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 post on the policy, technical, or proposals pages, or - for assistance - at the help desk, rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79

Problem on Era conversion

This topic has been removed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

Catalogue of all Natura

I am creating a tree diagram catalogue of everything in "Natura" You can see me progress at User:Drew R. Smith/Natura.

Questions? Comments? Criticism? Any ideas where and how this can be used in article space?

Thanks in advanceDrew Smith What I've done 05:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A diagram with text that is only readable at full resolution (taking up the entire screen), and then just barely, probably isn't useful for Wikipedia articles. You might want to ask for help at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately with the program I am using it's the only way. I'm thinking I'll provide a list form as well, but I really like the tree. Aside from functionality issues, what do you think? Worthwhile?Drew Smith What I've done 00:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! The Family Tree images of, for example, German Kings, require the whole screen but are some of the most interesting (and useful) on Wikipedia. You can link to it (rather than 'transclude' it) in articles, as the aforementioned image does. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. I'm in the middle of some RL stuff, but when thats over, I'll be back at it.Drew Smith What I've done 01:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Kings of Germany family tree is the article, WhatLinksHere should give you confirmation it is used, and how. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, any idea what software was used to create that? My software gets extremely sluggish after a hundred or so branches...Drew Smith What I've done 10:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No, but you could ask. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Three points:

• I find the purportedly explanatory link to Natura most amusing.
• You do know that "Tellusque" is "Tellus" plus "-que" and not the actual name, don't you?
• The English language Wikipedia already has an outline of knowledge, in English, and doesn't really need a Latin language one. Have you considered working on the the Latin language Wikipedia?

  At the very least you should interwiki link your Latin language article titles to the correct language Wikipedia. All of these pages already exist on the Latin language Wikipedia and (unlike our Mare article, for example) even discuss the right subjects: Natura, Mundus, Tellus, Universum, Caelum, Terra, Aqua, Aër, Ignis, Mare, Continens, Nubes, Flumen, Venti

Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I would work on the Latin wikipedia, but I don't know a lick of Latin. As for the links, I put them in, and didn't bother to chane them once I realised they didn't go to the right place. I am currently working on a better way to format the tree, before I actually take it live on any wiki.Drew Smith What I've done 14:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Create Account Page Error

Just pointing out that there is an error on the create an account page. The small text, in regards to e-mails reads "(Your e-mail address is never given to anyone, with one exception: if you e-mail another user, your the e-mail address is provided to the recipient to enable him or her to reply.)"

The word which I have bolded should be removed so this sentence makes sense. That is something that should be corrected. Muffhen (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this text. Perhaps it has been fixed? - BanyanTree 22:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It was still there when you posted but it's only seen by logged out users. I have fixed it.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff. It wasn't a good thing to have potential new members reading. ;) -Muffhen (Talk) 06:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

AntiAnnonymism

Could someone define how well are the Annonymous editors treated by old users? aghnon (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We like to hit them with our canes and tell them to get off our lawn[2]! Or is that not what you mean by "old users"? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually meant how do "experienced" users treat the Annonymous . aghnon (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by Annonymous in this case?©Geni 10:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If you mean 4chan Annonymous, we generally beat em off with a stick, unless they were good contributors 'before it was revealed that they are Annonymous

If you mean IP's we generally beat em off with a stick.Drew Smith What I've done 15:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I would like to know better the english Wiki-slang. aghnon (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not very helpful Drew. Contributions are generally judged based on the contribution and not the contributor. Editors are welcome to contribute whether they register a user name or operate "anonymously" via an IP address. There should not be any discrimination against an editor because they choose not to register an account. Likewise, anyone who violates core policy, or otherwise disrupts Wikipedia will suffer various kinds of sanctions. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

So what is the actual situation? aghnon (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you asking? Wikipedia core policy can be found here. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 23:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the actual situation (I assume you are asking what actualy happens, and not what policy says) is pretty much what I described above. If an annonymous edior (I.E. and IP in wiki slang) even bends a rule slightly they will get a templated warning. If the IP pushes the point with an argument like "so and so does it" or "registered users get away with it" they are usually blocked fairly quickly. I.E. beating them off with a stick. If anyone sticks up for blocked IP's people automatically assume they are a sockpuppet of the IP, even if they have a substantive edit history to prove otherwise (its happened to me, so don't say it doesn't happen). Usually, policy is widely ignored when it comes to dealing with IP's, unless said policy is useful for aiding in the beating of an IP.Drew Smith What I've done 07:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As I thought, thats what usually happens in hebrew. aghnon (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well this is a very disheartening summary. I for one never discriminate against IP editors. Telling people that this is how we do things isn't helping the situation Drew. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 22:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't do it, but I have witnessed it many times. I'm just telling it like it is.Drew Smith What I've done 03:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Images on articles not loading?

I would say for the last four months or so, I have noticed our images either not loading, or loading very slowly, particularly in infoboxes. Is it just me? -->David Shankbone 15:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've not noticed any problems. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 19:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing, slow loading images recently. Not as long as four months, though. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Malaysian writers includes brief bios

The List of Malaysian writers includes five rather brief biographies. Is this usual for a list? I expect a list to include no more material than names, dates, and perhaps a one line identification. In at least one case, I would think the material could become a stub class article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Renaming "peer review" to "internal review"

This post is a notice for a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Peer review#Renaming "peer review" to "internal review". Please participate in the discussion at the link above. Thanks! Ecto (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Association of friendly geezers

Announcing a new page for Wikipedians who oppose ageism. If you appreciate good volunteer work from fellow editors regardless of age, please consider joining. Durova^Charge! 23:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It defines "geezers" as over the age of 30! Thirty?!?!?!?! Now I do feel old. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked some--erm--teenagers for advice about the cutoff... ;) counts gray hairs and cries Durova^Charge! 00:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

We now have an anti-ageism group with an age requirement for membership? Is this some kind of joke? Algebraist 10:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the page. It's practically humor. ;) On a more serious note, though, a lot of people presume that everyone who opposes ageism is very young. This helps dispel that. Durova^Charge! 15:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait for the Wikipedia:Association of cranky geezers. Or is that redundant with Wikipedia:Association of geezers? --Kbdank71 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Old Joke... Good news: a recent poll of University aged women shows that they think middle aged men are smarter, sexier and better in bed than younger men. The bad news is that they define "middle aged" as 25-30. Blueboar (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Licensing Change

There are a number of pages that may need looking at for licensing changes. For example:

• Wikipedia:User page
• Wikipedia:TourBusStop
• Wikipedia:FAQ/Overview
• Wikipedia:How to import articles
• Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

A number of the pages that link to the GFDL article page may also need looking at. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Monsters Inc. 2

There has been a lot of argument about Monsters Inc. 2 on List of Pixar films. Any official confirmation?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

acceptable academic resources

Why do you think wikipedia is not considered acceptable academic resources for my assignment in school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.63.10 (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia#A caution before citing Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As a history teacher I can tell you why I don't allow my students to cite Wikipedia... from an academics view, there is a fundamental flaw to Wikipedia. It is "The Enclyclopedia that anyone can edit"... which means that anyone can edit, whether they know what they are talking about or not, whether they are pushing an agenda or not. This means that, at any given point that my students might be reading an article, the information in that article might not be trustworthy. However, you are incorrect in saying that Wikipedia is not considered an acceptable academic resource... I concider it an excellent resource for compiling a bibliography. It containes a plethera of reliable sources on a wide range of topics, so as a bibliographical resourse it is first rate. Blueboar (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

bibliografy references

Hi, Could I make an edition on Neologism informing thai it comes from latin and sânscrit if I cite a portuguese reference (it comes from morfologic tree of Neo (new) that derives from latin novus, nova, novum and sanskrit návah<ref>Dicionário Morfológico da Língua Portuguesa, por Evaldo Heckler, Sevaldo Back e Egon Ricardo Massing - São Leopoldo, UNISINOS, 1984. 5v</ref>)?

Thanks for attention, Nevinho (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you bring it up on the Talk page for the article, but as it's clearly from the Greek, your source seems mistaken. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Portuguese Languase morfologic dictionary is a trusty source. I don´t think a five volumes wich collect more than 5000 famyly trees of several words and have been done by a seriously doctores may be wrong. I'll discuss it on the talk page. thanks, Nevinho (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Michelin-starred restaurants

Inherent notability? Or rather, can notability be safely assumed for any Michelin-starred restaurant? Two stars? Three stars? Assuming, of course, that the article is not overly promotional, etc. WP:Notability (restaurants) isn't exactly clear given the lack of an outcome. Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 13:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• I would presume notability for any restaurant with a star. The stars are awarded very sparingly and only to a handful of the very best restaurants; thus, I think a Michelin star is equivalent to the sorts of awards that establish notability in other fields. Any restaurant that gets a star will also undoubtedly be the subject of multiple articles or reviews in food/cooking magazines or by the food critics of other publications. As an aside, if you're interested in a wider array of views you may want to crosspost/move this thread to a page frequented by notability regulars. Cool3 (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Any suggestions? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 17:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I suppose you could check in at WP:WikiProject Food and drink. You could also ask at the Humanities reference desk, as some of the regulars there are probably au fait with such things. Not necessarily to ask "is this good enough for Wikipedia", but more along the lines of, "what does it take to be a Michelin-starred restaurant? What does it mean? Who decides? Just how common are the lower-ranking stars?" From good answers to those questions, you should easily be able to judge notability. Maedin\^talk 18:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the suggestions Maedin. The question is more, I suppose, "If I created 50 stubs tomorrow for Michelin starred restaurants, would people try to delete them?". I'm thinking not at the moment, so I may well do that. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 18:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I'd just check in at Wikipedia talk:Notability and maybe cross-post at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). I think if you are actually creating 50 stubs tomorrow, you shouldn't run into trouble, and I'd be willing to help you out with sourcing (so if this isn't just hypothetical leave me a message). Cool3 (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
          • (Out of sequence reply) That's an idea. I'm not sure whether I actually would though; I think I prefer the speckling that threads here receive rather than a full review with commentary. And it looks like it's a goer anyhow. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 18:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Before you have a stub-creating spree, remember that it is better for Wikipedia to have 5 DYKs than 50 stubs. It pains me to see articles that could easily be expanded and on the main page left as stubs because of a rush to create. If you do make stubs, let me know at the time so I can check them out and see what can be expanded within 5 days. I would imagine that some restaurants with lots of reviews, change of owners, and brisk business could have enough material for 1,500 words. Thanks, :-) Maedin\^talk 18:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Sure. The point is that nothing existed on these restaurants before; 0 bytes. Anyhow, that's a debate to save for another day. (I've signed up for WikiCup 2010 btw, so don't worry about where my loyalties lie.) - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 18:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Ok, :-) Sorry if I was trying to teach you to suck eggs! Maedin\^talk 18:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• (random outdent). Take a look at Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants and chefs, it looks there are about 150 articles on Michelin starred restaurants already, and many (most?) 3-stars seem to have articles. All of the 3-star restaurants in New York, for example, are already the subject of an article. Cool3 (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) encompassed businesses such as restaurants from its very first versions onwards. It even used restaurants as some of its examples, during its history. There is no blanket notability, nor should there be. Notability is not a blanket, and attempting to locate blankets by applying short-cuts, be they stars, number of employees, or other metrics, yields bad results. They get us business directories. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. The primary notability criterion is the one to apply. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

userpage to delete?

Does it make sense to have a user page (with 3 personal images in it) of a user who never made any other edits than the one to create his userpage 4 months ago? See User:Darren O'Connor. Sorry if that's the wrong place to ask for. --Túrelio (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion template

Resolved

 – Click23 (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have seen a deletion template for fixed articles that had copyright issues. I asks an admin to delete out copyright revisions back to a specific point after someone edits out the copyright material, but I cannot seem to find now. Any know what I am talking about?? Thanks! Click23 (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone else found it for me, {{Copyvio-histpurge}}. Click23 (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Attention AWB users!

This a general notice to all AWB users: you can now install the Fronds plugin, and contribute towards improving it. Find/Replace On Demand Services (FRONDS) are collaboratively-created blocks of Find-Replace combinations for AutoWikiBrowser, where knowledge can be shared for maximum efficiency. All AWB users are invited to try them out, and make suggestions. Don't know anything about regular expressions? Fear not, you can still enjoy using the plugin. Fronds is particularly suitable for those collaborating to make repetitive edits. Any questions can be directed to the talk page or my user talk page. Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 19:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey that sounds nifty. I've got a block of userboxen I'm gradually migrating from a blocked user to User:UBX. –xeno^talk 19:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope so. At the moment it's hard to get a good understanding of what, in reality, it can and can't help with, but try it out and be sure to let me know how you get on. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 19:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Jp./Kr. vs. Jap./Kor. in commons:File talk:Dokdo Map.png

I am comfusing about Jp./Kr. vs. Jap./Kor. in commons:File talk:Dokdo Map.png. I think that "Jap" is irravant in this map.but user Valentim said this are adjectives of the belonging languages.I simply ask that shortened of "Japanese: X" is "Jap:X".I am not native.I want to know native feelings.--Forestfarmer (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)