Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please try to post within news, policy, technical, proposals or assistance rather than here. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

4000metres = ?

On several different airport pages, 4000 metres mean several different things. It sometimes states 13120ft, 13123ft, yet i've gotten 13124 on my calulator using 1*3.281. Which is the most correct? It is very confusing...

The actual conversion from meters to feet is 1 foot = .3048 meters [1]. Multiplying meters by 3.281 is an approximation to this (1/.3048 is actually 3.280839895013, more or less). Using this as the conversion factor, I get 13123.359580052 (which rounds to 13123). However, if we're counting significant digits, 4000 only has 4, so using only 4 digits for the answer yields 13120. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well actually, 4000 only has one significant digit. It depends on the context, if someone is talking about a 4000m race, for example, then we know that it's 'exactly' 4000m and so an accurate conversion is more appropriate, whereas if 4000m means "nearer to 4000m than it is to 3000m or 5000m" then something more crude would be OK. On an airport page I would expect 4000m to meane "at least 4000m" as it's probably talking about runway length and you wouldn't want to be overestimating their length! You could always remove the imperial measurement. MikesPlant 13:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Question...

Why exactly are there idiots in the world who pretend to be gangsterrrr rappers and have horribly made MySpace pages, when in reality, they live in the suburbs?

I believe you answered your own question. ;-) — RJH (talk)

The correct term for idiots who pretend to be gangsters would be wiggers xD. Well to me it would be.

--Kar_the_Everburning 14:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Because they have nothing better to do. Thay also may live with their Mom and also may be total failers in life so let them act Getto and tough thats all they got to live for...A7X 900 21:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly do people drop biased, personal attack statements into wikipedia, and then don't sign their comments? --Jayron32 05:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

i dunno.--Kar_the_Everburning 15:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ninjas or Pirates?

There is a big discussion going on about ninjas and pirates. the disscusion topic is "which is more popular, Pirates or Ninjas?". Everybody has a lot to say about this question so please say what you think and don't be afraid because you need to speak to be heard.

Gogoboi662 11:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Anthony Schade

Pirate all the way! yo ho! yo ho! A Pirates life for me! also people love Caption Jack Sparrow and how many famous ninjas can you list? hmmmmmmmmm? ШнΨ ʃǏĜĤ†¿ ĞІνΣ ÎИ тФ ΤĦƏ ɖĄГĶ Ѕǀɠё фʃ ʈНę ʃФŖĆÉǃ 20:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

pirates spend alot of time so drunk they cant move, the ninja would have no trouble, by theonlysmartoneherelol

Pirates, naturally. ;)--The Corsair 00:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ninjas, clearly. Deco 07:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Pirates. The fact that I'm former Navy has absolutely nothing to do with it. ;) Durova 13:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Pirates will own ninjas any day :P --Kar_the_Everburning 22:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think ninjas may be better disciplined than pirates, but then after watching a docu-drama on the BBC about Blackbeard I think they might be evenly matched.

Also pirate have cannons. Do ninjas have cannons? I don't think so. :P--Kar_the_Everburning 14:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Are they fighting on land or at sea? I'd go with ninjas if on land and pirates if they were fighting on different ships. If they were fighting on the same ship, I'd still go with pirates since they might be better in a melee and would be accustomed to fighting on a ship.

If it were cavemen versus astronauts, I'd go with cavemen as long as there were no weapons, or only primitive weapons like sticks. I think all of the hard work that the cavemen do would make them stronger and they'd probably have experience from fighting with other cavemen. -- Kjkolb 09:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is going to change into a whole different subject because of your post, Kjkolb o.O

If a caveman took somthing from an astronaut, lets say... a laser sword(I'm so immature xD), i think you would run 'cause I don't think an astronaut would have any use for a wooden/bone club.--Kar_the_Everburning 15:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ninjas pwn j00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laelius1031 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Pirates, of course. (Oh, and the fact that my username, minus the numbers, is a synonym for pirate is completely coincedental!) Picaroon9288 00:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

ROBOTS ARE CLEARLY SUPERIOR — Omegatron 01:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

INDEED. SUPERIOR TO BOTH PIRATES AND NINJAS (WHILE STILL INFERIOR TO ROBOTS) WOULD BE THE PIRATE NINJA - Robovski 00:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The answer is perfectly obvious: goven that ninjas and pirate are both good, it surely follows that pirate ninjas (such as Chris) are better mthan either. -- AJR | Talk 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Pirate's DUH!A7X 900 21:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that there are likely far more actual pirates than real ninjas in the world today, I'd say pirates are more popular, even though I personally find ninjas more interesting. But piracy a more popular occupation, judging by acquaintances I have who sail in tropical seas. I've met more people who have encountered real pirates than people who have encountered real ninjas. =Axlq 22:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's because nobody who meets a ninja lives to tell about it! Deco 09:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghost pirates!(i've posted too many time here >.<)--Kar_the_Everburning 14:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• There is a need for more practice of piracy. Ninjitsu is a overrated and loathesome pasttime that need not be afflicted 'pon the peoples of the world. Someday the pirates wil be up in arms and all the Ninja will do is a pretty backflip onto some roof in the horizon, then prance about with flashy stars and I will be in my house laughing and consuming the maids latest affrontary on the consumable medium. May Satan save us all.--R.A Huston 08:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Dude! Ninjas all the way! Kyo cat^meow! 06:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ninjas Clearly way cooler than pirates --Fittysix 03:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ninjas...for obvious reasons... ;) --さくら木 11:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopidity

I've just discovered a brilliant new term that should enter every Wikipedian's vocabulary: encyclopidity [2]! A good article is one of "high encyclopidity". A questionable entry is one of "low encyclopidity" or "questionable encyclopidity". And if someone doubts something is appropriate for Wikipedia, why, they can say "I doubt this article's encyclopidity"! -- Ekjon Lok 02:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've incorporated this new term into my vocabulary with gleeful relish. I also took the first opportunity to use it by following your link. Thanks for helping me become a better wikipedian. :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't we already have the word "encyclopedicness"? --tjstrf Now on editor review! 01:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to think in terms of encyclopediosity, but maybe that's because I'm a big geek :-). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 01:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The word sounds it bit to much like stupidity to me. Sounds more like an insult in a way  YDAM TALK 23:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit late, but shouldn't the word be "encylopedicity?" We talk about an article or tone as "encyclopedic." | Mr. Darcy talk 01:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please Block User:Murdoc666

Please block him! He was a friend that came over to my house (I will not say who he is for personal reason's) and he thought it would be funny to start messing up pages! I found him doing this and told him that people could track this stupid stuff to MY computer and made him get off. Then he told me he thought it would be funny, but I told him it was stupid and to stop. He left not to long ago and he told me he won't and never planned to be a Wikipedia editer. So please block him.A7X 900 17:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month. Durova^Charge! 23:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You have only blocked him for only '1' month! Dude, I'm A7X 900's brother and trust me, Murdoc666 is real bad news! Murdoc666 is a nice and funny guy, but he will come back to ruin some pages. Just erase his profile completely!ZeroThomas 17:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Murdoc666 is a petty little troll. He ponces about and changs things to suit his strange and morbid outlook. I suggest total annihilation before this disease spreads and corrupts Wikipedia.--R.A Huston 08:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey R.A Huston, I really like your User page.A7X 900 17:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Promotion of theft in Wikipedia

I am not sure if this is the proper place for this (please move it to the right place if it is not):

The article Serial Box offers(offered) a link and two images that are directing to a site engaged in theft. In this case, theft of my property.

My company is engaged in producing a shareware product, which means that we sell the registration code for that product. The site referred to by this article is engaged in distributing such registration codes.

Please consider this a fair warning in advance that Wikipedia is actively engaged in promoting and directing to this site. Please also see this as a clarification meant to prevent a claim that you were not aware of this issue. I will not persue legal action if you will quickly move to remedy this but please not that you are now aware of the situation and will have to bear the full consequences of ignoring this. Ori Redler 16:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting situation, which after being posted in a public forum, will naturally solicit feedback from the general Wikipedia populous.

Google links to the site in question. In fact, a Google search on the site name produces over 150,000 hits. If the practice of promoting and directing to the site is illegal, why does Google, a for-profit company bearing greater legal exposure than not-for-profit Wikipedia, engage in this practice?

It will be interesting to see how this request for censorship will be weighed against Wikipedia's apparently marginal (if any) legal exposure and its quest to provide information to the public. To satisfy my own curosity I have bookmarked the page in question to follow how the situation develops. 70.112.29.65 23:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This sort of thing raises interesting questions where I can see both sides of the issue; how far should we go in giving information about illegal activity? Certainly, there are plenty of unlawful things that deserve articles about them, from murder to cocaine, but one wouldn't expect to have a detailed manual on how to commit murder, or contact info for illegal drug dealers. However, it's normal for an article about a company, organization, product, or Web site to have a link to its site where it exists, and we're not generally regarded as liable for the activity there just because we link to it. But on yet another hand, we do generally take down links to infringing things such as copyrighted song lyrics. *Dan T.* 00:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think you have some sort of legal claim against Wikipedia, you should contact the Wikimedia foundation. I don't think any editor should remove all or part of the article in question based on a vague legal threat; let's let the powers that be determine if there's a legal reason to alter or delete the article. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Mr. Darcy. Ori Redler is an editor here and can add or remove material as he sees fit (with the understanding that other editors can do the same). Posting into a forum and demanding that other editors take steps to avoid *the "L" word* is not the proper way to handle this. Legal concerns need to be addressed to the Foundation, not to us as individual editors. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Ori Redler's "vague threat" was misdirected to the readers of this forum, but by doing so he/she opened a needed public debate. A review of the edit log of the page in question reveals an edit war, over the last several months, by those who continually insert the link and those who delete it. The discussion of the page shows that the deletionist editors are well-intentioned, but I can find no Wikipedia legal guidelines that support the need to delete the link. Is there no mechanism to resolve censorship edit wars based on unsubstantiated legal concerns? If not, why not? 70.112.29.65 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for Comment is the mechanism you seek. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but ideally the RfC mechanism should only be used to resolve a policy issue for which a consensus has not already been reached. I would think that this censorship issue has already been resolved. Yet, it seems as though many issues have to be debated again, again, and again. Would anyone, with at least a few years experience as a Wikipedia editor, tell me if this is a fair assessment? 70.112.29.65 11:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make several comments here:

1. I have addressed Mr. Patrick regarding this issue and await his response.
2. There is no question of ligitimacy of a link to the site, because the link is irrelevant to the article's subject matter. The site is linked only because it carries the software, not because it created it.
3. The issue the people adding the link wish to solve is how to get the software quickly. This is why they've added (in the past) a quick google search for it, and so on. This is not related to getting information about the software, otherwise, Wikipedia would also include a link to download a "cracked" version of Photoshop as an external link to Adobe Photoshop.
4. The learned arguments here are based on the assumption that I am, so to say, a "small fry" and will not bother\be able to persue the matter, so we can all go on and bask in the sun while discussing whether it shines. This may be a sensible assumption. The assumption that this will always be the situation and that no one will persue the matter because Wikipedia is "not-for-profit" and we all want what is good is, well, daft. Ori Redler 22:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You've created a legal issue where none exists. You removed the link; it stayed gone. I agree that it was not proper, and in general (and in total I think) we don't link to illegal material. So ... there's no foul here. If someone had put it BACK, you would have a complaint, but basically you yourself removed the only reason for any legal complaint. Thank you for that, but this continued legal discussion is thus no longer necessary. --Golbez 22:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, by your response, Ori does have reason to complain because 1) only one of the three links has been removed and 2) based on the prior history of this edit war, it seems to reason that it is only a matter of time before someone reinserts the primary link.

I think the three recent reinsertions of the link finally "broke the camel's back" and Ori vented here (s/he has been deleting the links for some time now). Ori has got to be wondering, 'When is enough enough?'

Ori, Here is a suggestion for you: Instead of threatening legal action, offer to create a bot designed to find and delete links to sites, which the consensus finds objectionable. There must be many other edit wars over objectionable links. If you offer to help the community to combat, what many see as vandalism, I am sure that Wikipedians would be much more receptive. (Such a bot probably already exists - you just need to get that site name on its "kill list.") 70.112.29.65 03:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not know there had been a war over it, I did not see one in the recent edits; now I look, and if it had been a snake, it'd've bit me. --Golbez 06:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that Ori Redler should be blocked for making legal threats. BenBurch 22:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The art of welcoming new users

Comparing the message I got as a new user here and in http://fr.wikipedia.org , I think there is a room for improvements here. Just compare Jmfayard 11:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

en.wikipedia.org : Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome!

Hello, Village pump (miscellaneous), and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Mike1024 (t/c) 11:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

fr.wikipedia.org : {{subst:Bienvenue | ~~~~ }}

Welcome! ようこそ ¡Bienvenido! Dobrodosli 환영합니다 Willkommen! Добро пожаловать Benvenuti Bem-vindo! 欢迎 Bonvenon Welkom

Bienvenue sur fr:Wikipédia, Village pump (miscellaneous) !

	Wikipédia est un projet de rédaction collective d'une vaste encyclopédie réalisé actuellement dans 250 langues différentes de par le monde. Pour t'aider à tout moment, chaque page du site possède en haut à gauche un lien vers l'aide de Wikipédia. N'hésite pas à consulter les premières indications pour modifier et rédiger des pages dans Wikipédia avec la syntaxe appropriée. Le bac à sable est tout spécialement destiné à accueillir tes essais.
	Sur une page de discussion, n'oublie pas de signer tes messages, en tapant ~~~~ . Cependant, nous ne signons pas les articles encyclopédiques. Je te conseille un petit tour par les principes fondateurs et les recommandations à suivre (règles de neutralité, règles de citation des sources, critères d'admissibilité des articles, conventions de style, etc.) et les pages projets, où il y a sans doute un sujet qui t'intéressera.
	Tu es le bienvenu si tu désires insérer une image ou enrichir les articles, mais il est impératif de respecter des règles très strictes sur l'utilisation des images et le respect des droits d'auteurs.
	Si tu le souhaites, tu peux te présenter sur le journal des nouveaux arrivants et indiquer, sur ta page utilisateur, quelles langues tu parles et d'où tu viens, quels sont tes centres d'intérêt... Enfin, le plus important, je te souhaite de prendre du plaisir à contribuer au projet ! Si tu as d'autres questions, tu peux voir cette page ou bien me contacter.   Jmfayard

Discussion

• I agree that there is plenty of room for improvement, but we of the English wikipedia have no jurisdiction over frwiki; you should take it up on their village pump. -- Eugène van der Pijll 12:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  To be more clear, I think that the template in english could be improved by borrowing some ideas from the template in french (that doesn't mean that you should do a carbon copy of course). I don't speak english well enough to do it. On the other hand, if I wanted to improve fr:Template:Bienvenue, I would of course not come here.

  Cheers,

  Jmfayard 14:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I rather like {{en:Template:Welcome}}. I looked at the available templates and decided that I liked {{welcome}} best (as opposed to more informal templates, or templates like {{welcomeg}} which is more similar to the French one); I think the French one is a bit intimidating and the English one is more likely to be read by a non-user. It might be interesting to compare the templates; it:User talk:ais523 has the Italian welcome on at the moment (generated automatically by bot, which I also disapprove of), which shows a third style of template. --ais523 15:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming is done by volunteers. Nobody is required to welcome anybody. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Jmfayard, your message was lost on at least 90% of us. Could you provide a translation please? 70.112.29.65 04:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My initial experience would have been a good deal less frustrating if I had encountered a note somewhere pointing out that if I don't put wikipedia: in front of a search term there's a whole world of helpful stuff I'll never find, or be able to find again. Cryptonymius 18:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Very, very, very rough translation of French welcome template

(Note: I think Jmfayard was talking more about the general look of the template then the actual words used; but a translation was asked for so here's my (not very good) attempt at translating the words)

Welcome to French Wikipedia (your name here)!

Wikipedia is a project for making a big encyclopedia in 250 different languages from all over the world. To help you right now each page on the site has at the top left a link to the help page.

Don't hesitate to consult the first links for how to edit a page and how to use wiki-syntax. The tutorial is designed especially for you to experiment with.

On a talk page, don't forget to sign your messages by typing ~~~~. However, do not sign encyclopedia articles.

I would advise you to take a look at the founding principals and the rules to follow (rules about NPOV, citing sources, criteria of admission for articles, style conventions, etc.) and the project pages, which you will doubtless find interesting.

You are welcome, if you like, to insert a picture that improves the articles, but it is imperative to respect the very strict rules about using images and respecting copyright.

If you like, you can present yourself at the newcomers page and indicate, on your user page, what languages you speak and where you are from, what your interests are...

And lastly, and most importantly, I invite you to please contribute to the project!

If you have any other questions, you can go to this page to ask them, or contact me.

(And now anyone who speaks French better than I do knows just how bad my French is. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC))

Newspaper Article on Wikipedia

I'm writing an article on Wikipedia for my university newspaper.There seems to be a debate on campus regarding whether or not Wikipedia is a valid academic source. I have read many entries on Wikipedia itself regarding this, but I was hoping to get some feedback from regular users. Say for example, someone changes the text in an entry- how long does it typically take for the information to be corrected? I have heard a whole range of times, from four minutes to four days, but can anyone tell me- is there some kind of notifier that alerts authors when their text has been edited? How can one keep track of the pages they contribute to, aside from constantly refreshing the page? Being that there are a great deal of properly cited articles in the bibliography section of most pages, Wikipedia is seeming more and more like a viable source for academic work, but how trustworthy is it?

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

1. Like any tertiary source, Wikipedia should be used with caution.
2. You should read Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia and various other pieces to which it links.
3. When you say "Say for example, someone changes the text in an entry…" You seem to be presuming that this is a bad thing. But this is exactly how Wikipedia gets written! Now, if you mean they change it in a specifically vandalistic way?
4. The half-life of vandalism is probably minutes, possibly hours.
5. There are all sorts of ways that people track articles. There are watchlists; there are people watching changes in general rather than an article in particular; there are people using RSS feeds to alert them whenever a certain article is touched; there are quite a few other automated and semi-automated tools.
6. When we encounter an egregiously bad edit from a particular account or IP address, we are likely to look into what else the same account or IP address has done; if it is a pattern, then we block them from editing. This means that to be "successful" on a continuing basis, a vandal either has to be atypically subtle or constantly change IP addresses.
7. If you are looking to see a typical pattern of vandalism and reversion, try looking up any article prominently connected to the French Revolution. No real idea why, but it's a much-vandalized area (not quite up there with George W. Bush, but also not as many people watching the articles. Looking at the history of a few of those articles would probably be pretty representative.

- Jmabel | Talk 07:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Bush looks like a chimp.

--Kar_the_Everburning 15:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

References with mandatory registration

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Village pump

Some articles (such as the recently featured spyware article) uses references (in this case The New York Times), which require mandatory registration to be able to see the content. I find this an annoyance, I dislike sites with mandatory registration to be able to access the content and I feel this is a little unfair. I was thinking, maybe there should be a policy or something, to avoid using sites that require registration as references? -- Frap 09:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[End moved]

I share your pain, but as has several times been pointed out, the equivalent problem almost always exists with print sources. I would urge people, though, not to make "blind URL" citations of articles on sites that require registration. For example, with a New York Times article, if you give the author, date, title, and (ideally) page, then it is exactly as useful to a non-registered person as a reference to an article cited from the print version of the newspaper. If you do not do any of these things, then it is exactly as useful to a non-registered person as a stream of gibberish. - Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

We accept citations from 12th century scholars and foreign language sources (sometimes with a user-provided translation, sometimes without). Allowing subscription web service citations is nothing compared to those as far as average user utility is concerned. --tjstrf talk 07:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The only policy or guideline that could be created along these lines would be not to add the link if the layman cannot access the material unless registered. Lincher 02:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Mmm. Linking to a web-version of something you need a subscription to access, but which is available offline - say, an article in Nature - not perfect, but okay. Linking to a web-version of something you need a subscription to access and can't get at otherwise, not very fine... Shimgray | talk | 20:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue the inverse. Linking to something that is only available by subscription and online is the only sane way of referencing that document. For an available online and offline article, referencing the offline version makes far more sense. Though providing a link to the online version for reasons of courtesy would still be acceptable. --tjstrf talk 22:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

American vs. Canadian spelling in color articles

User:Nihiltres edited Blue and Black using a rule that you should always use Canadian spelling in color articles. Anyone aware of this?? Georgia guy 15:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like a pointer to such a rule, as I do not believe it exists. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope. We use the spelling of the first major contributor, which is wehy some articles, like Orange (colour) use British spelling, and some use American, like Color itself. Attempts have been made to harmonise, but arb-com decided that if there is no really good reason to harmonise, harmonising for the sake of it is bad. Steve block Talk 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But User:Nihiltres seems to be changing all of the color articles to his preferred spelling. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Tell them not to. That's disruptive and wastes time. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for our guidelines. — Omegatron 00:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Just looked at his/her contribs - looks like he's going through articles that include both spellings of "color" and changing all instances of "color" to "colour." The relevant guideline states:Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader.

Now, I do have an issue with this user apparently choosing Canadian spellings because s/he considers those "more common," rather than following the guideline of going by the first contributor's usage. I'll post a note on his/her talk page explaining the matter. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm Canadian and i use a mix of Canadian and American spelling. I could care less if it's wrong or not. Actually i don't even pay attention if it's American. --Kar_the_Everburning 15:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems as if there should be a template mechanism that could be used to resolve these dialect spelling issues based on the reader's preference settings. (Although that probably wouldn't work for general viewers.) Perhaps that could be a future wikipedia enhancement? — RJH (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem there is people who use a mixed set. I'm American, and quite adamantly use British spelling for colour, but not for center. Unless we actually had a preference setting for every single variably spelled word I would probably end up unhappy with the results. The easiest solution is for contributors to stay consistent within existing articles, and not go around messing with the spellings for no reason. --tjstrf talk 22:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is addictive

Do you find Wikipedia addictive? I sure do.

oh yeah. - Kar_the_Everburning(not logged in)

Please don't jest about addictions! To be sure -check yourself out at: Wikipedia:Are You a Wikipediholic Test (Oh, and remember to sign your posts next time).--Aspro 18:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Consistency between similar articles

I've noticed that there can sometimes be confusing inconsistency between similar articles (especially the technical ones). For example, when looking for information on the terms grain, crystallite and particle, I get slightly different (and incomplete) interpretations of the same idea. Individually the articles are OK, but when looked at overall, there's a loss of coherence. Do people when working on wikipedia keep in mind how other similar or related articles are written? It seems to me there needs to be more people who edit groups of articles as a whole, to maintain a consistent narrative.

I don't know if my above point has been discussed before, which brings me to my next point. The Village pump really needs some sort of search function so that I don't bring up subjects that have already been covered.

The WP:WikiProject area is generally for people working on related articles, and part of those activities are related to consistency. But you're always free to try and resolve the consistency issues yourself. — RJH (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense vandalism fad

There is a fad right now of blanking pages with nonsense comments and (what makes it a fad) putting the comment into the edit summary. Any clues as to the source of this, such as might it be some campaign cooked up on a juvenile forum or chat room? Hu 20:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's far more benign than you say; it appears to be a new software feature. If the page is completely replaced with something else, it says so in the edit summary, as a warning to vandal watchers. That's my guess, at least. --Golbez 20:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The edit summary should give some indication that it is an automatic notice. Further, a note in the Technical section would be nice, announcing new developments. If there was one, I didn't see it, but I admit I didn't look very hard. Hu 21:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Who writes Wikipedia?

Recently re-read a great article trying to pin down an answer to the question: Who writes Wikipedia? It was so good, I thought I'd post it here so that more people can read it (if they haven't already). Who writes Wikipedia?. Carcharoth 23:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent catch! Good job for letting us know, Carcharoth. The work described by the article is excellent and should be read by all big-time editors here, including some of the followup comments. I am impressed that there is a strong case for the common sense argument that the bulk of real information in Wikipedia comes from the many people who actually know something about which they write. I hope that Jimbo Wales has a chance to read it and digest it. Hu 07:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This essay is very insightful. I was sure I knew the answer to the question above, and I was wrong. ike9898 20:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

University students seek Wikipedia contributors for usage survey

I'm part of a team in a management & organizational analysis at the Stern School of Business at New York University. We selected Wikipedia as the subject of our final analysis, and are specifically interested in what drives people to participate in Wikipedia. To this end we've compiled an anonymous, 5-minute survey that we hoped the Wikipedia community would take part in, everyone from casual readers to editors to members of the Board.

It's available online at http://tramchase.com/wikipedia-survey

Please be as detailed as possible. Your participation is much appreciated!

One might perhaps be able to make inferences about the degree of cluefulness of the survey's designers from the fact that they link back to Wikipedia using the address wikipedia.com, not the more correct wikipedia.org (it's run by a noncommercial organization). *Dan T.* 00:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

small service

I got a camera, and will try to fulfill requests for pictures related to Mexico, hoping an article or two will get improved. See commons:User:Drini/requests -- Drini 23:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As a suggestion you might check Wikipedia:Requested pictures from time to time to see if any requests show up. Also you can always look for article pages on Mexico that are in need of a photograph. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You can also check out Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Mexico. --Sherool (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Portal:China

Please join the discussion at Portal talk:China. --Ideogram 04:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

GFDL question

Can I copy text from Wikipedia into another wiki site that releases its content as public domain rather than GFDL? What if I put a notice at the bottom that said "This article incorporates material from Wikipedia, and some or all of it is subject to copyleft"? A.J.A. 04:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No. If that wiki releases it's contents as public domain then they won't accept contributions which have more restrictive licenses, such as GFDL. In general a copyright notice should identify the copyright owner - e.g. Wikipedia, as you did, though en.wikipedia.org would be better on another wiki. You should mention the actual license - GFDL rather than copyleft. All this so it is easy for others to find out how to reuse our content. Hope this helps Filceolaire 13:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Generally wikis cannot accept content only available under incompatible licenses, unless there's a clause that says something like "except where otherwise specified". Just imagine someone who wants to use an article from your public domain wiki and assumes it's public domain, and so doesn't follow the conditions of the GFDL for Wikipedia-based content. However, in the other direction, public domain content can certainly be added to Wikipedia. Of course, if you wrote the Wikipedia content in question, and no one has edited it since, you can place it under any license you like. Deco 17:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox

Would it be considered spamming to promote WikiProjects, articles in need of attention, and other internal concepts by advertising them in the sandbox, or would it be considered beneficial? --Gray Porpoise 21:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Since this isn't really what the Sandbox is for, it might be considered spamming. You would also need to bear in mind that the Sandbox is quite frequently cleared out, so the message would not be visible for very long. Try the Community Portal instead. Tra (Talk) 22:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

db?

This has been bugging me - in the speedy deletion templates, why does "db" stand for? Why is it not "sd"? —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 04:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"db" is "delete because". -- Rick Block (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

ah, that makes sense! —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 04:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

60S recording artist Judy Collins

Can someone tell me the words 2 the song, Albatross , released in late 60s. i believe some of it goes like, Lady comes to the gate dressed in lavendar (sp?) and leather looking north to the sea, she finds the weather fine. hears the steeple bells--ringing thru the orchird -- all the way from town ...... or something like that...... ...young men bringing violets are curious to know it you have cried and ask you why and tell you why and hear the way you answer...

anyway ,the above is all jumbled up so if you kno the acurate ( 1 c or 2? ) accurate lyrics, please send them along 2 me * ) , ;>) anyway, i dont kno how 2 make those little face things

so, thanks huh? and mahalo nuiloa

Block quote

dont kno who wrote the song, just kno judy collins recorded it in the late 60s

    * )

Google for yourself: +albatross +lyrics +"judy collins" gives this page as the third hit, which brings you immediately to that page with the complete lyrics. Lupo 12:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Article about Wikipedia Users

I am a freelance writer working on an article about the wide array of people who make Wikipedia their life, their passion, their pastime. Wikipedia “addicts” if you will. I’m looking for people just willing to tell their story of how they got sucked into the intellectual whirlwind that is Wikipedia; how you got started editing, how the obsession grew, and what you spend your time focusing on these days? Do you write articles from scratch? Is your main push toward one particular type of article? Do you patrol for typos and errors, or spend your time diligently fixing vandalism? Do you take part in various the “social aspects” of Wikipedia; engaging in animated discussions or decorating your user page with all sorts of internet memes? Do you participate in Esperanza, the Counter Vandalism Unit or other Wiki programs? Have you ever forced yourself to take a “Wikipedia break”? If so, what’s your 20/20 hindsight on the "obsession"? Basically I’m just trying to get an idea of what it’s like for various Wikipedia users, editors and "addicts."

This article is intended to be a light informational piece, nothing too heavy or controversial, just merely introducing readers to a subculture that they likely had no idea existed. So please don’t email me with your conspiracy theories, or your grudge against the Wikipedia hierarchy… unless it directly applies to your overall experience with the site. This article is about the USERS, not about the pros and cons of the site itself.

If you are interested in participating, please email me via my user page.

FFFearlesss 16:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary style violation?

Curious to hear what other editors think of History of the Alaska Aces. Ignoring for a moment the article's cleanup issues, this strikes me as way too much detail for Wikipedia's coverage of a minor league hockey team. Before I rush to propose a pare-and-merge, I thought I'd solicit second opinions. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What is it with Wikipedia and Hurricane articles?

--Ideogram 04:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Context goes here. --tjstrf talk 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ideogram, tjstrf was pointing out that your comment requires context. Please provide some. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything I meant to say was said in the header. --Ideogram 04:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're saying we have too many, or not enough, or that we have the right number but they all suck, or that we're vehemently opposed to articles about hurricanes, or that they're are best group of articles and you can't figure out why, or... CONTEXT! --tjstrf talk 04:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying. I'm asking. Which of those statements do you believe? --Ideogram 05:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Har har, Socrates. --tjstrf talk 05:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite my intent, but that's a philosophical issue impossible to discuss here. --Ideogram 05:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

...I'll be going somewhere else now... If you ever feel like actually asking your question, I'm sure someone else will be able to help you. --tjstrf talk 05:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has 7 featured lists about hurricanes and tropical storms. Whatever it is about Wikipedia and hurricanes, I hope it affects more pages. Durova^Charge! 05:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'll second that! We have tens of thousands of articles that could benefit from that kind of quality and attention to detail. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Count a third vote for the condition that has affected our hurricane articles to spread to the entire encyclopedia! ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Autogenerated edit summaries

Lately I've seen a lot of edit summaries by IPs and new users that say things like, "Replaced page with 'u r a turd'" or "Blanked page" or "Created page with 'blah blah blah'". This seems... odd. I know there had been some talk about autogenerating edit summaries and I'm wondering if that has now been implamented and if that's what I'm seeing. Especially since almost every thing on new pages now has an edit summary that reads like that... When did this happen? And if they are autogenerated, why don't all edits now have some sort of edit summary? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Got an example diff you can show us? | Mr. Darcy talk 18:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Here are some pulled from recent changes and new pages in the last few minutes:

• • • a diff with an edit summary of "Blanked the page"
    • a link to the history of a new article with an edit summary of "(←Created page with 'Elsewhile (n) (EHLS-wyle) - 1. a rarely used coloquialism used to mean "some other time" or "another time". (Derived by the same linguistical logic in which "elsew...')"
    • link to history of new article created with no edit summary (go quick, it could be deleted at any time)
    • [3] a diff with an edit summary of, "(←Replaced page with '
      For other people named Andrew Johnson, see Andrew Johnson (disambiguation).
      {{Infobox_President | | name=Andrew Johnson FAG')"

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-11-20/Technology report, second bullet item. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

So this is a new feature, but only for changes that affect 90% of the article or new articles of 500 words or more. That ought to make life easier for RC and NP patrollers, and anyone looking at their watchlist! Cool. :) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Failed experiments: A method for gaining cooperation

An effort to update the Kennedy Assassination articles using records from PBS and the 1998 work product of the federal Assassination Records Review Board has landed this editor in hot water with a group of editors who like the status quo.

Presently, the group, who believes no new information is needed, has asked this editor be banned for "harassing" them with "Flat Earth" information.

During the course of this arbitration, one of the editors who opposes change, claims he has tried to edit cooperatively. That is good, but his methodology appears flawed. The editor states:

“I don't like you. I think you're an obnoxious jerk.”

Later he explains to the arbitration panel that this:

“[I]s an attempt to find common ground between [the other editor] and myself and move forward with editing the article productively.”

Back to the drawing board. RPJ 21:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)