This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
Related to recent controversy and may be of interest to you, particularly if you care about public domain artwork. Comments appreciated on talk page. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 13:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I am dyslexic and I am currently helping to edit some of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia new sub articles, which require new content sourced from complex research papers. We are trying to avoid possible copyright issues, but we lack the copy-edit skills to transfer the information from the supporting research papers in to acceptable Wikipedia article content. The articles which require the most immediate help are Genetic research into dyslexia, Orthographies and dyslexia and Brain scan research into dyslexia Any help will be very much appreciated dolfrog ( talk) 18:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
A discussion is currently in progress about Talk:Willis Tower about whether the tower should be known by its official name as the Willis Tower or by the common name, used by general public and reliable sources alike, as the Sears Tower. Could someone clarify the policy here, when a common name and an official but unused name are different, which one should we use? Empire NJ ( talk) 19:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
A couple of comments at the administrator's noticeboard (AN) about the quality of ANI discussion have led to a short post at the talk page asking for perceptions:
A user's suggested in an AN discussion that they feel there can be issues at ANI:
Quick feedback: some truth to it? A lot? Not much? |
Users welcomed to comment. (
link)
FT2 ( Talk | email) 10:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Here: File:Martha_My_Dear.jpg it's a fragment of an opening Beatle's song, definitely copyrighted. It has a (to my view a bit weak) fair use claim, yet it firmly states it's free content under a free creative commons license. Could someone take a look? -- m: drini 00:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
There is still a problem with this page, in spite of the intervention of a bot (see the history of the page). Gwen42 ( talk) 14:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I am a wikipedia reader. I am not a wikipedian and am unable to assess the significance of the security breaches documented by the author of the above mentioned website. Someone should check this out. Unluckily, the document is in Italian.
Best wishes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.4.229.213 ( talk) 15:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
You can traslate it with Babelfish. Is here.-- 151.81.174.6 ( talk) 14:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Site completely rewritten in date 1/9/2009.-- Nicolayvaluev ( talk) 20:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I need help with the article Panamanian literature. Please, anyone can check it??? Thank you. -- Kamerad luis ( talk) 18:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I need to forward an email containing a permission to OTRS. I want know can a user with OTRS access see my IP address in the email header (X-Originating-IP)? Can a user with OTRS access trace my PC IP address? Mpics ( talk) 17:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
An easy solution: the "email this user" function of Mediawiki does not include your IP address in the headers. So if absolute privacy is needed, you can send an email directly to the username of an OTRS volunteer and ask them to forward it to the OTRS queue. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 19:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but isn't some sort of identifying information actually needed for OTRS to do it's work. When we seek permissions to use media under an open license it is preferable that the person granting the license is identifiable. Same goes for legal issues. Taemyr ( talk) 14:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Should the spaced em dashes on the main page be changed to en dashes, if only to set a MoS-compliant example? Pslide ( talk) 10:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I think wiki foundation should make a dedicated service-wiki or howtodo-wiki. There are not easy to find how to do things on internet, like how to fix things on your specific car, how to fix things on your house, how to fix your laptop or how to get that sunflowers in your garden to grow.
My idea how to build such site. Each guy can make their own detailed 'how-to' with preferably many pictures and maybe video. It should be the easiest how to available, so even untrained persons are able to do it. Also with an optional easy and short step for step only text sript for short and fast description of procedure. Users may give out stars to each how-to, and owner of the 'how-to' may choose to whether allow people modificate it or come with suggestins or adding comments to it. Every person can make his own how-to on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikikalus ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Recommended listening for anyone who is starting to take editing here too seriously. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I want to customize my [Wikipedia] signature, but I don't know how. -- Di-Gata Connexion ( talk) 20:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Best practice in public outreach is a collection of articles describing experiences in winning new volunteers, partner, contents and audiences. Given that several chapters already developed successful projects to engage new target groups or deepen relationships to newly Wikimedians, the Best practices in public outreach page is a forum for those who want to share their knowledge and for those who want to spread the word.
We are looking for contributors to be involved. If you would like to be involved in public outreach, please list your name at m:Best practices documentation team, and participate in the discussions. If you think someone you know would be good for this, please point them to this page. -- Cary Bass ( talk) 16:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I am trying to insert commons:File:Suitcase2.jpg to Luggage locks, but there is an identically named File:Suitcase2.jpg on en:wp. In order to use an image on commons, I need to delete File:Suitcase2.jpg and re-upload it with a different name. I am unfamiliar with these procedures, so I would appreciate if anyone could do these for me. Thanks, in advance.-- Tomo_suzuki ( talk ) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Can someone revert the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luffa, the 'Use by Humans' section has been vandalised and is possibly libelous. Regards 90.205.32.78 ( talk) 12:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The link from Joseph Baker, Republican on the Rutland-1-2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012 goes to the Joseph Baker disambiguation page. I added him on that page as follows:
However, I am unsure that this is the correct approach, and I am unsure about adding (Vermont) when it could be (politician) or something else. My questions:
This is not the only instance of this problem for the Vermont House of Representatives members, and very likely it happens elsewhere, too. An editor puts Joseph Baker in a list, sees it is blue, but doesn't follow the link to see the disambiguation page. Worse, sometimes the disambiguation page has a link to the actual bio, when that link should be at the first instance of the name.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 12:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I teach a "first year seminar" course at Penn State for bioscience students. They each choose a topic to present to the class and lead discussion. I encourage them to start their research with Wikipedia, as it is a quick way to orient themselves to a topic and find further references.
This year I want to add a new component to the assignment. They will be required to choose at least one Wikipedia article to which they will be required to make substantive additions and/or improvements based on their further research.
Question: does the community have any ideas or resources that will enrich this assignment, either for the students or for Wikipedia? Preferably both.
I'm a sometime author and frequent anonymous typo fixer, so I think I can find the materials to train them in the technique and cultural ethos of Wikipedia editing. I'm looking for something fanatical wikipedians could suggest, nonobvious to dabblers like me, that might enhance this assignment.
In particular, are there community standards that I could use to evaluate this assignment rigorously?
James Endres Howell, Penn State University 16:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmer ( talk • contribs)
Thanks so much, everyone! Those references are precisely what I was hoping for! James Endres Howell, Penn State University 13:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmer ( talk • contribs)
About two years ago, I made one of the worst decisions of my WikiLife. My RFA was a gigantic failure, and I lacked the maturity to understand that. I would like to apologize for my lack of maturity back then, two years later, I can clearly see my mistakes. To be honest, I am very glad that I was denied adminship, as my behavior would have been totally destructive towards Wikipedia.
My answers towards the questions come off as a complete joke today, my violent opposition to vandalism has changed. I misunderstood nearly every one of the policies regarding Wikipedian interactions with others. I failed to assume good faith, I fed the trolls, I didn't stay cool. I seriously and authentically am sorry for my misinformed opinions on Wikipedia. To think that I behaved like that once totally disgusts me, I acted like a troll towards fellow users, I treated Wikipedia as a source of social-networking, as a place to have mischievous fun. Needless to say, I totally misconstrued the meaning of Wikipedia. Despite a familiarity with WikiCode, not having the maturity to treat work seriously makes the most knowledgeable of scholars deeply destructive towards the project.
About a year and a half ago, took up admin coaching with Bibliomaniac15 to identify many of my problems, both ideological and Wiki-Wise. In retrospect, I find most of the problems that were identified came from a need to appeal to others: in short, I cared too much about what others thought of me, forgetting about my purpose as an editor in the first place.
My misunderstanding can also be traced to my level of knowledge at that time. I failed to understand the importance of civility, arbitration and the role of an administrator. I mistook the mop to be a "medal of honor", and pursued it without regard to those who may be affected by my actions. I have been through many real-life experiences since then, and those experiences have taught me a lot about myself and my interactions with others.
I've spent over a year editing sparsely, and after a long period of inactivity, I wish to make a return to Wikipedia. This time, I want to be a helpful and constructive editor. As a person, I have went through radical changes to my lifestyle and worldview, those changes have greatly impacted my ability to communicate and collaborate with others. Thus, I feel that I am now ready to contribute constructively.
I am deeply sorry about my past as an editor. From the Userpage Contest to my RFA as well as my non-constructive contributions to deletion discussions and RfAs, I want to apologize for everything I did wrong.
Thank you.
Marlith (Talk) 05:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a real unscientific straw-poll, of which I'm asking here (and generically) because I want the community's reaction without any other influencing factors...
Suppose Mr. X attended an accredited university for a couple of semesters before dropping out. Credits earned were not used towards any degree, and Mr. X never earned a degree. Is it proper to list the University as an "Alma Mater" for Mr. X?
I will also cross-post this question to the infobox talkpage. Thanks in advance! // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Good question, Blaxthos and Niteshift36. The OED has:
Alma Mater:
[Latin. alma māter bounteous mother.]
A title given by the Romans to several goddesses, especially to Ceres and Cybele, and transferred in English to Universities and schools regarded as ‘fostering mothers’ to their alumni.
It's probably helpful to look at the word alumnus, "foster son" in Latin, and the feminine version alumna, "foster daughter". The idea is that a graduate is a foster or adopted child of Alma Mater ("nourishing (i.e., dear) mother").
alumnus:
The nurseling or pupil of any school, university, or other seat of learning. Also, a graduate or former student (chiefly U.S., esp. in pl.).
Usage examples: 1823 J. & R. C. Morse Traveller's Guide 320 The number of alumni, that is, the number who have been educated at each college since its establishment. 1906 Springfield (Mass.) Weekly Republ. 28 June 10 Tuesday was alumni day at Yale, when hundreds of old graduates..gathered in alumni hall.
alumna: Plural alumnæ. [L., fem. of alumnus.] A female graduate or former student of a school, college, or university. Chiefly U.S.
It seems Alma Mater usually refers to the university Mr. X graduated from, though it's sometimes used for a former non-graduated student. Mainly though, it seems to be used to define the university/college from which someone did graduate. – Whitehorse1 20:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
{{infobox person}}
template. //
Blaxthos (
t /
c )
21:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)So a good example would be Steve Miller (musician), who attended, but dropped out of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. MuZemike 21:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I think definitely change it to "attended". Both to make it less ambiguous and less Americani(s/z)ed. I've certainly never heard of the term "Alma Mater" outside of a U.S. context. OrangeDog ( talk • edits) 00:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC) No, in UK English it's only used with the ironic awareness that it's an affected expression. Deipnosophista ( talk) 14:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I just added the{{sections}} template to Siege of 's-Hertogenbosch, but I cannot find any mention of that template on Help:Sections, or by searching. I did it by just trying it. This template should be mentioned on Help:Sections, but only with a link to the documentation, which I have not found yet. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 12:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I see 2,980,990 articles in English today, and no doubt this will rise. Is there a celebration at three million articles? -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 12:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
File:Model tanker.JPG shows a name on the ship, unfortunately I can't read her name. Can someone translate the name in English, or even give her IMO number? -- Stunteltje ( talk) 20:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia. Could editors of Wikipedia please do a reassessment of the Josip Broz Tito article. The article is embarrassing. The Eastern European Dictator is portrayed as some sort of pop star (what is this all about/also it's very strange) and should not be in any nominations other than the article that lacks NPOV. Also considering he was responsible for war crimes, mass massacres, torture & mass imprisonment makes Wikipedia look like ad for Eastern European Dictatorships. One to mention is the Foibe Massacres (there are BBC documentaries). Wikipedia has an article on this so it’s just contradicting itself. You have one feel-good article about a Dictator then you have an article about the Massacres he approved and organized with the Yugoslav Partisan Army. Then there were Death squads in Southern Dalmatia (the Croatians are putting up monuments for the poor victims & their families now). Also it’s important to mention that the Croatian Government is paying compensation to his former victims. Surely a more critical historical article should be written or this present article should be removed altogether. What is next? A Stalin feel-good article? What about the respect towards the poor victims who suffered those awful events? Can the editors please look into this & how on earth did this article come about? Sir Floyd ( talk) 07:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks John Sir Floyd ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC).
Fresh eyes should be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Descriptive not prescriptive --> descriptive as well as prescriptive. Should WP:NOT say the policies are "descriptive, not prescriptive" or "descriptive as well as prescriptive"? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 09:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The article on Paper and the articles on specific kinds of paper like Cotton paper mostly have the Wikipedia China project template on the talk page, which is correct, since almost everyone agrees that paper was invented in China, with maybe some dissent advocating Egypt. However, origin and history is one thing, but the technology is certainly another. I could not find a paper related article with any kind of technology project template. I am cautious about merely adding the technology template, but I am unsure what other template would be more specific. Ideas? Comments?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a proposal, but I'd rather not post at :Proposals until I've gotten all the bugs worked out (those people are exacting!). Please take a look at this:
My friends at WP:Law just got through removing the spam at Lawyer referral service, and it got me wondering whether we have (or should have) an annotated list of pages that are at high risk for nuanced commercial spam?
At this resource, we wouldn't simply LIST the pages; we'd attempt to CHARACTERIZE the riskiest spam. That's why I say "nuanced"; there are some forms of spam that take some ... ummm ... calibration to get used to: Calibration#External_links, for example. The entry for Au Pair would attempt to characterize this drivel.
Having dedicated patrolers isn't enough to fight this sort of "nuanced" spam, because to the untrained eye it might look like a helpful contribution. This page would serve as an "encyclopedia of wikipedia spam" to let people know what to look for.
Thoughts? Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 05:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
(Please insult and redirect me if this posting is misplaced!) I'm contemplating my future career and I know I want to be in the business of organizing information, on a global scale if possible. I figure most WP editors feel the same way, so I want to hear what other editors do in their day job. So far, I've largely considered the library field but they have only isolated pockets of information and are often rather backwards technologically speaking. I'd love to work with Google, but I don't meet their high standard. What do others think? -- Ephilei ( talk) 16:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. Should Rorschach test display all ten images used in the test and the common responses, or should we act on psychologists' concerns that doing so undermines the test? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking for sources and help in finding out more about the Political Red Cross, an independent league of support groups much like Amnesty International which was active from sometime around the turn of the last century into the 1930s. Solzhnitsyn mentions it in passing in the last chapter of Pt 1 of The Gulag Archipelago (which deals with prisons as opposed to camps proper, and hunger strikes) and seems to assume that his Rusaian readers will know about it. The translations I've seen give no explanation. It's clear from his text that PRC was a kind of relief network for political prisoners during late Tsarist times and some groups survived into the 1930s, notably the Moscow group led by Maxim Gorky's wife Ekaterina Pehkova.
I am working on some Gulag/stalinism-related articles here and on the Swedish WP. Don't know Russian but have read a good deal about late Imperial Russia and the early Soviet Union, so could someone here who does know the language help me get in touch with people at the Russian WP who might want to cooperate on this? I'm fluent in English and French. Is there any article on PRC at the Russian Wikipedia? If so, what's the name of that article, in Cyrillic writing, so one could post a query like this over there? / Strausszek ( talk) 14:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, a user (not me) requested a new password. the IP it was requested from is: 218.103.63.121 I am not watching this page, but don't mind correspondence relating to this. -- Callek ( talk) 20:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know if US FedPub numbers (ie.: "NASA SP-2001-4407") have a... ContextObject(?) which can be used to generate COinS metadata for citations?
—
Ω (
talk) 20:03, August 8, 2009 (UTC)
Within the Variant forms section, some of the languages are in brackets(e.g."Anabel" line, "Spanish"), but others are out of brackets(e.g."Anabel" line, "English"). Who can tell me what do those brackets mean?
P.S.I'm a Chinese English-speaker, so my English may not be so fluent.-- Frank LSF95 00:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I just stubmled onto "Wacklepedia" - I won't give the link, because heavens knows we don't want to sent traffic their way - which is blatant do-nothing-but-scrape-wikipedia site. What's amusing about it, however, is that the scrapes are incredibly old; I stumbled on one with me listed as part of the article, a bit of silliness that was removed in 2004 - that's right, 2004! - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 14:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Engineman appears to have put large numbers of spam links to "Calverton energy" (its a private wiki) surreptiously into wikipedia's energy related articles. I am currently working, and cannot attend to this problem immediately, and would appreciate other editors looking into the problem. A quick search turns up dozens of external links across many articles. If someone who has time can look into this, this would be great! Search link User A1 ( talk) 04:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo Ciampa is being overwhelmed by SPAs and anonymous and infrequent users who are beginning to attack me personally (I initiated the AfD). The subject of the article has mentioned it on his personal blog, which may explain where some of the users are coming from. One other experienced editor who supported deletion has withdrawn from the discussion because of harrassment (including his/her personal information being published on Wikipedia, the subject of the article trying to contact him/her personally, and a bogus sockpuppet allegation being filed against both of us). I would appreciate some sane input on the AfD, whether for or against. Cheers. Grover cleveland ( talk) 02:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Recently I got mail informing me that both I and my bot were eligible for voting in the ongoing Board of Trustees election. This obviously raises the question: couldn't someone easily create a dozen accounts and vote with all of them? All they'd need is to do some editing under each one. Checkuser is not a great solution, since it would be unfair to disenfranchise users who happen to share an IP (e.g. behind the same NAT). Is there any interest in making board elections secure, and if so how? Dcoetzee 04:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Compared to in 2003-2004, when Wikipedia was easy for me to look at as developing, now it looks so developed. What will it look like in 2014?? Georgia guy ( talk) 13:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
It has always been my idea that Wikipedia can be used to create knowledge, by allowing society to edit what we know/think. We can add information, and then whittle it down into what we as a society agree on, thereby creating knowledge, and, to a point, truth.
Is Wikipedia a societal agreement on the definitions of the world?
9:50 EST August 11, 2009
-Prometheustole18 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheustole18 ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
~~~~
.
Bus stop (
talk)
02:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
So does wikipedia have the right/ability to, in its own way, regulate the knowledge of the world? do we bring what is known to the masses? where do we get that right from, or did we seize the mantle because no one else did (at least in the way wikipedia does)?
Prometheustole18 ( talk) 19:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)prometheustole18
Wikipedia may not bring forth the individual truths of its users, but because anyone can edit it, refine it, it has the ability to shape what we think as a nation. take the definition Wikipedia has on abortion - "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus/embryo, resulting in or caused by its death." does the fact that this is Wikipedia's, the representation of society on the internet, definition mean that it is what we agree on? if we all can change it, the fact that it remains unchanged means that we agree. we agree on the ideas we post, refine them if necessary, tweak them and fix them, and in the end, we have, as a people, created a definition. we have created a truth of our own, a working truth that we can use in real life. no?
Prometheustole18 ( talk) 20:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)prometheustole18
Doesnt the existence and success of wikipedia prove that we can agree? despite the occasional freeze on a topic, most subjects on the website are more like forums, where anyone can add information. we agree that each person can be like a reporter to a topic, or at leats a general editor; we agree to work on wikipedia, and the rest of the world who uses the website, simple by using it, agrees by default to what we do on the site. society does agree to use wikipedia, and wikipedia agrees to, in this social contract between society and wikipedia, try to serve as both a showcase for what we know and an encyclopedia for what we, as a nation and a world, think.
Prometheustole18 ( talk) 19:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)prometheustole18
Recently I undeleted and moved to my userspace a useful discussion on a now-deleted template ( User talk:Piotrus/Sandbox/Template:PolandGov). I am also aware that discussion pages of deleted pages (articles, images, templates) are often deleted, and so are talk pages of editors who request it. I wonder if this is a) helpful to the project (as such pages may contain important references/document Wikipedia history) and b) compatibile with our licenses. Some of the deleted pages contain my input ( [3], [4]) - and I never gave permission (nor was asked for it) for their deletion. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I started out proposing some tiny revisions to the Lead of WP:Content forking, but on further reflection, this is a pretty nuanced concept, and now I'm proposing some larger changes. The page doesn't get much attention, so I'd like to invite your contributions. Thanks. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 03:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I put this proposal on another page, but someone told me it didn't belong there. Exiled, it settles here.
As you know, much of Wikipedia's growth has come from swallowing up & citing other encyclopedic, public domain sources. (For example: articles marked with {{ 1911}} contain stuff from the 1911 Britannica; similar sources have been listed here. For a journalist's description of the phenomenon, do a full-text search for "Britannica" in this article.)
I think we should try to systematize the process by which these special sources are identified, assigned to articles, and then incorporated into these articles. If we did so, this content would be incorporated into Wikipedia at a much faster rate, and yet also in a more controlled and supervised fashion.
I co-created a template with User:Drilnoth that performs these functions in a rudimentary way. This is only a proof of concept; I just am looking to find people who might collaborate with me to improve this system.
You insert {{ refideas}} at the top of an article's discussion page, and include a hyperlink to one or more of these special sources. The text of the template reminds editors that such content, properly cited, can be added to an article without infringing copyright.
Here's the important part: these pages are automatically aggregated in this category. Hopefully, some people will view this category as a "portal" pointing to articles where they can make mindless, yet high-quality, contributions. For example, over the last month I created approximately 1000 articles using this Congressional Research Service Report, and credited the source using {{ CRS}}, a new template created for the purpose. I expect that some of the most transformative edits to articles on this list will be made by middle-school students who have no knowledge of the topic whatsoever -- simply by copying, pasting, and citing.
Thoughts? Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 05:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Even though I don't share Blueboar's opinion, I think it's a legitimate one. I also recognize that it's the view of a large number of Wikipedians. In fact, the reason I'm posting here is to adjust my proposal to accommodate these perspectives. I'm grateful for this continued feedback.
I share
Blueboar's reservations to some degree: while I haven't come to any firm views either way, the wider issue of importing from or heavily using old PD sources, compared with sourcing using modern scholarship, gives me pause. I agree with
Andrew Gradman's point on the need and importance of a collaborative way to gather sources. The Further reading section is normally, I thought, intended to list "If you would like to read more about the topic, try these books" reader resources. Although {{
expand further}} is a template I came across the other day, and haven't used as yet, that considers them differently.
The {{ refideas}} template seems a smart idea. A related template {{ findsourcesnotice}} has some overlap I think (cf. {{ findsources3}}). The user who created it hasn't edited awhile, shortly after going through a certain onsite process. Would you and Drilnoth consider incorporating it into the template you created? – Whitehorse1 22:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
Refideas}}
documentation says it can include up to 20 refs. Making it collapsible, perhaps optionally, after 5 is a nice-to-have. –
Whitehorse1
22:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Thanks, everyone, for your feedback. It has really helped me clarify my thoughts on this. For those of you who are interested in continuing this discussion, I've jump-started the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 16:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I was left somewhat shocked by the comments on the recent Slashdot story regarding elitism/protectionism/etc. on Wikipedia. Of course, I'm open-minded about the possibility that there'll be a few vocal users with complaints like "They deleted the article about my high school teacher, Wikipedia sucks", but the number and description of these complaints makes you wonder.
Assuming this problem is real, can anything be done about it? -- Vladimir ( talk) 01:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
When I was reviewing the AFD at Leonardo Ciampa, I was surprised that User:Grover Cleveland had encountered so much hostility when he was trying to insert citation needed into places. I think that sort of hostility could be avoided if WP:Citation needed were clearer. I made some proposals at the above hyperlink. Please let me know what you think. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 04:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The History button for an article offers a look at viewership for the article, by month. I seems to recall seeing lists of "Most viewed" articles, but I am looking for "Average" stats. Overall, how many times is the average Wikipedia article viewed in a month? Thanks. Edison ( talk) 16:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
anyone having knowledge of such a chair please contact me at danafcobb325@aol.com. I am 80 years of age and probably well never be able to find this site again.
I also do not buy whatever you may be selling so please do not fill my screen with offers.
the chair is constructed entirely of bentwood and steel by a master maker. when the trigger is touched it flies into peices with enough force to knock more than one person down.
I know the history since WWII and it has never been activated in all these years. after using it since 1995 I was walkig by and strcuk it with my walker. my left shouler was bruied very badly, something hit my right arm between the shouler and elbow with enough force to damage the radial nerve so much that I may never have use of my hand.
your will be appreciated. I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.15.65 ( talk) 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a method or tool to view the protection status (i.e., prot'd/semiprot'd plus date status changed) of articles in a given WikiProject or category, without looking up each one individually? Thanks. – Whitehorse1 19:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion is up and running, should {{ db-band-notice}} and similar templates be changed to direct editors there rather than to Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles? Skomorokh 20:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know the name of the actress who plays the mum in the UK Sainsbury TV adverts, please? Smile a While ( talk) 00:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I just finished writing {{ Delayed notice}}. Might prove useful to some of you. In a nutshell, you write a message, and specify at what date you want the message be shown. It's sort of a message with a "reverse expiry date". Feedback/comment appreciated. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I found this drawing in the article on Peabo Bryson. I like the image very much, but is it allowed? As it is definitively based on this photograph of which the copyright status is unknown to me. Clausule ( talk) 15:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
In an article some information was supported by a reference to the www.newworldencyclopedia.org which I argued that it was dubious given the funding and support was from the Unification Church but the more serious angle is that we could be hitting
WP:CIRCULAR as many articles on the New World Encyclopedia have relied on Wikipedia (it is listed in
Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks) and so it seems wrong that we should have so many links back to this site
[8]. The first few are the easiest examples e.g.
Pope Innocent III has a link to "www.newworldencyclopedia.org" to support the claim "His papacy asserted the absolute spiritual authority of his office, while still respecting the temporal authority of Kings.[17]". Gee well that helps the poor reader ! How do I (we) resolve this ?. Can I get the www.newworldencyclopedia.org added to that bad link 'bot or would I have to manually go through and remove the references ?. or is there a generic RFC for Sources I need to work through first.
Ttiotsw (
talk)
13:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
According to the unreliable source Wikipedia, MediaWiki documentation is still under GFDL. Is that true? Does it seem strange to have documentation that isn't compatible with the rest of the projects? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
If you are genuinely concerned about the verifiability of the MediaWiki article, then note that a source isn't cited to cover that statement in the article. So it would be productive to hunt up a reliable source, read what it had to say, and fix the article, source in hand.
If you are less interested in the encyclopaedia article and out-of-date reliable sources, and more interested in MediaWiki itself, and what the reliable sources might not have noticed yet, then go and look at what the copyright licences actually are for MW:Manual:Contents and MW:Help:Contents (as you can find explained in MW:Project:Manual and MW:Project:PD help). Uncle G ( talk) 21:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I had been using this tool off toolserver to get a unique list of articles I've edited. At some point something happened to that users account and the tool doesn't work anymore [9]. Anyone know if there is an alternate tool I can use to find unique lists of articles I've edited? Possibly including the ability to sort that list by numbers of edits. I sometimes like to go back and find old articles I might have left a single note on the talk page of and see if there has been any update on issues I may have noticed, so finding articles I've edited a couple times is helpful.-- Crossmr ( talk) 08:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. BJ Talk 08:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
It's looking likely that the three millionth article will appear in the next 24 hours. Currently, there are about 6,857,740. Special:Statistics isn't completely accurate, but it gives some idea.
Apparently, the one millionth article was on 1 March 2006, Jordanhill railway station, Scotland. See Press release.
The two millionth article was 10 Sept 2007, El Hormiguero, a Spanish language television show (according to Tech crunch).
I don't know if this will sound like 'spam' - if it does, please feel free to remove it - but I'm running a little 'countdown bot' on IRC, if anyone is interested, in channel ##chzz on freenode - which can be accessed via this.
I just think it's mildly interesting, and possibly an excuse for a pint. Cheers, Chzz ► 08:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
“ | Not that I've been sitting and preparing for this all day, or anything. | ” |
Congratulations, Wikipedia! The 3,000,000th article was just created, it is Beate Eriksen. It took a little over 8 years, but hey, we got it! ( X! · talk) · @213 · 04:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know why this redirect get so many hits? Skomorokh 16:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have a hard number (not just a guess) for how much of WP's traffic comes from google directly to a specific article? How much comes from typing something in the search bar? How much comes from clicking on internal links? Cool3 ( talk) 19:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I made a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Stub#Lines_before_stub_template. I'd appreciate your input / opinion. Debresser ( talk) 16:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
...and therefore not need to be sourced per WP:MOSTV#Plot section? We're currently debating whether the "Summary" and "Nominations table" sections of Big Brother 2009 (UK) need sourcing per the aforementioned policy. Please join in with the discussion here. Thanks, DJ 21:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC).
I have searched for this but can't find it. It seems sort of anti-Wikipedia for an individual editor to note that his work has been used elsewhere in the media, but I think I have seen some userbox or other device for this purpose. Content I wrote on Wikipedia has been scraped onto another site. It would be fun to post something about this on my user page. Suggestions? – Newportm ( talk • contribs) 04:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
In 2010, Mexico celebrates the 200th anniversary of its Independence, and 100 years after the Mexico Revolution. I am working on a article about this (yeah, I know it´ll have to be rewritten after its over) but Im in a quandry over the scope/title. Both anniversaries are being celebrated over the course of the year (2010) and the countdown clock in Mexico City has both. It is obvious that the Revolution anniversary is taking a back seat (both from what I see living in Mexico City and my research for the article), though care is being taken to promote both together. My question is this, Im inclined to put the two together, but that would yield a title like Mexico Bicentennial of Independence and Centennial of the Mexican Revolution. I think this might be confusing for non-Mexicans. If I separate them, I lose an important aspect of how 2010 will be celebrated here. Need your advice. Thelmadatter ( talk) 22:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/August 2009 election doesn't appear to have been updated. I assume the results have been posted somewhere? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a while; who is the Wikipedia society made up of? Not in terms of race or age, but of the people who choose to assist in the goal of creating the "sum of all human knowledge." Is it idealists, or does Wikipedia bring out the innate need in people to contribute to something? Does Wikipedia matter?
Does Wikipedia really contribute to Knowledge?
What's the philosophy behind Wikipedia.
Prometheustole18 ( talk) 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Prometheustole18
I'm trying to answer the stuff that wasnt answered in my previous ones. I just want people's opinion on the philosophical side of Wikipedia, the psychological reason's why people use Wikipedia, and how Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia.
72.153.169.185 ( talk) 23:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)prometheustole18
I love the 'left handed nobel prize winners' idea, and to be honest, that what I'm really interested in. How can Wikipedia be used to spur new idea, to create knowledge. I know that I'm reiterating on my previous ideas, but I just want to see what other people think of my idea that Wikipedia is like a mirror of society; if something is on Wikipedia, and remains the same, doesn't that mean that it can be seen as what we think? Most encyclopedia's have their own definitions, but Wikipedia lets society use what they agree on, and when they agree on something...we just created knowledge. ideas!
72.153.169.185 ( talk) 00:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)prometheustole18
I really like the idea that Wikipedia inadvertently teaches. Wikipedia is really the best learning tool; you just go from one idea to another, click of a button. But is Wikipedia just for learning? It is a huge storage site of knowledge, or is Wikipedia a forum for views and ideas about certain issues and concepts? If something is on Wikipedia, what does that mean in general, about the people that post or and all?
also, can i quote anyone on this for a paper I'm writing?
Prometheustole18 ( talk) 23:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)prometheustole18
Hi all. I work on the french version of Wikipedia, and in our Village pump we're currently having a talk about one of our former users. He created somewhere around 12 000 redirects on religious topics. Some of them made sense, some were just... 'creative' to say the least. We're now having a major issue as to which ones we should delete. People have said that we should just let you know since he's now on your wikipedia, so you may just want to watch out if he starts writing redirects. Note that I don't keep up with your village pump so if somebody wants to answer, just come over to our village pump and search for ADM to insert a message. Cheers, Philippe Giabbanelli ( talk) 09:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed an increasing number of articles being created on unincorporated hamlets. I discussed this with an editor here, and also perused discussions at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 59#Needs resolution: Are places inherently notable? and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 62#New level of geographical notability?. It seems to me that while any incorporated community is notable, unincorporated hamlets are not necessarily so. Should articles on hamlets be systematically created with nothing more than coordinates and a GNIS entry? Powers T 13:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, yes; I should have clarified that this is primarily a US situation. In my state, New York, the state is divided completely into 62 counties. Each county is subdivided completely into zero or more cities plus zero or more towns (townships to most people). All of these entities are incorporated, and as recognized governmental layers that completely fill the state, I believe they're inherently notable.
There are also incorporated communities called villages which are non-exclusive with towns (that is, any territory within a village's borders is also considered to be inside a particular town, and a village can span more than one town). Villages are also very notable, because they have their own governments.
Hamlets are named places with no defined boundaries and no municipal government. Rarely they may have a post office. Rarely, they may be a former village that dissolved (in which case it would have historical boundaries); since notability is not temporary, these hamlets would likely be notable just as villages are. Some hamlets may have general notability, subject to the general notability guideline. But I don't believe all hamlets are notable the way all villages are notable. A hamlet may have an official name in the GNIS, but no one living there who knows it. Or they could know the name but consider it historical and not use it. Without a reliable source beyond the GNIS, I don't think we can support articles on all of these little hamlets.
Is there a better location I could try to have this discussion, or is this as good as any?
-- Powers T 17:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm french and my english is not good. Please read ABCD syndrome. Perhaps, it's a canular (hoax?). Aquadancer101, in this version [11] added this reference:
and it's not the real title - fr:user:HB, 21 August 2009.
why do many random articles seem to be about unknown or insignificant athletes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.51.155 ( talk) 00:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Per the suggestion made by User_talk:Iceblock#Thanks._:.29 I have decided to announce (show?) my little table that I made for new users on my talk page (at the very top) User_talk:Calaka. I believe Iceblock thought of the table as quite useful to new contributors and hence others (that patrol new pages or deal with new users for example) could benefit from utilizing such a table (a copy or similar version of theirs based on their principals/beliefs on Wikipedia editing). I am not 100% sure if this is the correct place to post it or if anyone would want to use such a thing (I don't mind if you do) but yeah, just thought I would post it here. Kind regards. Calaka ( talk) 12:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Are next user page User:Aculina Strasnei Popa out of scope ?-- Musamies ( talk) 05:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if this is where things like this should be posted, but I'd like to bring attention to the fact that the article about of Montreal's new album ( False Priest) is an obvious hoax. Please delete it and all mentions to it from other pages, as it is only misleading people. Thanks. -- Roadunsafety ( talk) 11:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 51#Policy and Guideline improvement drive 01:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
What is the Wikipedia etiquette for AFDs? If it is a wacky article, then it is clear. Nominate it. What if it looks reasonably written but just doesn't fit the notability criteria. There is an elementary school article that I saw. High schools are deemed notable. Elementary schools must prove their notability.
However, other crap exists. Should one be on a rampage and AFD the other crap? Or kindly suggest that notability be explained on the talk page first and either do nothing or AFD if nothing is done?
What would the best behaved and respected Wikipedian do?
FYI, the article is Red Hill Elementary School. User F203 ( talk) 17:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't go on point-making sprees. Follow the procedure in User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What do to. Uncle G ( talk) 13:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I have Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue is there anyway have the full text of these 12 pages automatically, dynamically put onto one wikipedia page, without a bot?
I checked mw:Magic Words and could find no way to do this. Ikip ( talk) 14:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
How/where do I file a complaint about corrupt administrators? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.63.37 ( talk) 06:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Please help make sure wikipedia has articles on every dermatologic condition. There are many new articles and redirects to be made, and we at WP:DERM are looking for more help! --- kilbad ( talk) 15:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Please help answer my question on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Role_conflict. Nobody seems to be watching it. Thanks ReluctantPhilosopher ( talk) 18:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see my proposal on Category_talk:Wikipedia_deletion. This is a rarely visited page, so I came here to ask for your input. If it will have consensus, could somebody please make the change. Because of a restriction, in connection with a conflict between me and an editor who contributed to that page, I am not allowed to make any changes myself. Debresser ( talk) 19:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Would this count as plagiarism? The Church Street article hasn't been edited since May.
"The attack consisted of a car bomb set off outside the Nedbank Square building on Church Street at 4:30pm on a Friday. The target was South African Air Force (SAAF) headquarters, but as the bomb was set to go off at the height of rush hour, those killed and wounded included civilians."
The August Daily Mail article says [15], "The Church Street attack involved a car bomb set off outside the Nedbank Square building at 4.30pm on a Friday. The target was the South African Air Force headquarters, but as the bomb was set to go off at the height of rush hour, those killed and wounded included civilians."
Advertisingguru ( talk) 00:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
How do I get an edit notice to be shown when someone edits a talkpage (i.e. when they're editing, some warning/advisory text is also displayed)? Talk:Wiki and WT:About get random content or questions posted to them frequently, I'm hoping this might cut down on it. -- Cybercobra (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi from the
Basque Country!
This is a message to the administrators of wikipedia in English or for someone who can help me with this issue:
I´m an user and contributor of the
Basque Wikipedia.,
Basque language is one of the oldest in Europe and the world, it has thousands of years old and is one of the few languages that survived the arrival of Indo-Europeans to Europe. Perhaps being one of the oldest nations or countries of the world not even have their own state, but our language is our homeland and pride. It put us on the map and give a reference recognizable to English speakers, the city of
Pamplona (
Iruña in basque language), where they celebrate the internationally famous festival of
San Fermin are in the
Basque Country.
After this brief introduction I would kindly ask you this request:
On July 15, 2009, in the Basque wikipedia we exceed the figure of 40,000 items, today (August 8, 2009) and we have 42,000 items, achievement of which we are very proud, because if we compare proportionately the number of speakers of the Basque language (about a million) with other spoken language Wikipedia in more than one state or nation in the world with millions of speakers is like to be proud.
Because one of the aims of Wikipedia in addition to expanding human knowledge worldwide is also to expand the knowledge of all languages of mankind: From the Basque Wikipedia We wanted to make the request to the users and particularly to the Admin of the English wikipedia would be possible if you put the link to Basque Wikipedia in your English Wikipedia´s language list of everyone in your main cover ("Languages" section: as is currently the case Galician or Catalan language) and the Wikipedia list of more than 40,000 items that is below your main entrance page ("Wikipedia languages" section). Since English is currently the most powerful, influential and widespread in the world (your wikipedia already has 3,000,000 articles), the presence of Basque Wikipedia in your list of the world would be a great help to supervival of our language and their knowledge in the world.
Awaiting your reply.
Greetings from the Basque Wikipedia.
.
--
Euskalduna
(tell me) 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC) (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.86.101.120 (
talk)
Thank you, Tim. -- Euskalduna (tell me) 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.86.101.120 ( talk)
I stumbled across Wikipedia:What_You_Need_To_Know_About_Cancer_booklets earlier today. It looks like it should be delated or moved or something. What do you think should happen? Empire3131 ( talk) 23:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Is the largest wikiproject military history?
Is there a list of largest wikiprojects?
If not anyone object to me starting one? Ikip ( talk) 05:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
|
(outdent) Again, as Gadget850 noted, how you define largest is relevant. Do you refer to the number of articles under its scope, the number of editors involved, etc.? If you are discussing the number of articles under its scope, WikiProject Biography has, at present, 726979 out of a total of 3,008,285 articles Wikipedia wide. That is over 24% of the entire encyclopedia, not counting the many that have not yet been assigned a category. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 22:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
In terms of the number of articles dealt with, then I'd say Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting has all the others beaten. However many of the articles don't stay around longer than a week. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
With reference to the recent poll about date (auto-)formatting, please note that {{ start date}} is listed on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_24#Template:Start_date. -- User: Docu at 03:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if you noticed, but why is the Yahoo! favicon in the place of the wikikipedia one? SCG 147 21:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I opened an RfC on this article, 2009 Hudson River mid-air collision, and got no takers. The issues raised touch on WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTCENSORED, so pumpers take note. So please read the article, and read the RfC, and discuss there. Talk:2009 Hudson River mid-air collision#Rfc: Is the phone call relevant patsw ( talk) 13:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Since the policy behind Portals is a bit unclear, a discussion started in Wikipedia_talk:Portal#Does_a_portal_need_to_be_actively_edited_in_order_to_be_useful.3F. Please raise your voice. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed it's the same logo, the black W in a white square. Is this going to cause any problems?-- 12.48.220.130 ( talk) 20:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to ask a question about some research I want to do. I want to search approximately 20 different terms in google and find out where the Wikipedia page for each term ranks compared to other online resources. Specifically, I would be looking at terms for dermatologic conditions. So, for example, with the following search [16] on my results screen Wikipedia is the first entry, followed by medscape. Can I use google trends/"Google Insights for Search" to accomplish this? Or is there some other way I can compare google pageranks? --- kilbad ( talk) 21:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
If there is a category named after a person, should the various categories be listed on that particular category page or on the article page itself? Chesdovi ( talk) 22:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Stub_types_for_deletion#Rename and comment there. Thank you! Debresser ( talk) 18:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you to the Wikipedia community for your participation so far in this ongoing research study, and for your response to our previous post on the village pump. We plan on keeping this survey open for one more week and would like to encourage anyone who has not yet had the opportunity to participate to take the survey described below.
As part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut, we are conducting a survey of anyone who has participated in the Request for Adminship (RfA) process, either voting or as a candidate.
The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community.
Thank you!
If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.
User:CMUResearcher ( talk). 20:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons has just reached 5,000,000 files uploaded. Congrats, Commons! BobAmnertiopsis ∴ ChatMe! 11:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that basically all quotation marks on Wikipedia are written "like this". However, this is wrong, it should be “like this” (look carefully).
Since there are too many articles to edit it manually, could there be a very clever bot doing this? sl:Lagos 86.61.29.194 ( talk) 22:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Note that Wikipedia does use curly quotes when a quotation template is used. It's fairly easy to find examples of this. -- Tim Sabin ( talk) 01:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
You may look at any book or newspaper and I am sure there will be typographic quotation marks. It’s just the standard… it’s professional. I think the problem discussed should be how to repare the wrong qoutes in all this articles – if repare them at all – and how to make further writing with such quotes more user friendly. sl:Lagos 95.176.210.105 ( talk) 07:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I see there is already a lot said about this, and I am not sure if it is worth adding another déjà vu topic.
Although, I disagree about printed vs electronic document. In both cases it’s just text! (And printed text was once digitally written as well.) Maybe you meant that it’s not displayed: yes, for some users, but not majority and amount is decreasing (specifically, for users with ClearType turned off there is no difference between "" and “” – but ClearType is on by default in newer versions of Windows (Vista, 7) and in some newer browsers (IE 7 and above), which means with upgrading difference in appereance is slowly improving.)
Also I don’t think there was wide support for straight qoutes, there was no consensus at all. But I did’ read everything.
BTW, you can click on insert characters and get curly quotes – still, user interface could be done much better in this case. And would templates really be a problem? sl:Lagos 95.176.160.143 ( talk) 13:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, there is obviously no interest in this. Just a final thought: despite inconvenience in editing & writing – which could be improved, IMO – using typographic quotation marks is standard in printed texts and is a sign of professionalism on web pages. For example, Britannica Online uses this kind of qoutes. WP stays in amateur camp this time… :-( sl:Lagos 95.176.222.232 ( talk) 07:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
There are a number of biographical articles which have birth dates recorded, but no death dates. This is presumably because once they had their moments of fame (for example, in competitive sport) they retired and faded in the background. People (i.e. reliable sources) lost track, and so we have no idea of whether they are alive or not. Now, the list here is a fairly long one, but, for obvious reasons, we need only concern ourselves with those born 1900 or after. Obviously, it's preferable to have a dead person marked as living (with all the added precautions that entails) than the assumption that a living person is dead. So do we add Category:Living people to all of them? Where (in terms of birth date) should be draw the line? - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 13:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
It would help if editors other than the "usual suspects" were to get involved in the debate on whether to move "denial of the Armenian Genocide" to "Armenian genocide dispute" and merge in "recognition of the Armenian Genocide" -- PBS ( talk) 14:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I am currently planning creation of a new wiki that will begin as a fork of part of Wikipedia. I won't be needing editors for a couple months yet (need to iron out domain, hosting, etc), but when I do, what is the best way to go about getting interested editors from Wikipedia without spamming/being accused of spam? My guess is there will be too many potentially interested people to make individual tpage notices (even with AWB) practical. → ROUX ₪ 15:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Schmirius( talk| contribs) just edited two dozen articles, changing occurrences of the phrase "confined to a wheelchair" to "uses a wheelchair", commenting that it is the "preferred usage". In at least a couple of cases ( [17] [18]) it appears to weaken the prose in which the confinement to (required use of?) a wheelchair was central to the point. In other cases it seems to introduce a certain ambiguity, as many people who have limited mobility (those who are only able to take a few hundred steps daily following knee surgery, for example) use a wheelchair to extend their range. The phrase "uses a wheelchair" seems appropriate there, where "confined to a wheelchair" does not. Striking the latter phrase from our vocabulary would remove this distinction. Wikipedia has no reason to go out of its way to offend, but how far out of its way should it go to avoid offending, perhaps at the price of less precise language, and is this even such a case? Is there any policy that addresses this topic? WP:PC, to my disappointment, is about press coverage. -- Thinking of England ( talk) 10:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
We appear to have consensus to date that it would be appropriate to revert those changes where the confinement to (required use of?) a wheel chair was central to the point. What about more general cases? Taking one edit at random (to Kim Jong-il):
Does the loss of precision justify reverting these changes in general? -- Thinking of England ( talk) 03:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems quite clear that none of the participants in this discussion so far are themselves wheelchair users. I am, so permit me to bring some actual real world experience to the topic. "Wheelchair bound" is rapidly becoming just as stigmatised as "crippled" or "retarded", please try not to use it. The simple fact is that wheelchair users are not literally tied into their chairs. To distinguish someone who has to use a wheelchair all the time from someone who uses it only in certain circumstances we have "wheelchair user" (without a qualifier) or "fulltime wheelchair user" versus "occasional wheelchair user" or "part-time wheelchair user". If one looks at sources such as web forums for wheelchair users you would notice that usages such as "wheelchair bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" are being slapped down quite often. A common explanation given for why "confined to a wheelchair" is incorrect is that a wheelchair is an instrument of freedom, not confinement. If you need one but you don't have it, you are truly confined - usually to a bed or wherever someone else (your caregiver) puts you. Roger ( talk) 13:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
If I understand correctly from the comments above, the only reason not to say "uses a wheelchair" instead of "confined to a wheelchair" is to distinguish between people "choosing" to use a wheelchair, and people who "must" use it to get around. But 99% of the time, this can be easily gleaned from context. In the remaining 1%, where it's actually important to distinguish (and this is theoretical; I can't think of an actual, practical case where it's important to make it explicit (and by "practical", I mean, "not Star Trek")) adding the words "sometimes" or "often" in front of the former solves the problem.
If we were being asked to start using the phrase "kerfinkles a wheelchair", I could understand the resistance. But this is a trivially simple change, uses clear, standard English, and is evidently more respectful to some of our fellow humans. Why in the world would we insist on not using it? -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I am a C5/6 Complete Quadriplegic & self identify as a "wheelchair user" (ex POV) or say that I "use a wheelchair" (1st POV). Informally & dependent on context, slang such as "Quad" usually suffice to qualify that my mode of ambulation is not simply a matter of personal preference (though I understand some prefer strictly PC language while for others further clarification may be needed). Bound, Confined, Inflicted, Restricted, Suffering etc, while able to be interpreted as objectively accurate, are certainly not ideal for literal & personal reasons. Able-bods are not "confined to shoes" or "pants bound". Kyebosh ( talk) 10:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Should articles of the type "<sportsperson> with <team> in <year>" or <sportsperson> in <championship series> in <year>" (for example, Michael Jordan in the NBA Playoffs in 1991 or Manny Ramirez in the World Series of 2004 be an acceptable class of articles? A test case has arisen. Your opinions welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 23:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone convert these two .ai files into SVG format? I don't know how to do it:
If done, please replace File:KT logo.jpg and File:Olleh KT.jpg on the article KT (telecommunication company) with the SVG files. JSH-alive talk • cont • mail 14:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the people maintaining {{ Infobox settlement}} have a declared aim of standardising all regional settlement-related infoboxes on their model; i.e. use of IS should be mandatory worldwide and region-specific infoboxes should be deprecated and deleted. To that end, a series of templates have been listed for deletion at TfD (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 6#Template:Infobox Australian Place for the largest discussion).
The proponents of such standardisation seem to think the benefits of standardisation are self-evident (I am not yet convinced) but even if standardisation is the way to go, deleting templates and only then coming to grips with the migration process etc. seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. It is a recipe for chaos, at least in the short term.
I suggest speedily closing the current settlement infobox TfDs and then creating a centralised discussion about the benefits or otherwise of standardisation, followed by development of a rational migration plan should consensus determine that a move is necessary. To my mind, this will generate a better end result than processing each template through TfD and will avoid generating mountains of work for those editors having to deal with the unintended consequences of a hasty deletion. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 02:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I support standarisation. This is the english wikipedia. Since we can do more of that with {{ Infobox settlement}}, I don't understand why not. TfD's arebases on the fact that these templates are covered by a standard one. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Consistancy and simplification above anything. I think having a single template for settlements aids the notion of the "free encyclopedia that anybody can edit". Editors become accustomed to editing the standard template which is used for most countries on here, then when they come across a completely differently built one it is a whole new learning curve. I for instance wanted to add a location map to Alice Springs but because I was unfamiliar with the template I couldn't. We do live in a diverse world but that is where english wikipedia tries to unite the masses to produce a consistant, high quality encyclopedia. I for one believe we should strive for similar articles to have a similar format and layout and referencing from whatever country, sorry you disagree. Himalayan 10:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand, but the vast majority of people who have commented on this are not seeing things from a global perspective, they are seeing it from an Australian point of view. You are all accustomed to how the Aussie template works but editors outside the Australian project who may want to contribute independently may find it harder to learn a whole new system. It is the same with how you see the standard template as how I see the Aussie template. It is not what each of us are accustomed to, this is why there is a conflict of interest. Himalayan 10:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Mattinbgn. Standardization for it's own sake has very little benefit when it comes to cultural differences, which this issue clearly includes. This whole proposal seems ill-conceved, including the fact that I don't rember seeing anything about it being posted on
WP:VPR (which, for a change that would affect a huge cross section of the English Wikipedia, I would think would be a bare minimum standard to meet for any proposal). I guess I could/should go and say something at all of the TfD's (yet another structural failing of the proposal, using multiples TfD's), but I don't really see the point. I seriously doubt that any admin would go through with a deletion anyway, but someone who has already posted to them should point to this discussion.
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ω)
13:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The nominator has now closed the TfD, suggesting that (hopefully calmer) discussion might continue on the {{ Infobox Australian Place}}'s talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
IMO, those promoting the standardization are going about it completely backwards. First, the interchangeability of the templates should be clearly demonstrated and second the project(s) that use the templates should be engaged to produce a consensus supporting the switchover. Neither has happened -- initiating the discussion by nominating a template for deletion is almost certain to provoke greater opposition than if the topic were first broached on a project page and clearly delineated the advantages. Furthermore, as others have discussed above and elsewhere, the philosophical approach of one-size-fit-all is deeply problematic in it that usually either results loss of features or in greater complexity (i.e., a higher obstacle for usability). older ≠ wiser 14:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Bilby is quite correct that standardisation can result in loss of flexibility, or increased complexity. Nonetheless it also brings benefits, not the least of which is that it reduces the divergence between the templates, so that things which are common remain the same. I have proposed elsewhere that for these situations there are solutions better than either an infobox for every national flavour or one huge infobox with a thousand parameters (bearing in mind that infoboxes have a tendency to attract crufty parameters anyway). The two main possibilities I was thinking of are plug in templates as used by {{ Infobox album}} I think, and meta-templates where the parameters are passed through local templates utilising the generic fields in a specific way "subdivision name1= commune / subdivision1 = " so to the end user (editor not template hacker) it appears as if it's a custom template, but the style, layout, microformats, maintenance categorisation etc. are consistent. However I have come across two more models:-
Summary: It is not an "either one F.O. big template or many small ones" debate, or at least it shuold not be.
Don't worry I've withdrawn the nomination and I now hope we can work together to sort the mapping issue out. See my comments to User:Orderinchaos for what my intentions actually are/were. Himalayan 14:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Speaking for myself only I am only too happy to listen to options for better integrating the look and feel of IAP with IS (or even an outright merge) if that is what is wanted by the community. However, from the nomination, through to the discussion and beyond, the proponents of deleting IAP have gone out of their way to ensure that there was no local support for the change. If the proponents of standardising on IS are serious about what they want to do, they might start by taking a bit more of a humble approach and engaging with the users of the templates first, taking the time to answer their questions and perhaps developing a model that has a bit of local support. Listing at TfD as a first step does nothing except alienate the very people the proponents of standardisation should be trying to bring on side. Dismissing their concerns as parochialism or GETOFFMYLAWN will only get these people further offside. Not everyone has the same understanding of how complex templates work or even how TfD is supposed to work and some time spent explaining this before listing at TfD would be well spent. I realise a policy of engagement will take more time than simply trying to ram through discussion at TfD but it might actually get a better result.
I am not convinced that the use of IS everywhere is a good thing. We use multiple versions of infoboxes for people rather than a generic version. I see no reason why a similar approach should not be used with settlements. The "Soviet Tyre Factory" approach to infoboxes seems to me to be a poor idea. Widespread use of IS in areas where there is little use or technical support for a specific box seems to me to be a good idea. However, in cases such as Australia, UK, France etc. etc. where the specific box is widely used and is reasonably well maintained, it seems to me to be preferable to keep them reasonably independent of IS. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 21:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Some more thoughts: I have seen no evidence that the generic IS template is better than any number of specific "settlement"-type infoboxes, including this one. The proponents of IS seem to think that standardisation around IS is a done deal. Well, it is not and the case for moving to IS should be made clear and debated widely. Just because we have the capability to create a monstrous template that can do everything is not sufficient reason for actually doing that. Why stop at standardising around IS, we could create one "infobox" with all fields coveing everything from localities to people to organisations etc. At some point, the returns to scale from having one infobox doing everything is outweighed by the increasingly bulky size and difficulty of use of that template. There is a legitimate discussion to be had on that point, despite what the proponents of deletion state. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 03:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The functionality provided by {{ infobox settlement}} already exists through the creative use of MediaWiki markup. A table with all of the functionality and all the formatting of the infobox could be replicated by the creative use of WikiTable elements. However, expecting editors to know how to do this is unreasonable, thus we have created these templates to perform the technical work for them. We have {{ Infobox U.S. state}} so that users can easily manipulate the data in either Arizona or Louisiana comfortably, efficiently and seamlessly. This is a good thing. I can understand the desire that some users have to unify templates when possible, reducing the number of redundant templates that we have running around. It would be silly for us to have {{ Infobox U.S. Western state}} and {{ Infobox U.S. Eastern state}} when one template can handle them both. This seems obvious. An argument can be made that, by reducing the templates to genericized parameters when needed, templates for different types of places (states, counties, cities, and so on) can also be merged into a single template. Eventually this argument can be extended to encompass more and more topics. By making the parameters sufficiently generic, could we not reasonably hope to include countries in our genericized template? Corporations, musical groups, people? Theoretically all that is required is to make enough parameters generic enough that they can encompass practically every topic imaginable. The problem is, once that point is reached, we are right back where we started - a duplicate of the raw WikiTable syntax. The question is therefore not whether we can merge the templates, but whether we should. Templates exist to help users create reliably similar datasheets for similar topics, in a way that does not require them to know and understand the code therein. {{ Infobox U.S. state}} has successfully distilled out the information shared among U.S. states in such a way that users can plug in a few data points and be on their way. Overeager merging of these templates is a step back, creating additional work for the end user and removing simplicity for what is viewed as a "technical" elegance. Let us not forget that templates exist to make life easier for Wikipedia editors, not template maintainers. Sher eth 16:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Andy, would you like to lay out, clearly and in detail, exactly what your goal is with regards to standardisation to Infobox settlement and your proposed plan to get there. It is getting tiresome being accused of dishonesty everytime I try and understand where you are coming from so perhaps you can take the opportunity to lay all your cards on the table, so to speak. So far, in this thread alone you have accused three different editors of dishonesty, spreading fallacy or outright lying. That all these people seem to miscontrue your intentions but of some concern to you, right? I'm sorry if this comes across as assuming bad faith but you seem unwilling to expand on your migration plans and unwilling to expand on what role, if any, users of the existing templates will play. What I see from my end is an attempt to ram through a massive migration program with minimal consultation with the wider community. Certainly, you don't seem to be willing to take any advice or criticism from anyone who does not support your goal. If you are a little more open in explaining what you are trying to achieve, perhaps your actions and motives will not be so easily misconstrued. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 22:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
Related to recent controversy and may be of interest to you, particularly if you care about public domain artwork. Comments appreciated on talk page. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 13:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I am dyslexic and I am currently helping to edit some of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia new sub articles, which require new content sourced from complex research papers. We are trying to avoid possible copyright issues, but we lack the copy-edit skills to transfer the information from the supporting research papers in to acceptable Wikipedia article content. The articles which require the most immediate help are Genetic research into dyslexia, Orthographies and dyslexia and Brain scan research into dyslexia Any help will be very much appreciated dolfrog ( talk) 18:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
A discussion is currently in progress about Talk:Willis Tower about whether the tower should be known by its official name as the Willis Tower or by the common name, used by general public and reliable sources alike, as the Sears Tower. Could someone clarify the policy here, when a common name and an official but unused name are different, which one should we use? Empire NJ ( talk) 19:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
A couple of comments at the administrator's noticeboard (AN) about the quality of ANI discussion have led to a short post at the talk page asking for perceptions:
A user's suggested in an AN discussion that they feel there can be issues at ANI:
Quick feedback: some truth to it? A lot? Not much? |
Users welcomed to comment. (
link)
FT2 ( Talk | email) 10:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Here: File:Martha_My_Dear.jpg it's a fragment of an opening Beatle's song, definitely copyrighted. It has a (to my view a bit weak) fair use claim, yet it firmly states it's free content under a free creative commons license. Could someone take a look? -- m: drini 00:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
There is still a problem with this page, in spite of the intervention of a bot (see the history of the page). Gwen42 ( talk) 14:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I am a wikipedia reader. I am not a wikipedian and am unable to assess the significance of the security breaches documented by the author of the above mentioned website. Someone should check this out. Unluckily, the document is in Italian.
Best wishes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.4.229.213 ( talk) 15:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
You can traslate it with Babelfish. Is here.-- 151.81.174.6 ( talk) 14:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Site completely rewritten in date 1/9/2009.-- Nicolayvaluev ( talk) 20:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I need help with the article Panamanian literature. Please, anyone can check it??? Thank you. -- Kamerad luis ( talk) 18:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I need to forward an email containing a permission to OTRS. I want know can a user with OTRS access see my IP address in the email header (X-Originating-IP)? Can a user with OTRS access trace my PC IP address? Mpics ( talk) 17:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
An easy solution: the "email this user" function of Mediawiki does not include your IP address in the headers. So if absolute privacy is needed, you can send an email directly to the username of an OTRS volunteer and ask them to forward it to the OTRS queue. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 19:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but isn't some sort of identifying information actually needed for OTRS to do it's work. When we seek permissions to use media under an open license it is preferable that the person granting the license is identifiable. Same goes for legal issues. Taemyr ( talk) 14:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Should the spaced em dashes on the main page be changed to en dashes, if only to set a MoS-compliant example? Pslide ( talk) 10:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I think wiki foundation should make a dedicated service-wiki or howtodo-wiki. There are not easy to find how to do things on internet, like how to fix things on your specific car, how to fix things on your house, how to fix your laptop or how to get that sunflowers in your garden to grow.
My idea how to build such site. Each guy can make their own detailed 'how-to' with preferably many pictures and maybe video. It should be the easiest how to available, so even untrained persons are able to do it. Also with an optional easy and short step for step only text sript for short and fast description of procedure. Users may give out stars to each how-to, and owner of the 'how-to' may choose to whether allow people modificate it or come with suggestins or adding comments to it. Every person can make his own how-to on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikikalus ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Recommended listening for anyone who is starting to take editing here too seriously. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I want to customize my [Wikipedia] signature, but I don't know how. -- Di-Gata Connexion ( talk) 20:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Best practice in public outreach is a collection of articles describing experiences in winning new volunteers, partner, contents and audiences. Given that several chapters already developed successful projects to engage new target groups or deepen relationships to newly Wikimedians, the Best practices in public outreach page is a forum for those who want to share their knowledge and for those who want to spread the word.
We are looking for contributors to be involved. If you would like to be involved in public outreach, please list your name at m:Best practices documentation team, and participate in the discussions. If you think someone you know would be good for this, please point them to this page. -- Cary Bass ( talk) 16:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I am trying to insert commons:File:Suitcase2.jpg to Luggage locks, but there is an identically named File:Suitcase2.jpg on en:wp. In order to use an image on commons, I need to delete File:Suitcase2.jpg and re-upload it with a different name. I am unfamiliar with these procedures, so I would appreciate if anyone could do these for me. Thanks, in advance.-- Tomo_suzuki ( talk ) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Can someone revert the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luffa, the 'Use by Humans' section has been vandalised and is possibly libelous. Regards 90.205.32.78 ( talk) 12:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The link from Joseph Baker, Republican on the Rutland-1-2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012 goes to the Joseph Baker disambiguation page. I added him on that page as follows:
However, I am unsure that this is the correct approach, and I am unsure about adding (Vermont) when it could be (politician) or something else. My questions:
This is not the only instance of this problem for the Vermont House of Representatives members, and very likely it happens elsewhere, too. An editor puts Joseph Baker in a list, sees it is blue, but doesn't follow the link to see the disambiguation page. Worse, sometimes the disambiguation page has a link to the actual bio, when that link should be at the first instance of the name.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 12:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I teach a "first year seminar" course at Penn State for bioscience students. They each choose a topic to present to the class and lead discussion. I encourage them to start their research with Wikipedia, as it is a quick way to orient themselves to a topic and find further references.
This year I want to add a new component to the assignment. They will be required to choose at least one Wikipedia article to which they will be required to make substantive additions and/or improvements based on their further research.
Question: does the community have any ideas or resources that will enrich this assignment, either for the students or for Wikipedia? Preferably both.
I'm a sometime author and frequent anonymous typo fixer, so I think I can find the materials to train them in the technique and cultural ethos of Wikipedia editing. I'm looking for something fanatical wikipedians could suggest, nonobvious to dabblers like me, that might enhance this assignment.
In particular, are there community standards that I could use to evaluate this assignment rigorously?
James Endres Howell, Penn State University 16:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmer ( talk • contribs)
Thanks so much, everyone! Those references are precisely what I was hoping for! James Endres Howell, Penn State University 13:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmer ( talk • contribs)
About two years ago, I made one of the worst decisions of my WikiLife. My RFA was a gigantic failure, and I lacked the maturity to understand that. I would like to apologize for my lack of maturity back then, two years later, I can clearly see my mistakes. To be honest, I am very glad that I was denied adminship, as my behavior would have been totally destructive towards Wikipedia.
My answers towards the questions come off as a complete joke today, my violent opposition to vandalism has changed. I misunderstood nearly every one of the policies regarding Wikipedian interactions with others. I failed to assume good faith, I fed the trolls, I didn't stay cool. I seriously and authentically am sorry for my misinformed opinions on Wikipedia. To think that I behaved like that once totally disgusts me, I acted like a troll towards fellow users, I treated Wikipedia as a source of social-networking, as a place to have mischievous fun. Needless to say, I totally misconstrued the meaning of Wikipedia. Despite a familiarity with WikiCode, not having the maturity to treat work seriously makes the most knowledgeable of scholars deeply destructive towards the project.
About a year and a half ago, took up admin coaching with Bibliomaniac15 to identify many of my problems, both ideological and Wiki-Wise. In retrospect, I find most of the problems that were identified came from a need to appeal to others: in short, I cared too much about what others thought of me, forgetting about my purpose as an editor in the first place.
My misunderstanding can also be traced to my level of knowledge at that time. I failed to understand the importance of civility, arbitration and the role of an administrator. I mistook the mop to be a "medal of honor", and pursued it without regard to those who may be affected by my actions. I have been through many real-life experiences since then, and those experiences have taught me a lot about myself and my interactions with others.
I've spent over a year editing sparsely, and after a long period of inactivity, I wish to make a return to Wikipedia. This time, I want to be a helpful and constructive editor. As a person, I have went through radical changes to my lifestyle and worldview, those changes have greatly impacted my ability to communicate and collaborate with others. Thus, I feel that I am now ready to contribute constructively.
I am deeply sorry about my past as an editor. From the Userpage Contest to my RFA as well as my non-constructive contributions to deletion discussions and RfAs, I want to apologize for everything I did wrong.
Thank you.
Marlith (Talk) 05:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a real unscientific straw-poll, of which I'm asking here (and generically) because I want the community's reaction without any other influencing factors...
Suppose Mr. X attended an accredited university for a couple of semesters before dropping out. Credits earned were not used towards any degree, and Mr. X never earned a degree. Is it proper to list the University as an "Alma Mater" for Mr. X?
I will also cross-post this question to the infobox talkpage. Thanks in advance! // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Good question, Blaxthos and Niteshift36. The OED has:
Alma Mater:
[Latin. alma māter bounteous mother.]
A title given by the Romans to several goddesses, especially to Ceres and Cybele, and transferred in English to Universities and schools regarded as ‘fostering mothers’ to their alumni.
It's probably helpful to look at the word alumnus, "foster son" in Latin, and the feminine version alumna, "foster daughter". The idea is that a graduate is a foster or adopted child of Alma Mater ("nourishing (i.e., dear) mother").
alumnus:
The nurseling or pupil of any school, university, or other seat of learning. Also, a graduate or former student (chiefly U.S., esp. in pl.).
Usage examples: 1823 J. & R. C. Morse Traveller's Guide 320 The number of alumni, that is, the number who have been educated at each college since its establishment. 1906 Springfield (Mass.) Weekly Republ. 28 June 10 Tuesday was alumni day at Yale, when hundreds of old graduates..gathered in alumni hall.
alumna: Plural alumnæ. [L., fem. of alumnus.] A female graduate or former student of a school, college, or university. Chiefly U.S.
It seems Alma Mater usually refers to the university Mr. X graduated from, though it's sometimes used for a former non-graduated student. Mainly though, it seems to be used to define the university/college from which someone did graduate. – Whitehorse1 20:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
{{infobox person}}
template. //
Blaxthos (
t /
c )
21:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)So a good example would be Steve Miller (musician), who attended, but dropped out of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. MuZemike 21:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I think definitely change it to "attended". Both to make it less ambiguous and less Americani(s/z)ed. I've certainly never heard of the term "Alma Mater" outside of a U.S. context. OrangeDog ( talk • edits) 00:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC) No, in UK English it's only used with the ironic awareness that it's an affected expression. Deipnosophista ( talk) 14:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I just added the{{sections}} template to Siege of 's-Hertogenbosch, but I cannot find any mention of that template on Help:Sections, or by searching. I did it by just trying it. This template should be mentioned on Help:Sections, but only with a link to the documentation, which I have not found yet. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 12:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I see 2,980,990 articles in English today, and no doubt this will rise. Is there a celebration at three million articles? -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 12:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
File:Model tanker.JPG shows a name on the ship, unfortunately I can't read her name. Can someone translate the name in English, or even give her IMO number? -- Stunteltje ( talk) 20:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia. Could editors of Wikipedia please do a reassessment of the Josip Broz Tito article. The article is embarrassing. The Eastern European Dictator is portrayed as some sort of pop star (what is this all about/also it's very strange) and should not be in any nominations other than the article that lacks NPOV. Also considering he was responsible for war crimes, mass massacres, torture & mass imprisonment makes Wikipedia look like ad for Eastern European Dictatorships. One to mention is the Foibe Massacres (there are BBC documentaries). Wikipedia has an article on this so it’s just contradicting itself. You have one feel-good article about a Dictator then you have an article about the Massacres he approved and organized with the Yugoslav Partisan Army. Then there were Death squads in Southern Dalmatia (the Croatians are putting up monuments for the poor victims & their families now). Also it’s important to mention that the Croatian Government is paying compensation to his former victims. Surely a more critical historical article should be written or this present article should be removed altogether. What is next? A Stalin feel-good article? What about the respect towards the poor victims who suffered those awful events? Can the editors please look into this & how on earth did this article come about? Sir Floyd ( talk) 07:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks John Sir Floyd ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC).
Fresh eyes should be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Descriptive not prescriptive --> descriptive as well as prescriptive. Should WP:NOT say the policies are "descriptive, not prescriptive" or "descriptive as well as prescriptive"? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 09:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The article on Paper and the articles on specific kinds of paper like Cotton paper mostly have the Wikipedia China project template on the talk page, which is correct, since almost everyone agrees that paper was invented in China, with maybe some dissent advocating Egypt. However, origin and history is one thing, but the technology is certainly another. I could not find a paper related article with any kind of technology project template. I am cautious about merely adding the technology template, but I am unsure what other template would be more specific. Ideas? Comments?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a proposal, but I'd rather not post at :Proposals until I've gotten all the bugs worked out (those people are exacting!). Please take a look at this:
My friends at WP:Law just got through removing the spam at Lawyer referral service, and it got me wondering whether we have (or should have) an annotated list of pages that are at high risk for nuanced commercial spam?
At this resource, we wouldn't simply LIST the pages; we'd attempt to CHARACTERIZE the riskiest spam. That's why I say "nuanced"; there are some forms of spam that take some ... ummm ... calibration to get used to: Calibration#External_links, for example. The entry for Au Pair would attempt to characterize this drivel.
Having dedicated patrolers isn't enough to fight this sort of "nuanced" spam, because to the untrained eye it might look like a helpful contribution. This page would serve as an "encyclopedia of wikipedia spam" to let people know what to look for.
Thoughts? Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 05:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
(Please insult and redirect me if this posting is misplaced!) I'm contemplating my future career and I know I want to be in the business of organizing information, on a global scale if possible. I figure most WP editors feel the same way, so I want to hear what other editors do in their day job. So far, I've largely considered the library field but they have only isolated pockets of information and are often rather backwards technologically speaking. I'd love to work with Google, but I don't meet their high standard. What do others think? -- Ephilei ( talk) 16:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. Should Rorschach test display all ten images used in the test and the common responses, or should we act on psychologists' concerns that doing so undermines the test? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking for sources and help in finding out more about the Political Red Cross, an independent league of support groups much like Amnesty International which was active from sometime around the turn of the last century into the 1930s. Solzhnitsyn mentions it in passing in the last chapter of Pt 1 of The Gulag Archipelago (which deals with prisons as opposed to camps proper, and hunger strikes) and seems to assume that his Rusaian readers will know about it. The translations I've seen give no explanation. It's clear from his text that PRC was a kind of relief network for political prisoners during late Tsarist times and some groups survived into the 1930s, notably the Moscow group led by Maxim Gorky's wife Ekaterina Pehkova.
I am working on some Gulag/stalinism-related articles here and on the Swedish WP. Don't know Russian but have read a good deal about late Imperial Russia and the early Soviet Union, so could someone here who does know the language help me get in touch with people at the Russian WP who might want to cooperate on this? I'm fluent in English and French. Is there any article on PRC at the Russian Wikipedia? If so, what's the name of that article, in Cyrillic writing, so one could post a query like this over there? / Strausszek ( talk) 14:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, a user (not me) requested a new password. the IP it was requested from is: 218.103.63.121 I am not watching this page, but don't mind correspondence relating to this. -- Callek ( talk) 20:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know if US FedPub numbers (ie.: "NASA SP-2001-4407") have a... ContextObject(?) which can be used to generate COinS metadata for citations?
—
Ω (
talk) 20:03, August 8, 2009 (UTC)
Within the Variant forms section, some of the languages are in brackets(e.g."Anabel" line, "Spanish"), but others are out of brackets(e.g."Anabel" line, "English"). Who can tell me what do those brackets mean?
P.S.I'm a Chinese English-speaker, so my English may not be so fluent.-- Frank LSF95 00:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I just stubmled onto "Wacklepedia" - I won't give the link, because heavens knows we don't want to sent traffic their way - which is blatant do-nothing-but-scrape-wikipedia site. What's amusing about it, however, is that the scrapes are incredibly old; I stumbled on one with me listed as part of the article, a bit of silliness that was removed in 2004 - that's right, 2004! - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 14:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Engineman appears to have put large numbers of spam links to "Calverton energy" (its a private wiki) surreptiously into wikipedia's energy related articles. I am currently working, and cannot attend to this problem immediately, and would appreciate other editors looking into the problem. A quick search turns up dozens of external links across many articles. If someone who has time can look into this, this would be great! Search link User A1 ( talk) 04:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo Ciampa is being overwhelmed by SPAs and anonymous and infrequent users who are beginning to attack me personally (I initiated the AfD). The subject of the article has mentioned it on his personal blog, which may explain where some of the users are coming from. One other experienced editor who supported deletion has withdrawn from the discussion because of harrassment (including his/her personal information being published on Wikipedia, the subject of the article trying to contact him/her personally, and a bogus sockpuppet allegation being filed against both of us). I would appreciate some sane input on the AfD, whether for or against. Cheers. Grover cleveland ( talk) 02:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Recently I got mail informing me that both I and my bot were eligible for voting in the ongoing Board of Trustees election. This obviously raises the question: couldn't someone easily create a dozen accounts and vote with all of them? All they'd need is to do some editing under each one. Checkuser is not a great solution, since it would be unfair to disenfranchise users who happen to share an IP (e.g. behind the same NAT). Is there any interest in making board elections secure, and if so how? Dcoetzee 04:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Compared to in 2003-2004, when Wikipedia was easy for me to look at as developing, now it looks so developed. What will it look like in 2014?? Georgia guy ( talk) 13:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
It has always been my idea that Wikipedia can be used to create knowledge, by allowing society to edit what we know/think. We can add information, and then whittle it down into what we as a society agree on, thereby creating knowledge, and, to a point, truth.
Is Wikipedia a societal agreement on the definitions of the world?
9:50 EST August 11, 2009
-Prometheustole18 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheustole18 ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
~~~~
.
Bus stop (
talk)
02:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
So does wikipedia have the right/ability to, in its own way, regulate the knowledge of the world? do we bring what is known to the masses? where do we get that right from, or did we seize the mantle because no one else did (at least in the way wikipedia does)?
Prometheustole18 ( talk) 19:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)prometheustole18
Wikipedia may not bring forth the individual truths of its users, but because anyone can edit it, refine it, it has the ability to shape what we think as a nation. take the definition Wikipedia has on abortion - "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus/embryo, resulting in or caused by its death." does the fact that this is Wikipedia's, the representation of society on the internet, definition mean that it is what we agree on? if we all can change it, the fact that it remains unchanged means that we agree. we agree on the ideas we post, refine them if necessary, tweak them and fix them, and in the end, we have, as a people, created a definition. we have created a truth of our own, a working truth that we can use in real life. no?
Prometheustole18 ( talk) 20:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)prometheustole18
Doesnt the existence and success of wikipedia prove that we can agree? despite the occasional freeze on a topic, most subjects on the website are more like forums, where anyone can add information. we agree that each person can be like a reporter to a topic, or at leats a general editor; we agree to work on wikipedia, and the rest of the world who uses the website, simple by using it, agrees by default to what we do on the site. society does agree to use wikipedia, and wikipedia agrees to, in this social contract between society and wikipedia, try to serve as both a showcase for what we know and an encyclopedia for what we, as a nation and a world, think.
Prometheustole18 ( talk) 19:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)prometheustole18
Recently I undeleted and moved to my userspace a useful discussion on a now-deleted template ( User talk:Piotrus/Sandbox/Template:PolandGov). I am also aware that discussion pages of deleted pages (articles, images, templates) are often deleted, and so are talk pages of editors who request it. I wonder if this is a) helpful to the project (as such pages may contain important references/document Wikipedia history) and b) compatibile with our licenses. Some of the deleted pages contain my input ( [3], [4]) - and I never gave permission (nor was asked for it) for their deletion. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I started out proposing some tiny revisions to the Lead of WP:Content forking, but on further reflection, this is a pretty nuanced concept, and now I'm proposing some larger changes. The page doesn't get much attention, so I'd like to invite your contributions. Thanks. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 03:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I put this proposal on another page, but someone told me it didn't belong there. Exiled, it settles here.
As you know, much of Wikipedia's growth has come from swallowing up & citing other encyclopedic, public domain sources. (For example: articles marked with {{ 1911}} contain stuff from the 1911 Britannica; similar sources have been listed here. For a journalist's description of the phenomenon, do a full-text search for "Britannica" in this article.)
I think we should try to systematize the process by which these special sources are identified, assigned to articles, and then incorporated into these articles. If we did so, this content would be incorporated into Wikipedia at a much faster rate, and yet also in a more controlled and supervised fashion.
I co-created a template with User:Drilnoth that performs these functions in a rudimentary way. This is only a proof of concept; I just am looking to find people who might collaborate with me to improve this system.
You insert {{ refideas}} at the top of an article's discussion page, and include a hyperlink to one or more of these special sources. The text of the template reminds editors that such content, properly cited, can be added to an article without infringing copyright.
Here's the important part: these pages are automatically aggregated in this category. Hopefully, some people will view this category as a "portal" pointing to articles where they can make mindless, yet high-quality, contributions. For example, over the last month I created approximately 1000 articles using this Congressional Research Service Report, and credited the source using {{ CRS}}, a new template created for the purpose. I expect that some of the most transformative edits to articles on this list will be made by middle-school students who have no knowledge of the topic whatsoever -- simply by copying, pasting, and citing.
Thoughts? Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 05:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Even though I don't share Blueboar's opinion, I think it's a legitimate one. I also recognize that it's the view of a large number of Wikipedians. In fact, the reason I'm posting here is to adjust my proposal to accommodate these perspectives. I'm grateful for this continued feedback.
I share
Blueboar's reservations to some degree: while I haven't come to any firm views either way, the wider issue of importing from or heavily using old PD sources, compared with sourcing using modern scholarship, gives me pause. I agree with
Andrew Gradman's point on the need and importance of a collaborative way to gather sources. The Further reading section is normally, I thought, intended to list "If you would like to read more about the topic, try these books" reader resources. Although {{
expand further}} is a template I came across the other day, and haven't used as yet, that considers them differently.
The {{ refideas}} template seems a smart idea. A related template {{ findsourcesnotice}} has some overlap I think (cf. {{ findsources3}}). The user who created it hasn't edited awhile, shortly after going through a certain onsite process. Would you and Drilnoth consider incorporating it into the template you created? – Whitehorse1 22:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
Refideas}}
documentation says it can include up to 20 refs. Making it collapsible, perhaps optionally, after 5 is a nice-to-have. –
Whitehorse1
22:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Thanks, everyone, for your feedback. It has really helped me clarify my thoughts on this. For those of you who are interested in continuing this discussion, I've jump-started the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 16:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I was left somewhat shocked by the comments on the recent Slashdot story regarding elitism/protectionism/etc. on Wikipedia. Of course, I'm open-minded about the possibility that there'll be a few vocal users with complaints like "They deleted the article about my high school teacher, Wikipedia sucks", but the number and description of these complaints makes you wonder.
Assuming this problem is real, can anything be done about it? -- Vladimir ( talk) 01:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
When I was reviewing the AFD at Leonardo Ciampa, I was surprised that User:Grover Cleveland had encountered so much hostility when he was trying to insert citation needed into places. I think that sort of hostility could be avoided if WP:Citation needed were clearer. I made some proposals at the above hyperlink. Please let me know what you think. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 04:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The History button for an article offers a look at viewership for the article, by month. I seems to recall seeing lists of "Most viewed" articles, but I am looking for "Average" stats. Overall, how many times is the average Wikipedia article viewed in a month? Thanks. Edison ( talk) 16:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
anyone having knowledge of such a chair please contact me at danafcobb325@aol.com. I am 80 years of age and probably well never be able to find this site again.
I also do not buy whatever you may be selling so please do not fill my screen with offers.
the chair is constructed entirely of bentwood and steel by a master maker. when the trigger is touched it flies into peices with enough force to knock more than one person down.
I know the history since WWII and it has never been activated in all these years. after using it since 1995 I was walkig by and strcuk it with my walker. my left shouler was bruied very badly, something hit my right arm between the shouler and elbow with enough force to damage the radial nerve so much that I may never have use of my hand.
your will be appreciated. I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.15.65 ( talk) 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a method or tool to view the protection status (i.e., prot'd/semiprot'd plus date status changed) of articles in a given WikiProject or category, without looking up each one individually? Thanks. – Whitehorse1 19:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion is up and running, should {{ db-band-notice}} and similar templates be changed to direct editors there rather than to Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles? Skomorokh 20:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know the name of the actress who plays the mum in the UK Sainsbury TV adverts, please? Smile a While ( talk) 00:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I just finished writing {{ Delayed notice}}. Might prove useful to some of you. In a nutshell, you write a message, and specify at what date you want the message be shown. It's sort of a message with a "reverse expiry date". Feedback/comment appreciated. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I found this drawing in the article on Peabo Bryson. I like the image very much, but is it allowed? As it is definitively based on this photograph of which the copyright status is unknown to me. Clausule ( talk) 15:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
In an article some information was supported by a reference to the www.newworldencyclopedia.org which I argued that it was dubious given the funding and support was from the Unification Church but the more serious angle is that we could be hitting
WP:CIRCULAR as many articles on the New World Encyclopedia have relied on Wikipedia (it is listed in
Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks) and so it seems wrong that we should have so many links back to this site
[8]. The first few are the easiest examples e.g.
Pope Innocent III has a link to "www.newworldencyclopedia.org" to support the claim "His papacy asserted the absolute spiritual authority of his office, while still respecting the temporal authority of Kings.[17]". Gee well that helps the poor reader ! How do I (we) resolve this ?. Can I get the www.newworldencyclopedia.org added to that bad link 'bot or would I have to manually go through and remove the references ?. or is there a generic RFC for Sources I need to work through first.
Ttiotsw (
talk)
13:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
According to the unreliable source Wikipedia, MediaWiki documentation is still under GFDL. Is that true? Does it seem strange to have documentation that isn't compatible with the rest of the projects? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
If you are genuinely concerned about the verifiability of the MediaWiki article, then note that a source isn't cited to cover that statement in the article. So it would be productive to hunt up a reliable source, read what it had to say, and fix the article, source in hand.
If you are less interested in the encyclopaedia article and out-of-date reliable sources, and more interested in MediaWiki itself, and what the reliable sources might not have noticed yet, then go and look at what the copyright licences actually are for MW:Manual:Contents and MW:Help:Contents (as you can find explained in MW:Project:Manual and MW:Project:PD help). Uncle G ( talk) 21:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I had been using this tool off toolserver to get a unique list of articles I've edited. At some point something happened to that users account and the tool doesn't work anymore [9]. Anyone know if there is an alternate tool I can use to find unique lists of articles I've edited? Possibly including the ability to sort that list by numbers of edits. I sometimes like to go back and find old articles I might have left a single note on the talk page of and see if there has been any update on issues I may have noticed, so finding articles I've edited a couple times is helpful.-- Crossmr ( talk) 08:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. BJ Talk 08:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
It's looking likely that the three millionth article will appear in the next 24 hours. Currently, there are about 6,857,740. Special:Statistics isn't completely accurate, but it gives some idea.
Apparently, the one millionth article was on 1 March 2006, Jordanhill railway station, Scotland. See Press release.
The two millionth article was 10 Sept 2007, El Hormiguero, a Spanish language television show (according to Tech crunch).
I don't know if this will sound like 'spam' - if it does, please feel free to remove it - but I'm running a little 'countdown bot' on IRC, if anyone is interested, in channel ##chzz on freenode - which can be accessed via this.
I just think it's mildly interesting, and possibly an excuse for a pint. Cheers, Chzz ► 08:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
“ | Not that I've been sitting and preparing for this all day, or anything. | ” |
Congratulations, Wikipedia! The 3,000,000th article was just created, it is Beate Eriksen. It took a little over 8 years, but hey, we got it! ( X! · talk) · @213 · 04:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know why this redirect get so many hits? Skomorokh 16:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have a hard number (not just a guess) for how much of WP's traffic comes from google directly to a specific article? How much comes from typing something in the search bar? How much comes from clicking on internal links? Cool3 ( talk) 19:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I made a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Stub#Lines_before_stub_template. I'd appreciate your input / opinion. Debresser ( talk) 16:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
...and therefore not need to be sourced per WP:MOSTV#Plot section? We're currently debating whether the "Summary" and "Nominations table" sections of Big Brother 2009 (UK) need sourcing per the aforementioned policy. Please join in with the discussion here. Thanks, DJ 21:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC).
I have searched for this but can't find it. It seems sort of anti-Wikipedia for an individual editor to note that his work has been used elsewhere in the media, but I think I have seen some userbox or other device for this purpose. Content I wrote on Wikipedia has been scraped onto another site. It would be fun to post something about this on my user page. Suggestions? – Newportm ( talk • contribs) 04:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
In 2010, Mexico celebrates the 200th anniversary of its Independence, and 100 years after the Mexico Revolution. I am working on a article about this (yeah, I know it´ll have to be rewritten after its over) but Im in a quandry over the scope/title. Both anniversaries are being celebrated over the course of the year (2010) and the countdown clock in Mexico City has both. It is obvious that the Revolution anniversary is taking a back seat (both from what I see living in Mexico City and my research for the article), though care is being taken to promote both together. My question is this, Im inclined to put the two together, but that would yield a title like Mexico Bicentennial of Independence and Centennial of the Mexican Revolution. I think this might be confusing for non-Mexicans. If I separate them, I lose an important aspect of how 2010 will be celebrated here. Need your advice. Thelmadatter ( talk) 22:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/August 2009 election doesn't appear to have been updated. I assume the results have been posted somewhere? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a while; who is the Wikipedia society made up of? Not in terms of race or age, but of the people who choose to assist in the goal of creating the "sum of all human knowledge." Is it idealists, or does Wikipedia bring out the innate need in people to contribute to something? Does Wikipedia matter?
Does Wikipedia really contribute to Knowledge?
What's the philosophy behind Wikipedia.
Prometheustole18 ( talk) 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Prometheustole18
I'm trying to answer the stuff that wasnt answered in my previous ones. I just want people's opinion on the philosophical side of Wikipedia, the psychological reason's why people use Wikipedia, and how Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia.
72.153.169.185 ( talk) 23:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)prometheustole18
I love the 'left handed nobel prize winners' idea, and to be honest, that what I'm really interested in. How can Wikipedia be used to spur new idea, to create knowledge. I know that I'm reiterating on my previous ideas, but I just want to see what other people think of my idea that Wikipedia is like a mirror of society; if something is on Wikipedia, and remains the same, doesn't that mean that it can be seen as what we think? Most encyclopedia's have their own definitions, but Wikipedia lets society use what they agree on, and when they agree on something...we just created knowledge. ideas!
72.153.169.185 ( talk) 00:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)prometheustole18
I really like the idea that Wikipedia inadvertently teaches. Wikipedia is really the best learning tool; you just go from one idea to another, click of a button. But is Wikipedia just for learning? It is a huge storage site of knowledge, or is Wikipedia a forum for views and ideas about certain issues and concepts? If something is on Wikipedia, what does that mean in general, about the people that post or and all?
also, can i quote anyone on this for a paper I'm writing?
Prometheustole18 ( talk) 23:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)prometheustole18
Hi all. I work on the french version of Wikipedia, and in our Village pump we're currently having a talk about one of our former users. He created somewhere around 12 000 redirects on religious topics. Some of them made sense, some were just... 'creative' to say the least. We're now having a major issue as to which ones we should delete. People have said that we should just let you know since he's now on your wikipedia, so you may just want to watch out if he starts writing redirects. Note that I don't keep up with your village pump so if somebody wants to answer, just come over to our village pump and search for ADM to insert a message. Cheers, Philippe Giabbanelli ( talk) 09:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed an increasing number of articles being created on unincorporated hamlets. I discussed this with an editor here, and also perused discussions at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 59#Needs resolution: Are places inherently notable? and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 62#New level of geographical notability?. It seems to me that while any incorporated community is notable, unincorporated hamlets are not necessarily so. Should articles on hamlets be systematically created with nothing more than coordinates and a GNIS entry? Powers T 13:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, yes; I should have clarified that this is primarily a US situation. In my state, New York, the state is divided completely into 62 counties. Each county is subdivided completely into zero or more cities plus zero or more towns (townships to most people). All of these entities are incorporated, and as recognized governmental layers that completely fill the state, I believe they're inherently notable.
There are also incorporated communities called villages which are non-exclusive with towns (that is, any territory within a village's borders is also considered to be inside a particular town, and a village can span more than one town). Villages are also very notable, because they have their own governments.
Hamlets are named places with no defined boundaries and no municipal government. Rarely they may have a post office. Rarely, they may be a former village that dissolved (in which case it would have historical boundaries); since notability is not temporary, these hamlets would likely be notable just as villages are. Some hamlets may have general notability, subject to the general notability guideline. But I don't believe all hamlets are notable the way all villages are notable. A hamlet may have an official name in the GNIS, but no one living there who knows it. Or they could know the name but consider it historical and not use it. Without a reliable source beyond the GNIS, I don't think we can support articles on all of these little hamlets.
Is there a better location I could try to have this discussion, or is this as good as any?
-- Powers T 17:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm french and my english is not good. Please read ABCD syndrome. Perhaps, it's a canular (hoax?). Aquadancer101, in this version [11] added this reference:
and it's not the real title - fr:user:HB, 21 August 2009.
why do many random articles seem to be about unknown or insignificant athletes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.51.155 ( talk) 00:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Per the suggestion made by User_talk:Iceblock#Thanks._:.29 I have decided to announce (show?) my little table that I made for new users on my talk page (at the very top) User_talk:Calaka. I believe Iceblock thought of the table as quite useful to new contributors and hence others (that patrol new pages or deal with new users for example) could benefit from utilizing such a table (a copy or similar version of theirs based on their principals/beliefs on Wikipedia editing). I am not 100% sure if this is the correct place to post it or if anyone would want to use such a thing (I don't mind if you do) but yeah, just thought I would post it here. Kind regards. Calaka ( talk) 12:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Are next user page User:Aculina Strasnei Popa out of scope ?-- Musamies ( talk) 05:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if this is where things like this should be posted, but I'd like to bring attention to the fact that the article about of Montreal's new album ( False Priest) is an obvious hoax. Please delete it and all mentions to it from other pages, as it is only misleading people. Thanks. -- Roadunsafety ( talk) 11:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 51#Policy and Guideline improvement drive 01:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
What is the Wikipedia etiquette for AFDs? If it is a wacky article, then it is clear. Nominate it. What if it looks reasonably written but just doesn't fit the notability criteria. There is an elementary school article that I saw. High schools are deemed notable. Elementary schools must prove their notability.
However, other crap exists. Should one be on a rampage and AFD the other crap? Or kindly suggest that notability be explained on the talk page first and either do nothing or AFD if nothing is done?
What would the best behaved and respected Wikipedian do?
FYI, the article is Red Hill Elementary School. User F203 ( talk) 17:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't go on point-making sprees. Follow the procedure in User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What do to. Uncle G ( talk) 13:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I have Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue is there anyway have the full text of these 12 pages automatically, dynamically put onto one wikipedia page, without a bot?
I checked mw:Magic Words and could find no way to do this. Ikip ( talk) 14:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
How/where do I file a complaint about corrupt administrators? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.63.37 ( talk) 06:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Please help make sure wikipedia has articles on every dermatologic condition. There are many new articles and redirects to be made, and we at WP:DERM are looking for more help! --- kilbad ( talk) 15:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Please help answer my question on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Role_conflict. Nobody seems to be watching it. Thanks ReluctantPhilosopher ( talk) 18:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see my proposal on Category_talk:Wikipedia_deletion. This is a rarely visited page, so I came here to ask for your input. If it will have consensus, could somebody please make the change. Because of a restriction, in connection with a conflict between me and an editor who contributed to that page, I am not allowed to make any changes myself. Debresser ( talk) 19:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Would this count as plagiarism? The Church Street article hasn't been edited since May.
"The attack consisted of a car bomb set off outside the Nedbank Square building on Church Street at 4:30pm on a Friday. The target was South African Air Force (SAAF) headquarters, but as the bomb was set to go off at the height of rush hour, those killed and wounded included civilians."
The August Daily Mail article says [15], "The Church Street attack involved a car bomb set off outside the Nedbank Square building at 4.30pm on a Friday. The target was the South African Air Force headquarters, but as the bomb was set to go off at the height of rush hour, those killed and wounded included civilians."
Advertisingguru ( talk) 00:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
How do I get an edit notice to be shown when someone edits a talkpage (i.e. when they're editing, some warning/advisory text is also displayed)? Talk:Wiki and WT:About get random content or questions posted to them frequently, I'm hoping this might cut down on it. -- Cybercobra (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi from the
Basque Country!
This is a message to the administrators of wikipedia in English or for someone who can help me with this issue:
I´m an user and contributor of the
Basque Wikipedia.,
Basque language is one of the oldest in Europe and the world, it has thousands of years old and is one of the few languages that survived the arrival of Indo-Europeans to Europe. Perhaps being one of the oldest nations or countries of the world not even have their own state, but our language is our homeland and pride. It put us on the map and give a reference recognizable to English speakers, the city of
Pamplona (
Iruña in basque language), where they celebrate the internationally famous festival of
San Fermin are in the
Basque Country.
After this brief introduction I would kindly ask you this request:
On July 15, 2009, in the Basque wikipedia we exceed the figure of 40,000 items, today (August 8, 2009) and we have 42,000 items, achievement of which we are very proud, because if we compare proportionately the number of speakers of the Basque language (about a million) with other spoken language Wikipedia in more than one state or nation in the world with millions of speakers is like to be proud.
Because one of the aims of Wikipedia in addition to expanding human knowledge worldwide is also to expand the knowledge of all languages of mankind: From the Basque Wikipedia We wanted to make the request to the users and particularly to the Admin of the English wikipedia would be possible if you put the link to Basque Wikipedia in your English Wikipedia´s language list of everyone in your main cover ("Languages" section: as is currently the case Galician or Catalan language) and the Wikipedia list of more than 40,000 items that is below your main entrance page ("Wikipedia languages" section). Since English is currently the most powerful, influential and widespread in the world (your wikipedia already has 3,000,000 articles), the presence of Basque Wikipedia in your list of the world would be a great help to supervival of our language and their knowledge in the world.
Awaiting your reply.
Greetings from the Basque Wikipedia.
.
--
Euskalduna
(tell me) 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC) (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.86.101.120 (
talk)
Thank you, Tim. -- Euskalduna (tell me) 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.86.101.120 ( talk)
I stumbled across Wikipedia:What_You_Need_To_Know_About_Cancer_booklets earlier today. It looks like it should be delated or moved or something. What do you think should happen? Empire3131 ( talk) 23:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Is the largest wikiproject military history?
Is there a list of largest wikiprojects?
If not anyone object to me starting one? Ikip ( talk) 05:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
|
(outdent) Again, as Gadget850 noted, how you define largest is relevant. Do you refer to the number of articles under its scope, the number of editors involved, etc.? If you are discussing the number of articles under its scope, WikiProject Biography has, at present, 726979 out of a total of 3,008,285 articles Wikipedia wide. That is over 24% of the entire encyclopedia, not counting the many that have not yet been assigned a category. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 22:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
In terms of the number of articles dealt with, then I'd say Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting has all the others beaten. However many of the articles don't stay around longer than a week. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
With reference to the recent poll about date (auto-)formatting, please note that {{ start date}} is listed on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_24#Template:Start_date. -- User: Docu at 03:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if you noticed, but why is the Yahoo! favicon in the place of the wikikipedia one? SCG 147 21:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I opened an RfC on this article, 2009 Hudson River mid-air collision, and got no takers. The issues raised touch on WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTCENSORED, so pumpers take note. So please read the article, and read the RfC, and discuss there. Talk:2009 Hudson River mid-air collision#Rfc: Is the phone call relevant patsw ( talk) 13:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Since the policy behind Portals is a bit unclear, a discussion started in Wikipedia_talk:Portal#Does_a_portal_need_to_be_actively_edited_in_order_to_be_useful.3F. Please raise your voice. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed it's the same logo, the black W in a white square. Is this going to cause any problems?-- 12.48.220.130 ( talk) 20:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to ask a question about some research I want to do. I want to search approximately 20 different terms in google and find out where the Wikipedia page for each term ranks compared to other online resources. Specifically, I would be looking at terms for dermatologic conditions. So, for example, with the following search [16] on my results screen Wikipedia is the first entry, followed by medscape. Can I use google trends/"Google Insights for Search" to accomplish this? Or is there some other way I can compare google pageranks? --- kilbad ( talk) 21:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
If there is a category named after a person, should the various categories be listed on that particular category page or on the article page itself? Chesdovi ( talk) 22:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Stub_types_for_deletion#Rename and comment there. Thank you! Debresser ( talk) 18:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you to the Wikipedia community for your participation so far in this ongoing research study, and for your response to our previous post on the village pump. We plan on keeping this survey open for one more week and would like to encourage anyone who has not yet had the opportunity to participate to take the survey described below.
As part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut, we are conducting a survey of anyone who has participated in the Request for Adminship (RfA) process, either voting or as a candidate.
The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community.
Thank you!
If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.
User:CMUResearcher ( talk). 20:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons has just reached 5,000,000 files uploaded. Congrats, Commons! BobAmnertiopsis ∴ ChatMe! 11:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that basically all quotation marks on Wikipedia are written "like this". However, this is wrong, it should be “like this” (look carefully).
Since there are too many articles to edit it manually, could there be a very clever bot doing this? sl:Lagos 86.61.29.194 ( talk) 22:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Note that Wikipedia does use curly quotes when a quotation template is used. It's fairly easy to find examples of this. -- Tim Sabin ( talk) 01:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
You may look at any book or newspaper and I am sure there will be typographic quotation marks. It’s just the standard… it’s professional. I think the problem discussed should be how to repare the wrong qoutes in all this articles – if repare them at all – and how to make further writing with such quotes more user friendly. sl:Lagos 95.176.210.105 ( talk) 07:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I see there is already a lot said about this, and I am not sure if it is worth adding another déjà vu topic.
Although, I disagree about printed vs electronic document. In both cases it’s just text! (And printed text was once digitally written as well.) Maybe you meant that it’s not displayed: yes, for some users, but not majority and amount is decreasing (specifically, for users with ClearType turned off there is no difference between "" and “” – but ClearType is on by default in newer versions of Windows (Vista, 7) and in some newer browsers (IE 7 and above), which means with upgrading difference in appereance is slowly improving.)
Also I don’t think there was wide support for straight qoutes, there was no consensus at all. But I did’ read everything.
BTW, you can click on insert characters and get curly quotes – still, user interface could be done much better in this case. And would templates really be a problem? sl:Lagos 95.176.160.143 ( talk) 13:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, there is obviously no interest in this. Just a final thought: despite inconvenience in editing & writing – which could be improved, IMO – using typographic quotation marks is standard in printed texts and is a sign of professionalism on web pages. For example, Britannica Online uses this kind of qoutes. WP stays in amateur camp this time… :-( sl:Lagos 95.176.222.232 ( talk) 07:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
There are a number of biographical articles which have birth dates recorded, but no death dates. This is presumably because once they had their moments of fame (for example, in competitive sport) they retired and faded in the background. People (i.e. reliable sources) lost track, and so we have no idea of whether they are alive or not. Now, the list here is a fairly long one, but, for obvious reasons, we need only concern ourselves with those born 1900 or after. Obviously, it's preferable to have a dead person marked as living (with all the added precautions that entails) than the assumption that a living person is dead. So do we add Category:Living people to all of them? Where (in terms of birth date) should be draw the line? - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 13:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
It would help if editors other than the "usual suspects" were to get involved in the debate on whether to move "denial of the Armenian Genocide" to "Armenian genocide dispute" and merge in "recognition of the Armenian Genocide" -- PBS ( talk) 14:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I am currently planning creation of a new wiki that will begin as a fork of part of Wikipedia. I won't be needing editors for a couple months yet (need to iron out domain, hosting, etc), but when I do, what is the best way to go about getting interested editors from Wikipedia without spamming/being accused of spam? My guess is there will be too many potentially interested people to make individual tpage notices (even with AWB) practical. → ROUX ₪ 15:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Schmirius( talk| contribs) just edited two dozen articles, changing occurrences of the phrase "confined to a wheelchair" to "uses a wheelchair", commenting that it is the "preferred usage". In at least a couple of cases ( [17] [18]) it appears to weaken the prose in which the confinement to (required use of?) a wheelchair was central to the point. In other cases it seems to introduce a certain ambiguity, as many people who have limited mobility (those who are only able to take a few hundred steps daily following knee surgery, for example) use a wheelchair to extend their range. The phrase "uses a wheelchair" seems appropriate there, where "confined to a wheelchair" does not. Striking the latter phrase from our vocabulary would remove this distinction. Wikipedia has no reason to go out of its way to offend, but how far out of its way should it go to avoid offending, perhaps at the price of less precise language, and is this even such a case? Is there any policy that addresses this topic? WP:PC, to my disappointment, is about press coverage. -- Thinking of England ( talk) 10:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
We appear to have consensus to date that it would be appropriate to revert those changes where the confinement to (required use of?) a wheel chair was central to the point. What about more general cases? Taking one edit at random (to Kim Jong-il):
Does the loss of precision justify reverting these changes in general? -- Thinking of England ( talk) 03:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems quite clear that none of the participants in this discussion so far are themselves wheelchair users. I am, so permit me to bring some actual real world experience to the topic. "Wheelchair bound" is rapidly becoming just as stigmatised as "crippled" or "retarded", please try not to use it. The simple fact is that wheelchair users are not literally tied into their chairs. To distinguish someone who has to use a wheelchair all the time from someone who uses it only in certain circumstances we have "wheelchair user" (without a qualifier) or "fulltime wheelchair user" versus "occasional wheelchair user" or "part-time wheelchair user". If one looks at sources such as web forums for wheelchair users you would notice that usages such as "wheelchair bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" are being slapped down quite often. A common explanation given for why "confined to a wheelchair" is incorrect is that a wheelchair is an instrument of freedom, not confinement. If you need one but you don't have it, you are truly confined - usually to a bed or wherever someone else (your caregiver) puts you. Roger ( talk) 13:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
If I understand correctly from the comments above, the only reason not to say "uses a wheelchair" instead of "confined to a wheelchair" is to distinguish between people "choosing" to use a wheelchair, and people who "must" use it to get around. But 99% of the time, this can be easily gleaned from context. In the remaining 1%, where it's actually important to distinguish (and this is theoretical; I can't think of an actual, practical case where it's important to make it explicit (and by "practical", I mean, "not Star Trek")) adding the words "sometimes" or "often" in front of the former solves the problem.
If we were being asked to start using the phrase "kerfinkles a wheelchair", I could understand the resistance. But this is a trivially simple change, uses clear, standard English, and is evidently more respectful to some of our fellow humans. Why in the world would we insist on not using it? -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I am a C5/6 Complete Quadriplegic & self identify as a "wheelchair user" (ex POV) or say that I "use a wheelchair" (1st POV). Informally & dependent on context, slang such as "Quad" usually suffice to qualify that my mode of ambulation is not simply a matter of personal preference (though I understand some prefer strictly PC language while for others further clarification may be needed). Bound, Confined, Inflicted, Restricted, Suffering etc, while able to be interpreted as objectively accurate, are certainly not ideal for literal & personal reasons. Able-bods are not "confined to shoes" or "pants bound". Kyebosh ( talk) 10:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Should articles of the type "<sportsperson> with <team> in <year>" or <sportsperson> in <championship series> in <year>" (for example, Michael Jordan in the NBA Playoffs in 1991 or Manny Ramirez in the World Series of 2004 be an acceptable class of articles? A test case has arisen. Your opinions welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 23:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone convert these two .ai files into SVG format? I don't know how to do it:
If done, please replace File:KT logo.jpg and File:Olleh KT.jpg on the article KT (telecommunication company) with the SVG files. JSH-alive talk • cont • mail 14:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the people maintaining {{ Infobox settlement}} have a declared aim of standardising all regional settlement-related infoboxes on their model; i.e. use of IS should be mandatory worldwide and region-specific infoboxes should be deprecated and deleted. To that end, a series of templates have been listed for deletion at TfD (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 6#Template:Infobox Australian Place for the largest discussion).
The proponents of such standardisation seem to think the benefits of standardisation are self-evident (I am not yet convinced) but even if standardisation is the way to go, deleting templates and only then coming to grips with the migration process etc. seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. It is a recipe for chaos, at least in the short term.
I suggest speedily closing the current settlement infobox TfDs and then creating a centralised discussion about the benefits or otherwise of standardisation, followed by development of a rational migration plan should consensus determine that a move is necessary. To my mind, this will generate a better end result than processing each template through TfD and will avoid generating mountains of work for those editors having to deal with the unintended consequences of a hasty deletion. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 02:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I support standarisation. This is the english wikipedia. Since we can do more of that with {{ Infobox settlement}}, I don't understand why not. TfD's arebases on the fact that these templates are covered by a standard one. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Consistancy and simplification above anything. I think having a single template for settlements aids the notion of the "free encyclopedia that anybody can edit". Editors become accustomed to editing the standard template which is used for most countries on here, then when they come across a completely differently built one it is a whole new learning curve. I for instance wanted to add a location map to Alice Springs but because I was unfamiliar with the template I couldn't. We do live in a diverse world but that is where english wikipedia tries to unite the masses to produce a consistant, high quality encyclopedia. I for one believe we should strive for similar articles to have a similar format and layout and referencing from whatever country, sorry you disagree. Himalayan 10:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand, but the vast majority of people who have commented on this are not seeing things from a global perspective, they are seeing it from an Australian point of view. You are all accustomed to how the Aussie template works but editors outside the Australian project who may want to contribute independently may find it harder to learn a whole new system. It is the same with how you see the standard template as how I see the Aussie template. It is not what each of us are accustomed to, this is why there is a conflict of interest. Himalayan 10:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Mattinbgn. Standardization for it's own sake has very little benefit when it comes to cultural differences, which this issue clearly includes. This whole proposal seems ill-conceved, including the fact that I don't rember seeing anything about it being posted on
WP:VPR (which, for a change that would affect a huge cross section of the English Wikipedia, I would think would be a bare minimum standard to meet for any proposal). I guess I could/should go and say something at all of the TfD's (yet another structural failing of the proposal, using multiples TfD's), but I don't really see the point. I seriously doubt that any admin would go through with a deletion anyway, but someone who has already posted to them should point to this discussion.
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ω)
13:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The nominator has now closed the TfD, suggesting that (hopefully calmer) discussion might continue on the {{ Infobox Australian Place}}'s talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
IMO, those promoting the standardization are going about it completely backwards. First, the interchangeability of the templates should be clearly demonstrated and second the project(s) that use the templates should be engaged to produce a consensus supporting the switchover. Neither has happened -- initiating the discussion by nominating a template for deletion is almost certain to provoke greater opposition than if the topic were first broached on a project page and clearly delineated the advantages. Furthermore, as others have discussed above and elsewhere, the philosophical approach of one-size-fit-all is deeply problematic in it that usually either results loss of features or in greater complexity (i.e., a higher obstacle for usability). older ≠ wiser 14:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Bilby is quite correct that standardisation can result in loss of flexibility, or increased complexity. Nonetheless it also brings benefits, not the least of which is that it reduces the divergence between the templates, so that things which are common remain the same. I have proposed elsewhere that for these situations there are solutions better than either an infobox for every national flavour or one huge infobox with a thousand parameters (bearing in mind that infoboxes have a tendency to attract crufty parameters anyway). The two main possibilities I was thinking of are plug in templates as used by {{ Infobox album}} I think, and meta-templates where the parameters are passed through local templates utilising the generic fields in a specific way "subdivision name1= commune / subdivision1 = " so to the end user (editor not template hacker) it appears as if it's a custom template, but the style, layout, microformats, maintenance categorisation etc. are consistent. However I have come across two more models:-
Summary: It is not an "either one F.O. big template or many small ones" debate, or at least it shuold not be.
Don't worry I've withdrawn the nomination and I now hope we can work together to sort the mapping issue out. See my comments to User:Orderinchaos for what my intentions actually are/were. Himalayan 14:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Speaking for myself only I am only too happy to listen to options for better integrating the look and feel of IAP with IS (or even an outright merge) if that is what is wanted by the community. However, from the nomination, through to the discussion and beyond, the proponents of deleting IAP have gone out of their way to ensure that there was no local support for the change. If the proponents of standardising on IS are serious about what they want to do, they might start by taking a bit more of a humble approach and engaging with the users of the templates first, taking the time to answer their questions and perhaps developing a model that has a bit of local support. Listing at TfD as a first step does nothing except alienate the very people the proponents of standardisation should be trying to bring on side. Dismissing their concerns as parochialism or GETOFFMYLAWN will only get these people further offside. Not everyone has the same understanding of how complex templates work or even how TfD is supposed to work and some time spent explaining this before listing at TfD would be well spent. I realise a policy of engagement will take more time than simply trying to ram through discussion at TfD but it might actually get a better result.
I am not convinced that the use of IS everywhere is a good thing. We use multiple versions of infoboxes for people rather than a generic version. I see no reason why a similar approach should not be used with settlements. The "Soviet Tyre Factory" approach to infoboxes seems to me to be a poor idea. Widespread use of IS in areas where there is little use or technical support for a specific box seems to me to be a good idea. However, in cases such as Australia, UK, France etc. etc. where the specific box is widely used and is reasonably well maintained, it seems to me to be preferable to keep them reasonably independent of IS. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 21:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Some more thoughts: I have seen no evidence that the generic IS template is better than any number of specific "settlement"-type infoboxes, including this one. The proponents of IS seem to think that standardisation around IS is a done deal. Well, it is not and the case for moving to IS should be made clear and debated widely. Just because we have the capability to create a monstrous template that can do everything is not sufficient reason for actually doing that. Why stop at standardising around IS, we could create one "infobox" with all fields coveing everything from localities to people to organisations etc. At some point, the returns to scale from having one infobox doing everything is outweighed by the increasingly bulky size and difficulty of use of that template. There is a legitimate discussion to be had on that point, despite what the proponents of deletion state. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 03:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The functionality provided by {{ infobox settlement}} already exists through the creative use of MediaWiki markup. A table with all of the functionality and all the formatting of the infobox could be replicated by the creative use of WikiTable elements. However, expecting editors to know how to do this is unreasonable, thus we have created these templates to perform the technical work for them. We have {{ Infobox U.S. state}} so that users can easily manipulate the data in either Arizona or Louisiana comfortably, efficiently and seamlessly. This is a good thing. I can understand the desire that some users have to unify templates when possible, reducing the number of redundant templates that we have running around. It would be silly for us to have {{ Infobox U.S. Western state}} and {{ Infobox U.S. Eastern state}} when one template can handle them both. This seems obvious. An argument can be made that, by reducing the templates to genericized parameters when needed, templates for different types of places (states, counties, cities, and so on) can also be merged into a single template. Eventually this argument can be extended to encompass more and more topics. By making the parameters sufficiently generic, could we not reasonably hope to include countries in our genericized template? Corporations, musical groups, people? Theoretically all that is required is to make enough parameters generic enough that they can encompass practically every topic imaginable. The problem is, once that point is reached, we are right back where we started - a duplicate of the raw WikiTable syntax. The question is therefore not whether we can merge the templates, but whether we should. Templates exist to help users create reliably similar datasheets for similar topics, in a way that does not require them to know and understand the code therein. {{ Infobox U.S. state}} has successfully distilled out the information shared among U.S. states in such a way that users can plug in a few data points and be on their way. Overeager merging of these templates is a step back, creating additional work for the end user and removing simplicity for what is viewed as a "technical" elegance. Let us not forget that templates exist to make life easier for Wikipedia editors, not template maintainers. Sher eth 16:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Andy, would you like to lay out, clearly and in detail, exactly what your goal is with regards to standardisation to Infobox settlement and your proposed plan to get there. It is getting tiresome being accused of dishonesty everytime I try and understand where you are coming from so perhaps you can take the opportunity to lay all your cards on the table, so to speak. So far, in this thread alone you have accused three different editors of dishonesty, spreading fallacy or outright lying. That all these people seem to miscontrue your intentions but of some concern to you, right? I'm sorry if this comes across as assuming bad faith but you seem unwilling to expand on your migration plans and unwilling to expand on what role, if any, users of the existing templates will play. What I see from my end is an attempt to ram through a massive migration program with minimal consultation with the wider community. Certainly, you don't seem to be willing to take any advice or criticism from anyone who does not support your goal. If you are a little more open in explaining what you are trying to achieve, perhaps your actions and motives will not be so easily misconstrued. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 22:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)