This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous).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
It seems a lot of Wiki movie pages I visit lack the MPAA rating and link to rottentomatoes. I'm not familiar enough to know if there's a template used for movies, but think it would be a good idea to add these. At the very least, the MPAA rating is standard info you'd expect to find - when it's not there, and a link to rottentomatoes is also missing, I have to re-Google, making Wiki somewhat useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.45.227 ( talk) 20:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
infobox film}}
, you can discuss it on that template's talk page.
Svick (
talk) 20:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Why is it US-centric to use the MPAA rating on US movies? I would support the inclusion of one rating, from whichever country the movie is from. Has this been considered? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 14:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Yet again I find myself with the same problem. I want to tag an article with "this section needs more references", but can I find the right tag? Of course not. (answers welcome by the way). I have had the same problem whan I wanted to edit the Indonesian Political Party Infobox, which ironically I created (!). How can I find it (apart from ploughing through "my contributions"?). Entering it in the search box results in "Republic of China (section Political status)" as the first item...
Am I the only person with this problem? Am I missing something really obvious? Davidelit (Talk) 18:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the answer to the question you're actually asking is here - the advanced search page, which allows you to search in other namespaces, which you can't do by default. I do not know if it's possible to configure your own settings to default to searching a different selection of namespaces, but if not it there may be a unique URL for template-namespace searches out there somewhere.--~ TPW stands for (trade passing words?) or Transparent Proof of Writing 20:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I have gathered this list of government-run databases regarding buildings in New York City. These databases are of interest to anyone who is interested any article in any category within Category:Buildings_and_structures_in_New_York_City. I am trying to brainstorm ways to make them more accessible to these people, since their data is not accessible via google search. I have some ideas, and I would like your feedback.
Thoughts? Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 05:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
The "collapse" box contains my original response to Ohms Law. However, I thought about it some more and then rephrased my response into a proposal at Village pump (proposals). If you're interested, please continue the discussion there, thanks. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 00:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I think our navboxes will be better if we design them to correlate with, and be disseminated through, the categories that are assigned to the articles they belong in. For example:
I guess I should just start creating navboxes like this and hope the practice catches on. If you approve of this practice, I hope you'll help. :) Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 07:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Just informing you that the Ubisoft images are about to be deleted on Commons, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 3. The English language Wikipedia currently uses 66 images out of the category " Ubisoft images". If you want to keep using them, you need to transfer them here. -- The Evil IP address ( talk) 18:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I've recently had a couple of experiences with articles' linking to other articles that they oughtn't to. Are there any policies, customs or the like for how to deal with such issues? Are there any technical tools (perhaps templates to flag them) that could help? Does anyone just have any reasonable advice or recommendations?
Here's an example—I suppose that, to some extent, one could just mark it down to "Hey, the article is a stub," but stubs never become anything more until people improve them. Anyway, the math article on conjugate variables included this sentence:
For background, I am a research mathematician and merely wanted to get a grasp of this topic. So, to learn more about conjugate variables, I followed the link to canonical coordinates. Well, far from being precisely defined there, the term "conjugate variables" doesn't even appear in the article! I decided I had to do something to remedy this situation, so I deleted the sentence (which was factually false), edited the talk page to add the {{Technical}} flag and explain the problem, and—on the off chance that somebody else might benefit from the hint that canonical coordinates might be somehow relevant—added a "See also" section and put in a link.
Here's a second example. The logic article on reification (fallacy), in its section contrasting reification and hypostatization, links (not surprisingly) to a (reputed) philosophy article on hypostasis. Sadly, the latter article deals entirely with religious (and, in particular, Christian) philosophy, and I can't find anything in it to suggest why anyone editing the article on the fallacy of reification would wish to link to it. Perhaps the editor assumed that (because the text "hypostatisis (philosophy)" showed blue when he previewed his edit) the linked-to article must be relevant, and never actually visited it to be sure. Anyway, I could just remove the link, but that leaves a section of the article using an obscure term but providing no hint of its meaning.
Words of counsel, anyone?— PaulTanenbaum ( talk) 17:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I just recently expanded/edited the 3C 279 article. (Un)fortunately? this provided what I felt was a good example of how plagiarism could be avoided and/or why it's nearly impossible to do so in some senses, so I figured that I'd start a conversation about it. Now, my understanding of plagiarism is that it involves failing to cite the source for ideas, which makes actual plagiarism on Wikipedia a pretty rare (and normally easily and routinely resolved) problem since we require sources as a matter of course anyway. I've seen several instances where people criticize even cited quotes and/or paraphrasing though, which is what made me think to bring this up at all.
So, to cut to the chase, there is one fairly basic idea that several sources agree on, which I added to the article with this sentence fragment: , which is known in the astronomical community for its variations in the visible, radio, and x-ray bands..
[1] uses this sentence: , is quite famous because of its luminosity variations in the optical, radio, and X-ray bands., while
[2] uses is well known for its past variations in the optical frequency band and in the radio and x-ray bands.. ...Comments?
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs) 04:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Why are these edits crossed out? See this contrib history. I've never seen this before on Wikipedia. Copana2002 ( talk) 21:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
OK thanks, I had never heard of this. Copana2002 ( talk) 22:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I created a cool new template, {{ down arrow}}, that I hope will improve the quality of organization in leads. It lets you put wikilinks around words in the lead while also indicating, by means of a downward arrow, that the wikilink jumps down to a section below where the material will get greater coverage. The most important thing is that it allows you to distinguish between wikilinks that jump to other articles, and wikilinks that jump down within an article.
I've tested it at (temporarily, before reverting) Morse v. Frederick and Callisto and Roe v. Wade and sun. Let me know what you think. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 07:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
See? Fences& Windows 22:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Google was not even the first search engine. We all know what that caption should read. Amientan ( talk) 21:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Can someone post a notice to User:Onevalefan to actually respond to me? His talk page is protected for no reason I can see. He undid a split I made to an article approaching 50kB and gave me a vandal warning for my efforts, and I can't talk to him about it.
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 11:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Can someone also explain why I'm not allowed to use WP:BRD ? 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 12:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Done This has been resolved.
70.29.210.242 (
talk) 14:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
"How come google is better than wikipedia?
google is better than wikipedia becouse wikipedia is pretty much a wanabe google and google has more information and it has gmail and images it has more features.
It is not necessarily better. Wikipedia is a repository of facts which are kept on its own computers. Google is a search engine which looks for information on many websites and does not store facts itself ". http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_come_google_is_better_than_wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.54.207.207 ( talk) 13:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
How can I downsize images such as this one when integrating them into an article? Thx in advance Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 17:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thumb
parameter and/or specify the size of the image: [[File:Ornamental Bronze Plaque, Celtic Horse-gear, Santon, Norfolk (Detail).jpg|thumb|100px|Appropraitae description.]]
Usually, the best way is to just use the thumb
parameter and don't specify the size. See also
Wikipedia:Picture tutorial or
Wikipedia:Extended image syntax.
Svick (
talk) 17:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)We have blocked Web 3.0 from being created. Instead, we should populate it with #REDIRECT [[Web 2.0#Web 3.0]] and then block that page from being edited.
If the content of The weather in london is #REDIRECT [[London#Climate]], this seems like a no brainer.
Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 20:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
CE doesn't that mean "Creation Era" from the Byzantine calendar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.229.147 ( talk) 22:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Discussions are on here ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 19:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I just found that some articles have that. Is it a new option? Is there a particular reason why most articles don't have one? - RobertMel ( talk) 23:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
talk header}}
and {{
archives}}
that are often used to list archives can be set to show the search box by setting search = yes
.
Svick (
talk) 23:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)"All texts of this book are extracted from Wikipedia. [...] Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. Some information in this book maybe (sic) misleading or wrong."
History of Georgia (country), by Alphascript Publishing, pp. 4 [3]
This is the kind of worst case scenario for wikipedia, where people are deprived from their hard earned money with false advertising. People are scammed via our free content.
Wikipedia articles are on sale as printed books for 50 dollars each in Amazon.com via a Publisher, with no prior warning in amazon page yet, as printed in 4th page of the "book" after you buy it [4]
We require a huge task force that can add a warning and link to Wikipedia for thousands of similar titles in Amazon.com as customer review so that people might be warned about this issue and not scammed. Read VDM Publishing House for details.
Not sure right place to post, but feel free to move or duplicate the thread elsewhere. Kasaalan ( talk) 04:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Moon people are selling free content without attribution via e-commerce, so that is a worse offense. It is same as, selling a replica of an ancient painting or statue for the same price as original, and sending the warning with a letter after customer purchased it or writing it under the statue or backside of the painting.
What you people don't understand is SPAM and scam always find a way to mislead people and law, that is why laws changes to prevent fraudulent acts. I remind SPAM were not considered illegal once, yet now it is considered as is, especially when it is committed in bulk fashion.
The issues are:
Thanks for the link. Kasaalan ( talk) 17:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Where we can discuss these matter further then. Can you guide us what we should do next. I contacted the lawyer of wikipedia. On the other hand the community should also has a right to know about such fraud and the foundation executives should definately read the case. Kasaalan ( talk) 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like crows-sourcing is working: look at these tags: scam marketing(14) wikipedia(8) kindling(6) liar(5) rip-off(4) ripoff(3) ancient egypt(2) egyptian history(2) egyptian mythology(2) egyptology(1) [8]. Rich Farmbrough, 01:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC).
N.B.: Most of the Alphascript titles are listed in Google Books, although they don't have content previews available [9]. If anyone wants to raise awareness of this issue, letting Google know that they have the right to show any CC-BY-SA contents without Alphascript's permission would be a useful way to start. — Gavia immer ( talk) 01:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The issue here is not copyright infringement, it's trademark infringement, and a false and deceptive trade practice. With respect to trademark, it is specifically, reverse confusion. If I go to a store and buy a dozen pairs of Reeboks, and then I create an "Alphashoe" logo, slap it on a dozen shoeboxes, put those shoes in the boxes, and sell them under my label, some jurisdictions will hold that I am committing an actionable violation of Reebok's trademark rights (not copyright) by falsely representing their product as the result of my labor. Whether to pursue a legal remedy is another matter, but there certainly are theories under which this is actionable. To the extent that these books are being sold (or offered for sale, as they clearly are) in the United States, it can't hurt to bring this to the attention of the Federal Trade Commission, which specifically pursues deceptive trade practices. bd2412 T 19:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I've sand-boxed a proposed project page to address the questions raised by this issue. I've taken xeno's concerns regarding "consumer activism" into account and not advised any one that they may be able to return these books for a full-refund.
I know that the questions it answers are addressed elsewhere but I don't think they are addressed from the perspective of Joe Public. If there are no serious objections, I'll move it into the project namespace. The page is here. -- RA ( talk) 12:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a fruitless discussion on Talk:Bruce Lee which mainly evolves around the question whether man could be categorized as a Chinese or not. The single-purpose account Undefeatedcooler believes yes, but I would like to see evidence that he held Chinese citizenship which he most probably did not (at least, no evidence to that effect has yet surfaced). Now I looked up what the WP guidelines say, but unfortunately they are somewhat contrary:
So "people are usually categorized by their nationality", but on the other hand "a race-specific category could be implemented where race has a specific relation to the topic". So what are we going to do? Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 12:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
There was one user ( Gun Powder Ma) disagreed and disliked the contents on Talk:Bruce Lee.
There were plenty of explanations to this dispute by other editors as well, see Talk:Bruce Lee.
Gun Powder Ma couldn't comprehend the points and never read and participated in any of the previous discussions.
His/Her comments approached Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Etiquette. I insisted that he/she was a racist (anti-Chinese) editor. Undefeatedcooler ( talk) 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
(I apologise if such a thing exists; I can't find it.) I come across citations to BBC web-pages like this all the time, as, I'm sure, many Wikipedians do. However, I'm never quite sure how to reference them. So first, it'd like to get that straight - whether the BBC is the author, or publisher, or even work, whether the word "website" should be be put in somewhere. Secondly, a template to make this easier would be particularly useful. To follow through on the above example, {{cite BBC |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7202413.stm |title= Severn barrage details unveiled |date= 22 January 2008 |accessdate=5 March 2010}}. The work, author, publisher would be filled in automatically. Now, I'm sure, there is the disadvantage of differing the apparent page and the real one, but it's outweighed by the fact we'd get more references, more informatively. - Jarry1250 Humorous? Discuss. 20:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Why Henry Banks is not in the 1950 Drivers Championship final standings? Henry Banks was in 1950 Indianapolis 500-competition (position 25). 82.116.243.192 ( talk) 00:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there a tag which could be added to an article which concerns the extensive use of the same source? I came across searching one to use on the newly created article Exome Sequencing (For example, Sarah B Ng et al. is cited 12 times). - RobertMel ( talk) 16:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
However, please note Maurreen's comment and don't JUST put down a tag (something that far too many editors do). Also leave a comment on the article Talk page to explain your concern and hopefully start a conversation with previous editors. Tags aren't the end of a response to a problem, they're the beginning. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 17:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
The Living Persons task force is having a meeting on IRC in about 4 hours, in the channel #wikimedia-strategy connect on the server freenode. If you need help accessing this channel, please see Wikipedia:IRC#Accessing IRC. The time of the meeting is 4:00 UTC on Monday, 8 March. The meeting will be publicly logged (see past chats) and will generally follow the structure laid out at the agendas page. strategy:Task force/Living people has more information if you interested.
I hope to see you there.
Yours sincerely, NW ( Talk) 23:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The RFC is progressing here ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 19:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I know a real person runs SuggestBot and they have other stuff to do besides working on Wikipedia, but my username has been up there for about 4 weeks now and there's still no suggestions, even though it says on the page 'you'll get a reply within a week and probably sooner'. Why is this? When I do get my suggestions, where do they go?
Also, is there any articles that need spelling changes and cleanups? If so can anybody recommend some or show me where the list is. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevymontecarlo ( talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#New_proposed_major_change_to_Football_squad_system Gnevin ( talk) 12:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I am doing some research into the evolution of information transfer systems and was hoping you might be able to help me. Could you tell me where or how I can get statistics on
1) when info-boxes first appeared in wikipedia and how quickly they spread to their current levels, both in terms of total numbers and also in terms of unique catogories 2) what information was in those early boxes and how this has changed 3) how successful are info-boxes compared to free text in getting clicked when the same link is available in both the box and the text?
Please let me know if you want to know more about my research or if you have any questions about the kind of statistics I am looking for. Any help would be appreciated! Lasgomas ( talk) 16:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Would somebody give me the nutshell version of the difference between formal mediation and the mediation cabal? Which is more likely to get action sooner? Maurreen ( talk) 05:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Can anybody translate the name of the ship in File:Cuxhaven kry Schiff 01 (RaBoe).jpg to make it possible to find her IMO number? -- Stunteltje ( talk) 22:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
When an anonymous editor tries to edit a non-existent page (e.g. [11]), it says "Unauthorized" for the title. I don't think it used to say that. Either way, can we think of ideas to improve that page to be more welcoming, and encourage people to sign up for an account? Note that I am aware that anons can not create pages, and I am not suggesting changing that policy, just the UI. Superm401 - Talk 23:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
File:Jews.jpg displays five people if its size is 245px and four at any other size:
Out of curiosity, does anyone know what's going on with this image? Prezbo ( talk) 02:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I guess this is not that interesting but it just seemed very strange to me. Prezbo ( talk) 01:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to highlight that March is Women's History Month in the United States (and maybe other places, too.) And March 8, is International Women's Day.
National Women's History Project's 2010 Theme is "Writing Women Back into History" and I think that is a good reminder that Wikipedia English has quite a few gaps in our coverage of topics including some gaps in our coverage of women's activity in military history. I encourage everyone to look for one or two biographies about women to create or expand this month.
And there is always the task of getting
Florence Nightingale to FA ;-)
FloNight
♥♥♥♥ 07:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
When doing research for writing articles for United States Women's History Month, I found this list of potential articles.
if that's the best reply to my issue.
On Feb 14, 2006 I posted a picture in the
Fielding Yost article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fielding_Yost-1902.jpg Now, 4 years later, in somewhat of a
coincidence (if there is such a thing) I ended up back at the shot and discovered that I am no longer given credit for posting it. You can find me in the article's history and probably figure out that it was that picture, but . ..... is this how it is supposed to work/ i have posted many pictures on wikipedia and I figure if nothing else, I get that credit for doing it. The picture was in the
public domain, but still it was from my collection and if that is what is going to occur to any PD pic I post then I am going to pout and sulk a lot. Any thoughts? Einar aka
Carptrash (
talk) 04:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. Perhaps I shall do that, upload to Commons, more likely I'll stop uploading this sort of material. Carptrash ( talk) 16:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I just stumbled over this amusing talk page item. Seems everyone was a newbie once. The history of that talkpage is incomplete, and nost:Talk:Sanity has no history. Has anybody ideas where the missing revisions might be found? Paradoctor ( talk) 12:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
While m:wikistress is entertaining, the phenomenon is real. Any resources relating to serious investigations of it? Paradoctor ( talk) 17:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Or maybe it is time for the community as a whole to do some original research into this area? Carptrash ( talk) 18:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I hope this is the most adequate place to ask this. Where can I find the total WP stub article count? I believe Special:Statistics used to have a "Stubs" count that differentiated actual articles from stubs and other pages. But it's not clear to me where stubs actually are in the count now. Whether they're on the "Pages" count now, or the "Content" count (which would be kinda worrisome), shouldn't there be an independent count to highlight their potential as "Content" articles? Thanks in advance, Kreachure ( talk) 16:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burzese family goats the author of the article doesn't understand why WP policies would fobid an article on his family goatherd. It is a notable goatherd, going back over 200 years, but it is not documented in reliable sources. Thanks if anyone can help. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 21:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Boa tarde queridos acreanos. Em 1960 eu sai de Tarauaca, Acre minha cidade de nascimento para Porto Velho, RO, Brasil. Em 1986 deixei meu pais querido para viver em estados unidos. Estou indo ao Brasil por duas semanas agora em abril. tenho familia da parte de meu pai - familia PENHA e da parte de minha mae - familia VANDELEI ou WANDERLEI/WANDERLEY. Gostaria de saber se ha possibilidade de encontrar alguem das duas familias ou pelo menos de uma delas. Adoraria encontrar minha madrina de batismo - CHAGUINHA a qual tinha uma loja de roupas no centro comercial de Tarauaca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.36.113 ( talk) 23:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Translation: Good afternoon. In 1960 I left Tarauaca, Acre, city of my birth to Porto Velho, RO, Brazil. In 1986 I left my parents wanted to live in the United States. I am going to Brazil for two weeks now in April. I have family from my father - family PENHA and part of my mother - or family VANDELÔ WANDERLEI / WANDERLEY. I wonder if there is any possibility of finding someone of the two families or at least one of them. I would love to find my madrina of baptism - Chaguinha which had a clothing store in downtown Tarauaca.
It's very misleading, and not at all what one would expect. The page it points to, Franklin Rosemont, is about an individual who seems to be a modern surrealistic poet. Can the very broad article title "Surrealism in the United States", which really should mean something else entirely, please be disentangled from the article about Mr. Rosemont? Artemis-Arethusa ( talk) 00:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it's wikisurrealist art? Never overlook the obvious. Carptrash ( talk) 00:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Finding all content made by one user in an article? Septagram ( talk) 00:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I just had an odd thought about User Pages, and possibly, a way to increase use of them. What if someone (I) were to make a "userpage-in-a-box", that could be copied onto another user's page via subst: templates, and would be complete with tabs, subpages, etc., much like User:Example's. Would this be a violation of some policy? Do y'all even think it would be practical? Hmmwhatsthisdo ( talk) 22:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is the current lead paragraph of the article antigen:
And here is the definition from the MedlinePlus website of the National Institutes of Health:
How do we get people to write like the latter definition (albeit without the word "your" to match our style) and not like what we have now? -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 02:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You can add your wikiproject to User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. This bot will update a list of unreferenced living persons daily related to your wikiproject. Okip 05:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I tried to make an account made purely out of numbers, and it didn't let me do so. Is there a specific reason to not be able to? Would I be able to make a random username and get a username change, so someone else can (possibly) deem it acceptable? If not, thank you anyway. - 99.255.188.158 ( talk) 02:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to find out if a consensus has been reached about the use of the Unicode character as a non-breaking space (nbsp) in an article (especially in an FA article, where the nbsp issue has come up during FAC). Since that character only displays as a normal space in my browser, I can't tell if an nbsp has been introduced. That appears to make it impossible for me to check for MoS compliance. Has there been a ruling that the Unicode character should be used? The Unicode form seems like a major nuisance to try to maintain; I'd much prefer to see a or a {{ Nowrap}}.
Secondly, is it more appropriate to use a direct link to an article via a renamed link, or to use just the link to a redirect with a matching name. E.g. should we use [[Natural satellite|moons]] or [[moons]]? I'd always been told that the former is required, but now I see at least one editor making mass changes into the latter form. Is this another new change?
Thanks. RJH ( talk) 22:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
On page 146 of the book The 1702 chair of chemistry at Cambridge: transformation and change, it states
Cumming literally shocked audiences with an electric shock and frequently executed a cat with an electric shock...
How should I interpret frequently executed a cat with an electric shock? Was a cat executed multiple times, did he execute one cat at a time, or is there some other interpretation?
This relates to a current DYK at Template_talk:Did_you_know#James_Cumming. Smallman12q ( talk) 00:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments on the usability of {{ GeoTemplate}} (the page listing mapping services found by clicking on coordinates in articles) are invited, at Template talk:GeoTemplate#Usability redux. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
"Live near San Francisco, or in the US, and have an hour to help Wikipedia?" - banner has just appeared.
No, I don't live in the USA; believe it or not, some Wikipedians are not in America. You can tell by our IP address.
Why is this spam permitted, and why is there no 'dismiss' option? Grr. Chzz ► 22:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
(Moving this to Wikipedia:VPT#Do I live near San Francisco? No I bloody well don't! - to keep rants in one place Chzz ► 22:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC))
I am not entirely happy with the article's name. What do you think, does one of the following names (or any other) fit better?
Is there some guidelines on the use of the adjunct "by date" which may provide helpful? Thanks in advance Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 14:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi my name is Kay K. Lee, a Ph.D Student in University of Kansas.
I am currently conducting a research on the motivators of online collaboration. Hereis a survey page through which we are collecting data (17 Mar ~ 15 May 2010)
I was originally planning to leave messages around 200 randomly selected individual user pages (or talk pages). On the second thought, such messages might turn out to be spam. Is there any way I can more reasonably solicit participation for my survey study on Wikipedians?
Your answer will be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Kiljae Lee ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 18 March 2010
2) User talk:Mlpearc#Stop delinking golfer bios immediately
Thank you Mlpearc MESSAGE 04:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry part 3). Please let me know the answer, But know one thing it;s not only Golfers "I" think this applies to it's all Articles. "redundancies" !
When I click on http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS_reports_by_date , I get a message, "404 - Not Found". This is strange, because there were big headlines about a year ago when wikileaks released thousands of CRS reports.
I'm also a little peeved. After wikileaks made the headlines last year, I pasted dozens of links to its CRS reports into article talk pages, using this template, which transludes the articles here'. If wikileaks folded its CRS service, then the templates on all these dozens of talk pages contain broken hyperlinks.
Does anyone have any info or advice about this? Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 00:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
When I search for online refs, the first few pages of a search for a not so notable thing (i.e. Battle of Athens (1864)) are clogged with wp mirrors. Is there any list avilable here that would help editors like me to know wihch ones are mirrors?
TIA, Buggie111 ( talk) 14:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Flagged Protection: ready for more testing -- MZMcBride ( talk) 00:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Pun intended
I'm not really a Wikipedia regular (at least not logged in anyway), so maybe that makes my opinions irrelevant, but I had an idea I thought I might toss out there.
I've been taking an anatomy & physiology class and I've worked with a computer program called A.D.A.M..
It's a neat program because it lets you view the human body from different angles and zoom in through many hundreds of different layers.
Just now, I was thinking: Wikipedia has about as much raw information and lists of body parts as A.D.A.M., and probably at least as many images and diagrams (although the level of detail might not be as good).
Right now, there's an anatomy portal... But that's all just text and human body parts are arranaged visually in 3-D, not semantically.
So, would it be possible or even practical to make something similar to A.D.A.M. using image-maps? I know wiki code allows image-maps and I've seen them on pages before (like World/Clickable_world_map), so I figured that having a network of clickable anatomy-related image-maps might be an interesting addition and at least as useful as all the pop culture stuff.
Maybe somebody could copy & paste this over to some (hopefully active) medical or biology-related Wikiproject or something?
Just my two cents! ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 01:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello!
Can somebody help with identifying this airport in China? I forgot where this was. Thanks! -- High Contrast ( talk) 08:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
It's common sense to me that if an article contains 'the community of said project is debating on its official forums' to accept as a reliable source of that the official forums of the project; but someone removed a whole section of an article here because the official forums of the projects involved were deemed 'unreliable' according to him. WTF? I feel like being in 1984 here. -- Leladax ( talk) 18:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm suddenly viewing Wikipedia with no JavaScript. None of the "Web 2.0" features are present. I'm logged in, and I can edit. Was this some emergency measure in response to a security breach, or what? -- John Nagle ( talk) 17:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I posted this on WikiProject Islam, but nobody has responded. Could someone knowledgeable take a look at Category:Islamic States? Is the definition there at the top of the page a valid description? Is this an acknowledged term? Woogee ( talk) 00:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
{{Infobox lake}}
{{Infobox crater}}
was recently deleted (per
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 7#Template:Infobox crater). Given that we have templates for impact craters on the Moon, Mars and Venus; and for terrestrial features like mountains, caves and lakes, but no generic "Geographical feature" infobox (see
Category:Geography infobox templates), what infobox template should be used on articles about terrestrial impact craters, such as
Strangways crater? What about on articles about other kinds of terrestrial crater?
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits 16:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
{{Infobox crater}}
that refers to a hole in the ground, any old hole in the ground that uses crater in its name. --
YakbutterT (
talk) 08:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I've just come across an editor, Special:Contributions/pennyinkwell, whose last dozen edits (and possibly many more) are changing references from www.sfgate.com to articles.sfgate.com or inserting references to the 'articles' site. This doesn't seem to benefit the reader, in the case of the Wikipedia reference change that attracted my attention in House Swapping, the articles site has very much higher ad to editorial ratio. I haven't figured out if there is a problem here yet and I've left a query on the editor's talk page, but I thought somebody here may have some experience with this type of change. Sampling back through the contributions it looks like this editor has a single purpose, drive traffic to articles.sfgate.com Darrell_Greenwood ( talk) 22:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April. |
– MuZemike 17:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Credo Reference (formerly Xrefer) has generously agreed to provide up to 100 free accounts to their reference library (more than 2 million articles from countless reference works), for research purposes. If you might find this useful, please go to Wikipedia:Credo accounts and follow instructions to apply (minimum 600 edits, six months participation). These accounts will be given on a first come, first serve basis. There's no bigger underlying master plan - I've met with them a couple of times, and they want to help.-- Eloquence * 16:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church has opened to decide which of several versions of the article has consensus, and how best to develop it. Input is welcome. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, guys. I have found two articles ( the first one, and the second one) about the same subject, but I do not know what is the right way to resolve this? — Lampica ( talk) 14:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Should lock this man Francopedorro for this. -- Eduardofoxx13 ( talk) 00:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone hear about this conference taking place in Amsterdam on March 26-27? Is anyone going? I'll be there in case anyone wants to meet up :) JACO PLANE • 2010-03-12 14:52
Amnesty International (Hong Kong) is a total mess. I've tried to revert it back to the Amnesty International article where it has been for months, but it keeps getting reverted. I tried to explain to the User who's reverting me why it should be reverted, but they ignore me and just continue to write this POV, non-source, MOS-violating article. Woogee ( talk) 07:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a proposal for a village pump development, please comment at the talk page. Cenarium ( talk) 00:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I have gotten emails from this entity asking that I hand over my account to them. I don't have any intention of doing so. Can someone give me the run-down on what this is? I have been out of the loop for some time, but there's always the chance I may return to Wikipedia when I retire or something.
-- DanielCD ( talk) 00:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate posting collapsed per WP:DENY |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am simply shockedFriends, I would like to share a mail that has been received by me: QUOTE Dear Bhadani, We tried to get in contact with you almost a year ago, detailing our desires to utilise your account to help rid Wikipedia of the corruption and bureaucracy at every level that continues to plague it to this very day. We are hoping that, almost a year on, your circumstances may have changed and you may be more willing to aid us in achieving our goal. At the end of the day we all want the same thing - an encyclopedia that is informative and accurate, but one that is also run in a fair manner so all can contribute on an equitable level. As a reminder, here is an extract from our original message: "We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!" Once more, thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, UNQUOTE It appears to be a dangerous solicitation on the part of the sender. I do not recollect having received such a mail one year before – if received, I may have missed it. Anyway, I am just amazed and simply shocked at this suggestion! Please feel free to move this information to more appropriate place, if any. Thanks. -- Bhadani ( talk) 08:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC) |
Hi there. The texts in Vidor, Texas seems similar to the one in here, but there is no proper citation. I am not sure if this is ok or not, so leave the judgment. Thank you! -- Tomo_suzuki ( talk ) 05:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm create the article GRES Império da Praça Seca, version of Portuguese article. A member of pt-wiki, my "enemy", proposed fast deletion of article, but I asked for the restoration, which was granted, in my user domain [15] because the article was really bad and no sources, but has many sources in the Portuguese version.
Also in the Wiki in Portuguese, its reputation has been questioned by the same group of users, but the community largely defended the article, I understand that he was within the criteria of notoriety of the Wiki in Portuguese.see [16].
In Spanish wiki, the independent sources of the article, as in my case, were completely disregarded, and I have been blocked by an administrator tyrant. They argued that the article was propaganda, since the school has less than a year of existence, and moreover thought to myself, by the use of socks in the Wiki-uk (nothing to do with the Spanish language), as an excuse to delete article. See [17].
As I do not know the custom of the wiki in English, ask before: the article, the opinion came from you, is able to return to the main domain? Independent sources have it, because the school has wide coverage in the media specialized in Carnival, but in fact is not an old school. He was vice-champion of the sixth division last Carnival (2010), indicating notoriety at the least by the criteria of Pt.wiki.
Can I move the content, now with sources in the main domain? Quintinense ( talk) 02:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree. But what I really wanted to know if an article or better referenced, have the potential to remain, or whether it would be regarded by the community as irrelevant or spam, how they came to acknowledge the Wikipedia in Spanish.
I am a composer and supporter of the school, but nonetheless wrote the original article partially. I think the quality of the article should be measured just by reliable sources, and not by assessment of who is writing.
The question is just whether it is worth trying to improve the article, or if not because it's a samba school small and recent, or the alleged "conflict of interest" also claimed. Quintinense ( talk) 02:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
language
parameter of all widely used citation templates indicates this. Lastly, why should it be okay to require payment to get to the source (see
WP:PAYWALL), but not paying for translation?
Svick (
talk) 19:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Is there a source in English, but does not show very well-known. Instead, sources in Portuguese demonstrate the notoriety, but not be able to appreciate fully all the information from the source.
The fact that the school be cited in the official guide to tourism in the city shows that it has relevance, it is by logical deduction. And it is easy to see in the article, while not speaking the Portuguese.
Even someone who does not speak Portuguese can also easily deduce some of the information sources, such as "president, Lúcia Costa" = "president: Lucy Costa," or "director of Carnival: sandro Avelar" = "Director of carnival: Sandro Avelar .
My biggest question is whether even the criterion to be based largely on sources overlap to being a samba school in fifth division. In Wikipedia in Spanish claimed that by fifth division to be contrary to these criteria, even with multiple reliable sources.
Notice that Spanish and Portuguese are two very similar languages, and a text in can be easily understood by speakers of another. Quintinense ( talk) 11:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Do we have enough page checkers to make sure another biography controversy doesn't happen again if IPs are allowed to create articles? 174.3.113.245 ( talk) 07:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I have a problem with the inline citation for the Stephen Urban article. Citation works in my sandbox, but not in this article. Please help. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 22:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
"This is one of the aims of the civility policies; to ensure that what would have been a simple content disagreement escalates into an all-out conflict over multiple fora." - Coren (original draft of his first ArbCom proposed decision)
In order to improve Wikipedia's dispute enhancement, WP:OMGcom is accepting new members. Durova 412 05:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Just posted under policy: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Flagged_protection: weekly update
Would folks rather I post it in both places, or only here? William Pietri ( talk) 01:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I just created this graph, which shows the population of each "Category: XXXX deaths" between 1900 and 2000. I figured for five minutes effort it would be interesting to see what I got. There were some things I expected and some things I didn't.
I expected two large spikes over WWI and WWII, which I got. I expected a gradual upward trend, which I also got, because a) more notable people are being born (and thus dying) as health care and so on improves and b) more focus is paid to more recent peoples, unavoidably, because they are more in the popular conciousness.
I didn't expect the trend to be so noticeable though, and I didn't expect the big spike in 1979, not sure what happened then? There is a slight bulge between 1968-73 which I think is the Vietnam War, and a notable period of calm between 1947 and 1956 (despite Algeria, Indochina and Korea).
Interesting, if albeit slightly useless :) SGGH ping! 13:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding 1979, perhaps a large percentage of WWII veterans died in that year? On a related not it would be interesting to see a graph based on the same premises for the preceding couple of centuries as well. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 17:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is there a giant spike in 1979? The figures from the cats for 1977 to 1981 are: 2,015, 1,986, 2,185, 2,170 and 2,054. No cat around that time suggests anything near the 2700-2800 deaths per year for any year (as the graphic seems to show was the case for 1979). Is there an error or was other data used also? -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 20:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
WP's styleguides are in a sprawling mess. Editors at WT:MOS have banded together to form a Taskforce to audit the whole lot gradually, with a view to improving the writing, formatting and style, and critically to identify overlap and areas for merging. Feedback and participation by editors is most welcome.
We believe it is crucial that the styleguides as a whole become simpler and more accessible to editors, and ask for support and cooperation in what is going to involve a lot of hard work over the next six to 12 months.
We would be grateful for volunteers.
The details are here and below. Tony (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
Feedback from users has dropped off, which we are taking as a sign that people are relatively happy with things.
If that's not the case, or if you'd like to test it for yourself, start on our labs site.
To see what we've changed this week, check out the list of items completed.
To see the upcoming work, it's listed in our tracker, under Current and Backlog. The backlog was relatively stable this week, so we are definitely moving closer to launch.
We expect to release again next week, and each week thereafter until this goes live on the English Wikipedia.
William Pietri ( talk) 03:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Yue Chinese ... there is a discussion on the neverending naming dispute, related unilateral moves, and the proper procedure to follow in a requested move.
76.66.192.73 ( talk) 05:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
By chance I noticed that File:MicrosoftJet.gif has been put up for speedy deletion. It is used as the lead image in Microsoft Jet Database Engine.
The procedure for deletion is rather confusing (for example, {{ di-replaceable fair use}} says "please add one of the following" and then gives the reader only one choice) but it seems to give little notice to interested parties. Apart from the notice on the image page (which is not often visited), the only warning in this case is on the talk page of the editor who uploaded the image in 2005. Nowadays they only edit occasionally, and they get just 2 days notice (which - in the UK at least - is during a public holiday). It would be better to have a notice on the talk page of the article where the image is used (or even on the article itself) to allow the 31 people watching the article (or the 300 people a day who read it) the opportunity to comment.
I do not care much about the image (my only involvement with the article has been to tone down the "Jet is dead" POV), but I am concerned that something can be around for over 4 years and then be deleted with so little chance of discussion. JonH ( talk) 16:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evander_Holyfield contains two glaring errors. In 1993 he fought Riddick Bowe. The article says he won, but he lost by a split decision. The chart at the bottom says he lost by a unanimous decision. That's not correct. Does anyone care? I did enough to post this. The page is locked, so I can't touch it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrice ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
After about a year at Wikipedia, my biggest challenge has been finding ways to coordinate articles/sections that cover the same topic. I find it very frustrating to see how different articles develop redundancies, which then slowly diverge. I would like feedback on how other people handle the problem. Here's my take:
In special cases, where topics are "hierarchical", there are solutions which, if not perfect, are at least trivial. Some people insert a {{ main}} template and perhaps a {{ sync}} template, as I have done at Coffee#History. Other people would go ahead and move text from Coffee#History into History of coffee. However, I have often wished we could employ a more radical solution: Why not delete all the text at Coffee#History, leaving nothing but a {{ main}} template? Or perhaps its contents could be TRANSCLUDED from some designated section of History of coffee? (I confess that I have no idea how that would work, either from a technological or a prose standpoint.)
I am more concerned about the cases where redundancies are NOT hierarchical (e.g. Hitler and World War Two). I don't think we have any guidance on the problem -- WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLITTING and WP:CFORK and WP:SIZE speak about "subtopics", as though Wikipedia were hierarchical.
As a concrete example, I'll describe the articles that brought me here: Typing#Words per minute and Words per minute, which present a typical (if minor) example of this problem. At first, only a regular wikilink connected the former to the latter passage. My instinctive solution was to use the main and sync templates. But this doesn't really work here, because Words per minute is not a "main article" (subtopic) of Typing#Words per minute; Words per minute also addresses writing, reading, speaking and listening. So I substituted a {{ further}} template. But you have to see that the problem is distinct: unlike an article (like History of coffee) that gets a {{ main}} template, any article indicated by a {{ further}} template is not a subtopic into which you can just start moving material.
Now, in theory, we could always create a subtopic-article. We could turn Words per minute into an umbrella page containing links to subarticles Words per minute (typing), Words per minute (reading), and Words per minute (writing). Then, typing#Words per minute could support a {{ main}} template pointing to a true sub-article, Words per minute (typing). But then, who's to say we shouldn't do it the other way around -- i.e. turn typing into an umbrella article, with subarticles including " Typing (words per minute)", and a {{ main}} article pointing to there from Words per minute#typing?" And worse, even if that kind of situation arises rarely, this strategy will cause articles to proliferate in such a way that they will dissociate information that ought to be associated.
I am not a computer programmer, but this dilemma is reminding me of stuff I've learned about relational databases. Out of sheer curiosity, I'm wondering if someone with experience in that area can point me to some formal theory on this, since I only know about it through working on wikipedia?
- Andrew Gradman, editing from an IP address (don't tell anybody -- I'm supposed to be studying.)
- 128.59.179.162 ( talk) 22:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I have a question about downloads of wikipedia articles with many images. Do you know if the entirety of each image is delivered during the download, then reduced in size? Or is the server sending a lean, scaled down version of each image? If the former, would it make sense (for download performance reasons) to display a thumbnail version of each image then link it to the main image? I know there are some image-rich pages that are quite slow to download, even with a high bandwidth pipe. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 14:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
[de-indent] So, stupid question time: is the lag because the page won't fully display until all of the images are loaded? I've seen many web pages that display immediately while streaming the (initially) non-displayed images in the background. Certainly the Wikipedia main page displays very rapidly despite the presence of multiple images and complex layout.— RJH ( talk) 17:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I checked several other articles and on those it turned out that the animated gif images were by far the largest downloads. For example, on the Mars article a relatively tiny animated gif is 228 Kb, almost as large as all the other images put together. There was a similar issue with a 496 Kb animated image on the Xenon article. It may be worthwhile checking pages with animated gifs to see how much of a download hog they are becoming.— RJH ( talk) 23:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
... and Archetypal pedagogy ?
I suspect we have a case of Cross-Wiki spam here. Here's the message I let on Talk:Frederic Fappani :
I think it could be candidate for Article for deletion (for lack of notability) and Archetypal pedagogy should be reveiwed, but my english is way too poor to do it myself. Does somebody think I'm right about Frederic Fappani ? Chaoborus ( talk) 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, Derk-Jan Hartman has reported at Buzilla 21117 that MediaWiki developers have just raised the default at the Commons, following on from the same change made here in February (I think it was that month).
It's pleasing that an overwhelming consensus built late last year on WT:IUP at en.WP has received no serious hurdles in spreading to a program of gradual application throughout WikiMedia's sites. Tony (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Allow me to explain first that I am an academic, the author of several books, and half a hundred scholarly artcles. I thought it might be useful to submit a brief three paragraph article. I followed the directions it was submitted and it was reviewed. I was given a place to see the reviewers comments. However, I could never actually reach the comments. I tried "helpme" and was told that someone would publish a reply in a few minutes; I recieved two notes sympathetic notes explaining how difficult it was to publish new articles, but no one could tell me how to access the site. I tried the chat room without success. Many of the people and places I contacted turned out to be blank; that is, there was no apparent place to leave a message. I worked at it for about twenty hours. I never did find the location which supposedly had comments on my submission, nor was I able to find anyone who could offer meaningful help.
At last I was able to reach what I think was the reviewer's home page. In his discussions there was nothing about my submission. The site did include his birthplace, "alphi Centuri." I guess this should have told me something.
Elkmilok ( talk) 14:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I wanted to ask your opinion on whether a site can be used for external links in an article. E.g. this one [18] on an article about David Bell. There's more about this here: User_talk:Anon111#Recent_edits. -- JokerXtreme ( talk) 21:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
No, ELN will do. I just didn't know of an appropriate place, thanks for the heads up. -- JokerXtreme ( talk) 22:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
We all shake our heads & wonder what can be done to solve the problem of ethnic/nationalistic content conflicts. While doing research, I encountered this paragraph which shows that Wikipedia's problem is not unique, nor are other venues handling the problem undeniably better:
For the record, Richard Reid was Assistant Professor of History at the University of Asmara, Eritrea, from 1997 to 2002 and at the time of this publication taught at the University of Durham. He is the author of the book, Political Power in Pre-Colonial Buganda (James Currey 2002). And, FWIW, Wikipedia doesn't have any vicious edit wars on this particular ethnic/nationalistic-based dispute. Yet. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It's easy to hide behind a few 'it's to be expected' articles, but this has gone too far lately. Your refuse to show the Wikileaks case [in the news] because it makes US looks bad and now you have front page a mere renaming of British National Space Centre as something that's supposedly important. This is worse than propaganda gentlemen. Do something about it before you are completely ridiculed. -- Athinker ( talk) 18:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
More progress has been made, and new requests have tapered off substantially, which suggests that a release is within reach.
If you'd like to verify that for yourself, start on our labs site.
To see what we've changed this week, check out the latest list of items completed.
To see the upcoming work, it's listed in our tracker, under Current and Backlog.
We expect to release to labs again next week, and each week thereafter until this goes live on the English Wikipedia.
William Pietri ( talk) 00:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elockid is closing tomorrow. If you're interested, take a look. Thanks. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 06:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Gcc redirects to GCC, a disambiguation page.
It appears that the majority of links to Gcc refer to the Gnu Compiler Collection, and the majority of links to GCC refer to the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf.
I started going through the 84 links to disambiguate them, but after doing the first 7 I felt I was probably doing the wrong thing.
Would it make sense to have the direct links instead redirect to the favourite targets as above, and move the existing pages to Gcc (disambiguation) and GCC (disambiguation)? I don't know if there is a specific policy against case-dependent redirects, but at a rough count, this would fix all but some 20 of the existing links. Hv ( talk) 10:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
At the very least the article does not adhere to WP:BLP, but the proliferation of the article across various wiki's and the consistency of the main contributors IP adresses (all, except a french proxy server, from thailand) makes it more than just another article for deletion. I decided to get on this case after a checking out a newly created dutch article (nominated for deletion by yours truly) which made some remarkable claims. The results can be found on meta. On this wiki the claims have been significanlt toned down, but the gist of the article still exists. Is this a case for Article for Deletion? Speedy deletion? Is the community satisfied with the notability of the artist in question and the (rather wild) claims made in the article? I would appreciate some opinions. Kleuske ( talk) 12:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Wikimedians.
This weekend I plan on finalizing the timeline for phase two of the Living Person Task Force: a community findings recommendation.
What we are interested in is people from all size wikis participating in discussing common interests and problems on interpersonal and intrapersonal interaction relating to Wikimedia projects. This includes statistics gathering, examination of how projects handle OTRS complaints/issues, image use, quotation use, and sourcing. It is very important that we get participation in these areas, if anything just to received feedback on the wiki. I have subpages set up for these discussion on the Strategy site, < http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People>.
In six to eight weeks we'd like to develop recommendations from the Task Force that are more in-depth than the proposed recommendations to be submitted to the Board this month, to assist in developing projects identify and set up structures for the issues that come with societies.
If you have experience dealing with living people on any of our wikis, or if you have ideas on how policies can be established/improved, please participate in the discussions so that we can adequately asses the projects as a whole.
Thanks for your time, see you on the wiki!
Keegan ( talk) 20:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I am a registered user of Wikipedia and has contributed to various pages. I would like to extend my services to the tamil wikipedia. Wonder why I am unable to use the same username?
Thanks Balaji
(User name: thebigbee) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebigbee ( talk • contribs) 08:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a ton! I am very impressed!
Should texts, translations, transcriptions etc. of national anthems be on Wikipedia or on Wikisource? At the moment they are on both projects, which is not very good, I guess. Shouldn't Wikipedia have just an article and quotes of an anthem text (maybe even whole translation), and shouldn't the text be on Wikisource? — StephenG ( talk) 19:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I'm a Spanish wikipedian from the Wikipedia in Spanish. At present, we are having a long discussion about whether or not it's neccesary to start using italics for certain titles, i.e. the ones for the species. Several users state that it's more important to keep wordheads consistent (i.e., all the titles with the same typographical syntax regardless of their type) than complying with international rules regarding biological classification, and they support their point of view on the fact that, in case that Biology titles were changed to the italic format, the rest of the titles in the whole Wikipedia should be reviewed and changed consequently, according to the Spanish language rules, and thus overriding an old consensus, apparently established some years ago. They think that changing just the Biology articles is a kind of bias, and they also think that introducing italics in titles would cause a sort of chaos throughout the whole Wikipedia.
Of course I know that it's our decision, but, as you, as well as the German wikipedians, have introduced italics in titles yet, I'd like to know your opinion at that respect. Do you think you have a bias? Are you changing all the other titles requiring italics, not just the ones for Biology articles? Has it caused any chaos so far? Is perhaps our problem different from yours? Thanks in advance and regards. -- Dalton2 ( talk) 18:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
You know what's crazy? The article on Brian Scalabrine has been edited over 110 times since December 21, 2009, with zero net change. Since Rich Farmbrough delinked some dates, seemingly every edit has been vandalism, or a reversion of vandalism. Is this a record for most edits to an article with the least net change? Zagalejo ^^^ 21:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
This page is protected without a tag so I can't request for un-protection when I need to add an RfD tag for it. Can an administrator help me? -- macbookair3140 ( talk) 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Aye, while checking a modification to Gilgit, there was a reference to a web page, namely http://www.xooarticles.com/Story-of-Gilgit-Manuscripts.html.
I did not find any mentions in WP besides this single ref, anyone familiar with Xooarticles?
WHOIS record doesn't promise much:
XOOARTICLES.COM WHOIS Updated: 47 days ago Registrant: Xoo Article 625 Kampuchia Nhompenh, 02142 Cambodia Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. ( http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: XOOARTICLES.COM Created on: 22-Sep-06 Expires on: 22-Sep-10 Last Updated on: 07-Jan-09 Administrative Contact: John, David Email Masking Image@gmail.com Xoo Article 625 Kampuchia Nhompenh, 02142 Cambodia +1.7364354287332 Fax -- Domain servers in listed order: NS27.DOMAINCONTROL.COM NS28.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
-- Rayshade ( talk) 00:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute as to whether Christ myth theory—an article about the theory that Jesus may not have existed as a historical figure—ought to be included in the "pseudohistory" category. Input would be appreciated here. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Folks may want to take a look at this story. It seems that Larry Sanger has reported Commons to the FBI for hosting illegal child pornography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.207.105.218 ( talk) 18:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, can anyone tell me where I can find a template to thank someone for reviewing improvements I made to an article?
Many thanks, Dockofusa ( talk) 17:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
[[File:WikiThanks.png|right]]
) with a note of appreciation works for those times when you don't feel like plastering a large template on someone's talk page but would like to add a little color. -
Banyan
Tree 12:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)I don't know if it is true or not : [19], [20]... if it isn't, we should reconsider all the contributions of Special:Contributions/155.91.28.231 Kyle the hacker ( talk) 21:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know of drawing program similar to Microsoft Paint but a bit better? I am looking for a program to use in drawing line diagrams, graphs, and schematics. Not interested in complex programs using layers like Inkscape, Gimp and Paint.Net.
I want something simpler and intuitive like Microsoft Paint where erasing and picking up parts of a drawing and moving them elsewhere in the drawing is extremely simple. The only thing about Microsoft Paint that needs improving upon (for my purposes) is the ability to draw smooth lines at other than vertical, horizontal and 45 degrees ... and the ability to draw smooth circles and ellipses. Can anyone point me to the type of program I seek? mbeychok ( talk) 04:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Cuil, the company which launched the search engine no one uses, or can pronounce, have launched an automatic encyclopedia engine - Cpedia. It tries to create a synopsis of all useful information regarding the search subject and present it in an encylopedic manner, all using the power of search and algorithms.
Some relevant posts -
It's not very good. It's almost appallingly bad, but it's a start, and a different direction for an Encyclopedia. Have a play, try searching for people who aren't on Wikipedia. - hahnch e n 22:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Uhh... ...there's a heapload of vandalism at the moment, could someone help a little? I only get to do half the things, the backlog is growing.-- Newbiepedian 20:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
A new parameter has been added to {{
Infobox settlement}} known as |coordinates_region=
to accurately provide region information (country-prov/state) to the {{
coord}} template and account for unrecognized markup in subdivision_name/name1. It has been proposed to have a bot provide this parameter to the around 200,000 articles using this infobox. Please see
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 6.2 and raise any concerns or objections regarding this task. –
xeno
talk 01:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
Thanks to the developer meetup in Germany and mid-term exams for Aaron, there has been no significant change since last week. However, the lack of new requests suggests we're pretty close to something releasable.
If you'd like to verify that for yourself, start on our labs site.
To see the upcoming work, it's listed in our tracker, under Current and Backlog.
We expect to release to labs again next week, and each week thereafter until this goes live on the English Wikipedia.
William Pietri ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello I'm starting this. I'm new here and would like to know how to insert pictures cause it's not letting me. Anyways I hope this place has good people. I've used Wikipedia in the past and wish to help make stuff that's incomplete. #15 ::P (4 eyes is plenty) ( talk) 02:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Secretary General of the government of Slovenia Milan M. Cvikl is facing allegations from a law expert that he copied an entire section of his book on reforms of EU legislation from Wikipedia. [23] -- Eleassar my talk 12:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Other than by writing my own bot, is there a simple way to generate a list of articles that are categorized under a certain tree (say Category:Astronomy) but do not have a particular WikiProject template (say template:WPAstronomy)? I know such non-templated articles exist because I've run across them. But I'm loath to go manually searching through tens of thousands of articles and talk pages. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 18:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
In the past few hours, Wikimedia hit its 1 billionth edit! Congrats to all and keep up the good work. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I've done a little something here, where I dumped in all the quick links and trancluded all those useflu templates so that RCPatrollers and NPPatrollers can use them more easily. I'm planning to add the csd templates as well. If this is redundant to any other page, I'm not surprised. This is just a notice to tell everyone about it. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI: external link to the report
The article appeared in First Monday, an UIC journal, on 4 April 2010. The researcher concludes that "for Wikipedia, then, it seems that if the featured article process is to serve as an effective means of quality control, it must be changed." Skäpperöd ( talk) 13:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have accepted Kingpin13's nomination for membership in the Bot Approvals Group, and per the instructions invite interested parties to participate in the discussion and voting. Thank you, – xeno talk 19:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Input would be appreciated to settle a dispute at Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Should the lead contain a dissenting voice?
The Christ myth theory is the argument that Jesus did not exist as an historical figure. This is a small-minority view within academia. Some Wikipedians and biblical scholars say it is a fringe view. There is therefore a disagreement as to whether the lead should contain a dissenting voice, and if so, what it should say.
Should the lead contain the following sentence? "The philosopher Michael Martin of Boston University writes that, while the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted by Christians and assumed by the majority of non-Christians and anti-Christians—and anyone arguing against it may be seen as a crank—a strong prima facie case can be constructed that challenges it." The source is Martin's The Case Against Christianity 1991, pp. 36–37. SlimVirgin talk contribs 04:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a native English speaker so I might get it wrong. For me, "atrocities" involve blood, death, torture, etc. Apparently, some contributors consider that burning old rocks and closing churches should be considered as atrocities. As there may be some subtilities between English and French words (in French, these couldn't be considered as "atrocités", which is supposed to be the French word for "atrocities" — even "simple executions" wouldn't be), I prefer to ask native English people to give their opinion about that rather than engage myself in an edit war. So, is "Reported atrocities" the right title for this section ? Thanks. Skippy le Grand Gourou ( talk) 16:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I will draw the main author's attention to this discussion. I agree that some facts can be described as "atrocities", I just wanted to point out the fact that some items of the section make the title inaccurate. As for a replacement, I proposed "exactions", which seems to me both more neutral and less "strong". I won't modify the article though, I don't have time to argue with the main author at this very moment, I hope some of you will find the time and will to improve this section, as you pointed out other issues. (Edit : whoops ! Should have checked, Jubileeclipman already took over.) Skippy le Grand Gourou ( talk) 09:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Atrocities is a term comonly used by the sources of all points of view. The murder of thousands of innocent of priests, monks and nuns falls clearly within the term, but the sources also describe the burning of hundreds of places of worship as atrocity. Especially when scores of them in one city alone are burned in one night. In terms of human rights, the destruction of people's places of worship, as the Klan did to black churches, synogogues and Catholic churches in the 19th and 20th century, is typically considered a violation of human rights and an atrocity. In any event, the sources use this terminology for this type of activity by both the Nationalists and the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. For example Guernica is an atrocity not only because of the 200-400 people who were killed but because the homes, schools and places of worship of noncombatants was destroyed. Of course when one's place of worship is destroyed because of hate for the victims race or religion, as in the Klan actions mentioned above, or the Red Terror or Krystalnacht, additional human rights are implicated. Mamalujo ( talk) 21:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I try something else : dividing the section so that "minor" events (including simple murders) are in a separate section. But Mamalujo is clearly POV-pushing, and since it does not seem to bother people enough here for them to modify the article themselves and there is clearly no chance to reason with Mamalujo, if this attempt is reverted I'll just file a case of POV — I don't have time to engage in an edit war. Skippy le Grand Gourou ( talk) 13:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you all should know that the WP logo is a property of the Wikimedia Foundation (as explained here). Now, in the website of OriginLab which produces the Origin software they use the logo as a link to their internal wiki. How can we report this misuse? Shouldn't we drop the a mail? -- CristianCantoro ( talk) 15:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't write Russian well enough to make corrections or additions but I read it well enough to note factual errors. I am tempted to post the corrections and additions in English on the Russian pages. Any suggestions? AkilinaL ( talk) 13:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Akilina
I post this here because I don't see a better place.
I'm working on a couple of psychology articles, both of which use footnoted citations. Some of these citations get reused via the <ref name="..."> convention. I've spent at least 2 hours trying to see how to employ this re-use trick while also citing varying page numbers for each citation. I realize this won't work, but this is the sort of thing I want to so:
This would generate a citation note with the indicated page number.
This sort of thing isn't hard to do when using Harvard citation templates - something like [[#{id}|Miller, 2006, p. 45]] will do it. It's how to do it when the article convention is the footnoting system that I cannot figure out.
Any ideas would be appreciated!
Tom Cloyd ( talk) 13:29, 19 April 2010 (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
It seems a lot of Wiki movie pages I visit lack the MPAA rating and link to rottentomatoes. I'm not familiar enough to know if there's a template used for movies, but think it would be a good idea to add these. At the very least, the MPAA rating is standard info you'd expect to find - when it's not there, and a link to rottentomatoes is also missing, I have to re-Google, making Wiki somewhat useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.45.227 ( talk) 20:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
infobox film}}
, you can discuss it on that template's talk page.
Svick (
talk) 20:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Why is it US-centric to use the MPAA rating on US movies? I would support the inclusion of one rating, from whichever country the movie is from. Has this been considered? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 14:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Yet again I find myself with the same problem. I want to tag an article with "this section needs more references", but can I find the right tag? Of course not. (answers welcome by the way). I have had the same problem whan I wanted to edit the Indonesian Political Party Infobox, which ironically I created (!). How can I find it (apart from ploughing through "my contributions"?). Entering it in the search box results in "Republic of China (section Political status)" as the first item...
Am I the only person with this problem? Am I missing something really obvious? Davidelit (Talk) 18:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the answer to the question you're actually asking is here - the advanced search page, which allows you to search in other namespaces, which you can't do by default. I do not know if it's possible to configure your own settings to default to searching a different selection of namespaces, but if not it there may be a unique URL for template-namespace searches out there somewhere.--~ TPW stands for (trade passing words?) or Transparent Proof of Writing 20:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I have gathered this list of government-run databases regarding buildings in New York City. These databases are of interest to anyone who is interested any article in any category within Category:Buildings_and_structures_in_New_York_City. I am trying to brainstorm ways to make them more accessible to these people, since their data is not accessible via google search. I have some ideas, and I would like your feedback.
Thoughts? Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 05:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
The "collapse" box contains my original response to Ohms Law. However, I thought about it some more and then rephrased my response into a proposal at Village pump (proposals). If you're interested, please continue the discussion there, thanks. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 00:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I think our navboxes will be better if we design them to correlate with, and be disseminated through, the categories that are assigned to the articles they belong in. For example:
I guess I should just start creating navboxes like this and hope the practice catches on. If you approve of this practice, I hope you'll help. :) Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 07:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Just informing you that the Ubisoft images are about to be deleted on Commons, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 3. The English language Wikipedia currently uses 66 images out of the category " Ubisoft images". If you want to keep using them, you need to transfer them here. -- The Evil IP address ( talk) 18:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I've recently had a couple of experiences with articles' linking to other articles that they oughtn't to. Are there any policies, customs or the like for how to deal with such issues? Are there any technical tools (perhaps templates to flag them) that could help? Does anyone just have any reasonable advice or recommendations?
Here's an example—I suppose that, to some extent, one could just mark it down to "Hey, the article is a stub," but stubs never become anything more until people improve them. Anyway, the math article on conjugate variables included this sentence:
For background, I am a research mathematician and merely wanted to get a grasp of this topic. So, to learn more about conjugate variables, I followed the link to canonical coordinates. Well, far from being precisely defined there, the term "conjugate variables" doesn't even appear in the article! I decided I had to do something to remedy this situation, so I deleted the sentence (which was factually false), edited the talk page to add the {{Technical}} flag and explain the problem, and—on the off chance that somebody else might benefit from the hint that canonical coordinates might be somehow relevant—added a "See also" section and put in a link.
Here's a second example. The logic article on reification (fallacy), in its section contrasting reification and hypostatization, links (not surprisingly) to a (reputed) philosophy article on hypostasis. Sadly, the latter article deals entirely with religious (and, in particular, Christian) philosophy, and I can't find anything in it to suggest why anyone editing the article on the fallacy of reification would wish to link to it. Perhaps the editor assumed that (because the text "hypostatisis (philosophy)" showed blue when he previewed his edit) the linked-to article must be relevant, and never actually visited it to be sure. Anyway, I could just remove the link, but that leaves a section of the article using an obscure term but providing no hint of its meaning.
Words of counsel, anyone?— PaulTanenbaum ( talk) 17:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I just recently expanded/edited the 3C 279 article. (Un)fortunately? this provided what I felt was a good example of how plagiarism could be avoided and/or why it's nearly impossible to do so in some senses, so I figured that I'd start a conversation about it. Now, my understanding of plagiarism is that it involves failing to cite the source for ideas, which makes actual plagiarism on Wikipedia a pretty rare (and normally easily and routinely resolved) problem since we require sources as a matter of course anyway. I've seen several instances where people criticize even cited quotes and/or paraphrasing though, which is what made me think to bring this up at all.
So, to cut to the chase, there is one fairly basic idea that several sources agree on, which I added to the article with this sentence fragment: , which is known in the astronomical community for its variations in the visible, radio, and x-ray bands..
[1] uses this sentence: , is quite famous because of its luminosity variations in the optical, radio, and X-ray bands., while
[2] uses is well known for its past variations in the optical frequency band and in the radio and x-ray bands.. ...Comments?
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs) 04:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Why are these edits crossed out? See this contrib history. I've never seen this before on Wikipedia. Copana2002 ( talk) 21:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
OK thanks, I had never heard of this. Copana2002 ( talk) 22:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I created a cool new template, {{ down arrow}}, that I hope will improve the quality of organization in leads. It lets you put wikilinks around words in the lead while also indicating, by means of a downward arrow, that the wikilink jumps down to a section below where the material will get greater coverage. The most important thing is that it allows you to distinguish between wikilinks that jump to other articles, and wikilinks that jump down within an article.
I've tested it at (temporarily, before reverting) Morse v. Frederick and Callisto and Roe v. Wade and sun. Let me know what you think. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 07:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
See? Fences& Windows 22:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Google was not even the first search engine. We all know what that caption should read. Amientan ( talk) 21:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Can someone post a notice to User:Onevalefan to actually respond to me? His talk page is protected for no reason I can see. He undid a split I made to an article approaching 50kB and gave me a vandal warning for my efforts, and I can't talk to him about it.
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 11:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Can someone also explain why I'm not allowed to use WP:BRD ? 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 12:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Done This has been resolved.
70.29.210.242 (
talk) 14:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
"How come google is better than wikipedia?
google is better than wikipedia becouse wikipedia is pretty much a wanabe google and google has more information and it has gmail and images it has more features.
It is not necessarily better. Wikipedia is a repository of facts which are kept on its own computers. Google is a search engine which looks for information on many websites and does not store facts itself ". http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_come_google_is_better_than_wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.54.207.207 ( talk) 13:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
How can I downsize images such as this one when integrating them into an article? Thx in advance Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 17:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thumb
parameter and/or specify the size of the image: [[File:Ornamental Bronze Plaque, Celtic Horse-gear, Santon, Norfolk (Detail).jpg|thumb|100px|Appropraitae description.]]
Usually, the best way is to just use the thumb
parameter and don't specify the size. See also
Wikipedia:Picture tutorial or
Wikipedia:Extended image syntax.
Svick (
talk) 17:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)We have blocked Web 3.0 from being created. Instead, we should populate it with #REDIRECT [[Web 2.0#Web 3.0]] and then block that page from being edited.
If the content of The weather in london is #REDIRECT [[London#Climate]], this seems like a no brainer.
Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 20:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
CE doesn't that mean "Creation Era" from the Byzantine calendar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.229.147 ( talk) 22:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Discussions are on here ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 19:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I just found that some articles have that. Is it a new option? Is there a particular reason why most articles don't have one? - RobertMel ( talk) 23:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
talk header}}
and {{
archives}}
that are often used to list archives can be set to show the search box by setting search = yes
.
Svick (
talk) 23:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)"All texts of this book are extracted from Wikipedia. [...] Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. Some information in this book maybe (sic) misleading or wrong."
History of Georgia (country), by Alphascript Publishing, pp. 4 [3]
This is the kind of worst case scenario for wikipedia, where people are deprived from their hard earned money with false advertising. People are scammed via our free content.
Wikipedia articles are on sale as printed books for 50 dollars each in Amazon.com via a Publisher, with no prior warning in amazon page yet, as printed in 4th page of the "book" after you buy it [4]
We require a huge task force that can add a warning and link to Wikipedia for thousands of similar titles in Amazon.com as customer review so that people might be warned about this issue and not scammed. Read VDM Publishing House for details.
Not sure right place to post, but feel free to move or duplicate the thread elsewhere. Kasaalan ( talk) 04:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Moon people are selling free content without attribution via e-commerce, so that is a worse offense. It is same as, selling a replica of an ancient painting or statue for the same price as original, and sending the warning with a letter after customer purchased it or writing it under the statue or backside of the painting.
What you people don't understand is SPAM and scam always find a way to mislead people and law, that is why laws changes to prevent fraudulent acts. I remind SPAM were not considered illegal once, yet now it is considered as is, especially when it is committed in bulk fashion.
The issues are:
Thanks for the link. Kasaalan ( talk) 17:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Where we can discuss these matter further then. Can you guide us what we should do next. I contacted the lawyer of wikipedia. On the other hand the community should also has a right to know about such fraud and the foundation executives should definately read the case. Kasaalan ( talk) 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like crows-sourcing is working: look at these tags: scam marketing(14) wikipedia(8) kindling(6) liar(5) rip-off(4) ripoff(3) ancient egypt(2) egyptian history(2) egyptian mythology(2) egyptology(1) [8]. Rich Farmbrough, 01:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC).
N.B.: Most of the Alphascript titles are listed in Google Books, although they don't have content previews available [9]. If anyone wants to raise awareness of this issue, letting Google know that they have the right to show any CC-BY-SA contents without Alphascript's permission would be a useful way to start. — Gavia immer ( talk) 01:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The issue here is not copyright infringement, it's trademark infringement, and a false and deceptive trade practice. With respect to trademark, it is specifically, reverse confusion. If I go to a store and buy a dozen pairs of Reeboks, and then I create an "Alphashoe" logo, slap it on a dozen shoeboxes, put those shoes in the boxes, and sell them under my label, some jurisdictions will hold that I am committing an actionable violation of Reebok's trademark rights (not copyright) by falsely representing their product as the result of my labor. Whether to pursue a legal remedy is another matter, but there certainly are theories under which this is actionable. To the extent that these books are being sold (or offered for sale, as they clearly are) in the United States, it can't hurt to bring this to the attention of the Federal Trade Commission, which specifically pursues deceptive trade practices. bd2412 T 19:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I've sand-boxed a proposed project page to address the questions raised by this issue. I've taken xeno's concerns regarding "consumer activism" into account and not advised any one that they may be able to return these books for a full-refund.
I know that the questions it answers are addressed elsewhere but I don't think they are addressed from the perspective of Joe Public. If there are no serious objections, I'll move it into the project namespace. The page is here. -- RA ( talk) 12:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a fruitless discussion on Talk:Bruce Lee which mainly evolves around the question whether man could be categorized as a Chinese or not. The single-purpose account Undefeatedcooler believes yes, but I would like to see evidence that he held Chinese citizenship which he most probably did not (at least, no evidence to that effect has yet surfaced). Now I looked up what the WP guidelines say, but unfortunately they are somewhat contrary:
So "people are usually categorized by their nationality", but on the other hand "a race-specific category could be implemented where race has a specific relation to the topic". So what are we going to do? Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 12:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
There was one user ( Gun Powder Ma) disagreed and disliked the contents on Talk:Bruce Lee.
There were plenty of explanations to this dispute by other editors as well, see Talk:Bruce Lee.
Gun Powder Ma couldn't comprehend the points and never read and participated in any of the previous discussions.
His/Her comments approached Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Etiquette. I insisted that he/she was a racist (anti-Chinese) editor. Undefeatedcooler ( talk) 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
(I apologise if such a thing exists; I can't find it.) I come across citations to BBC web-pages like this all the time, as, I'm sure, many Wikipedians do. However, I'm never quite sure how to reference them. So first, it'd like to get that straight - whether the BBC is the author, or publisher, or even work, whether the word "website" should be be put in somewhere. Secondly, a template to make this easier would be particularly useful. To follow through on the above example, {{cite BBC |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7202413.stm |title= Severn barrage details unveiled |date= 22 January 2008 |accessdate=5 March 2010}}. The work, author, publisher would be filled in automatically. Now, I'm sure, there is the disadvantage of differing the apparent page and the real one, but it's outweighed by the fact we'd get more references, more informatively. - Jarry1250 Humorous? Discuss. 20:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Why Henry Banks is not in the 1950 Drivers Championship final standings? Henry Banks was in 1950 Indianapolis 500-competition (position 25). 82.116.243.192 ( talk) 00:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there a tag which could be added to an article which concerns the extensive use of the same source? I came across searching one to use on the newly created article Exome Sequencing (For example, Sarah B Ng et al. is cited 12 times). - RobertMel ( talk) 16:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
However, please note Maurreen's comment and don't JUST put down a tag (something that far too many editors do). Also leave a comment on the article Talk page to explain your concern and hopefully start a conversation with previous editors. Tags aren't the end of a response to a problem, they're the beginning. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 17:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
The Living Persons task force is having a meeting on IRC in about 4 hours, in the channel #wikimedia-strategy connect on the server freenode. If you need help accessing this channel, please see Wikipedia:IRC#Accessing IRC. The time of the meeting is 4:00 UTC on Monday, 8 March. The meeting will be publicly logged (see past chats) and will generally follow the structure laid out at the agendas page. strategy:Task force/Living people has more information if you interested.
I hope to see you there.
Yours sincerely, NW ( Talk) 23:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The RFC is progressing here ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 19:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I know a real person runs SuggestBot and they have other stuff to do besides working on Wikipedia, but my username has been up there for about 4 weeks now and there's still no suggestions, even though it says on the page 'you'll get a reply within a week and probably sooner'. Why is this? When I do get my suggestions, where do they go?
Also, is there any articles that need spelling changes and cleanups? If so can anybody recommend some or show me where the list is. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevymontecarlo ( talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#New_proposed_major_change_to_Football_squad_system Gnevin ( talk) 12:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I am doing some research into the evolution of information transfer systems and was hoping you might be able to help me. Could you tell me where or how I can get statistics on
1) when info-boxes first appeared in wikipedia and how quickly they spread to their current levels, both in terms of total numbers and also in terms of unique catogories 2) what information was in those early boxes and how this has changed 3) how successful are info-boxes compared to free text in getting clicked when the same link is available in both the box and the text?
Please let me know if you want to know more about my research or if you have any questions about the kind of statistics I am looking for. Any help would be appreciated! Lasgomas ( talk) 16:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Would somebody give me the nutshell version of the difference between formal mediation and the mediation cabal? Which is more likely to get action sooner? Maurreen ( talk) 05:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Can anybody translate the name of the ship in File:Cuxhaven kry Schiff 01 (RaBoe).jpg to make it possible to find her IMO number? -- Stunteltje ( talk) 22:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
When an anonymous editor tries to edit a non-existent page (e.g. [11]), it says "Unauthorized" for the title. I don't think it used to say that. Either way, can we think of ideas to improve that page to be more welcoming, and encourage people to sign up for an account? Note that I am aware that anons can not create pages, and I am not suggesting changing that policy, just the UI. Superm401 - Talk 23:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
File:Jews.jpg displays five people if its size is 245px and four at any other size:
Out of curiosity, does anyone know what's going on with this image? Prezbo ( talk) 02:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I guess this is not that interesting but it just seemed very strange to me. Prezbo ( talk) 01:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to highlight that March is Women's History Month in the United States (and maybe other places, too.) And March 8, is International Women's Day.
National Women's History Project's 2010 Theme is "Writing Women Back into History" and I think that is a good reminder that Wikipedia English has quite a few gaps in our coverage of topics including some gaps in our coverage of women's activity in military history. I encourage everyone to look for one or two biographies about women to create or expand this month.
And there is always the task of getting
Florence Nightingale to FA ;-)
FloNight
♥♥♥♥ 07:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
When doing research for writing articles for United States Women's History Month, I found this list of potential articles.
if that's the best reply to my issue.
On Feb 14, 2006 I posted a picture in the
Fielding Yost article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fielding_Yost-1902.jpg Now, 4 years later, in somewhat of a
coincidence (if there is such a thing) I ended up back at the shot and discovered that I am no longer given credit for posting it. You can find me in the article's history and probably figure out that it was that picture, but . ..... is this how it is supposed to work/ i have posted many pictures on wikipedia and I figure if nothing else, I get that credit for doing it. The picture was in the
public domain, but still it was from my collection and if that is what is going to occur to any PD pic I post then I am going to pout and sulk a lot. Any thoughts? Einar aka
Carptrash (
talk) 04:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. Perhaps I shall do that, upload to Commons, more likely I'll stop uploading this sort of material. Carptrash ( talk) 16:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I just stumbled over this amusing talk page item. Seems everyone was a newbie once. The history of that talkpage is incomplete, and nost:Talk:Sanity has no history. Has anybody ideas where the missing revisions might be found? Paradoctor ( talk) 12:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
While m:wikistress is entertaining, the phenomenon is real. Any resources relating to serious investigations of it? Paradoctor ( talk) 17:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Or maybe it is time for the community as a whole to do some original research into this area? Carptrash ( talk) 18:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I hope this is the most adequate place to ask this. Where can I find the total WP stub article count? I believe Special:Statistics used to have a "Stubs" count that differentiated actual articles from stubs and other pages. But it's not clear to me where stubs actually are in the count now. Whether they're on the "Pages" count now, or the "Content" count (which would be kinda worrisome), shouldn't there be an independent count to highlight their potential as "Content" articles? Thanks in advance, Kreachure ( talk) 16:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burzese family goats the author of the article doesn't understand why WP policies would fobid an article on his family goatherd. It is a notable goatherd, going back over 200 years, but it is not documented in reliable sources. Thanks if anyone can help. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 21:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Boa tarde queridos acreanos. Em 1960 eu sai de Tarauaca, Acre minha cidade de nascimento para Porto Velho, RO, Brasil. Em 1986 deixei meu pais querido para viver em estados unidos. Estou indo ao Brasil por duas semanas agora em abril. tenho familia da parte de meu pai - familia PENHA e da parte de minha mae - familia VANDELEI ou WANDERLEI/WANDERLEY. Gostaria de saber se ha possibilidade de encontrar alguem das duas familias ou pelo menos de uma delas. Adoraria encontrar minha madrina de batismo - CHAGUINHA a qual tinha uma loja de roupas no centro comercial de Tarauaca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.36.113 ( talk) 23:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Translation: Good afternoon. In 1960 I left Tarauaca, Acre, city of my birth to Porto Velho, RO, Brazil. In 1986 I left my parents wanted to live in the United States. I am going to Brazil for two weeks now in April. I have family from my father - family PENHA and part of my mother - or family VANDELÔ WANDERLEI / WANDERLEY. I wonder if there is any possibility of finding someone of the two families or at least one of them. I would love to find my madrina of baptism - Chaguinha which had a clothing store in downtown Tarauaca.
It's very misleading, and not at all what one would expect. The page it points to, Franklin Rosemont, is about an individual who seems to be a modern surrealistic poet. Can the very broad article title "Surrealism in the United States", which really should mean something else entirely, please be disentangled from the article about Mr. Rosemont? Artemis-Arethusa ( talk) 00:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it's wikisurrealist art? Never overlook the obvious. Carptrash ( talk) 00:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Finding all content made by one user in an article? Septagram ( talk) 00:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I just had an odd thought about User Pages, and possibly, a way to increase use of them. What if someone (I) were to make a "userpage-in-a-box", that could be copied onto another user's page via subst: templates, and would be complete with tabs, subpages, etc., much like User:Example's. Would this be a violation of some policy? Do y'all even think it would be practical? Hmmwhatsthisdo ( talk) 22:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is the current lead paragraph of the article antigen:
And here is the definition from the MedlinePlus website of the National Institutes of Health:
How do we get people to write like the latter definition (albeit without the word "your" to match our style) and not like what we have now? -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 02:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You can add your wikiproject to User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. This bot will update a list of unreferenced living persons daily related to your wikiproject. Okip 05:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I tried to make an account made purely out of numbers, and it didn't let me do so. Is there a specific reason to not be able to? Would I be able to make a random username and get a username change, so someone else can (possibly) deem it acceptable? If not, thank you anyway. - 99.255.188.158 ( talk) 02:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to find out if a consensus has been reached about the use of the Unicode character as a non-breaking space (nbsp) in an article (especially in an FA article, where the nbsp issue has come up during FAC). Since that character only displays as a normal space in my browser, I can't tell if an nbsp has been introduced. That appears to make it impossible for me to check for MoS compliance. Has there been a ruling that the Unicode character should be used? The Unicode form seems like a major nuisance to try to maintain; I'd much prefer to see a or a {{ Nowrap}}.
Secondly, is it more appropriate to use a direct link to an article via a renamed link, or to use just the link to a redirect with a matching name. E.g. should we use [[Natural satellite|moons]] or [[moons]]? I'd always been told that the former is required, but now I see at least one editor making mass changes into the latter form. Is this another new change?
Thanks. RJH ( talk) 22:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
On page 146 of the book The 1702 chair of chemistry at Cambridge: transformation and change, it states
Cumming literally shocked audiences with an electric shock and frequently executed a cat with an electric shock...
How should I interpret frequently executed a cat with an electric shock? Was a cat executed multiple times, did he execute one cat at a time, or is there some other interpretation?
This relates to a current DYK at Template_talk:Did_you_know#James_Cumming. Smallman12q ( talk) 00:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments on the usability of {{ GeoTemplate}} (the page listing mapping services found by clicking on coordinates in articles) are invited, at Template talk:GeoTemplate#Usability redux. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
"Live near San Francisco, or in the US, and have an hour to help Wikipedia?" - banner has just appeared.
No, I don't live in the USA; believe it or not, some Wikipedians are not in America. You can tell by our IP address.
Why is this spam permitted, and why is there no 'dismiss' option? Grr. Chzz ► 22:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
(Moving this to Wikipedia:VPT#Do I live near San Francisco? No I bloody well don't! - to keep rants in one place Chzz ► 22:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC))
I am not entirely happy with the article's name. What do you think, does one of the following names (or any other) fit better?
Is there some guidelines on the use of the adjunct "by date" which may provide helpful? Thanks in advance Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 14:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi my name is Kay K. Lee, a Ph.D Student in University of Kansas.
I am currently conducting a research on the motivators of online collaboration. Hereis a survey page through which we are collecting data (17 Mar ~ 15 May 2010)
I was originally planning to leave messages around 200 randomly selected individual user pages (or talk pages). On the second thought, such messages might turn out to be spam. Is there any way I can more reasonably solicit participation for my survey study on Wikipedians?
Your answer will be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Kiljae Lee ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 18 March 2010
2) User talk:Mlpearc#Stop delinking golfer bios immediately
Thank you Mlpearc MESSAGE 04:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry part 3). Please let me know the answer, But know one thing it;s not only Golfers "I" think this applies to it's all Articles. "redundancies" !
When I click on http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS_reports_by_date , I get a message, "404 - Not Found". This is strange, because there were big headlines about a year ago when wikileaks released thousands of CRS reports.
I'm also a little peeved. After wikileaks made the headlines last year, I pasted dozens of links to its CRS reports into article talk pages, using this template, which transludes the articles here'. If wikileaks folded its CRS service, then the templates on all these dozens of talk pages contain broken hyperlinks.
Does anyone have any info or advice about this? Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 00:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
When I search for online refs, the first few pages of a search for a not so notable thing (i.e. Battle of Athens (1864)) are clogged with wp mirrors. Is there any list avilable here that would help editors like me to know wihch ones are mirrors?
TIA, Buggie111 ( talk) 14:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Flagged Protection: ready for more testing -- MZMcBride ( talk) 00:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Pun intended
I'm not really a Wikipedia regular (at least not logged in anyway), so maybe that makes my opinions irrelevant, but I had an idea I thought I might toss out there.
I've been taking an anatomy & physiology class and I've worked with a computer program called A.D.A.M..
It's a neat program because it lets you view the human body from different angles and zoom in through many hundreds of different layers.
Just now, I was thinking: Wikipedia has about as much raw information and lists of body parts as A.D.A.M., and probably at least as many images and diagrams (although the level of detail might not be as good).
Right now, there's an anatomy portal... But that's all just text and human body parts are arranaged visually in 3-D, not semantically.
So, would it be possible or even practical to make something similar to A.D.A.M. using image-maps? I know wiki code allows image-maps and I've seen them on pages before (like World/Clickable_world_map), so I figured that having a network of clickable anatomy-related image-maps might be an interesting addition and at least as useful as all the pop culture stuff.
Maybe somebody could copy & paste this over to some (hopefully active) medical or biology-related Wikiproject or something?
Just my two cents! ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 01:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello!
Can somebody help with identifying this airport in China? I forgot where this was. Thanks! -- High Contrast ( talk) 08:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
It's common sense to me that if an article contains 'the community of said project is debating on its official forums' to accept as a reliable source of that the official forums of the project; but someone removed a whole section of an article here because the official forums of the projects involved were deemed 'unreliable' according to him. WTF? I feel like being in 1984 here. -- Leladax ( talk) 18:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm suddenly viewing Wikipedia with no JavaScript. None of the "Web 2.0" features are present. I'm logged in, and I can edit. Was this some emergency measure in response to a security breach, or what? -- John Nagle ( talk) 17:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I posted this on WikiProject Islam, but nobody has responded. Could someone knowledgeable take a look at Category:Islamic States? Is the definition there at the top of the page a valid description? Is this an acknowledged term? Woogee ( talk) 00:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
{{Infobox lake}}
{{Infobox crater}}
was recently deleted (per
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 7#Template:Infobox crater). Given that we have templates for impact craters on the Moon, Mars and Venus; and for terrestrial features like mountains, caves and lakes, but no generic "Geographical feature" infobox (see
Category:Geography infobox templates), what infobox template should be used on articles about terrestrial impact craters, such as
Strangways crater? What about on articles about other kinds of terrestrial crater?
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits 16:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
{{Infobox crater}}
that refers to a hole in the ground, any old hole in the ground that uses crater in its name. --
YakbutterT (
talk) 08:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I've just come across an editor, Special:Contributions/pennyinkwell, whose last dozen edits (and possibly many more) are changing references from www.sfgate.com to articles.sfgate.com or inserting references to the 'articles' site. This doesn't seem to benefit the reader, in the case of the Wikipedia reference change that attracted my attention in House Swapping, the articles site has very much higher ad to editorial ratio. I haven't figured out if there is a problem here yet and I've left a query on the editor's talk page, but I thought somebody here may have some experience with this type of change. Sampling back through the contributions it looks like this editor has a single purpose, drive traffic to articles.sfgate.com Darrell_Greenwood ( talk) 22:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April. |
– MuZemike 17:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Credo Reference (formerly Xrefer) has generously agreed to provide up to 100 free accounts to their reference library (more than 2 million articles from countless reference works), for research purposes. If you might find this useful, please go to Wikipedia:Credo accounts and follow instructions to apply (minimum 600 edits, six months participation). These accounts will be given on a first come, first serve basis. There's no bigger underlying master plan - I've met with them a couple of times, and they want to help.-- Eloquence * 16:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church has opened to decide which of several versions of the article has consensus, and how best to develop it. Input is welcome. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, guys. I have found two articles ( the first one, and the second one) about the same subject, but I do not know what is the right way to resolve this? — Lampica ( talk) 14:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Should lock this man Francopedorro for this. -- Eduardofoxx13 ( talk) 00:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone hear about this conference taking place in Amsterdam on March 26-27? Is anyone going? I'll be there in case anyone wants to meet up :) JACO PLANE • 2010-03-12 14:52
Amnesty International (Hong Kong) is a total mess. I've tried to revert it back to the Amnesty International article where it has been for months, but it keeps getting reverted. I tried to explain to the User who's reverting me why it should be reverted, but they ignore me and just continue to write this POV, non-source, MOS-violating article. Woogee ( talk) 07:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a proposal for a village pump development, please comment at the talk page. Cenarium ( talk) 00:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I have gotten emails from this entity asking that I hand over my account to them. I don't have any intention of doing so. Can someone give me the run-down on what this is? I have been out of the loop for some time, but there's always the chance I may return to Wikipedia when I retire or something.
-- DanielCD ( talk) 00:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate posting collapsed per WP:DENY |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am simply shockedFriends, I would like to share a mail that has been received by me: QUOTE Dear Bhadani, We tried to get in contact with you almost a year ago, detailing our desires to utilise your account to help rid Wikipedia of the corruption and bureaucracy at every level that continues to plague it to this very day. We are hoping that, almost a year on, your circumstances may have changed and you may be more willing to aid us in achieving our goal. At the end of the day we all want the same thing - an encyclopedia that is informative and accurate, but one that is also run in a fair manner so all can contribute on an equitable level. As a reminder, here is an extract from our original message: "We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!" Once more, thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, UNQUOTE It appears to be a dangerous solicitation on the part of the sender. I do not recollect having received such a mail one year before – if received, I may have missed it. Anyway, I am just amazed and simply shocked at this suggestion! Please feel free to move this information to more appropriate place, if any. Thanks. -- Bhadani ( talk) 08:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC) |
Hi there. The texts in Vidor, Texas seems similar to the one in here, but there is no proper citation. I am not sure if this is ok or not, so leave the judgment. Thank you! -- Tomo_suzuki ( talk ) 05:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm create the article GRES Império da Praça Seca, version of Portuguese article. A member of pt-wiki, my "enemy", proposed fast deletion of article, but I asked for the restoration, which was granted, in my user domain [15] because the article was really bad and no sources, but has many sources in the Portuguese version.
Also in the Wiki in Portuguese, its reputation has been questioned by the same group of users, but the community largely defended the article, I understand that he was within the criteria of notoriety of the Wiki in Portuguese.see [16].
In Spanish wiki, the independent sources of the article, as in my case, were completely disregarded, and I have been blocked by an administrator tyrant. They argued that the article was propaganda, since the school has less than a year of existence, and moreover thought to myself, by the use of socks in the Wiki-uk (nothing to do with the Spanish language), as an excuse to delete article. See [17].
As I do not know the custom of the wiki in English, ask before: the article, the opinion came from you, is able to return to the main domain? Independent sources have it, because the school has wide coverage in the media specialized in Carnival, but in fact is not an old school. He was vice-champion of the sixth division last Carnival (2010), indicating notoriety at the least by the criteria of Pt.wiki.
Can I move the content, now with sources in the main domain? Quintinense ( talk) 02:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree. But what I really wanted to know if an article or better referenced, have the potential to remain, or whether it would be regarded by the community as irrelevant or spam, how they came to acknowledge the Wikipedia in Spanish.
I am a composer and supporter of the school, but nonetheless wrote the original article partially. I think the quality of the article should be measured just by reliable sources, and not by assessment of who is writing.
The question is just whether it is worth trying to improve the article, or if not because it's a samba school small and recent, or the alleged "conflict of interest" also claimed. Quintinense ( talk) 02:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
language
parameter of all widely used citation templates indicates this. Lastly, why should it be okay to require payment to get to the source (see
WP:PAYWALL), but not paying for translation?
Svick (
talk) 19:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Is there a source in English, but does not show very well-known. Instead, sources in Portuguese demonstrate the notoriety, but not be able to appreciate fully all the information from the source.
The fact that the school be cited in the official guide to tourism in the city shows that it has relevance, it is by logical deduction. And it is easy to see in the article, while not speaking the Portuguese.
Even someone who does not speak Portuguese can also easily deduce some of the information sources, such as "president, Lúcia Costa" = "president: Lucy Costa," or "director of Carnival: sandro Avelar" = "Director of carnival: Sandro Avelar .
My biggest question is whether even the criterion to be based largely on sources overlap to being a samba school in fifth division. In Wikipedia in Spanish claimed that by fifth division to be contrary to these criteria, even with multiple reliable sources.
Notice that Spanish and Portuguese are two very similar languages, and a text in can be easily understood by speakers of another. Quintinense ( talk) 11:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Do we have enough page checkers to make sure another biography controversy doesn't happen again if IPs are allowed to create articles? 174.3.113.245 ( talk) 07:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I have a problem with the inline citation for the Stephen Urban article. Citation works in my sandbox, but not in this article. Please help. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 22:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
"This is one of the aims of the civility policies; to ensure that what would have been a simple content disagreement escalates into an all-out conflict over multiple fora." - Coren (original draft of his first ArbCom proposed decision)
In order to improve Wikipedia's dispute enhancement, WP:OMGcom is accepting new members. Durova 412 05:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Just posted under policy: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Flagged_protection: weekly update
Would folks rather I post it in both places, or only here? William Pietri ( talk) 01:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I just created this graph, which shows the population of each "Category: XXXX deaths" between 1900 and 2000. I figured for five minutes effort it would be interesting to see what I got. There were some things I expected and some things I didn't.
I expected two large spikes over WWI and WWII, which I got. I expected a gradual upward trend, which I also got, because a) more notable people are being born (and thus dying) as health care and so on improves and b) more focus is paid to more recent peoples, unavoidably, because they are more in the popular conciousness.
I didn't expect the trend to be so noticeable though, and I didn't expect the big spike in 1979, not sure what happened then? There is a slight bulge between 1968-73 which I think is the Vietnam War, and a notable period of calm between 1947 and 1956 (despite Algeria, Indochina and Korea).
Interesting, if albeit slightly useless :) SGGH ping! 13:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding 1979, perhaps a large percentage of WWII veterans died in that year? On a related not it would be interesting to see a graph based on the same premises for the preceding couple of centuries as well. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 17:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is there a giant spike in 1979? The figures from the cats for 1977 to 1981 are: 2,015, 1,986, 2,185, 2,170 and 2,054. No cat around that time suggests anything near the 2700-2800 deaths per year for any year (as the graphic seems to show was the case for 1979). Is there an error or was other data used also? -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 20:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
WP's styleguides are in a sprawling mess. Editors at WT:MOS have banded together to form a Taskforce to audit the whole lot gradually, with a view to improving the writing, formatting and style, and critically to identify overlap and areas for merging. Feedback and participation by editors is most welcome.
We believe it is crucial that the styleguides as a whole become simpler and more accessible to editors, and ask for support and cooperation in what is going to involve a lot of hard work over the next six to 12 months.
We would be grateful for volunteers.
The details are here and below. Tony (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
Feedback from users has dropped off, which we are taking as a sign that people are relatively happy with things.
If that's not the case, or if you'd like to test it for yourself, start on our labs site.
To see what we've changed this week, check out the list of items completed.
To see the upcoming work, it's listed in our tracker, under Current and Backlog. The backlog was relatively stable this week, so we are definitely moving closer to launch.
We expect to release again next week, and each week thereafter until this goes live on the English Wikipedia.
William Pietri ( talk) 03:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Yue Chinese ... there is a discussion on the neverending naming dispute, related unilateral moves, and the proper procedure to follow in a requested move.
76.66.192.73 ( talk) 05:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
By chance I noticed that File:MicrosoftJet.gif has been put up for speedy deletion. It is used as the lead image in Microsoft Jet Database Engine.
The procedure for deletion is rather confusing (for example, {{ di-replaceable fair use}} says "please add one of the following" and then gives the reader only one choice) but it seems to give little notice to interested parties. Apart from the notice on the image page (which is not often visited), the only warning in this case is on the talk page of the editor who uploaded the image in 2005. Nowadays they only edit occasionally, and they get just 2 days notice (which - in the UK at least - is during a public holiday). It would be better to have a notice on the talk page of the article where the image is used (or even on the article itself) to allow the 31 people watching the article (or the 300 people a day who read it) the opportunity to comment.
I do not care much about the image (my only involvement with the article has been to tone down the "Jet is dead" POV), but I am concerned that something can be around for over 4 years and then be deleted with so little chance of discussion. JonH ( talk) 16:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evander_Holyfield contains two glaring errors. In 1993 he fought Riddick Bowe. The article says he won, but he lost by a split decision. The chart at the bottom says he lost by a unanimous decision. That's not correct. Does anyone care? I did enough to post this. The page is locked, so I can't touch it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrice ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
After about a year at Wikipedia, my biggest challenge has been finding ways to coordinate articles/sections that cover the same topic. I find it very frustrating to see how different articles develop redundancies, which then slowly diverge. I would like feedback on how other people handle the problem. Here's my take:
In special cases, where topics are "hierarchical", there are solutions which, if not perfect, are at least trivial. Some people insert a {{ main}} template and perhaps a {{ sync}} template, as I have done at Coffee#History. Other people would go ahead and move text from Coffee#History into History of coffee. However, I have often wished we could employ a more radical solution: Why not delete all the text at Coffee#History, leaving nothing but a {{ main}} template? Or perhaps its contents could be TRANSCLUDED from some designated section of History of coffee? (I confess that I have no idea how that would work, either from a technological or a prose standpoint.)
I am more concerned about the cases where redundancies are NOT hierarchical (e.g. Hitler and World War Two). I don't think we have any guidance on the problem -- WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLITTING and WP:CFORK and WP:SIZE speak about "subtopics", as though Wikipedia were hierarchical.
As a concrete example, I'll describe the articles that brought me here: Typing#Words per minute and Words per minute, which present a typical (if minor) example of this problem. At first, only a regular wikilink connected the former to the latter passage. My instinctive solution was to use the main and sync templates. But this doesn't really work here, because Words per minute is not a "main article" (subtopic) of Typing#Words per minute; Words per minute also addresses writing, reading, speaking and listening. So I substituted a {{ further}} template. But you have to see that the problem is distinct: unlike an article (like History of coffee) that gets a {{ main}} template, any article indicated by a {{ further}} template is not a subtopic into which you can just start moving material.
Now, in theory, we could always create a subtopic-article. We could turn Words per minute into an umbrella page containing links to subarticles Words per minute (typing), Words per minute (reading), and Words per minute (writing). Then, typing#Words per minute could support a {{ main}} template pointing to a true sub-article, Words per minute (typing). But then, who's to say we shouldn't do it the other way around -- i.e. turn typing into an umbrella article, with subarticles including " Typing (words per minute)", and a {{ main}} article pointing to there from Words per minute#typing?" And worse, even if that kind of situation arises rarely, this strategy will cause articles to proliferate in such a way that they will dissociate information that ought to be associated.
I am not a computer programmer, but this dilemma is reminding me of stuff I've learned about relational databases. Out of sheer curiosity, I'm wondering if someone with experience in that area can point me to some formal theory on this, since I only know about it through working on wikipedia?
- Andrew Gradman, editing from an IP address (don't tell anybody -- I'm supposed to be studying.)
- 128.59.179.162 ( talk) 22:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I have a question about downloads of wikipedia articles with many images. Do you know if the entirety of each image is delivered during the download, then reduced in size? Or is the server sending a lean, scaled down version of each image? If the former, would it make sense (for download performance reasons) to display a thumbnail version of each image then link it to the main image? I know there are some image-rich pages that are quite slow to download, even with a high bandwidth pipe. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 14:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
[de-indent] So, stupid question time: is the lag because the page won't fully display until all of the images are loaded? I've seen many web pages that display immediately while streaming the (initially) non-displayed images in the background. Certainly the Wikipedia main page displays very rapidly despite the presence of multiple images and complex layout.— RJH ( talk) 17:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I checked several other articles and on those it turned out that the animated gif images were by far the largest downloads. For example, on the Mars article a relatively tiny animated gif is 228 Kb, almost as large as all the other images put together. There was a similar issue with a 496 Kb animated image on the Xenon article. It may be worthwhile checking pages with animated gifs to see how much of a download hog they are becoming.— RJH ( talk) 23:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
... and Archetypal pedagogy ?
I suspect we have a case of Cross-Wiki spam here. Here's the message I let on Talk:Frederic Fappani :
I think it could be candidate for Article for deletion (for lack of notability) and Archetypal pedagogy should be reveiwed, but my english is way too poor to do it myself. Does somebody think I'm right about Frederic Fappani ? Chaoborus ( talk) 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, Derk-Jan Hartman has reported at Buzilla 21117 that MediaWiki developers have just raised the default at the Commons, following on from the same change made here in February (I think it was that month).
It's pleasing that an overwhelming consensus built late last year on WT:IUP at en.WP has received no serious hurdles in spreading to a program of gradual application throughout WikiMedia's sites. Tony (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Allow me to explain first that I am an academic, the author of several books, and half a hundred scholarly artcles. I thought it might be useful to submit a brief three paragraph article. I followed the directions it was submitted and it was reviewed. I was given a place to see the reviewers comments. However, I could never actually reach the comments. I tried "helpme" and was told that someone would publish a reply in a few minutes; I recieved two notes sympathetic notes explaining how difficult it was to publish new articles, but no one could tell me how to access the site. I tried the chat room without success. Many of the people and places I contacted turned out to be blank; that is, there was no apparent place to leave a message. I worked at it for about twenty hours. I never did find the location which supposedly had comments on my submission, nor was I able to find anyone who could offer meaningful help.
At last I was able to reach what I think was the reviewer's home page. In his discussions there was nothing about my submission. The site did include his birthplace, "alphi Centuri." I guess this should have told me something.
Elkmilok ( talk) 14:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I wanted to ask your opinion on whether a site can be used for external links in an article. E.g. this one [18] on an article about David Bell. There's more about this here: User_talk:Anon111#Recent_edits. -- JokerXtreme ( talk) 21:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
No, ELN will do. I just didn't know of an appropriate place, thanks for the heads up. -- JokerXtreme ( talk) 22:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
We all shake our heads & wonder what can be done to solve the problem of ethnic/nationalistic content conflicts. While doing research, I encountered this paragraph which shows that Wikipedia's problem is not unique, nor are other venues handling the problem undeniably better:
For the record, Richard Reid was Assistant Professor of History at the University of Asmara, Eritrea, from 1997 to 2002 and at the time of this publication taught at the University of Durham. He is the author of the book, Political Power in Pre-Colonial Buganda (James Currey 2002). And, FWIW, Wikipedia doesn't have any vicious edit wars on this particular ethnic/nationalistic-based dispute. Yet. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It's easy to hide behind a few 'it's to be expected' articles, but this has gone too far lately. Your refuse to show the Wikileaks case [in the news] because it makes US looks bad and now you have front page a mere renaming of British National Space Centre as something that's supposedly important. This is worse than propaganda gentlemen. Do something about it before you are completely ridiculed. -- Athinker ( talk) 18:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
More progress has been made, and new requests have tapered off substantially, which suggests that a release is within reach.
If you'd like to verify that for yourself, start on our labs site.
To see what we've changed this week, check out the latest list of items completed.
To see the upcoming work, it's listed in our tracker, under Current and Backlog.
We expect to release to labs again next week, and each week thereafter until this goes live on the English Wikipedia.
William Pietri ( talk) 00:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elockid is closing tomorrow. If you're interested, take a look. Thanks. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 06:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Gcc redirects to GCC, a disambiguation page.
It appears that the majority of links to Gcc refer to the Gnu Compiler Collection, and the majority of links to GCC refer to the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf.
I started going through the 84 links to disambiguate them, but after doing the first 7 I felt I was probably doing the wrong thing.
Would it make sense to have the direct links instead redirect to the favourite targets as above, and move the existing pages to Gcc (disambiguation) and GCC (disambiguation)? I don't know if there is a specific policy against case-dependent redirects, but at a rough count, this would fix all but some 20 of the existing links. Hv ( talk) 10:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
At the very least the article does not adhere to WP:BLP, but the proliferation of the article across various wiki's and the consistency of the main contributors IP adresses (all, except a french proxy server, from thailand) makes it more than just another article for deletion. I decided to get on this case after a checking out a newly created dutch article (nominated for deletion by yours truly) which made some remarkable claims. The results can be found on meta. On this wiki the claims have been significanlt toned down, but the gist of the article still exists. Is this a case for Article for Deletion? Speedy deletion? Is the community satisfied with the notability of the artist in question and the (rather wild) claims made in the article? I would appreciate some opinions. Kleuske ( talk) 12:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Wikimedians.
This weekend I plan on finalizing the timeline for phase two of the Living Person Task Force: a community findings recommendation.
What we are interested in is people from all size wikis participating in discussing common interests and problems on interpersonal and intrapersonal interaction relating to Wikimedia projects. This includes statistics gathering, examination of how projects handle OTRS complaints/issues, image use, quotation use, and sourcing. It is very important that we get participation in these areas, if anything just to received feedback on the wiki. I have subpages set up for these discussion on the Strategy site, < http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People>.
In six to eight weeks we'd like to develop recommendations from the Task Force that are more in-depth than the proposed recommendations to be submitted to the Board this month, to assist in developing projects identify and set up structures for the issues that come with societies.
If you have experience dealing with living people on any of our wikis, or if you have ideas on how policies can be established/improved, please participate in the discussions so that we can adequately asses the projects as a whole.
Thanks for your time, see you on the wiki!
Keegan ( talk) 20:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I am a registered user of Wikipedia and has contributed to various pages. I would like to extend my services to the tamil wikipedia. Wonder why I am unable to use the same username?
Thanks Balaji
(User name: thebigbee) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebigbee ( talk • contribs) 08:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a ton! I am very impressed!
Should texts, translations, transcriptions etc. of national anthems be on Wikipedia or on Wikisource? At the moment they are on both projects, which is not very good, I guess. Shouldn't Wikipedia have just an article and quotes of an anthem text (maybe even whole translation), and shouldn't the text be on Wikisource? — StephenG ( talk) 19:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I'm a Spanish wikipedian from the Wikipedia in Spanish. At present, we are having a long discussion about whether or not it's neccesary to start using italics for certain titles, i.e. the ones for the species. Several users state that it's more important to keep wordheads consistent (i.e., all the titles with the same typographical syntax regardless of their type) than complying with international rules regarding biological classification, and they support their point of view on the fact that, in case that Biology titles were changed to the italic format, the rest of the titles in the whole Wikipedia should be reviewed and changed consequently, according to the Spanish language rules, and thus overriding an old consensus, apparently established some years ago. They think that changing just the Biology articles is a kind of bias, and they also think that introducing italics in titles would cause a sort of chaos throughout the whole Wikipedia.
Of course I know that it's our decision, but, as you, as well as the German wikipedians, have introduced italics in titles yet, I'd like to know your opinion at that respect. Do you think you have a bias? Are you changing all the other titles requiring italics, not just the ones for Biology articles? Has it caused any chaos so far? Is perhaps our problem different from yours? Thanks in advance and regards. -- Dalton2 ( talk) 18:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
You know what's crazy? The article on Brian Scalabrine has been edited over 110 times since December 21, 2009, with zero net change. Since Rich Farmbrough delinked some dates, seemingly every edit has been vandalism, or a reversion of vandalism. Is this a record for most edits to an article with the least net change? Zagalejo ^^^ 21:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
This page is protected without a tag so I can't request for un-protection when I need to add an RfD tag for it. Can an administrator help me? -- macbookair3140 ( talk) 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Aye, while checking a modification to Gilgit, there was a reference to a web page, namely http://www.xooarticles.com/Story-of-Gilgit-Manuscripts.html.
I did not find any mentions in WP besides this single ref, anyone familiar with Xooarticles?
WHOIS record doesn't promise much:
XOOARTICLES.COM WHOIS Updated: 47 days ago Registrant: Xoo Article 625 Kampuchia Nhompenh, 02142 Cambodia Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. ( http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: XOOARTICLES.COM Created on: 22-Sep-06 Expires on: 22-Sep-10 Last Updated on: 07-Jan-09 Administrative Contact: John, David Email Masking Image@gmail.com Xoo Article 625 Kampuchia Nhompenh, 02142 Cambodia +1.7364354287332 Fax -- Domain servers in listed order: NS27.DOMAINCONTROL.COM NS28.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
-- Rayshade ( talk) 00:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute as to whether Christ myth theory—an article about the theory that Jesus may not have existed as a historical figure—ought to be included in the "pseudohistory" category. Input would be appreciated here. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Folks may want to take a look at this story. It seems that Larry Sanger has reported Commons to the FBI for hosting illegal child pornography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.207.105.218 ( talk) 18:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, can anyone tell me where I can find a template to thank someone for reviewing improvements I made to an article?
Many thanks, Dockofusa ( talk) 17:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
[[File:WikiThanks.png|right]]
) with a note of appreciation works for those times when you don't feel like plastering a large template on someone's talk page but would like to add a little color. -
Banyan
Tree 12:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)I don't know if it is true or not : [19], [20]... if it isn't, we should reconsider all the contributions of Special:Contributions/155.91.28.231 Kyle the hacker ( talk) 21:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know of drawing program similar to Microsoft Paint but a bit better? I am looking for a program to use in drawing line diagrams, graphs, and schematics. Not interested in complex programs using layers like Inkscape, Gimp and Paint.Net.
I want something simpler and intuitive like Microsoft Paint where erasing and picking up parts of a drawing and moving them elsewhere in the drawing is extremely simple. The only thing about Microsoft Paint that needs improving upon (for my purposes) is the ability to draw smooth lines at other than vertical, horizontal and 45 degrees ... and the ability to draw smooth circles and ellipses. Can anyone point me to the type of program I seek? mbeychok ( talk) 04:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Cuil, the company which launched the search engine no one uses, or can pronounce, have launched an automatic encyclopedia engine - Cpedia. It tries to create a synopsis of all useful information regarding the search subject and present it in an encylopedic manner, all using the power of search and algorithms.
Some relevant posts -
It's not very good. It's almost appallingly bad, but it's a start, and a different direction for an Encyclopedia. Have a play, try searching for people who aren't on Wikipedia. - hahnch e n 22:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Uhh... ...there's a heapload of vandalism at the moment, could someone help a little? I only get to do half the things, the backlog is growing.-- Newbiepedian 20:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
A new parameter has been added to {{
Infobox settlement}} known as |coordinates_region=
to accurately provide region information (country-prov/state) to the {{
coord}} template and account for unrecognized markup in subdivision_name/name1. It has been proposed to have a bot provide this parameter to the around 200,000 articles using this infobox. Please see
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 6.2 and raise any concerns or objections regarding this task. –
xeno
talk 01:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
Thanks to the developer meetup in Germany and mid-term exams for Aaron, there has been no significant change since last week. However, the lack of new requests suggests we're pretty close to something releasable.
If you'd like to verify that for yourself, start on our labs site.
To see the upcoming work, it's listed in our tracker, under Current and Backlog.
We expect to release to labs again next week, and each week thereafter until this goes live on the English Wikipedia.
William Pietri ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello I'm starting this. I'm new here and would like to know how to insert pictures cause it's not letting me. Anyways I hope this place has good people. I've used Wikipedia in the past and wish to help make stuff that's incomplete. #15 ::P (4 eyes is plenty) ( talk) 02:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Secretary General of the government of Slovenia Milan M. Cvikl is facing allegations from a law expert that he copied an entire section of his book on reforms of EU legislation from Wikipedia. [23] -- Eleassar my talk 12:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Other than by writing my own bot, is there a simple way to generate a list of articles that are categorized under a certain tree (say Category:Astronomy) but do not have a particular WikiProject template (say template:WPAstronomy)? I know such non-templated articles exist because I've run across them. But I'm loath to go manually searching through tens of thousands of articles and talk pages. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 18:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
In the past few hours, Wikimedia hit its 1 billionth edit! Congrats to all and keep up the good work. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I've done a little something here, where I dumped in all the quick links and trancluded all those useflu templates so that RCPatrollers and NPPatrollers can use them more easily. I'm planning to add the csd templates as well. If this is redundant to any other page, I'm not surprised. This is just a notice to tell everyone about it. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI: external link to the report
The article appeared in First Monday, an UIC journal, on 4 April 2010. The researcher concludes that "for Wikipedia, then, it seems that if the featured article process is to serve as an effective means of quality control, it must be changed." Skäpperöd ( talk) 13:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have accepted Kingpin13's nomination for membership in the Bot Approvals Group, and per the instructions invite interested parties to participate in the discussion and voting. Thank you, – xeno talk 19:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Input would be appreciated to settle a dispute at Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Should the lead contain a dissenting voice?
The Christ myth theory is the argument that Jesus did not exist as an historical figure. This is a small-minority view within academia. Some Wikipedians and biblical scholars say it is a fringe view. There is therefore a disagreement as to whether the lead should contain a dissenting voice, and if so, what it should say.
Should the lead contain the following sentence? "The philosopher Michael Martin of Boston University writes that, while the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted by Christians and assumed by the majority of non-Christians and anti-Christians—and anyone arguing against it may be seen as a crank—a strong prima facie case can be constructed that challenges it." The source is Martin's The Case Against Christianity 1991, pp. 36–37. SlimVirgin talk contribs 04:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a native English speaker so I might get it wrong. For me, "atrocities" involve blood, death, torture, etc. Apparently, some contributors consider that burning old rocks and closing churches should be considered as atrocities. As there may be some subtilities between English and French words (in French, these couldn't be considered as "atrocités", which is supposed to be the French word for "atrocities" — even "simple executions" wouldn't be), I prefer to ask native English people to give their opinion about that rather than engage myself in an edit war. So, is "Reported atrocities" the right title for this section ? Thanks. Skippy le Grand Gourou ( talk) 16:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I will draw the main author's attention to this discussion. I agree that some facts can be described as "atrocities", I just wanted to point out the fact that some items of the section make the title inaccurate. As for a replacement, I proposed "exactions", which seems to me both more neutral and less "strong". I won't modify the article though, I don't have time to argue with the main author at this very moment, I hope some of you will find the time and will to improve this section, as you pointed out other issues. (Edit : whoops ! Should have checked, Jubileeclipman already took over.) Skippy le Grand Gourou ( talk) 09:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Atrocities is a term comonly used by the sources of all points of view. The murder of thousands of innocent of priests, monks and nuns falls clearly within the term, but the sources also describe the burning of hundreds of places of worship as atrocity. Especially when scores of them in one city alone are burned in one night. In terms of human rights, the destruction of people's places of worship, as the Klan did to black churches, synogogues and Catholic churches in the 19th and 20th century, is typically considered a violation of human rights and an atrocity. In any event, the sources use this terminology for this type of activity by both the Nationalists and the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. For example Guernica is an atrocity not only because of the 200-400 people who were killed but because the homes, schools and places of worship of noncombatants was destroyed. Of course when one's place of worship is destroyed because of hate for the victims race or religion, as in the Klan actions mentioned above, or the Red Terror or Krystalnacht, additional human rights are implicated. Mamalujo ( talk) 21:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I try something else : dividing the section so that "minor" events (including simple murders) are in a separate section. But Mamalujo is clearly POV-pushing, and since it does not seem to bother people enough here for them to modify the article themselves and there is clearly no chance to reason with Mamalujo, if this attempt is reverted I'll just file a case of POV — I don't have time to engage in an edit war. Skippy le Grand Gourou ( talk) 13:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you all should know that the WP logo is a property of the Wikimedia Foundation (as explained here). Now, in the website of OriginLab which produces the Origin software they use the logo as a link to their internal wiki. How can we report this misuse? Shouldn't we drop the a mail? -- CristianCantoro ( talk) 15:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't write Russian well enough to make corrections or additions but I read it well enough to note factual errors. I am tempted to post the corrections and additions in English on the Russian pages. Any suggestions? AkilinaL ( talk) 13:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Akilina
I post this here because I don't see a better place.
I'm working on a couple of psychology articles, both of which use footnoted citations. Some of these citations get reused via the <ref name="..."> convention. I've spent at least 2 hours trying to see how to employ this re-use trick while also citing varying page numbers for each citation. I realize this won't work, but this is the sort of thing I want to so:
This would generate a citation note with the indicated page number.
This sort of thing isn't hard to do when using Harvard citation templates - something like [[#{id}|Miller, 2006, p. 45]] will do it. It's how to do it when the article convention is the footnoting system that I cannot figure out.
Any ideas would be appreciated!
Tom Cloyd ( talk) 13:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)