Wikipedia:Village pump/May 2003 archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

proper nouns in disambiguation parenthesis

Do the proper nouns in disambiguation parenthesis have to be uncapitalized? (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (chinese) Such ungrammaticality pokes people in the pupils until coconut-white stuff comes out. --Menchi 14:55 24 May 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, that should be capitalized. --Brion

I wonder if before a disambiguation page is created, it might not be best to think it out in terms of true need and potential effects. Someone today created a disambiguation page for PGA. This puts a huge onus on my 50 years of work ALREADY done on "years in sport" where, now, in order for a user to click on my PGA listing, they are forced to go through a disambiguation page. Is not the computer terminology something better identified to avoid disambiguation? It is an obscure term for all but those who have a lot of computer knowledge. I hate to complain, but I have done a ton of work and I really do not want to go back and open 50 pages just to fix the PGA links in sports. Jacques Delson 17:20 24 May 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try discussing this with Heron first at user talk:Heron or Talk:PGA, since Heron created the disambiguation page. Come back here if you and Heron can't decide on a satisfactory solution. Martin 17:32 24 May 2003 (UTC)
It's a really, really good idea to disambiguate TLAs beforehand. Few, if any, of them are not taken multiple times and many are better known for one thing in one field and another thing in another field. --Brion 17:52 24 May 2003 (UTC) (grammar fixed)
There, I've fixed all the links to go directly to Professional Golfers Association of America. It would have been polite for Heron to do that when creating the disamb page in the first place. --Brion 18:28 24 May 2003 (UTC)

Martin? Who are you? I put the question here to be resolved. If you have a answer please give it. Either leave things as is and I will stop my work because I have no intention of wasting vast amounts of my time discussing something with someone who created the page without a great deal of thought. It makes no difference to me. If making a contributors work harder is the goal then so be it but I'm not up to that kind of task. Whoever has the authority, please get rid of a disambiguation page without much real use or find a resolution 64.228.30.130 18:02 24 May 2003 (UTC)

I'm Martin. We talked earlier, about the DMCA, if you recall? Martin

Two comments/suggestions/questions:

Though I know little about the subject, from what I've heard of XML/XHTML, if it could or has been combined with wiki, interactive databases (with sortable tables, etc.) should become an easy possibility for wiki users including at wikipedia. Are there any plans in the works (for wikipedia or in wiki projects in general)?

Two again, for medium sized pages--such as List of reference tables, I think anchors could be invaluable....It seems as pages get too large, people will move stuff to a new page. It is too inconvenient to have to click on new pages all the time, particularly for pages which benefit from a bird's eye view.

Thanks! - Brettz9 19:47 24 May 2003 (UTC)~

Wiki still generates HTML 4.01. We need to change this so the output is XHTML 1.0 before we can start to think about using other XMLs such as MathML and so on. CGS 22:18 24 May 2003 (UTC).
So then people could enter XML code which could be recognized by queries and manipulations (like doing special searches, choosing to view only certain columns of data, inverting a table to see rows as columns and vice versa, and even viewing items in a tree/list or even column format (as in the Mac OSX filebrowser) etc.)? If so, how could the XML code be accessed? Could some canned script be designed to allow users to have customizable options in viewing tabular data that they themselves have entered? A programmer friend has told me something briefly about XSLT and libraries which can operate on XML, but unless this is preinstalled, it sounds like it would not be easy for average users to work with the latter items. My apologies for my ignorance on this, but before I would like to know whether it could even achieve what I'm hoping will be possible in the future before I invest time in researching it further. It seems that XML is fairly straightforward and could be manipulated just as well by average

users as HTML or aliases on wikipages, but I'm curious how the structure XML seems to provide could be harnessed.

I realize we're not there yet, but I wonder whether it is worth my time to learn XML since my purpose of learning it would be to start converting documents into it in anticipation of being able to share them collaboratively and have them be customizably sorted. Thanks! - Brettz9 18:27 25 May 2003 (UTC)

If wikipedia is using a database to keep the pages here, does that mean it is conceivable that the anchor issue could be resolved by allowing users to choose--if they wish--to load multiple pages at once (i.e., by treating each page as a record and then requesting multiple records)? If this is possible, it would seem that pages could be kept short, but also combined by a user. It might be complicated for editing though, I imagine, if it is at all possible.

If it is using a database, I also wonder whether people could collaboritively add new or edit existing categories for individual pages. This would prevent a lot of duplication of effort (as well as make connections people might otherwise miss), as I see it, as pages could simply be called up by their categories rather than being a jungle of links. It is nice to have the latter option perhaps also (i.e., to collaboritively make a page of reference links), but it seems a lot of this could be done more smoothly by a collaboritive and queriable database. Thank you... - Brettz9 18:27 25 May 2003 (UTC)

And one more question if anybody knows...Is there some way that people may be able to perform "find" operations on text inside an edit box (without cut-and-pasting it to another document). It seems it could save some time.

What's the prefix for Project Sourceberg (ps.wikipedia.org, meta:Project Sourceberg)? Our own fulltext of The Raven would be better than a link to a non-Wikipedia site, but [[ps:The Raven]] just disappears: "", and the actual URL for Sourceberg is not optimal. On a side note, I noticed that a link to any language code not set up disappears: I was earlier today trying to convert a wikipedia.org URL on the Internet-Encyclopedia (which uses Wikipedia3 software) to an en: link, but it simply displayed blank. So do we need the Pashto language configured to get minimal Sourceberg support? --Geoffrey 04:35 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't disappear: Check the top language bar of for this page. It is not interpreted as an InterWiki link but as an inter-language link. Sourceberg needs to be moved anyway (new software, new name), bug Brion or Lee to set it up. But please come up with a better name first .. Alternatively, you could upload the text as a file and refer to it using a media: link. --Eloquence 05:05 25 May 2003 (UTC)
I was about to ask why Pashto was treated differently from en:, fr:, es:, etc. links, by making an example. Then I realised it isn't. Whoa. Weird! And not the behavior I expected. Only inter-language links on the first line should be interpreted as translations. In my opinion, an inline en:, ps:, etc. inter-language link is the same as a w:, m:, etc. inter-sister (for lack of a better term) link - though possibly different from a UseMod:, MeatBall:, etc. InterWiki link. Otherwise, you can't make inter-language links within articles that work like intra-language links. It looked as good as disappeared to me...and The Raven is no Pashto Village Pump. This currrent behavior doesn't seem reasonable to me. --Geoffrey 02:43 28 May 2003 (UTC)
I think the name's kind of cute... it makes me think of a big hunk of frozen text. ;) It's not entirely clear to me that a wiki is the best medium for that kind of resource, however. (The text mustn't change, though we may want commentary attached.) And certainly the Pashto Wikipedia is not where it belongs, and indeed the fact that interlanguage links don't do what you'd want to for linking to something like Sourceberg should be a clue. :) --Brion 05:18 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Image Use
I'd like to use this picture for my old article Silkworm missile. http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/irfna/fig6.htm It's from a US military, therefore a government, site about gulf war sickn.. oops.. gulf war illness.

I was wondering if it was fair use or what? Tristanb 06:49 25 May 2003 (UTC)

It's on a US military site and there isn't a copyright notice. Therefore it is safe to assume that it is in the public domain. But please do give them credit and a link to the original. --mav 06:56 25 May 2003 (UTC)
It's quite large and slow to download on my dialup connection. Crop it and try converting it to .jpg Theresa knott 07:03 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Oops :-) too late, i'll crop convert it to JPG now. Pity they started with a gif eh! Thanks Tristanb 07:20 25 May 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Language links and FAQ

I've seen a few people adding language links when there is no corresponding page in that language. I imagine they see links like {{de:foo}} in the page source, and think we are simply tying to list the translations of the page name. It's obviously not malicious. But we need two things:

  1. something on the FAQ about what language lists are for
  2. a simple page name we can use as a redirect to point people to when they make this mistake; a link we can stick on their talk page quickly, like Template:Don't link to languages unless there is a page. (but that's a bit too long.) -- Tarquin 17:03 25 May 2003 (UTC)
If Wikipedia:Interlanguage links is insufficient for these needs, please improve it. --Brion 17:16 25 May 2003 (UTC)
In some cases, a reasonable assumption that a page exists in another language I happen to know turns out to be wrong. In those cases I figure I might as well leave the link I've added, trusting that the destination article will be created soon. All it would really take to prevent any disappointment, is for empty interlanguage links to be displayed red, just like other empty links. Mkweise 17:54 25 May 2003 (UTC)
That can't be done with the current database structure; eg the English wiki doesn't know what exists on German wiki and vice-versa, and if they did they wouldn't know how to invalidate cached pages on each other when the status changes. --Brion 18:07 25 May 2003 (UTC)
I know, but several moons ago you told me that a db unification was planned for after the separate db server was in place. Is it not still planned? We would be foolish to invest much work in accomodating limitations whose days are numbered. Mkweise 18:15 25 May 2003 (UTC)
It's planned for someday. Don't hold your breath; we don't even have all languages converted to the current software yet. --Brion 18:37 25 May 2003 (UTC)
I'll hold my breath someday ;-) Mkweise 18:55 25 May 2003 (UTC)

If anybody is wondering what I was doing vandalising solid, I'm afraid it was a girl friend. I assure you that she has been punished. CGS 17:20 25 May 2003 (UTC).

I assure you we don't want to know :). MB 18:29 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Some wikipedians have drawn up discussions on proper Wikipedia format of the Name of Emperors at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Any comment, especially from points of view in English language, is welcomed before a generally agreed format is decided by poll. thanx User:kt2 22:08 25 May 2003

I have noticed two very strange out-of-character edits from User:Andre Engels on the general lines of "I HATE THIS ... WORLD, and I hate myself too" -- either someone has cracked Andre's password, or he's having a really bad time... does anyone know how Andre is doing? The Anome 14:37 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Another possibility that crossed my mind... not actually cracking his password (or guessing it), he might have left himself logged in somewhere where someone else could use the computer later? He was editing (in a much calmer way) about half an hour before that. But no hard data as such, just speculation. -- John Owens 14:41 26 May 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, I did that. I suggested a girl friend had a look around the wiki on my computer - caos resulted. CGS 16:04 26 May 2003 (UTC).

Apologies in advance if this has been asked and answered. I've had trouble creating an external link, and I think its due to the relatively new or uncommon practice of a dash included within the URL. See the lsat external link at the bottom of the Hamilton County, Ohio article. Any suggestions, or have I just done something stupid again? ;-). - Lou I 20:22 26 May 2003 (UTC)

It's because you've got to preface every URL with "http://" - so you have to type http://www.hamilton-co.org rather than just www.hamilton-co.org. I've fixed it, and it works now. Don't worry about it - takes everybody a bit of time to get used to how things work :-) --Camembert

[edit] Possible bug?

I have my preferences set to not underline links, but when looking at the following link media:Clitoris.jpg on the Clitoris page, it is underlined. Is this a bug or intentional? MB 14:03 27 May 2003

This is a bug which I have fixed a few days ago. Tell Brion to get us up to CVS status and it will be fixed on the live site as well. --Eloquence 14:15 27 May 2003 (UTC)

What is the etiquette in adding to articles that are listed as originally published in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica ? Beans

Simple: rewrite them in modern English, and update the facts. No attribution or other mention of EB is necessary. Many, if not most, of the subjects are already covered here. LDC

There's a very odd edit war raging on Alice in Chains. 152.163.252.167 puts in a line "On April 19, 2002, lead singer Layne Staley was found dead in his home.", and then User:Dante Alighieri takes it out again, repeated about a million times. Can anyone shed any light? Dante Alighieri is an upstanding Wikipedian, right? CGS 22:47 28 May 2003 (UTC).

See my response on my talk page. 152.163.xx.xx is Michael. See User talk:Michael/ban and User talk:Weezer/ban. --Dante Alighieri 22:49 28 May 2003 (UTC)
(extra link added by John Owens 23:24 28 May 2003 (UTC))

Yeah, but you should still know better than to get into a simple edit war loop. I cleaned up those articles and put the info in the right place (after verifying it). If a piece of text entered by a banned user seems appropriate, but you don't have the time or ability to verify it easily, then reverting is fine. But if it is easily verified and useful, the article comes first. If that means an idiot like like Michael gets to "win" an edit war, sobeit. LDC

Well I'm not sure how insulting him helps.... Martin 23:42 29 May 2003 (UTC)
Simple? You DO realize that John and I had to revert nearly 100 pages... I'm not about to check the facts on every single page. Any one of those facts, individually, might have been easily verifiable, but not the hundreds of things that were added. --Dante Alighieri 02:18 29 May 2003 (UTC)
See bans and blocks - in a "soft ban" situation, anyone can reinstate an edit if they can vouch for it, while in a "hard ban" situation, we all agree not to reinstate any edit, even if we know it's good. Unfortunately, it's unclear which of these two states Michael is in, which is probably why we keep having these discussions.
See also Talk:Right Back for a similar discussion. Martin 08:37 29 May 2003 (UTC)
I was not aware of any confusion. My understanding is that it is quite definitive that Michael has been hard banned, see User talk:No-Fx. Also, it may be worth noting that the most recent spate of vandalism from the following IP ranges: 205.188.xx.xx and 152.163.xx.xx come from the same individual, who just happens to freely admit/claim to be both Michael and No-Fx. --Dante Alighieri 20:20 29 May 2003 (UTC)
It is quite definitive that Jimbo has banned Michael. What is less clear is whether Jimbo is forbidding us to do what LDC has done with Alice in Chains.
Incidentally, I fully support people reverting Michael out of hand, deleting articles he creates, etc. Just please don't revert me if I see an edit I want to reinstate :) Martin
You mean breaking lines after 80 characters? Yeah, I hate that.
More seriously, I generally don't mind people putting info back in, as long as they aren't just taking Michael's word for it. Of course, lacking telepathy, I don't have much way of knowing that, so I'll generally be pretty tolerant there. -- John Owens 23:48 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Image use

I applied to the Turnbull Library for permission to use images from their collection and gave them details of wikipedia. This was the reply:

Requirements Please note that the Library has the following special requirements for the reproduction of its images on websites.

Required text As well as including the caption details (provided on Timeframes), you must use the following text alongside the image: "Permission of the Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand, must be obtained before any re-use of this image".

No Alteration of Images In order to maintain the integrity of the Library's images, no manipulation of the image is allowed, for example, outlining, clear cutting, overlapping, distortion (alteration of the proportions of an image), cropping, or, duatone washes and other colouring. Sepia toning may be allowed (specific permission must be requested). Other writing, such as titles or underlying text, should not intrude on the images.

Best wishes with your website and thank you for your interest in the Alexander Turnbull Library Collection

Are these requirements acceptable? Tiles 00:54 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Those terms are clearly at odds with the GNU Free Documentation License, which requires that people who receive a work be able to redistribute both unmodified and modified versions. Feel free to provide hyperlinks to the pages with the images if they are publicly visible on the web, though. (IANAL) --Brion 02:00 29 May 2003 (UTC)
I thought so but wanted confirmation. I will advise them and ask for a waiver. Tiles 02:24 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Deletion of talkpages

I am wondering if I should delete an article's talk page when I delete an article. Or should I rather delete just the article and keep the talk page intact? How things are handled in English wikipedia? (I'm an admin for Japanese wikipedia)Tomos 09:13 29 May 2003 (UTC)

You should delete the talk page, but make sure you record the reason for deleation (may be on the talk page) in the list of deleted pages. CGS 23:45 29 May 2003 (UTC).

I'm writing articles for all of the major poems of John Keats (this way I can revise for my A levels, and wiki at the same time!) If a poem is short, and out of copyright, could I put the whole text into the article? Or should I leave that for an external link? CGS 10:16 29 May 2003 (UTC).

Quotes and small passages are good in order to serve as examples but since we are a wiki and are an encyclopedia it is not appropriate, in general, to have entire source texts. --mav
Languages