose Voting Deadline and Proposal

It's time to put this to bed. I propose starting the work of removing articles from Wikipedia:Brilliant prose that have been voted off. But we need to agree a voting outcome, or set of outcomes. Here's what I propose for now:





  • Articles with Keep votes and No remove votes remain
  • Articles with a majority of Removes go.

Articles with one or more Removes but a majority of Keeps go to Wikipedia:Brilliant prose candidates under the heading Nominations after voting. Users who voted remove (or anyone else) will have one week to lodge specific objections. If no objections are forthcoming, articles will be restored to BP at the end of that week. If objections are raised, the article will go through due process.

I await a flood of better ideas. Bmills 13:06, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] State of Wikipedia

I'm worried about wikipedia. It seems to have become a hostile environment. There are still pockets of positive community left, but these are quickly becoming extinct as decline of civility mounts and AssumeGoodFaith is is being increasingly ignored. Trolls have been granted adminship, giving them the authority to delete pages, protect pages, and block users. Some wikipedians have no way of counterbalancing the trolls who have power, as the RFA page is a haven for these cancers to wikipedia, and they make false claims against some applicants. The general population is afraid to go against those who make the accusations and results in the trolls controlling the RFA appointees. Sysops have started to abuse their powers, protecting pages they are involved with, editing protected pages after an edit war has started, and threatening others with their powers. I can only hope that sysops are not abusing their power of deletion, as I cannot inspect deleted pages. I think that Wikipedians need to stop standing in the shadows afraid to speak against these trolls, and fight for what they believe is right. Only after :this happens, can wikipedia be truly restored to the peaceful environment it once was. This is an appeal to all those who are afraid of being labled as troublemakers, it is a call for threatened wikipedians to rise up and unite for the future of Wikipedia to ensure that our voice will be heard. We have strength in numbers that the trolls do not. Don't let Wikipedia be ruined by a minority of powerful(by virtue of fear they instill) individuals! Green Mountain 14:23, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dear Green
Now that you have disturbed my peace, I must say I'd love to see a list of sysop trolls with evidence of their trolling activities. My own wxperience is, it seems, quite contrary to your own; I actually come here for the peace I experience as much as anything else. Bmills 14:28, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In my experience Wikipedia is as hostile an environment as ever. Calling someone a troll without giving any evidence to support your claim is an ad hominem, and not acceptable. Also inacceptable is calling someone a "cancer". Which admin do you believe to be a troll? Contrary to the way you portray it, non-admins are able to vote and voice their opinions on RfA (as you have done numerous times). Any case of admins abusing their powers should be documented on RfA, and if grave enough result in them being made non-admins.
"..., can wikipedia be truly restored to the peaceful environment it once was.".
I thought you have only been here for one month. Either you believe that the situation has degraded considerably in one month and you refer to one month ago as "once", or you are (as many suspect) alexandros/aplank and are lying to and deceiving wikipedia by claiming that you are not. --snoyes 14:42, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
So what actions would you suggest? And why? What specific problems are you having? This reads rather like the first paragraph of a moral panic piece in a tabloid newspaper to me. I hope the sentiment is genuine. I'll have a look at your edit history when I have a little time. MrJones 14:46, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
If you are angry that your Requests for adminship is deferred or denied because there are some hints that you may be another user who applied for adminship unsuccessfully before - why the heck do you insist on being an admin? You can do good work without the powers to delete articles, block users or protect articles - and if you ever use those powers the way you claim others you'd experience a more hostile environment for sure. andy 14:49, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I never called any person a cancer, and I never called any person a troll. In contrast, I was called a liar by many people on RfA, and users were basing their oppositions on a hunch that a user named Wik(and some others) had. I see no way of proving that I am a different person than my brother. As a result, it would be better if users gave me the benifit of the doubt, since I have caused no problems on wikipedia. It isn't fair to base your decision on the fact that my parents had more than one child, since I have no control over that and cannot change it. This is what a troll does, opposes things for no reason. I only made a request for adminship. I am not intent on becoming an admin. I am intent on being judged fairly by my peers, and this is not happening. My brother, (although he is sometimes beligerent), told me that he was taking a break from wikipedia for this very reason. I don't want to fight with people. I just want people to judge me based on who I am, not based on something as stupid as the possibility that I am my brother. If I were my brother, and I wanted to pretend to be someone else, I wouldn't make it obvious that I was related to myself, and I would probably use a proxy so there would be no thoughts that I were an "imposter". Green Mountain 15:28, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree about the admin part. Being an adminstrator doesn't give you superiority at all. And you'd probably find the extra powers boring and only rarely useful. I get by quite fine without being an administrator. - Mark 15:20, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia hardware

Could anyone make an announcement about what's going on with the new hardware (bought? being discussed? on its way?), and why Wikipedia seems to be so slow at this moment? Thanks! olivier 15:13, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

Here's an announcement: "There has been no official announcement at this time as to the state of the Wikipedia hardware situation, although some discussion is taking place on certain forums. The current server arrangement is exhibiting significant strain, especially during the peak times of Western Europe and America. Hopefully Wikipedia will be operating at more bearable speeds soon." - from your resident Wikipedia Press Secretary, Mark.

Question of unknown origin moved to Wikipedia:Reference Desk

The new server system (largely still to be bought with the raised money) is being actively discussed on the wikitech-l mailing list. Join it, or read the list archive. Alfio 20:07, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Book of Praise

I suggest we start a new page Wikipedia:Book of Praise or something similar. I thought it would be nice to have a place where we can praise other people’s work in public. It’s a way to show that we appreciate each other’s contributions to Wikipedia. Kokiri 17:43, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I really like that idea! --Raul654 17:49, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Isn't it called Wikipedia:Brilliant Prose? And isn't there a danger that without a fairly well-understood definition of purpose it'll (at best) descend into cliquey mutual appreciation? MrJones 21:31, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This would appear to be duplicating the Barnstar idea. Angela. 22:57, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
Just show appreciation for others either on your user page or their talk page, or both. --snoyes 23:05, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I didn't know about the Barnstar... (didn't get one so far ;-), but I like the idea better than what I suggested above. Maybe we can make the Barnstar more popular by having a mini Barnstar for smaller things? Kokiri 12:04, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling Vote

There was very little feedback on the spelling of Swiss cantons on Talk:Switzerland so far… I invite the community to take part: comment or vote. Kokiri 17:43, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My guess is that a lot of users don't feel they can judge the issue. I've never visited Switzerland (closest I've been is about 100 miles...), but I am somewhat familiar with both French and German, and it's only by the barest of margins that I decided I even have an opinion about which names are best. Maybe I'm just apathetic, though. Onebyone 21:25, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The whole talk page (google tests; links to "official pages"; "principles") should/could help you to decide... but I don't want to force anyone. Kokiri 09:41, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It did help, it's just that since I needed so much help in the first place, it was a close-run thing. For a contrast, look at the Talk:Brussels stuff about French and Flemish names in Belgium - I'm staying well clear of that one no matter how good an explanation is on the talk page... Onebyone 14:21, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I called off the vote. It doesn't make sense like this. Kokiri 17:59, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Announcement of vote

There is a vote going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage that has just got underway on the above page as to whether biography pages about Peers should or should not have their title listed as part of their name, and if so, how it should be formatted.
James F. (talk) 21:36, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested "Selected Articles" Reorganization

I propose that the selected articles section on the main page be reorganized thusly:

  1. New Articles: Two lines! There are so many high-quality new articles produced every twenty-four hours and I believe that refreshing the main page frequently (and impressively) is the best way to grow traffic and encourge even more high-quality page productions. (Wikipedians angle to get up on New Articles by writing full-fledged superarticles. You know it, and I know it, and it's great, and we should encourage this behavior.) New articles is the sexiest thing we've got, and I say we work it.
  2. In the News: One line.
  3. Recent Deaths: One line
  4. Anniversaries: One line

Thank you kindly for reading. jengod 00:33, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I fully support this suggestion. --snoyes 03:31, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Disagree. I posted earlier about having a "Featured articles" part of the main page. My objection was that non-timely or technical articles never make it to the front page unless they are brand new. I would like to see New Articles, In the News, Recent Deaths, and Anniversaries cut down to one line, and a new "Featured Articles" line added. Others have suggested that we feature the articles from the Brilliant prose page, a suggestion I agree with. --Raul654 04:03, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Raul654. The link to Brilliant prose from the main page is nice, but a line of selected articles from there would add to their recognition. Gentgeen 06:23, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I contend that the bar for "brilliant prose" is too high and the process for selection too slow to make it a viable idea. That's just my .02. jengod 20:37, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
If "brilliant prose" articles are placed on the main page, it may encourage people to spend more time nominating, discussing and improving candidates. I support putting brilliant prose articles on the main page, at least for a trial period of a month or so to see how it goes. Tuf-Kat 22:54, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
I am willing to give up a line on Anniversaries for a "Brilliant prose" line. But I think we should think of a better name than "Brilliant prose" - it just sounds cocky to me. Any ideas? --mav 03:51, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)


I agree. A good-great Wikipedia article isn't necessarily "brilliant prose"--it's a sophisticated, well-written organization of facts. Brainstorm results, not necessarily good ideas: "Honor Roll", "Reader's Choice," "Notable New Stuff", "Pages We Love", "Antistubs", "Ready Reference", "Sprung Fully Formed...", "Are We Good or What?", "Accelerating the Death of Britannica"  ;) To a certain extent I think the "nomination" process needs to be reconsidered, I mean, whom do I tell that the Martin Guerre article is great? Ditto The Palm Sunday Tornado Outbreak and St. Francis Dam? I mean, maybe we need a Wikipedia:Reader's Choice page to start with? jengod 06:57, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How would the brilliant prose be rotated onto the page? Randomly? How often? --Jiang

Take a look at my crazy set-up on Wikipedia:Reader's Choice. People can basically create a constantly refreshed list of top 5 "great articles" that illustrate the best of Wikipeia. I strongly believe that a "mediated" (i.e. Brilliant Prose) system wouldn't work--it's slow and it doesn't have the user-level (as opposed to admin-level) editorial control that makes wikipedia great. jengod 07:34, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I kinda like the name "readers choice". --mav

Regarding expanding New Articles to two lines: Having updated this section listing many times over the past few months, I respectfully disagree with your contention that many high-quality, new articles are produced every twenty-four hours. In my experience, frequently there are insufficient in number to completely replace just ONE line; one either leaves one or more of the current entries or goes back earlier than 24 hours.

This is by no means a slight to the excellent efforts of many hardworking contributors. It is just that the vast majority of the entries on Special:Newpages are very short (<1500 bytes), and for various reasons not all of those that are longer are suitable for listing. I have nothing against stubs, it just that most simply aren't complete articles and shouldn't be listed on the Main page. There are many excellent articles here, but we should look for other ways for listing them on the Main page -- like "Reader's Choice" -- than this one. -- Viajero 13:21, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • I think we're losing sight of the original idea, which was to add a line under Anniversaries to be called something like Selected Articles. This would then be a rotatiing selection from Wikipedia:Brilliant prose rather than good new articles which, I agree, would be difficult to expand to 2 lines. Bmills 13:39, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This idea of putting selected articles on the main page has been in "discussion mode" for *weeks* since I posted it here originally. Would it be bad etiquitte (sp?) just to "be bold" and do it? →Raul654 15:11, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

I've just been bold. Bmills 15:30, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • And made "featured articles" a link to the list new pages ;). Just kidding. Thanks for the good work. →Raul654 15:43, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion about a photograph moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk by .'. Optim 18:20, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'.

Like to Kow moved to Wikipedia:Reference Desk by .'. Optim .'.

[edit] Wikipedia: Member of the Tabloid Press?

If Wikipedia has an uppity policy against NPOV, why then are there so many articles in Wikipedia of tabloid quality? Is this a place for writing about the latest Hollywood gossip or a place for stuffy articles without POV? -- Mr-Natural-Health 21:16, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

First off, you should provide example to an argument. It's a one-sided debate without such. And lose the tone, a person with your record shouldn't dare to mock Wikipedia's goals as "stuffy", or even "gossipy". -- user:zanimum
Taking a sample from browsing Recent changes: Sexual slang, The X-Files, List of science fiction television programs, Dream Team, E-8 Avenue Express, Show business, Roots reggae, ... illustrate tabloid quality articles

I did not say goals. I was referring to the garbage being cataloged in Wikipedia. -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:16, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's garbage to have articles on popular culture? john 04:25, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You might find Adam Carr's quality survey informative -- and why are articles on popular culture "garbage"? Some of the articles you list, Mister Natty Aitch, are of excellent quality (The X-Files, for example). --MIRV (talk) 04:27, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Adam's survey suggests that pop culture article tend to be of lower quality - which is probably simply because of the fact that many more feel they can add something to such a topic then about History of Bhutan for example. And maybe those who want (and can) to contribute really good contents feel pop culture is too trivial for bothering with it. But then simply apply the wiki principle - be bold and fix the article which annoys you by being too much tabloid. andy 14:02, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. Your contributions to date seem to be all on the Alternative medicine article, and to various disputes rising from it. I suggested in one of these that you could contribute to several related articles needing information that I think you have, but you have chosen not to.

Until you make more effort to contribute, I will regard your criticisms both here and on your user page ("Article naming conventions here seem to be fundamentally flawed by design") as of little value. You simply don't have any basis of experience for making them, nor any credibility to get them accepted. Those of us who are working hard to build Wikipedia are likely to remain unresponsive.

My avuncular advice is, try to write some less controversial articles. You're an obviously intelligent person and must have many interests. Find some good stubs in these fields and write some brilliant prose. This is the best way to build credibility.

If you feel this is beneath you, then take the excellent advice above and get involved in fixing some of the articles you feel are substandard. My only worry with this approach is the danger that you'll just find more controversy here. You seem to shoot from the hip at times, and bold provocative edits to articles that represent a great deal of work by other people aren't going to go down well. Andrewa 17:51, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] what do you call?

-->Wikipedia:Reference desk

[edit] Article series

I have created Wikipedia:Article series as a place to discuss the "series articles" which have sprouted lately. Go there if you have any thoughts on this (or if you know how to make the tables and the paragraphs match up to each other on the page better). Tuf-Kat 22:54, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Great job! .'. Optim 01:12, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'.

[edit] what criteria for banning users?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Bans and blocks

[edit] Not sure if I can copy a website

Hello Villagers. I don't know where ask questions about copyright issues. I'd like to copy parts of http://www.chinaknowledge.de, a wonderfull encyclopedia about Chinese culture. In their "about" page, they say We are not commercial, all our sites are free visible and copyable because you have the technical possibilities to do it and We are content if you print our pages and load our pictures down (most of them are scanned from Chinese books who have no copyright). You can use them for your own studies and your own education as long as you do not have to pay for it... , plus more nice stuff. I've already done it, as a test, in the Doctrine of the Mean, see talk. I don't want to go on without more advices. May be, we could ask to the author itself (and possibly grab a very valuable contributor !). Thanks for your patience. gbog 05:33, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would say you can't copy wholesale. You have to ask the operators if they want to license the specific material under the GFDL or if it is public domain. If they tell you the text and/or images are from public domain texts, then it's probably OK, but I would still mention the source. From the quote you posted, it is not clear whether this is the case. Dori | Talk 06:52, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Watchlists

When are watchlists going to come back online? Constantly having to look through "Recent Changes" gets annoying. john 05:36, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

About 15 minutes ago. --Brion 07:01, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Why can't I currently see any images, or even the placeholder? Is it just me or a general problem? jimfbleak 07:39, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

All images working normally for me, Jim.
Adrian Pingstone 09:57, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I can't even see the placeholder you get when an image link isn't working properly. Effectively, all images are invisible except for the captions (and in tables the space for the images is closed up too! HELP Jim
Jim, I'm guessing there is some ad-blocking software, webbug-blocking software, or (drastically eager) content-filtering going on at your end. Even if you've whitelisted wikipedia before, the english wikipedia's oscillation between en.wikipedia.org and en2.wikipedia.org might be getting your whitelist muddled. -- Finlay McWalter 22:01, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I turned off ad control on my newly installed Zone Alarm firewall, restarted, and all is well - many thanks, Jim

I have contacted the David McCallum official web site for photos of one of my favorite characters in action series. I got back two photo's to use, but they are marked "All rights reserved, 2003 Paramount Pictures". What do I need to do to get them into correct shape for use in Wikipedia? What magic words do I need seen sent back to me. By the way, I told them it was for the free encylcopedia. Any comments please post here. Kd4ttc 23:27, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Encyclopedia

Is the old edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, found here in the public domain? john 07:55, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This question has come up a couple of times before. I seem to remember the answer is yes. The text of the encyclopedia is PD, although other parts of the website may be copyright. See for example [2] and the conversation between myself and Evercat here. -- Tim Starling 01:14, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
I recommend against using it as a basis for articles on NPOV grounds. It is highly biased in favor of an apologetic perspective. Also, many of the historical articles are very outdated.—Eloquence
But if you are writing about what Catholics believe then surely it makes sense to use this as a source. DJ Clayworth 18:57, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re Académie Française

Can anyone explain the system used at Académie Française to list the members of the Academy? Surely they should be listed either chronologically or alphabetically. Unless someone can explain why they are presented like this, I will reorganise the list. Adam 08:11, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It would appear from the list itself (and I vaguely think I've read this elsewhere), that there are numbered seats for positions on the Académie. john 08:15, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but why do some seats have a list while some do not? Adam 08:45, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would imagine that whoever worked on it did not get around to doing lists for all the seats. john 08:47, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
See Talk:Académie française for explanation and discussion. olivier 07:51, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)



[edit] Recent Changes not reachable?

Am I the only one that can't view RC right now? Being able to edit but not being able to view RC is not a good thing. --mav 16:37, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

I don't think anyone else can. You can join #enrc.wikipedia though, it is working. --snoyes 16:38, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. For others who don't know what the hell #enrc.wikipedia means, please see Wikipedia:IRC channel. --mav
Seems to be working now. Angela. 17:01, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
en.wikipedia.org was down for a bit this morning; seems a partition got overfull and confused the poor dear until I cleared off some old temporary files I'd forgotten about. --Brion 17:07, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mediawiki ebuild

Im working on an ebuild ebuild for mediawiki. I have never made an ebuild before, so I really need help. Thanks in advance, Alexandros 17:57, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Scan vs. Read

A notice for everyone who writes often on Wikipedia:

Users do not read the page; they just scan it!

You can read scan what Useit.com says.

Personally I agree completely with the article, which of course I haven't read but just scanned it and scrolled quickly from start to end picking interesting words to understand what it is all about! (this is humour) :-)

May you Have Peace Profound, .·. Optim 18:00, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC) .·.

Frankly, the Wikipedia isn't a webpage, but a collection of text that happens to be displayed on the web.

This is a subtle but very important distinction. The methods described in the alertbox are designed to grab the readers attention and drag him further into the page/site, regardless of the quality of the content. Wikipedia on the other hand relies on quality content to engage and hold the browser.

Elde 22:45, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
When I was working as a magazine article writer, I was using similar principles, although the text was published on paper. Of course our content must be of high quality, but we should take care of the fact that many people may not really read the full articles. For example, someday there was some discussion about whether a link included in the main text of an article should also be included under See also. My comment was that since many users may not really read whole articles but just scan them quickly, we should list all important links (excluding the unimportant ones of course) under See Also too, so that the user will not be forced to read or search the article for the links. Optim 00:30, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'.
Very, very interesting point: "promotional language imposes a cognitive burden on users who have to spend resources on filtering out the hyperbole to get at the facts." On that score, anyway, Wikipedia should do pretty well. Dpbsmith 00:11, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
:) Optim 00:30, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'.
I would say that this principle applies very heavily to the first few paragraphs of an article ("above the fold", meaning, in a web context, virtualy everyone will see this without scrolling). If someone isn't already a Wikipedia devotee, and if those first few paragraphs don't grab them, it's all over. They'll never read the article. However, once the person goes, "Hmm, could be an interesting article", he or she typically leaves scanning mode and starts reading. Not that I'm in favor of padding things out, but I'm also not in favor of everything having to be "zippy". Our links actually provide a lot of relevant highlighting, as does generally quite appropriate use of boldface. -- Jmabel 04:39, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] TeX and Math encyclopedia

Is it or will it be possible to use TeX directly in the articles? Is it possible in principle?

TeX is Standard in Math comunity and it would be much more usefull to have articles in this form.

Tosha

Yes - see Wikipedia:TeX markup. -- Finlay McWalter 20:50, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
And indeed, most of our math articles currently use (La)TeX. --Delirium 01:22, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
Though if you are going to write article instead of copying from somehere you could want to use MathML. ilya 15:17, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't aware Wikipedia supported MathML yet. Phil 16:36, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't yet, but (theoretically) future versions of Wikipedia will automatically convert from the site's <math>...</math> notation to MathML. Since most current browsers don't properly support it, it's best to use HTML or TeX rendering for now anyway —Mulad 05:17, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal - What Wikipedia Wants proposal

A little while ago, I noticed that there wasn't any definitive page on what belongs in Wikipedia. I've been working with some others to develop a set of guidelines - Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Wants (proposal). Since this impacts pretty heavily on a lot of things (especially with regard to the VFD), I'd appreciate any feedback that members of the community have. →Raul654 02:04, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

There isn't? Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Menchi (Talk)â 02:05, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It's a good page, but it's not definitive. Check the VFD candidates, and try excluding them based only on what is in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. You won't get anywhere. You'll miss a lot of them. There's a lot that is not covered by What Wikipedia is not.
And more to the point, it misses half of the question. It doesn't talk about what wikipedia is or what it wants. →Raul654 02:11, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent proposal. Essentially it is a refactoring of what has become a cumbersome structure of pages. IMO there's nothing new except that it's accessible, which is an important plus.

I'd suggest that we incorporate some thresholds. How many books does an author need to have sold to be famous as an author? How many copies of a privately-distributed CD need to have been sold before it qualifies the band for inclusion? But even without these, I think it should be adopted asap. Andrewa 04:25, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think you are wrong on this. For example, a book published in Romanian or Catalan is never going to sell a number of copies that would qualify as significant for an English- or Spanish-language book. Similarly, a US-based musician might be very influential (e.g. Benjamin Smoke) without ever selling any significant number of recordings. (Patti Smith wrote a song about him, there's a documentary about him, but not much recorded material.) -- Jmabel 04:47, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
That's a good point. Similarly, 19th century authors didn't sell nearly as many copies as 21st century ones, simply because there were fewer buyers. But I think some guidelines could still help. The way they should work is just the way the rest of the page already does... passing a test can qualify something for inclusion, but failing a single test shouldn't ever disqualify an article. So your Catalan book would still be included. Andrewa 18:37, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Still, there are insignificant books out there with a lot of copies. Think campaign biographies. -- Jmabel 20:17, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Verification

Please help me to verify the following information contained in solar symbol (this info was not written by me):

The Circle with a point at its centre (⊙) is an ancient solar symbol featuring a circle with its center marked with a dot. It can symbolize:

City Center (European road-signs) <---
Make a wish (Reading tea-leaves)
Determined position (Navigation) <---
The eye of God (Early Christian)
End of trail. Gone home. (Scouting) (verified by Jmabel, now I need a reference to a book or website)
Spirit (Chippewa Indian)
Cup (Robert Shumaker's Orangutan symbol language) (verified by Zundark, reference: [3])

References to websites and books are welcome. For books please include ISBN if known. Especially Please check first the issues I marked with <--- .·. Optim 03:37, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC) .·.

I can verify "End of trail" as an ex-Boy Scout. I don't have a written reference, though I'm sure it's in the Boy Scout Fieldbook and probably in the Boy Scout Manual as well. -- Jmabel 04:47, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thank you so much; and I wish you Peace Profound, .'. Optim 05:30, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'.
Shumaker's cup symbol for orangutans is mentioned on this page. --Zundark 09:20, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thank you!!! .'. Optim 13:56, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'.

[edit] reading list for 15 year olds

At the High School where I teach (in California, U.S.) there is a school-wide program that allows me to assign outside reading to students. I am amassing a reading list. Last semester I focused on the 11th grade U.S. History students. I asked Wikipedians to make suggestions, and that process was very helpful for me.

This semester, I will focus on the 10th grade World Cultures students. I ask you Wikipedians again for some recommendations. Please visit Reading List Recommendations and make some suggestions.

Thanks in advance, Kingturtle 07:27, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea of wikipedian reading lists as ex books .. so i'm asking myself if they would qualify as an article section (doesnt exist yet as such) -- Ebricca 08:17, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic terms

Please would some of the regulars give this newbie some guidance? The Wikipedia:List_of_common_misspellings has Mohammedan (Muslim), Mohammedans (Muslims), Muhammadan (Muslim), and Mecca (Makkah).

As part of my on-going efforts to fix spellings - with reference to that list for anything doubtful - I recently corrected Mecca to Makkah for articles where it was clearly in an Islamic context. I was told by Salsa Shark via my talk page that Mecca/Makkah "It isn't now and isn't going to be" on the list. This seems to be a personal view as the spelling is currently the subject of an edit war on Wikipedia:List_of_common_misspellings.

Wiki articles (before my changes) seemed divided about 50/50 on the spelling, and strangely the Mecca page uses the spelling Makkah internally, but is titled Mecca. Apparently this was the unhappy state in which it was protected at the end of a previous edit war.

It seems to me that Makkah is certainly correct for Islamic articles, and other uses are arguable either way.

My question is should I change the spelling to Makkah where I am sure that is proper, or should I defer to Salsa Shark. If I persist in my viewpoint, would that be considered vandalism, or is that normal behaviour on Wiki? Is there any formal voting process (I can't find one). At the moment my impression of Wiki is that the loudest and most active tend to win-out, even if they are not in a majority. (Perhaps an analog for life).ّ SpellBott 12:20, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This question relies on the same precedent we established in Rudolf Hess vs Rudolf Heß. Go with the typical British/American spelling, and put Makkah in a first line "Also known as". →Raul654 13:03, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses the common English name. That Muslims want to remove the gambling associations from their holy city is their problem, not wp's: Mecca is still Mecca in English. — Jor 13:14, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
Please make sure you've read the earlier discussion (and very cogent arguments) on Talk:Mecca. I thought we had it right prior to today's changes. –Hajor 03:06, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I was the one who made today's changes. I read the talk page (and it's a lengthy one, at that), and I remain convinced that the changes should stand. Mecca is, inarguably, the common english name. As the talk page mentions, Makkah might be more common among english-speaking Muslims, but they too are in the minority. Every publication I've ever seen uses that spelling. I don't doubt there are some that don't, but they are the minority too. Arvindn's googling found an order of magnitude difference in favor of Mecca. Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." End of story. →Raul654 03:30, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
Well you are answering the wrong question! I am not disputing the spelling of Mecca. I am asking if it is correct to change something you believe is wrong to something you believe is right, even if others disagree. What is the proper way of doing it?SpellBott 06:27, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
(In Sean Connery voice - Ok, Trebek, I'll play your game!). If a dispute has not yet arisen (no one has said *not* to do such-and-such), go ahead and make your changes. It's a lot easier to apologize than it is to ask permission. (A good lesson for life!) If someone has voiced disapproval , then use the article's talk page to flesh it out (or if it's a person-to-person dispute, that person's talk page will work fine as well). If neither of you can come to an agreement, take it to the village pump and let the community decide.
Note, none of these are hard and fast rules, but it's just the typical way of doing it. →Raul654 06:45, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What links here

Although I added Fischer to Wikipedia:Links to disambiguating pages it doesn't show when I click on "What links here". (It also takes up to three minutes to load). Any reason(s) for that? --KF 15:56, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yep, only the first 500 pages to link to a page get listed on "What links here" for performance reasons relating to pages that have huge numbers of incoming links (e.g. year pages). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 07:58, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. However, only five (!) rather than 500+ pages link to Fischer, but voilà the link, which does show toay. So thanks again, let's leave it a mystery. >KF< 16:55, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Love the Wikipedia!

Bakkah is an example of why I love how the Wikipedia works. I post an article based on what I know about it, and based on some comments and editing help am able to turn it into a very NPOV article that tries to show both sides of the issue. If I were to have posted it elsewhere instead the result would've been a POV article that does not give the other side at all, and it would be a lot less useful for others. ☺ — Jor 15:58, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)