Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (miscellaneous) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

Spelling Checker

I get highly frustrated when I accidentally spell something wrong and then it says it can't find the article that I know exist. Is there anyway you could maybe install a spell checker in Wikipedia to give close matches to what you had spelled? Thank you.71.142.214.138 (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Search should detect spelling errors. This is turned off for the internal search engine, but you can always search wikipedia with an external engine such as Google. Algebraist 12:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You can also use http://www.wikiwax.com. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 04:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Indian Trails

I'm thinking of writing an article on Indian trails since the term appears in many, many articles on US and Canadian history (especially on roads). But I'm worried that the term is not politically correct. Does anybody know a PC term? (I promise the article will be more than a dicdef.) Gotta be Anon (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A personal computing term? Oh, wait ... Anyway, if they're overwhelmingly known as Indian trials, then call the article "Indian trials". You can discuss controversy over terminology within the article, if such controversy exists, or redirect it to a more acceptable term later if needed. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

SF Weekly front page article on Wikipedia edit wars

Mary Spicuzza, a reporter for SF Weekly, wrote the cover story for the issue of February 13, 2008: "Wikipedia Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco". The paper made a substantial effort to find out who was behind a Wikipedia user name. The article takes a strong position against Wikipedia anonymity: "Another danger that any casual Wikipedia reader may notice: Some people seem more emboldened to act like assholes when cloaked by pseudonyms and online anonymity." --John Nagle (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive needs your support

Would more editors please come and help out at WP:ACID. This project used to be very lively and now it seems only two or three editors are active. Help is needed now. Please join. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 16:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I more or less stopped participating in that for several reasons: (1) Most of those articles just aren't of personal interest; (2) the edits I did make usually got obliterated a day later by arbitrary edits, and (3) many of the people voting on them never actually seemed to participate. So it became pointless and I find it more productive to work on articles that few other people will edit. Editing less-trafficed pages is also useful for avoiding certain belligerent editors. ;-)—RJH (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Complaint about Wikipedia

Why is the Help page is semi-protected? Why is the 2007 WGA Strike is protected from editors? Who ever (he or she) put the article as 'protected' on the 2007 WGA Strike is a DISGRACE to Wikipedia, I'm sorry I have to say it, it's time to put the "Free" back in the free encyclopedia. Shkarter1985 (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Relax. The help page is not semi-protected, if that's the one you're referring to. Unregistered users ask questions there every day. As for the Writers Guild of America strike (2007–present) article, that is not protected from editing, only from moving (renaming), but had an incorrect padlock icon (silver rather than olive, which I have now fixed (I think....)). Hope this helps. Thanks for reporting it. • Anakin (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, my apologies, at the time you said the above on February 10, the article was semi-protected, which means only "autoconfirmed" users (those who have been registered for more than four days) could edit it. Articles are not protected unnecessarily, so there must have been some problem of vandalism or spamming which necessitated its protection for a while (see Wikipedia:Protection policy). Note that if you want to make an edit to a protected article, you can always ask on that article's talk page for an administrator to make the required edit. • Anakin (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Without looking at the history of the article, I'd guess that when it appeared on the front page (in the "In the News" box when the end of the strike was announced), it was subject to a spate of vandalism, hence warranting the protection. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 06:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Tamil section

Can I have a list of the experts who administer the Tamil section of Wikipedia, please !

Thank you ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijay Chary (talk • contribs) 12:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
If you're talking about the Wikipedia in the Tamil language (http://ta.wikipedia.org), then that's a separate project. FWIW, here is a list of sysops on that wiki. If you mean stuff about Tamil on the English Wikipedia, then we have various relevant WikiProjects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Tamil, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tamil Nadu, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tamil civilization. All these projects have lists of participants on their respective pages. Algebraist 14:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
And please note that at Wikipedia no one "owns" any particular article. There are no "experts" who can prevent others from changing articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I keep seeing that "ownership" issue being brought, almost like a mantra. But if you have a particular interest in an article and you understand the topic, you can certainly serve in a custodial/warden capacity to regularly cull unhelpful edits. That can help keep good articles in top form.—RJH (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
you can certainly serve in a custodial/warden capacity - most definitely, as long as it's understood that by outsiders that this is totally unofficial, and as long as "unhelpful edits" that are "culled" aren't simply defined as "edits I disagree with". The problem is that sometimes editors fall in love with their organization of an article, and the wording they have carefully crafted, and then fight vigorously to retain those. It's great when someone uses their expertise to improve articles; it's not so great when their strong opinions about articles causes other - constructive - editors to quit trying to improve such articles, and possibly to quit Wikipedia altogether. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Help me" redirect page

I noticed that the Help me page is a redirect to Mayday (distress signal), and thought that that might not be the best way to handle this type of phrase when someone searches on it. I proposed a change, but when I put {{help}} at the top to try to get a second opinion, it was reverted. However, I'm still concerned. Does anyone else think we should have a message in Help me like the one I proposed, or should we leave it as a redirect? Simesa (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank user:16@r for his updating Help me into a Disambiguation page, but I am still concerned that someone might come here and actually expect crisis help. And, really, help can be found here - Crisis hotline (found via List of counseling topics) has a "list of crisis hotlines". My question still is, Should we have a link to Crisis hotline on the Help me disambig page? Simesa (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
user:16@r linked Help me to Help and there are links to 9-1-1 and Crisis hotline in it now, so this should be regarded as resolved. Simesa (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Satanic Revision

Is this revision cursed? Purhaps it should be oversighted.--71.107.136.165 (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean "Why did the edit happen three times"? It was way back in 2002, so the wiki software probably had some bugs. – FISDOF9 03:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've seem the treble-edit bug in ancient histories before. No idea what causes it. Algebraist 12:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Must have something to do with the revision ID.--Boson (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I actually hadn't noticed that the revision is there three times (weird, and they have different times, too). I was referring to it being the six hundred sixty-sixth revision on Wikipedia.--71.107.136.165 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In-line citation for one line stubs?

User:NAHID believes the stubs on Raiamas bola, Liza parsia and Arius nenga need in-line citation. I really haven't been able to see the point. Can someone help? Aditya(talk • contribs) 20:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • It's pretty simple. Just provide in-line citation and remove the tag. But it's not OK to remove tag without providing single citation.--NAHID 10:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
From WP:CITE
Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations
citation style used in these articles follow the general references format. The fishbase link provides verifiability of the information and indeed all information in the articles. Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines#When not to use in-line references gives some guidance as to when inline cites become excessive. --Salix alba (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The scientific style guideline seems contradictory to other guidelines and policies. If such a limited number of sources are available, a number of principles argue against having such a topic (most prominently, notability, what Wikipedia is not and the neutral point of view). While CITE does indeed indicate general references are permissable, common good practice (on-wiki) tends to argue for a more specific citation of facts (for example, requesting page numbers from the references that support the claims). Just some thoughts. *hands out grains of salt* Vassyana (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Aditya and Salix that in-line citation and general reference serve the same purpose here. NAHID is probably overdosing the tagging. However, since we are talking about these articles - in absence of much material to discuss on individual species it may be better to create a list of fish species in Bay of Bengal than creating numerous stubs. Arman (Talk) 03:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If there's one citation at the end of the one line stub (supported by a species infobox), why on earth would it need in-line citation? Which particular guideline asks for an overdose of inline cites, like repeating the same cite two or more times in a single sentence? Mindless tagging is not a policy, it's an abuse of policy and a way of gaming the system. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added a note to the editor's user talk page. Posting {{cn}} to a one-sentence stub which does have a source listed is pointless. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hear, hear. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighht question

I have a picture from a match from the 2007 Cricket World Cup. Will I be able to upload it to Commons? Æetlr Creejl 06:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean a photograph that you, yourself, took at the match?--Boson (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I do. Æetlr Creejl 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like you should go ahead and do it. Commons has its own rules, as well as a place to ask questions, so it's best if you just deal with the folks there. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessarily complex footnote formatting

I believe the original purpose of Wikipedia was to create an easy-to-use and easy-to-edit encyclopedia that was open to all, even those who had very basic computer skills.

I have to say the increasingly complex footnote formatting has thwarted that. When one opens the edit screen, an article with a lot of footnotes is needlessly complex and code-laden. It's very hard to read. As an occasional user of Wikipedia, it's almost impossible to read around this coding when I'm editing, so I edit less often. I imagine this is the case for others. As well, this creates a lot of errors. I've seen large sections of articles accidentally removed because someone, understandably, did not know how to edit around the footnote coding. To make matters more complex, there seems to be several competing "styles" of footnote coding. So the style for one article can be very different than that of another. One article may contain several different styles of footnoting, so that duplicate footnote numbers occur.

The end result, I fear, is that Wikipedia has spawned a sort of wonk elitism. This coding probably makes sense to people who spend most of their day on Wikipedia, but for most people who visit the site on occasion, it's very offputting and uninviting. The more complex Wikipedia becomes, the more people are driven away. The original, easy-to-use footnote formatting was simple and quickly understood; I don't see why that had to be abandoned for the complex, inconsistent, and "wonky" format that creates so many problems. Siberian Husky (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, and it has bedeviled me more than once too. I started in the days of the old simple footnotes. Having more than one possible format makes it more difficult as well to find a suitable template somewhere. But I don't know what to do about it. Simesa (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
On top of that, footnote formatting has become issues in deciding GAs and FAs. Tsk... what a shame! Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There was a suggestion a few months back (I think) that suggested the creation of a "Reference namespace." I think this would have simplified the reference process. I would favor a way to have all the reference information at the bottom of an article. So, the edit page would look something like this:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.<ref>%1%</ref> Donec egestas nunc sit amet felis. Pellentesque habitant 
morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac.<ref>%2%</ref>

%1%={{cite web}}
%2%={{cite news}}
or something like that. The ref looks a lot less obtrusive this way.↔NMajdan•talk 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think piped external links should be allowed at all (those that look like [1]). Very obtrusive, and detrimental to judging the value of the source at glance. Aditya(talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't there a bot that replaces external links with refs?↔NMajdan•talk 21:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I think so, but those are the very hard-to-read refs that led to this thread in the first time. I agree, by the way - footnote-littered articles are almost uneditable, not to mention hard to read. I'm afraid this is an area where our much-loved lack of expertise goes against us. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't there a bot that replaces external links with refs? - No, I don't think so. You may be thinking of the bot that takes a naked URL within two ref tags and adds a title from the web page that the URL points to. That makes the footnote a bit better, but it's still lacking most of the info it really needs. And the title that the bot posts isn't always perfect - it's dependent on the coding of the web page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:ACID Closure Discussion

Currently, there is a proposal to officially close the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive (WP:ACID). I posted this here to request further opinions on the discussion. The actual discussion is on the collaboration's talk page. A transclusion of the discussion is below.Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Closure Discussion

I'm wanting to start a discussion on closing ACID, that is, putting a {{Historical}} tag at the top and removing the links from Community Portal and similar pages. I expect this suggestion will garner a fair amount of discussion, so won't actually take any action for at least two weeks.--jwandersTalk 00:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Maybe instead of choosing an article every week, we select an article only when X no. of votes are reached. In that way, we can have enough people to actually call it a collaboration.--165.21.154.90 (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is closed, I would like a message placed near the top of the page mentioning the other collaborations and that work still needs to be done on many of the articles that were collaborations here. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 17:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should close it right after this week's article since it has already been changed over. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 20:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Has it been tried to advertise this project and the need to save it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This project has its own space on the Community Portal. There has been a request at the Signpost for a report on the project, but it has never gone through. The problem is that editors prefer to stick to their own articles instead of randomly going from article to article. For those who do, though, even they usually stick to one topic by switching from article to article within one WikiProject. There is little hope for the revival of this project. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 19:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Some of the other collaboration projects are not in much better shape. Topics are getting selected with a consensus of 1-3 editors, so naturally there is little participation. Collaboration may be going out the window.—RJH (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
With the closing of ACID the Golden age of Wikipedian Collaboration comes to an end. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 19:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Amen.--TBC!?! 00:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Here here. Who know's what the future will bring as collaborations go. --ZeWrestler Talk 05:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The end of the Golden Age, eh? I'm glad to have been part of it. Some day, historians who study Wikipedia will look back to a marvelous time where people took time out of their busy lives and contributed to this project. A time when collaboration was active and vital to Wikipedia. A time when editors were jack-of-all trades, fighting vandals by day and improving Wikipedia by night. While I am sad to see that the time has passed, I look with hope towards the future of this project. --Sharkface217 23:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

How on Earth does one suggest.....

....Changing the Wikipedia logo? This article in the New York Times (see [1] for a login) describes errors in the Wikipedia logo. The Japanese and Indic characters are meaningless because they don't make the sound that they're supposed to. It was brought up on Jimbo Wales' talk page recently, but has been archived off, apparently without being seen (see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 33#WP_Logo). I don't know what to do. I have a fixed logo uploaded that I'm not sure if it's allowed under image policies etc. Any helpful advice on what to do with it appreciated. • Anakin (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say that it's been mentioned so much on just about every discussion forum we have (HD, RD, AN, Talk:Jimmy Wales, User talk:Jimmy Wales, mailing lists, and most recently in my case another user's talk page), but from what I've seen the reason it hasn't been acted on is because no-one's felt willing to put the effort in to fix it. Given that you have, I'm not sure what the next step is. Since the logo is part of the Wikimedia branding, it would obviously require Foundation support, but presumably you'd also want community consensus for it which I guess would come before talking to the Foundation about it ... I suppose asking Jimbo would be a good start, since he would hopefully know what the next step would be. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Confusing Manifestation, that's very informative! I've asked Jimbo directly now on his talk page, so I'll see what happens. • Anakin (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You might also want to post at Metapub, since the logo is used on all language Wikipedia main pages, not just the English Wikipedia. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a useful link. Thanks. • Anakin (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

SPCA, International

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, International article looks an awful lot like spam, and someone recently pointed out that it's actually a deceptive name for the local Montréal SPCA. (See, for example, the Globe and Mail from 2006-11-08: Montreal SPCA fundraising draws criticism)

Since there's really no one actively editing that page, I'm asking here. Should we delete per WP:SPAM, rename to Canadian SPCA of Montreal, or do something else entirely? superlusertc 2008 February 20, 19:52 (UTC)

I added a WP:PROD template, and put an item under the article's External Links pointing to the Globe and Mail article about fundraising improprieties. If the article is kept, it should include the criticism, but there's not quite enough to source the criticism properly under WP:BLP. Best be done with it unless better sources turn up, discussing the actual activities of SPCA International. The group is incorporated as a 501(c)3 in Delaware according to its own web site, but it's impossible to tell in what states or countries it does its work, or how it spends the contributions it receives. From its Form 990 it's clear that the president is Pierre Barnoti, and he is the Montreal guy complained about in the Globe article. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

disoppointing

hi,

As i was the very frequent user of wikipidia and keep this website as ma favorite website. i also assumed that this website is free of all kinds of discrimination and gives very exact and true info about any article.


But when i saw the pic of our Holy Prophet S.A.W. i was shocked and start hating wikipidia. Because this is really insulting act of wikis towords muslim. Also this way wiki will loose its fans and donators.

Please remove Holy Prophet S.A.W. pic

waiting for reply

Wiki's Muslim Fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.80.128.140 (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you actually, but it is not my choice to make. See the current discussions about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Muhammad image controversy, a proposal to revisit. • Anakin (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
There's plenty on wikipedia to offend just about everybody. Where would you draw the line? Do we stop when everything that is even slightly offensive to somebody has been removed?—RJH (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of you may have heard that the EU is dsicussing extending copyright for performers from 50 to 95 years. This will have a major impact on the number of musical pieces available to the public domain. If you would like to protest this, please sign this petition. Danny (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Need to fix your link, Danny. --Golbez (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Keeping in mind, of course, that online petitions have zero impact in the real world. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
When they're poorly conducted and done with PetitionOnline, yes. I plan to print these out and bind them. ^demon[omg plz] 23:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

IP address rights

This article Google an IP privacy raises some interesting questions about the right of IP addresses to privacy of those addresses. Connecting it to us, we don't break the IP privacy unless there is a good reason (checkuser), but why not let users disclose their IPs. Like a checkbox in Preferences that would like someone see the IP and userid that made an edit? Seems like that wouldn't violate the privacy ideal. MBisanz talk 01:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania 2008

The Wikimania team would like you to present your local Wikipedia projects at the international Wikimania conference in Alexandria! Have a look at the wm2008:Call for Participation! Cbrown1023 talk 15:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Neglected subject area needed for Wikipedia:Academy content drive by novice Wikipedians

Hi all. I'm looking for a good neglected subject area that would be ideal for a Wikipedia:Academy content drive that we're planning as a collaboration between New York City-area Wikipedians and the Columbia University chapter of Students for Free Culture. I'm envisioning basically a large computer lab classroom, where students would learn the basics of Wikipedia editing, and then take on some big subject that we aren't covering as well as we should.

To fulfill the criteria, the ideal subject area should be:

  • Fairly neglected on Wikipedia, where many articles are non-existent or stubs.
  • Fairly broad, because there will be maybe a couple dozen people working on different articles.
  • Something that doesn't require specialist knowledge to write on, and in fact something that complete novices could contribute to.
  • Something that has abundant sources, particularly sources that are online or found in most academic libraries. Subjects that have well-established bibliographies would be best.

Suggest away!--Pharos (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I alone in feeling that the criteria are somehow self-contradictory. For example, the neglect in some topics in Wikipedia is often due to the problem that there are not enough sources that can be found online or libraries in the English-speaking countries, maybe because they are usually of interest to non-English speakers. The criterion 3 means that some obscure math topics, for instance, are off-limits. My advise would be to play on the strength. If editors are native English speakers, there are lots of articles that can use copyedit or improvement on prose. The problem is, of course, that kind of task might not be exciting. Anyway, good luck for the project. -- Taku (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Oh, you should see Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, though the project looks somehow dormant. -- Taku (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking more about topics that are maybe neglected because they're not as natural a fit for Wikipedia's dominant demographic, which is technology-oriented young people. So, one of the Free Culture Columbia people suggested that we focus on the Humanities, maybe literary history.--Pharos (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that you are underestimating the number of Wikipedia contributors. Even if you take "Wikipedia's dominant demographic" out of the total, there are still an awful lot of us non-dominant types who have been beavering away for the last six years. The "low-hanging fruit" has already been picked. Having said that, a specialist topic like literary history that fits your novice demographic is probably a good choice. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the "low-hanging fruit" has been picked in every subject area. I was thinking more of "medium-hanging fruit", and there are more of these in the Humanities. I'm to a large extent a "non-dominant" type myself, but I think we can all recognize that we're somewhat less extremely comprehensive in that domain. For example, there are so many books by highly notable authors that don't have articles on. The one major area where our science and technology domain falls short in terms of missing articles is probably agriculture, and that's another option I've been considering.--Pharos (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Well, good luck with your idea anyway. It sounds like a good one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Are your students over 21? :p If so, I'll be glad to nominate the Wine Project's 1000+ stubs and nearly 800 starts. Not to mention the abundance of red links on important articles like List of grape varieties, List of champagne producers, List of Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée wines, List of Italian DOC wines, etc. Plus, I know the project could help with a list of other important-need to create articles like History of French wine, British Columbia wine, History of Australian wine, Vine training systems, List of winemaking equipment etc. If wine doesn't tickle your fancy, I recommend looking at various Wikipedia:WikiProjects that have active assessment programs like we do at the Wine Project. That way you could have a ready made list of starts, stubs and maybe missing articles that your team could work from. AgneCheese/Wine 06:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you are referring to systemic bias, at least to me. I don't think that Wikipedia is written mostly by "technology-oriented young people" is still the case. The problem of "neglected topics" more has to do with the fact that contributors are mostly from the West. But I guess the class project isn't about attacking this bias. -- Taku (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I considered this approach, but I was concerned that a specific non-Western focus might raise issues with criteria 3 and 4. If you have any suggestions on a good way to approach this...--Pharos (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Literature, as mentioned above, is a good topic. A lot of authors' pages are little more than stubs (or missing entirely) yet sources should be abundant: publishers and authors' websites will list publication, marketing and sales details as well as biographical and bibilographical information; searches of newspaper and magazine archives will yield critical reviews. Academic writers will also reward investigation through university and academic websites. Participants can feel they are contributing to a communal project, yet also follow their personal preferences by selecting authors/writers/academics in their own field of interest or expertise. Gwinva (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Notable academics is another worthy choice. Others would be lesser known but notable artists, musicians, philosophers, etc. Likewise business people, scientists, and so on. Some areas are covered well by Wikipedia; others not so much. Perhaps one approach would be to ask the students to list people who are not pop culture icons whom they personally believe should be included, and then check to see who is here and who isn't, and then as a class take note of categories that emerge as neglected. Another approach: have them go to the list of stubs and look for names that they recognize. Here's a link to the 198 sub-categories of the category "stubs": [2]. That would be a good starting place should you wish for them to explore and learn for themselves what areas are neglected. -Jmh123 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Any article writing scheme in principal of course is an excellent idea particularly if it is Columbia students. More lecturers and school teachers in my view can use wikipedia as an educational tool not only for reading but for writing practice. As you may be well aware there is significant uneveness all across the project but inevitably some areas are far weaker than others, particularly in relation to the domination of Anglo-Centric/American articles in proportion to the content of the rest of the world. For me personally, geographical articles are very important to an encyclopedia and if you browse through some of the categories of African cities for example the number of articles and indeed depth of them is nowhere near what it could or should be. I doubt very much though that any new articles would have enough references to develop it beyond a stub, but I sincerely hope eventually countries in Africa will develop enough to increase the relaying of info on the web.

What I would recommend however, is to point them to the core list, Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Articles, which lists encyclopedia articles which many of us consider a core article but at present is shockingly lacking either in content, conciseness or quality. Veropedia for one has highlighted some of these articles many of them only a start class which need a great deal of development e.g River Seine etc which should ideally be a lot more detailed. It may of course depend on the subject as some of the teachers/lecturers may recommend work in a given subject. Other than this I would link them to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedia articles where there are detailed lists (far from complete though) a missing articles. Also perhaps see the categories which have been tagged as requesting for expansion by populating with new articles; I'm certain there are many.

Other than this I believe as suggested above the focus should be on Non western articles. For me counteracting systematic bias is perhaps the most important goal of this project.

If you have any further questions feel free to give me a bell. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 13:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

I know admins can put {{Administrator}} on their userpage. Is there something like that for non admins. Charles Stewart (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be cool to have one that said: "I refuse to be an administrator."  :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You can use {{User wikipedia/Non-Administrator}} if you want. Depending on your sense of humor, you can find some edgier ones in Category:Admin user templates. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Coming out of retirement

Is it worth coming out of retirement? About half a year ago, I decided to step away from Wikipedia, and give myself a break. I came back, checked my talk page, found only some notices by folks who obviously didn't read it, and I'm wondering if I should come back, or stay away. I'm not sure it's worthwhile or not. Anyone else have any thoughts? And yes, I understand not saying my reasons for retiring may be a problem, but I don't want to get into a discussion of them. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I've decided to retire for a while again. See folks in six months. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

2008 election for U.S. president

Barack Obama is almost certainly going to win. However, the election is very important for WP's reputation. I would like to ask people to keep an eye on the articles about both candidates to make sure that WP is not seen as favoring one over the other unfairly, whatever our personal preferences might be. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Barack Obama is almost certainly going to win." That's debatable ;-) --Agüeybaná 01:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, we have about 8 and a half months left to debate. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Um... "Barack Obama is almost certainly going to win ... make sure that WP is not seen as favoring one over" Mr.Z-man 04:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that WP could change the outcome of the election if we tried, but we could ruin our reputation for impartiality. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Right now it looks like each candidate's article is being defended against rivals' supporters and loose gonzos by supporters of each. It seems to work alright. Should there be some kind of team or committee overseeing all of the 2008 campaign articles? Borock (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. There is probably some kind of Project United States Politics already. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Experiment

I think it would be useful to conduct more experiments on Wikipedia to find out the practical implications of proposed policies, processes, etc. However, certain experiments require more coordination than others; and therefore despite a lot of talk and creative ideas about, for instance, deletion reform, we have not had much actual experimentation in these areas. I am seeking more input into how we can facilitate this and accordingly have written the beginnings of a new essay, Wikipedia:Experiment. Absidy (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has any experiments they would like to publicize, I encourage them to post at Wikipedia:Experiment/Current experiments. Absidy (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


For reference, Absidy is busy conducting an experiment in democracy at Wikipedia:Delegable proxy. So far, he's been busy creating 'experimental' sockpuppets to prove his point that the process would 'work'. Ahem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Letter of assigment

I would like to know whether Wikipedia do issue letter of assignment to acknowledge their editors. I'm referring this not only to the English WP but also to the other versions.

Are editors at WP issued a letter of assignment to proved that they are representing Wikipedia? 60.50.184.160 (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No. I believe Wikinews has some process of accreditation of reporters, but we don't.-gadfium 08:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What is this stange thing?

Image:Hove jesse.jpg features lot of strange text and categories. Couldn't make anything of it. What is this bizarre thing? Can anyone check? Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The page transcluded another page by mistake. I've removed it. Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

IPs can't propose delete?

78.86.18.55 (talk · contribs · count) says, IP addresses can't take articles to AfD (see Talk:Toe cleavage). Is it so? I haven't been able to find the appropriate policy. Aditya(talk • contribs) 21:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

News to me. Certainly isn't blocked by any settings in the MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
But IPs can't create pages, which is a required part of the AfD process. MBisanz talk 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Missed that - right you are - AfD requires creating a discussion page. I think some of the other XfDs don't have separate pages for each discussion (but that wasn't the question, so it's not on point.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone help me to nominate the article on Toe cleavage for AfD? It has been nominated once before, and I can't get the new discussion page started. Aditya(talk • contribs) 22:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
To me it doesn't seem to deserve deletion. It takes all kinds, I guess. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

References take too long to load

In surfing articles that have more than 50 or so references, I have found that WP takes longer to load these articles and sometimes stops entirely, that is, when my browser doesn't crash all together. Since I don't have any remedy to propose, I was wondering if this has ever been addressed before or if any proposals are being considered. If not, what can be done? Regards. --Old Hoss (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You could propose adding a hide/show box. It might not make you popular, but it would address your issue. superlusertc 2008 February 26, 15:46 (UTC)
I think I remember something like that about a year ago, now that you mention it, but it was abandoned for one reason or another (something to do with academic concerns if I remember correctly). Maybe that was a scoll-box. If a hide/show box is proposed, it would need to default to "hide" or it would be moot. It could then be defaulted to "show" in the "Printable version" for academics. That could be an reasonable proposal. Any other ideas? --Old Hoss (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Aren't show/hide boxes generally implemented in script? If so that would not address his issue.
The real question here, is why is a textual list of fifty things noticeably slowing this person's web surfing experience? Or worse, crashing his browser? This doesn't make sense, and may indicate a problem with either Old Hoss's browser or the way the references are coded as HTML.
I haven't noticed any problem, but I do notice that articles with a lot of references tend to be long with lots of illustrations as well. 72.10.110.107 (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • References over 50-ish slow a page down causing a slight "hiccup" at the tail-end of the page, on any computer I use (not that big of a deal); references over 150 usually result in a delay (which is frustrating if you just wanted to check the categories or templates); references over 200 occasionally result in a stall or a crash on some computers I use. I should have clarified that. I do not believe it is my browser (Firefox 2.0.0.12) or the computers themselves. However, even it it is, this still would be a beneficial discussion for editors who use public (read:ancient) computers. --Old Hoss (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The scroll box proposal was probably discussed at WT:FOOT; try a Control-F search for "scroll" or in the archives. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Scrolling ref template deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_11#Template:Scrollref. –Pomte 18:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's it. The scroll box was mildly helpful in this situation, but I agree it had too many drawbacks, as per the TfD. When clarifying my request above, I realized what was slowing down the page probably has something to do with {{reflist}}, which seems to use the underlying code from <references />. I don't know if that can be improved or not? Or if it can be loaded separately or optionally? Just thinking out loud.... --Old Hoss (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Something you might try: Use "Save as" in your browser to save a copy of the whole page in a directory/folder on your disk drive. Then restart your browser and access the saved .html from your disk (Try a URL such as file://C:/ or file:///home). Because you're reading from the disk, the server timing is not an issue. If you find it is still slow then the speed issue is in your browser. It probably is a browser issue, because by the time you start seeing the page the references tools have probably finished emitting all the page. A secondary problem may exist in whether Wikipedia could emit code which browsers can process more quickly. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I saved it to my desktop (I'm using the United States article BTW), but it still generated/recalled each reference one at a time. I unclicked "load images automatically" to create a more controlled test. The normal text loads fine, then a hiccup until each reference generates, then the templates after the references load fine. Doesn't this point to the {{reflist}} function? --Old Hoss (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I may see the issue. Tell me, do you see any difference in load times for User:Superluser/United States copy? superlusertc 2008 February 27, 02:18 (UTC)
Wow, by eliminating the columns in the references, the page loaded more than twice as fast (with a cleared cache, I loaded your page, then the real article). It still hiccuped when it recalled each reference, but since it did not have to re-factor the column (I guess), it was not near as slow. However, playing devil's advocate, it does not look as "nice" as it does with columns, so I am not sure if it would be readily accepted. It is a definite improvement from a speed aspect, though. --Old Hoss (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
According to the reflist documentation, only Firefox and Safari support multi-column layout. According to Usage share of web browsers, that's about 17% of browsers, and it requires a page with lots of references and a two-column layout for this Mandelbug to show up. No wonder the issue hasn't been dealt with. It should probably be dealt with before a rollout of CSS3 on Internet Explorer, since after that we'll probably start getting a lot of complaints. Is there any way to tell the browser not to split it into columns until after the full list is downloaded? In any case, I'll post a note on Template talk:Reflist.
Which browser are you using, anyway? superlusertc 2008 February 27, 04:34 (UTC)
I am using Firefox 2.0.0.12, thanks. --Old Hoss (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What in the world?

I stumbled across this user talk page, and I didn't quite know what to do with it. What in the world should we do with this? Zouavman Le Zouave 22:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:MFD, {{prod}} it. If someone removes the prod before it is deleted in 5 days, then nominate it for deletion. If you do not want the hassle, you can simply blank the page and be done with it. Regards. --Old Hoss (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I simply removed it (edited out, not deletion of the page) and left him a note, explaining what user and user talk pages are for, and pointing him at the user page guidelines. No need for PROD or MfD. --MCB (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

NYT under attack

The New York Times article has been under attack in the last few days. Vandals are especially changing the Times' motto "All the news that's fit to print" to various other versions. 67.101.40.48 (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is probably a response to the John McCain scandal article in the NYT, which has dominated the media. We'll deal with it like any vandalism. Dcoetzee 20:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It has dominated the media? I don't see the topic in the NYT article. Is something happening which should be documented someplace? -- SEWilco (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Probably not - it's all over the news today but everybody will probably forget about it in two weeks. The original article: [3]. Some response articles: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Dcoetzee 00:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi 67.101.40.48. You seem to be one of the people doing this. If you stop the problem will be much less. Not that it's much of a problem since the vandalism only lasts a minute or so. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia breaking Notability policy to self-promote?

There have been a couple of AFDs concerning wikipedia articles on foreign language wikipedia websites. Now there's another one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawaiian Wikipedia which asks as an exemplar, is a website of 1216 pages of mostly single line sub-stubs authored in the main by a single person, notable? Your opinion is welcome. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an extended version of the point I added to the deletion discussion, but the size of the Wikipedia isn't directly relevant (see WP:NOTBIGENOUGH) but it's whether it's had mention in reliable sources. No sources whatsoever have been added for the Hawaiian Wikipedia, and it doesn't claim notability, so fails WP:WEB. Keeping it just because it's about Wikipedia borders on violating WP:ASR. • Anakin (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

UK Department of Health

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/172614/department-of-health-banned-from-wikipedia.html

Anyone know what IP this is? The article makes the factual error of assuming a {{sharedIP}} template on the talk page implies that this is the reason why it is blocked. —Random832 20:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

New essay

User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/The vandals are winning!

Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Connections to real-world objects and locations

I've got this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Connections to real-world objects and locations, which is probably the right place for it, but I'd like to mention it here too.

There are a lot of ways people are making connections between Wikipedia and objects and locations in the real world. See WikiMapia and Placeopedia, for instance. One neat project is http://semapedia.org (scroll down to "latest tag sightings", and also see the wikiproject at WP:Semapedia), which loads software into cellphones that allows you to take a picture of a 2-D barcode, translate to a wikipedia url, and then read a mobile-appropriate version of the wikipedia page on your cellphone or PDA. But that's just one way to do it, and we don't need to stop at tagging historic or interesting locations. We might have a database of UPC codes, for instance, that matches consumer goods with relevant Wikipedia pages. RFID could play the same role, now that the technology is cheap and common...smart cards containing RFID chips are very common outside the U.S., and the chips are common for inventory tagging, electronic toll collection, and many other uses in the U.S. An extensive bibliography of academic papers on projects connecting the real world to the web (not specifically Wikipedia) is http://www.purselipsquarejaw.org/2006/03/internet-of-things-working.php (not updated in the last two years). It seems to me this has potential as a meta-project...that is, it might give people a new way of looking at previous work they've done on Wikipedia, new ways to point others to the material they're proud of, and new reasons to want to polish it up. Any interest in this? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always wanted to do a sort of Hitch-Hiker's Guide based on this. You know, you find a tag outside of a restaurant somewhere, scan it, and find an entry on the restaurant, why the food there is terrible and why you should go to the diner two streets back. It's not exactly Wikipedia, but yes, there is interest. superlusertc 2008 February 29, 06:06 (UTC)
Just think, if you get the right equipment, learn how to use it, hunt around for the proper tag, you can get zipped into wikipedia on your cell phone and read "n00b is GAY!!!!" out in the street without having to use your computer! Awesome!- DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Or, someone could hand you something or take you to a place that you're unfamiliar with, and you could get trustworthy, vandal-free information about the place or thing from Version 0.7. But I'll accept an infinite amount of disgruntlement from the man who created Erma Bombeck and Bert Lahr. :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WTH! Wacky images.

What the heck! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_people The picture is wacky when you look at it from the article the fourth picture on the right hand side on top has a woman and a man walking. The woman is wearing a white coat and the man is wearing a black suit. But when you click on the image it magical changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Japanese_People.jpg Now there is lady and a man standing by microphones and the lady is wearing a gold dress.

Can someone tell me why does this happen? I've noticed this in a lot of other articles as well. The image alone if clicked on changes from the one used in the article. Its trippy and kind of weird. Especially since its only one picture that changed. Thank you.71.142.242.233 (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

Thanks for noticing. It was a technical problem. See Wikipedia:Purge. Basically, you needed to recreate new thumbnail files. -- Taku (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WP talk page question leads to 15 minutes of fame (sort of)

A year ago I asked on Talk:Bradley effect#Could there be a reverse Bradley effect? if there could be a "reverse Bradley effect", that is black voters saying they were going to vote for Clinton and really voting for Obama. Now it seems like the expression "reverse Bradley effect" has become fairly well-used by commentators. Not that it wasn't obvious enough for someone else to come up with of course. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a Yahoo search for "reverse Bradley effect". Do you think all 2,780 people got it from WP? Borock (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's fun to pretend we are that influential. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipage shortcut prefixes

I just became aware that some Wikiprojects have WPP as the prefix to their shortcuts. Such as WPP:MUSIC. When did this start? Why did this start? Why does it need to be different that the usual WP? Why is it WPP and not WWP (for Wikipedia:WikiProject)? That would also make it easier to distinguish, IMO. For example, there is already a link to WP:MUSIC. Can someone shed some light on this for me, or point me to a discussion? Thanks. -Freekee (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be different than the WP prefix precisely because of the example you used: WPP:MUSIC goes to a WikiProject, WP:MUSIC goes to a guideline. As for WPP, I suspect that is "Wikipedia" "Project".
You might want to bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Namespace; that's where pseudo-namespace prefixes like WPP are most commonly discussed, I think. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. -Freekee (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_8&oldid=1141484730"