Wikipedia:Village pump archive 2004-09-26

[[da:Wikipedia:Landsbybr%F8nden]]

Related pages: Mailing lists - IRC - IM a Wikipedian - Talk pages

File:Village pump yellow.png

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! This is where Wikipedians raise and try to answer Wikipedia-related questions and concerns regarding technical issues, policies, and operation in our community. However, if you have other questions about anything else in the Universe or life, try Reference desk. If you wish to raise a bug report, or suggest a feature, try bug reports.

To facilitate ease of browsing and replying, please:

1. Place your questions at the bottom of the list
2. Title the question (by typing == title ==)
3. Sign your name and date (by typing --~~~~)

See also: Wikipedia:FAQ, Wikipedia:Help, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

Moved discussion

Questions and answers, after a period of time of inactivity, will be moved to other relevant sections of the wikipedia (such as the FAQ pages), placed in the Wikipedia:Village pump archive (if it is of general interest), or deleted (if it has no long-term value).

• Font size bug - deleted: should have been reported at wikipedia:bug reports
• Links to TOC -> wikipedia:ignored feature requests
• FDL'ed Photos -> listed at Wikipedia:GNU Free Documentation License resources
• Waah, I broke it.-> Bugmuncher
• Un-typeable characters -> Wikipedia talk:Special characters
• request for list -> Wikipedia talk:Auto-biography
• plug: deleted
• post 1968 radical movement: deleted
• Stats: see wikipedia:statistics#external_links
• Donations -> wikipedia talk:donations
• speculative physics counting: deleted (boring!)
• how to move a page: see wikipedia:move
• VfD can be linked to with the redirect WP:VFD, See also WP:FD
• Wikipedia:Blankpages now exists.

See the archive for older moved discussion links. For the most recent moved discussion, see Wikipedia:Village pump archive#August 2003 moved discussion.

---

Downloading US government photos

Can we legally download photos from members of the House and Senate at http://www.senate.gov/ and http://www.house.gov? RickK 02:16, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The best answer I could find is here: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/Photo_Collection_of_the_Senate_Historical_Office.htm — I believe photos or prints of anything older than the oldest possible copyright (pre-Mickey Mouse) is safe. I think official portraits of senators and congressmen are probably also safe, but we could always just ask. Daniel Quinlan 03:43, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

As I understood it -- the general rule was anything "state" -- with a .gov origin (unless explicitly states that its used by permission of a 3rd party) is fair game. -戴&#30505sv 05:06, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

It's not state, it's federal. Local and state governmental bodies are exempted from the law. Only the federal government is forbidden from holding a copyright, and there are a couple loopholes/exceptions that allow it to hold a copyright or two. -- Ram-Man 11:07, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Conference WP 2004

I remember seeing a page on a conference to take place next year (or maybe later) a few months ago in the United States. Some Wikipedians will give speeches, like Brion I believe. Where's that info page? --Menchi 05:04, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Better find it, or I won't know where to go! ;) There have been a number of vague 'we should have some sort of event' pages, but nothing's ever been solidified. m:Wikipedia meetup is the only one I know off the top of my head. --Brion 05:08, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It is a page completely in Wikipedia. It listed only half a dozen Wikipedians and their speech title, like:

• Hjianmi -- "The significance of Wiki in a ..."
• Deloru -- "..."
• ..

(None of whose speech or name I remember now, only that they are well-known here)

That's all I remember. I got the link from the Pump. It was probably written in early 2003 or late 2002. Maybe it's just some Wikipedian's joke which I completely didn't appreciate. Maybe that particular conference idea was long dead.

--Menchi 05:30, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

That sounds like a joke page I vaguely remember. The date given was much later than 2004, and there was something about Britannica putting their material under FDL or something. :) --Brion

m:WWN sample? I saw that too, but I didn't mean this one. If the speech conference page creator posted here once, maybe s/he'll be back again before this msg get archived. :-D Otherwise, I'll live without knowing a single already obscure meeting. --Menchi 05:41, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Wikivention was announced in March 2003. (You can see the announcement at Wikipedia:Village_pump/March_2003_archive_4.) —Paul A 06:37, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know Dietary then (I still don't, only his reputation), and I obviously didn't get a good look at those topics then. :-D --Menchi 06:41, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Recent changed sidebar

A nice idea I found at the CapitanCook Wiki is the possibility to have the Recent Changes as a sidebar (at least for the Mozilla browser, don't know which others supports this as well). This seems to be only a stripped-off version of the full recent changes page, [1]. I don't know how popular the sidebar is, but it might be a nice feature for us Wikipediholics. Any comments? -- andy 12:19, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Astronomy and astrophysics

Can an admin move back the Astronomy and astrophysics article from Stupidpedia?. Thanks. -- Looxix 15:55, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This has been sorted. Mintguy 17:05, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Contest Idea

While looking around on this site, I like to see how far off topic I can go from a starting link. Like, starting at, say, heroin, end up at Star Wars exclusively using in-text links. I think it'd be fun to see who could go from one topic to the other in the shortest amount of legitimate links (no making them up). Does this sound fun to anyone else? -- Moros

It sounded fun to at least one other person, so they made Wikipedia:Six degrees of Wikipedia. --Camembert

Thanks a lot.Moros

Main page redirect not working

Looks like more redirect problems --at best I got a link to http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Path -- going directly to other pages seems to work fine. -12.233.97.211 19:12, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

• Um, don't you mean http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page ? —Paul A 11:47, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

• • No, I think sie means Main_Path. I keep ending up there too. Angela 01:50, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Note for the confused: there was a tiny 404 error page that just linked to the Main Page, whose sole purpose in life was to be something other than a directory listing in the /w directory. Hovewer "Main Page" was misspelled as "Main Path".

I've redirected Main Path to the main page, and moved most of its former contents directlf into the 404 page. --Brion 04:57, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Edit empty articles and newbies

Hi, I find that a lot of the deleted articles containig only rubbish appear to have the form of questions about specific subjects. Maybe the edit an article page for new entries should link to Village Pump / Reference Desk with some text like: "If you want to ask Wikipedia a question, go to ...", so that unanswered questions don't end up in junk articles by clueless newbies? -- till we *) 21:39, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to this web-site. Could anyone provide any pointers? -- CSguru

Replying on User talk:CSguru Dori 01:13, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just to make more clear what I'm talking about: All the time you get entries in the Recent changes looking like this:

(diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia:Deletion log; 13:17 . . Ams80 (Talk) (deleted "Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma": content was: 'Some body please inform more about Chithira Thirunal Maharaja', no edit history)

It seems to me that somebody mistakes the edit field for articles that don't exist for a question field. We should take this into account! What do you think? -- till we *) 11:34, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to WP:RA would be useful? Angela

Children's Wikipedia?

Discussion moved to Meta.

Robert Heinlein

Robert Heinlein should be moved to the name he published under and is best known by: Robert A. Heinlein (currently a redir with an edit history.) Mkweise 20:26, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'll delete the redirect, give me a minute. Btw, this request should be @ VfD. --Menchi 20:29, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

Done. --Menchi 20:33, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

Fictional characters

The articles on fictional characters are going out of control. Simpson, Star War, Star Trek, Harry Potter. A strict guideline is definitely a priority.

Not to mention articles on the physics of Star Trek. Sure, there was a book published with that title and we should have a review of it, but that's about it. -- Miguel

I know many classic novels having more than one hundred characters. It is tempting to add all of them in Wikipedia, but I want to wait until we have a clear guideline.-wshun 20:34, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't know that it's really a problem, aside from the fact that we tend to prefer articles on real people to be qualified by some measure of "importance" (especially given all the recent discussion over Mr. Boyer), and that fictional characters perhaps should have similar qualifications. But the existence of an article on, say, Bleeding Gums Murphy doesn't harm Wikipedia in any way, or distract anyone who wants to from creating articles on similarly obscure real people. If someone wants to spend their time on articles about fictional characters, it doesn't bother me any. -- Wapcaplet 20:50, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This matter has been raised quite a few times, not all of them by me. I say by all means, add articles on Mr Darcy, Heathcliff, Sir Toby Belch, Kate Croy, Sir Lancelot, Bartlebooth, Yossarian, Becky Sharp and any others you can think of! -- Tarquin 21:20, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think it's ok as long as it's made clear they are fictional people in the introduction. Angela

I just fear that there will be too much stubs. Sherlock Holmes and Harry Potter are "important" enough, I think. But other minor characters? wshun 21:38, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Our deletion policy allows for us to delete pages that can never be more than stubs. マイカル 21:56, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to stop people writing articles? The more articles, the better. Having an article on the used ship salesman in Monkey Island does not prevent us from having an article on physics or something. CGS 22:01, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC).

From a practical view point. Everything is unique, but you can't have articles on everything. We don't write about every physicists, so why do we write about every fictional characters? BTW, mentioning the used ship salesman in the article of Monkey Island is, functionally speaking, better then writing a separate article about the character. wshun 22:36, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We don't write about every fictional character. If we have more fictional characters than physicists listed it is because that is what people prefer writing about. Whether a character (fictional or otherwise) should be on their own page or page about whatever it is they are related to should probably depend on how much there is to write about them. A page containing info on all the Harry Potter characters, for example, would be way too long. Angela

But if someone wants to quietly document every single character invovled in the Star Trek universe, with a bio, episode references, et cetera, why stop them? CGS 22:46, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC).

Then why do we need Wikipedia:Criteria for Inclusion of Biographies? Of course, on the same page we say that we can ignore it.wshun 23:31, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, the same thing is currently being dicussed on the votes for deletion page - in relation to real people rather than fictional ones. Angela 11:08, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Neither of those artiles say why there is a need to limit the number of articles. CGS 11:23, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC).

I don't see the difference. If you don't support any limit of articles on fictional characters, you are in no position to support any limit of articles on real persons. But we have to set such limit, right? wshun 20:01, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Redirects and Deletion

First, I have a question about the "Listed for deletion" notice, as called for by Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion_policy etc. It's stated that this has to be added to any page you list on VfD - but does this really apply to Redirect pages? (For one thing, you generally won't even see it unless you manually pull up text of the Redirect page.) I would assume this rule only applies to pages with actual content - if so, could someone make this clear on those pages?

The rule is now optional. Ignore it if you want.—Eloquence

Redirects have modified rules, as they have no content other than a computer-ese line, so no, the "Listed for deletion" notice is not listed --Menchi 06:35, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)

Well, that's what I thought seemed logical, but that's not what the pages say. Shall I fix them so the exception for pages without content is clear? Noel 17:10, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Second, about deleting Redirect pages which are created by typos. Currently Wikipedia:Deletion_policy calls for keeping Redirect pages, except "when the problems they cause outweigh their advantages"; Wikipedia:Redirect says nothing about real typos, but lists "Misspellings" as one use for them. I would argue that all Redirect pages caused by real typos on the part of people working on the 'pedia should be candidates for instant deletion, no debate needed. They just clutter up the database, and "What links here" pages.

By "real typos" I don't mean things like "Michaelangelo Buonarroti" instead of "Michelangelo Buonarroti"; someone who wasn't sure of the spelling could easily type the former. I mean things like "Michrlangelo Buonarroti", i.e. a real mistake that's just a slip of the finger.

No doubt someone's going to say (they already do!) "but it could be useful". So what? I could create thousands of different wrongly spelled versions of almost any page. There is just no need or use to clutter up the database with them. If we really want to make allowances for people who can't spell/type, we should add some sort of DWIM (e.g. like the one Google has) to suggest what people might have wanted if a search/lookup turns no matches.

Noel 06:18, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

• If you want to "del redir to make way for move". It'll done by an admin within hours if possible.
• Complete typo ("Presidenté Busch") in redir is also deleted.
• Similar typo are preserved exactly because:
  1. we don't have DWIM.
  2. alternate and correct spellings, especially for ancient people and non-English personalities.

Anything I didn't cover? --Menchi 06:35, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not after alternative and/or very plausible spellings, I agree we should keep those. I'm only asking about "complete" typos in redirects. I would have thought those fell into the "shoot on sight" category, but several I have listed on VfD are still there, so I can only guess there is no agreed-upon policy about them. Noel 17:10, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

TOC "back to top"

The new 'Table of Contents' is very nice. But why not also have a 'Back to Top' button from each of the sub-headings? If you use the former for going directly to a subtopic, you would definitely need the latter to pick another sub-topic again.I am sure its obvious and probably it has not been done for various valid reasons, anyway I just wanted to point this out:-).KRS 06:40, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Clicking on "Back" arrow button works on all browsers I know. --Menchi 06:44, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, it worked. But there are 2 problems 1) you have to move your hand more:-) 2)If you scroll down while reading then you get a different 'back', and sometimes only onceKRS 08:18, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

True enough, there's a certain distance between the scroll and the arrow button. :-p And I'm so used to using the "Top" link on other websites that I sometimes mistake [Edit] for [Top]. :-}

I guess it may look more stuffed than it already looks if we have [Top]. But fuctionality-wise and browsing-wise, it may be good. --Menchi 08:41, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)

I use the Home key on my keyboard. - Patrick 09:46, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

User:Saddam Hussein

moved to user talk:Saddam Hussein

Skeptic influx?

Did that skeptic recruitment program of ours work? Tim was working on the letter, right? Did it get send? --Menchi 09:28, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)

No response from sci.skeptic, and the interest generated from the CSICOP mention remains unknown. The response from our post at the JREF forum was very good in comparison. There were maybe 4 or 5 people who came over to have a look, and made a few contributions. I don't know if any of them are still around. User:Lord Kenneth was especially enthusiastic, but he only made about 40 edits and then lost interest. -- Tim Starling 09:47, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)

---

American or "international" names on videogames

The user WhisperToMe is moving all videogame systems to their Japanese rather than English title. I checked on Google "Super Nintendo" returns 373,000 hits, while "Super Famicom" returns 32,700. I think they should stop and return the pages to where they were originally to avoid creating confusion. M123 16:50, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This is the English language wikipedia. The names he is using are the correct international names used in most of the English speaking world. For example, I'm English and I am used to the names he is using (in most cases). CGS 17:02, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC).

• I've never heard of Super Famicom. If the page exists as Super Nintendo, it should be left there and Super Famicom set up as a redirect. There is no need to create extra work by moving pages around. Angela 17:10, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've followed the video game market a little, and have heard of Super Famicom. I'm fairly certain that in Japan, only, was the SNES marketed as the Super Famicom; almost everywhere else in the world, it was marketed as the Super NES. I think it should stay at its old title, with perhaps a mention of the Super Famicom name. Same for Famicom and NES, and any others that had different

Japanese market names. -- Wapcaplet 17:58, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Since almost the entire world (except Japan) calls the system SNES, the article should be Super Nintendo Entertainment System and not Super Famicom. Marknew 19:25, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Super Famicom is only one example. A better example is moving Genesis to Megadrive because that is the name most people know it by. CGS 18:12, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC).

• The terms Famicom and Megadrive are unknown in North America. As for Genesis/Megadrive. Google gives 196,000 for "Sega Genesis" and 47,200 for "Sega Megadrive". Whisper is moving pages from where they've been for years to new places, which I think is unneccesary. M123 18:16, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

• Just moved "Mega Man" to "RockMan" a quick googling 109,000 '"Mega Man" Nintendo' vs. 1,660 '"RockMan" Famicom'. M123 18:48, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

One of the problems created by these moves is that throughout the entire article it apparently becomes necessary to say "Mega Man/Rock Man" or "NES/Famicom", which makes it pretty hard to read. I don't have a problem with articles being moved to a new name as long as the majority of the English-speaking population knows it by that name, but I disagree with moving Mega Man to Rock Man. Every gamer I have ever met, and even a lot of non-gamers, are familiar with Mega Man. Only the more dedicated gamers are aware of the name Rock Man. -- Wapcaplet 19:37, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That's gamers that you have met. Unless you have travelled a lot, that's just your neck of the woods. CGS 20:35, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC).

I think the Google counts are a good indicator of which name is more popular in the online English-speaking world. We are not interested in English speakers who are not online because they are not reading Wikipedia. Therefore, let us bow to the majority, and put everything back to their US names. --Nelson 00:20, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, Google counts are a good indicator of which name is more popular among those who are involving "English web-site creation"! The first change is not necessary, but a revert maybe equally unnecessary. wshun 01:33, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Is weasel terms really a good term?

Suddenly one day, ...today to be precise, I discovered the policy against "weasel terms", exemplified as

• Some people say/believe...
• It has been said that...
• Some would say...

For long these kind of expressions has been one of my main points of critics against the Wikipedia project, and of course I can blame myself for my bad command of English and my too superficial study of Wikipedia policies, that I in several months haven't understood that my critic actually "is" answered in Wikipedia-policies, but on the other hand it turns out from the what-links-here list that at least the page on "weasel terms" is unknown by most wikipedians.

A few question raise from this:

• is the term really good?
• is this issue really considered important by other wikipedians, or is it a policy which is made and accepted in order to be put in the drawer and forgotten?
• could something be done to emphasize this misconception of NPOV?
• should something be done?

--Ruhrjung 19:18, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How are you going to present views that differ from your own on controversial subjects without doing this? I can see wanting to put exactly who holds the opposing point of view "Adherents of the pre-1956 Georgia flag say......" and "Some homeless advocates say.........." rather than just "Some people say......" But not sure how you can present multiple point of views without saying that someone said them.Ark30inf 19:32, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, your question actually highlights another of my points of critic against Wikipedia customs. If I hadn't hid Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms by [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms|policy against "weasel terms"]], I think the probability for you reading that Wikipedia policy page would have increased. Mea culpa!

...now, see what the page has to say first, then we can discuss the solution the page proposes. :-)

--Ruhrjung 20:19, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, I admit doing just a quick run through of the page before commenting and missed the meat of it. That itself might be a problem, either with me, the page, or both. I probably would not have missed it if the article had stated it right off the bat....."Try to attribute statements of opinion to a specific source such as "Joe said..." rather than using 'weasel words' like "Some say.....". That will solve the problem with the page (but perhaps not the problem with me scanning and then commenting).Ark30inf 21:05, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Back to the original discussion (which IMHO should probably be moved to Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_weasel_terms), I think the neagative cononations of 'weasel terms' should be avoided, even though (in general) we want people to avoid using those terms.

How about: Ambiguous phrasing | Ambiguous citing | Ambiguous sources?

~ender 2003-08-17 14:50:MST

Or maybe just Wikipedia:Avoid vagueness. -- Wapcaplet 02:03, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Different pages for different meanings of the same word/ phrase

In Wikipedia I found the following instances when page titles had more than one meaning/ association and the problem had been dealt with in the manner described below.

1. Architecture- inbetween the explanation for architecture as in buildings, there was a paragraph on architecture as related to computer lingo and again there was a continuation of the former meaning. Problem further compounded by use of similar terms in both fields- language, building, etc.,
2. Calculus- before even explaining what calculus is as generally known[ mathematics related] intro line said that there is something called dental calculus for which one had to go to another page.
3. Taj Mahal- at the end of a very long article on Tajmahal, the monument, there was a single sentence that said that there is also a blues singer by the same name.

People thus seem to try to
[a]fit in their meaning within the narrative of the first meaning[as in 1]
[b]add it at beginning of page[as in 2]
[c]add it at end of page[as in 3]
This does not seem to be an adequate way to deal with the situation which is likely to arise in many instances. Sometimes it gives an absurd effect. So why not have a system by which we have separate pages that can be named as Calculus[1], [2], Architecture[1], [2] etc., as in a dictionary. This way, we do justice to both -not dilute the effect of the stronger one nor relegate the weaker one to discovery by chance. This is not the same as having two pages on the same topic [ as in New Imperialism:-)]. The formation of a new page with a legitimately different meaning can be vetted by sysops or through vote. In such cases the search or go button can lead to a master page which lists- for eg- Architecture 1 and Architecture 2 giving links to each page. [In architecture the new meaning has long obscured the old one as any search in Google would reveal:-)]You could still do this in one page[ TOC?] but the effect may not be satisfactory- each meaning deserves its own page--KRS 18:59, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The dental calculus thing is not good. However, in the Taj Mahal and Archiecture cases are valid according to current policy. We do separate if each definition is or deserves to be expanded. Otherwise, the stubs are placed together, or under a large article to eliminate the the prolific occurence of stubs. (See [Disambiguation]]) The policy is that once we can make it over one paragraph (de-stubbed), it can have its own article. Dictionaries can have as many stubs (aka, entries) as it likes, but we are an encyclopedia. Feel free to raise any more concerns. --Menchi 19:43, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation?

~ender 2003-08-17 13:26:MST

I am aware of the disambiguation technique. Just thought that it would be more professional when you have it like Architecture[1][2], Calculus[1][2], etc., instead of Architecture[ buildings], architecture [computers] calculus[maths] calculus[ dental] and so on. KRS 04:23, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

but then we'd have to remember numbers that have no connection to the subject. -- Tarquin 08:38, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, the idea is not to remember meaning 1 or 2 or 3, but just to type the word without any qualifying phrase which will lead to a master page that lists the different meanings in a serial order according to popularity of usage and also gives links to each detailed page[ The numbering is only for creating unique page names and not for searching or remembering] So you don't have to start any search by prequalifying a word/ phrase or prior knowledge of different usages.

Moreover, it will help in saving some admin time- many people seem to be helping in disambiguation. Even a link from a simple word such as 'English' had to be disambiguated [language vs nationality] by someone in a page I created. It boils down to this- everytime such a word comes in a new page, you have to keep disambiguating it after reading the context[ which is a waste of time and resources]

So for both the user and the altruistic Wikipedian, this approach might prove to be a good thing.---KRS 14:35, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

But the English case isn't the same as stub-collection case. English language and England have complete articles on their own already, so that page is completely disambiguation, not stub-collection. However, it is easier if I could just type [[English (1)|]] instead of [[English language|English]]. --Menchi 14:42, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

So make a redirect from English (1) to English language. Job done. Martin 21:24, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, you don't have to type English[1] or English [language]. You just have to type English which will lead to a master page from which it would be obvious which meaning fits the context among the many listed KRS 14:48, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How does that differ from the current disambiguation? --Menchi 14:52, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

The disambiguation has to be done everytime the phrase occurs within a particular context and is an automatic redirect[ helped by wikipedians]whereas if you use this master page approach, it wil take care of every single usage of the word- you just have to add meaning to the master page[ in case there are more meanings] you don't have to redirect every page that uses the word to its correct meaningKRS 15:04, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Again, how does that differ from the current disambiguation? Currently, you can link English or pitch and that will link to the disambiguation page. A later editor can insert the shortcut to pitch (music) so readers go directly to the correct page. Your system wouldn't allow the shortcut unless people linked ((pitch [1])) which is pretty ugly. -- Tarquin 22:09, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Protected pages

Help? I just protected Homelessness because User:JoeM continues to vandalize it. I know I'm supposed to list that the page was protected somewhere, but I can't find the page to do it. Can somebody point me there? RickK 23:52, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protected page --Evercat 23:55, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ugh. I tried to do a search for "protected" and it wouldn't come up. :( RickK 00:01, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The quick search only searches the actual articles. To specify that you're searching for a Wikipedia: page, you have to use the search form with all the checkboxes at the bottom of the search results page. —Paul A 06:12, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Workaround for Mozilla Bug no longer necessary

I noticed that in Mozilla Firebird 0.6.1, there are serious problems with the handling of <hr> in general, and in an especially obvious way on the Postal Service. Apparently this is due to a workaround for a bug older versions of Mozilla had in displaying <hr>, there's a temporary hack that reverts to quirks mode for Mozilla browsers. So the people on the Mozilla Forums (http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=20420) told me to tell you guys that the bug is fixed. --Nelson 00:02, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Not exactly vandalism

Until recently I had been making fairly frequent contributions to the pages that list events, birthdays, deaths, etc for particular dates. A few weeks ago another user wrote to threaten me saying that he would simply delete items that he could not himself verify. I wrote to him to protest. However, he said that he has the perfect right to act as he has been and I notice that he is persisting in this behaviour, and I notice that he is treating items from people other than me in the same fashion. Since he does not warn others of his actions people other than me may be unaware of his deletions.

I willingly stipulate that some aspects of some of the items I submit are incorrect. However, this individual is deleting entire items when any part of them appear to be incorrect to him.

Obviously his actions are frustrating and discouraging. In my view, they also impede development of the 'pedia because they make it difficult to provide corrections.

What to do? I have looked in the FAQs, can't find an answer.

--BillBell 12:39, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How about giving us a clue as to who and or what pages you are talking about. Mintguy 12:46, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I believe the pages Bill is talking about are the daily pages (July 17 etc) and the alleged "vandal" is mav. Angela 13:19, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

See August 8 11:47, 9 Aug 2003 . . Maveric149 (more events; all checked for accuracy; removed a couple that could not be confirmed or were misplaced)

I think, this is a misunderstanding... You said "I wrote to him", but I can not find your comment on a talk-page. Where is the discussion? Fantasy 13:44, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

PS:Found it: User_talk:Maveric149/archive_14...

BillBell, it seems that you stopped to speak with Mav (he wrote the last line). I guess, Mav thought that you understood his arguments and that everything is ok. Mav is a person you can talk to. Don't stop talking to him,

if you feel that he did something he should not have done. I understand his line "I have every right to delete material that cannot be verified in order to preserve the accuracy of Wikipedia." that Everyone has this right, not only he. You as well. Just everyone can delete something, if it is not possible to verify. Did this help in some way? If you have more questions, just let me know! Fantasy 14:06, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Bill, Maveric149 is a very unpretentious person, therefore protective of this project sometimes in ways that may offend newcomers unintentionally. Wikipedia has its share of newbies and anonymous who ignorantly just cooy-&-paste other people's material like plagiarism or obscurely weird stuff about their great-great-grandfather or whatnot. And those people deserve to be offended a little. I'm certain you are not one of such vandal/experimental newbies. So, I'm positive that this misunderstanding can be worked this out in no time. And yes, we're allowed to make mistakes here, just not intentionally, i.e., claiming stubbornly what cannot be confirmed to be universal truth. We're Wiki, we correct each other's mistakes and improve! :-) --Menchi 14:32, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

Hah! Me a vandal? That's a laugh. What I'm doing is systematically going through each day page and confirming every fact and adding a great deal more. Your entries Bill, have been less than accurate to outright wrong, so I have corrected what I could, moved what was misplaced and deleted what could not be confirmed. You have had every chance to defend your work by providing references. So who is the vandal - the person who is adding incorrect data or the person who is deleting it? --mav 19:33, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

All I can say is that you seem to recognise yourself. You have deleted items from other people for which I was able to find authoritative sources. The one I remember in particular had to do with the Weimar Constitution. You deleted it, with your customary, cavalier "couldn't verify" and I found it, albeit in German, in the German Historical Museum web pages. Yes, I think you did read what I said (as someone kindly claimed above) and decided to ignore me. Who the hell are you to accord me "every chance to defend [my] work". I don't remember giving my life to you and I'm damned if I will put myself in the position of being accorded "chances" from he likes of you .

(a) AFAIK--take note, please--the 'pedia is not your property and we are not obliged to satisfy you alone, and (b) when you discard items, as I have said, it makes it difficult to know what was wrong with them or even that they have disappeared. Try to get with the programme, this was intended to be a co-operative project. You are not God. I believe that your ways of dealing with me are deliberatively provocative and bloody. --BillBell

So you verified it in German and I could not verify the entry while searching English webpages. Good for you - now put it back in. The (a) applies to you as well; Wikipedia is not a dumping ground of ill-informed and badly researched material. So when I see that I will either correct it or delete it depending on how salvageable it is. And when I see a pattern of bad edits from a single user I don't bother spending a great deal of time checking each of their facts (but I still check). Some users have such a bad track record when it comes to submitting correct information that they have been banned and everything they write is automatically reverted without checking; there comes a point when it just isn't worth it. I'm sorry if my checking and correcting of your mistakes bothers you, but you agree each time you submit that; "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." Got it? --mav

wikipedia:verifiability has a suggested procedure for removing stuff that a Wikipedian cannot verify, as well as hints on how to ensure that text one adds is easily verifiable. Martin 21:17, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just to avoid a possible misunderstanding: Information on Wikipedia is usually not deleted permanently. Past versions of a page can be accessed using the "Page history" link and previous versions can be restored. Information is less likely to be removed if it is referenced (with an endnote, for example).—Eloquence 21:55, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

Sometimes I discover my own mistakes upon re-reading days later. But other times, I don't, and I'm glad that other mistakes of mine were found by others before me (if I could ever realize those are mistakes! ;-)) But once an uncertainty is discovered, it's either moved to the Talk page or "deleted" (but easily recoverable, as Eloquence points out). We can't leave possible misinformation on our website. --Menchi 22:07, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

Past tense vs. present tense

Over at Talk:Nikola Tesla, a disagreement over whether history should be written in the past or present tense has resulted in an article that alternates between past and present tense in a very ugly fashion. I've started a discussion at Talk:Nikola Tesla; if there is an authoritative answer, please post there. Mkweise 16:45, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I posted a link to How to Write History from Brown University, which I assume is authoritative enough. I couldn't find any arguments stating that history should be written in the present tense except from Reddi. I'd appreciate any further input, either for or against present tense (with evidence for stance). Reddi's objection to past tense is that it is "passive." I countered that both present and past tense can be passive, and he countered again. I still hold that history should be written in the past tense, but as Mkweise notes, the discussion should be furthered on the Talk:Nikola Tesla page. —Frecklefoot 17:20, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My wife, who was a History major, says that it can be either past or present tense (but obviously it shouldn't be both in the same article); apparently there is no standard among historical writers about which is better. I personally find it strange to read about past events in the present tense, but it can be pulled off convincingly by skillful writers. My preference is past tense for historical subjects; the only potential problem with it is how to transition from events of the past to events of the present; it is probably for this reason that the policy for adding to the Current events is to use present tense. Anyhow, I would find any arguments regarding the passivity of either tense to be specious; it's very much possible to use an active voice while using past tense (consider how you would write a resume!). Anyhow, I have no solid evidence for either, but I strongly oppose the intermixture of the two. We should pick one and stick with it. -- Wapcaplet 19:43, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Spelling

Can someone post a link to a free, English English dictionary? I don't want to pay the $550 the OED wants. I usually will correct spelling mistakes i run across but I don't want to mistakenly use American English spelling for an acceptable British English spelling of the word. I'm aware of words like colour and programme, etc. Today it was "likelyhood" that I sorely wanted to change to likelihood but didn't want to start an across the pond dispute. Thanks, StinKerr 22:27, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)