Just to let you know that I haven't forgotten about Atlas and that I'm nearing completion! But don't get your hopes too high yet, it looks nearly the same as the previous version, and there's still a lot more to be done. -- penubag (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am finished! Phew, found enough time to work all day this weekend, and finished it! I know you'll probably have another laundry list of stuff you want me to do but this time I can edit the image with ease. I actually like this one a lot more than the other one. Atlas actually looks gold. Linky! -- penubag (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the article Serbs already addresses the distinction. It both describes the ethnogenesis of Serbians and notes the global population of the diaspora thereof. The only addition could be a italicized link at the top for direction to individual Serbian people. I cannot see anyone actually starting their search for Serbians with "ethnic Serbians". Serbians already addresses your disambig endeavors in one concise disambig page. Yours is just an echo of the lower half of that page. It seems redundant to me, and your title could easily redirect to the Serbians page. Serbian addresses the word as an adjective for non-people related topics. - CobaltBlueTony™talk17:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. First of all, I think this project will be great for improving Wikipedia's coverage of world topics. I'm still currently busy in real life, so I probably won't have much time to actually work on the project. However, please let me know if there's anything that I might be able to assist with, and great job to you and everyone else who worked on the awards and other items. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)00:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a library. I don't think I can access it from here. Is there web-link access to it? Because I can't load any programs onto the library's computer. The Transhumanist 20:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll do it tommorow - are there any more find/replace tasks that you will have? I can do all the find/replaces in one go, saves doing it again and again! :) TheHelpfulOneReview23:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Watchlisted the page, I already did the one task that you set me for AWB, so I'll wait for some more. You signed twice! :) I'll find out how to use regex, thanks for the links! :) TheHelpfulOneReview21:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Around the world is a wonderful project that really helps the encouragement and development of our encyclopedia. It greatly expands the connection between our articles, something I've long noticed Wikipedia desperately needs. This is just one small step, and a big one in fact! There is only one problem that I notice though, how would anyone find the "List of topics" pages without knowing they exist beforehand? One possible solution would be to add a {{seealso|}} on every page that has a "List of" page corresponding to it. That way people coming from Google and elsewhere can get to these invaluable pages. And, if Around the world works out (no doubtingly), I would be thrilled to help you out on further similar projects. -- penubag (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The portal main page's hits beat ours by over a magnitude. I think this may be because of the interconnectivity between portals and the portal main page: all portals have a navbar at the top that lead back to the main portal page. Our link back to our main page is buried in the footer at the bottom of each outline - very hard to find and click.
Maybe we can emulate the portal model of interconnectivity. Even just a hatnote at the top of each outline (that points back to our main list of outlines) might work.
Another issue is that portals are linked from Wikipedia's Main Page, but the outlines are not. But getting a change implemented to the Main Page is exceedingly difficult. I tried to get a link to the outlines menu page added to the Main Page, and I jumpstarted the redesign of the Main Page (which became the Main Page in 2006) in order to do so - a project that took me months - and I still failed to get the link put in place. Though I eventually (over a year later) got "Contents" added to the Main Page and to Wikipedia's sidebar menu, which in turn lead to the outlines.
By the way, the Main Page is undergoing another redesign as we speak. Dozens of users have entered designs for consideration. But version competitions don't work that well on a Wiki (a painful lesson learned from the 2006 overhaul - similar versions tend to diffuse votes between them, defeating the purpose of an election), so the effort is being redirected to a discussion of features to include on the Main Page. It's a major time sink, so my recommendation would be to wait until after the new Main Page is in place for awhile, and then make a proposal to get links added to it - as was done with the "Contents" link.
Our main objective right now is to build the outline set to critical mass, both in terms of content (to attract readers) and management (to attract volunteers). I'm hoping the set of country outlines and this contest will put us there. If not, there are more outlines in the pipeline, and there are plenty of other recruiting methods we can try. :)
Hi! How are you?? It has been a long time since I've met you. I am extremely sorry. I was occupied with some important work at that time and eventually forgot to message you.
Let me see if I can explain the project in more detail...
We are in the process of expanding Wikipedia's outline of knowledge. The purposes of the outline (which is broken down into many pages, each containing a sub-outline) is to show how the World's knowledge fits together and interrelates, while at the same time serve as a table of contents of Wikipedia (to show how the subjects are structured in this encyclopedia). These country pages we are working on are pieces of it, and when they are done they will be displayed in the Geography section. So far, 28 of them have become complete enough to be useful to readers and have been moved there already. Check it out.
A similar project was undertaken by Encyclopædia Britannica in the late 60's and early 70's called the Propædia. While that was a sentence outline, Wikipedia's outline of knowledge is currently a topic outline (though it is already starting to expand to become a hybrid of the two types).
I think Penubag summed it up best when he said "I think Around the world is a wonderful project that really helps the encouragement and development of our encyclopedia. It greatly expands the connection between our articles, something I've long noticed Wikipedia desperately needs. This is just one small step, and a big one in fact!"
I hope I've helped put this project into perspective for you.
Thank you for supporting Wikipedia and becoming a Wikipedian. I look forward to working with you.
Hello, I know this is not remotely related to Wikipedia, but I figured you could help me. I am currently doing a research paper on humanism, and as you say Humanism comprises your personal values, I was wondering if you could answer a few questions:
As a humanist, what does humanism mean to you?
Why do you find the philosophy attractive? and
Could you direct me to any good examples of Humanist literature?
I'm glad you asked. Note that "humanism" (h) means something different than "Humanism" (H). Uncapitalized, it refers to all humanistic philosophies (seculuar humanism, religious humanism, etc.). Capitalized, it refers to the life stance known as "Humanism". A life stance I have wholeheartedly adopted.
Humanism = getting along. Wars and conflict are the antithesis of Humanism, though this isn't to say that humanists are pacifists - you can't let tyrants run amuck. To get along, we've got to think rationally. As a Humanist I reject supernatural sources of leadership, such as "Do this because God commands it", and I recognize that such commands actually come from the humans who are either pretending to pass along the commands from God (or some other mystical source), or who believe they are doing so. Spiritual leadership is manipulative, it's dishonest, and it gets people killed (by promoting rules such as "you'll be rewarded for eternity in heaven if you die in battle", etc.). To be rational, we've got to approach the attainment of knowledge scientifically, rather than simply take someone's word (such as spiritual dogma) for the way things are. This isn't atheistic, in that anyone can be a Humanist regardless of their religion. It's just that we recognize that while on Earth, problem making and problem solving are upon us. Humans are responsible for all the horrible deeds throughout history, and they are also responsible for all the improvements to society. Our destiny is in our own hands. As a race, we are facing ever greater challenges (the population explosion, runaway technology, potential destruction of the environment, etc.), and we really need to get our act together now.
Humanism = world-wide perspective. We're in this together. Political borders and nationalism create unnecessary tensions (xenophobia, discrimination, etc.) and pit humans against humans, often in violent ways, and that's not good. We need to work together for the wellbeing of all. Transcending borders as world citizens and promoting world government are common themes in humanistic attitudes and politics. But adoption of a world government would require a major attitude-shift world-wide, and giving up our independent militaries. These events seem very unlikely to happen in the near future, but the alternative is increasing international tensions, and the continued presence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
Humanism = humanitarianism, applying our intelligence and resources to solving the problems of humanity, reaching out to others and reaching for our greatest potential, individually and collectively. It's a prescription for the Human Race to grow up.
That's what Humanism means to me, and that's also why I find it attractive.
In studying humanism and Humanism, the very best place to start is with the 3 versions of the Humanist Manifesto (the original, and its 2 revisions). Then browse the material on Wikipedia about humanism, which you can find listed on the Topic outline of humanism. And then to see where it's all headed, read The Singularity Is Near by Ray Kurzweil, and you'll understand why I'm a transhumanist and a singularitarian. I believe it is blatantly shortsighted to stop at humanism (h). Transhumanism (h+) takes a hard look at the future and its implications for the Human Race - what the next step is in our evolution, whether or not it can be controlled humanely, and what will happen to us. Technology is advancing so far and so fast that it may soon outadvance us (all of us) - and that's not something that should be ignored or taken lightly, because it will likely change everything. EVERYTHING. On Wikipedia, you may find the Topic outline of transhumanism helpful in browsing that subject.
I hope I've been of help. Good luck in your research.
I am quite busy at the moment and will take a break soon but i will keep your thought in mind and will keep watch on thehelpful one's talk page, maybe at the end of next month i will be able to offer any help that i can. Best Monster Under Your Bed(talk)09:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, and thanx Fut for the needed cleanup. the "specific languages" you mentioned Trans is non-existent. Greek has a continuity from Homer to me right now. They are called stages and are loosely divided. some say reading books about subjects helps [[1]]CuteHappyBrute (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you've been changing list articles to the plural. Do you plan to change all these then? MOS is ambiguous, so how do you distinguish, I wonder? -- Mentisock10:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only changed titles of articles that include multiple lists in them - each section is a distinct list (that will eventually be split off). Semantically speaking "Lists of" may refer to a list of lists, or to a page that is itself a collection of lists. I figure as long as the title fits, the title is fine. But I was planning on letting those sit for awhile to give the community time to comment before I rename any more.
Speaking of which, while we're on the subject, do you think "Lists of" should refer to lists of lists, or collections of lists, or both?
I don't get the difference. At the beginning why did people just call each article a list? What's different between List of Spaniards and Lists of Andorrans? Technically the former is a list (or multiple sectioned lists, depending on how you see it) with Spanish people which is further categorized according to profession. But if we're going to write about monkeys the article will only be called 'monkey'... that's a similar sort of situation. Essentially lists will always contain a lot of different types of objects anyway, so could you ever have a strictly singular list by that definition? -- Mentisock15:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done adding images to Zimbabwe. I also made a few minor changes to the lead, but nothing major. I'll get started on the adjectives for the rest of the countries tonight, once I know I'll be free to edit for a couple hours. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone21:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The topic outlines look like a great idea, and eventually they could all be linked to the main country article and assessed when more are moved to article space. I see that the articles are still missing a lot of information, such as lots of "[[]]" being displayed, and many red links are present and the articles might need a few more citations. Also, topic outlines are great for countries, but there are also non-independant and disputed regions in the project's country list, and for those areas, which areas need topic outlines and which don't? Some of these may seem controversial or POV to some especially if there are flags that are not officially recognised. (For example, Taiwan is not recognised by the United Nations as a country, and the topic pages for Somaliland, Kosovo, Azkhabia etc all indicate that they are disputed.) Most of the topic outline drafts under construction have enough blue links and are almost ready to start being moved to mainspace. However, as I noticed in topic outline of Zimbabwe, many "main articles" and other links which are part of the topic are still redlinked, and even though I'm more of an eventualist than an immediatist, more of those links should be either created or removed before the topic outlines are directly linked from the main country articles. Also, some topics in particular are not relavent or too insignificant to be applicable in certain country articles, for example some countries don't have glaciers, some religions are too minor or not practiced in certain countries, etc., and if humor is included, some countries don't have special comedy or country-specific humorous traditions, and also most countries' English dialect would spell it "humour". Overall, however, the outlines are in good shape and are a great contribution to both the Around the World project and to the geographic coverage of the encyclopedia in general. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)20:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The project was based on and includes everything on the List of countries. The lead section of that article explains the context well. The outlines themselves clarify the precise type of entity the political division presented is.
Most of the outline drafts have some incorrect data in their government branches sections that needs to be corrected before they can be moved to article space. Not all countries have a president and a prime minister, for example. The data was placed there by template during creation in order to match the most countries possible and thereby minimize the work load.
Also, the lead sections should be converted mostly to outline content (and placed where appropriate throughout the outline) and trimmed down to essential prose (such as the most well-known identifying characteristics of the country).
Keep in mind that in addition to being outlines, these pages are country profiles sharing a standard format. This facilitates easy comparison of countries to each other. Also keep in mind that kids will be making use of them too. If a country doesn't have glaciers, that entry should simply say "* Glaciers of x: None". That way the pages can be used to quickly compare countries. Also, it removes the ambiguity of whether or not we simply haven't added the information in yet. For example, if we leave the glacier entry out, then the reader may not know if the country has no glaciers or if we haven't made a page for those yet. (Not having it in there at all implies that there aren't any, as if the page were complete, while a redlink just shows "we're not done yet"). We covered this issue with respect to navies and countries that don't have them. We've been creating redirects for Navy of x for x's that have no navy (such as most landlocked countries) and have been pointing them to where the relevant information is (adding the information in where it was missing). The issue went to RfD and it was decided that the redirects should stay. Zimbabwe has no navy for example, but the link Navy of Zimbabwe works.
Concerning comedy, it would be humorous to put "* Humor in x: None". :) Most likely the humor of each country will be covered or redirected (to a parent country, a parent culture, or whatever). But it's most likely covered somewhere, and will eventually find its way to Wikipedia. With respect to religion, if a student were comparing countries to see how influential the major religions of the world are in each, the religion links would be highly relevant. Remember, we're covering the whole world with this set of profiles, not just the individual countries in isolation.
The issue of redlinks also pertains to removing ambiguity (as covered above) and standard format - they were chosen based upon how countries are covered on Wikipedia and how that coverage typically expands. If we remove them, it will be a monumental task to track these and add them back in later. That could double our workload, and this project is already being measured in terms of the man years it will likely take to complete it. By leaving the redlinks in, we help familiarize readers with the standard format, so that browsing this type of page becomes easy and intuitive. And we solve the problem of "where would an interested editor go to find out what is missing and needs to be added in?" The best response to that question is "on the page itself". Wikipedia is a work in progress, and the redlink feature was designed to bring a gap in coverage to the attention of as many people as possible to facilitate its being created. We shouldn't be ashamed of our gaps. :)
Concerning the standard page names for country expansion, those aren't covered anywhere but on this set of pages! So leaving them in also helps guide editors in to what to call those articles when they are created.
My bias is to move the pages to article space sooner rather than later (once the incorrect data in the government branches sections is replaced), to get these exposed to as many people who may work on them as possible. Otherwise, it will take our little team years to complete them. We've got to spread the workload out!
I hope I've addressed your concerns to your satisfaction.
Thanks for the post on my talk page, it's good to be appreciated. :) Anyways, my question is this, for the country outlines, under Military of X, Commander-in-Chief, do we put the nominal CIC (e.g. the President of the US for the US), or the actual commander of the armed forces (e.g. the country's top soldier)? Thanks again, --Patar knight - chat/contributions21:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you asked. At least the very top position should be shown, even if it's nominal. You can show more of the chain of command if you'd like. See Topic outline of India#Military of India for an example. I'm pretty sure a couple more of the outlines show a command structure. Please feel free to improve upon the approach used. The Transhumanist 22:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop spamming places like the Wikipedia reference desk with requests for help in your project. It is highly inappropriate. Please go back to all the places you spammed and remove these posts - I've found a couple - but I'm fairly sure you hit a bunch of other places. Just because the thing you are advertising is a Wikipedia project does NOT entitle you to spam it all over the site. The Village pump is the one and only place where those kinds of requests are appropriate. It's particularly ironic that you ask (at the top of this talk page) that people not spam you with RFA's! Thank you. SteveBaker (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Graphic arts
Next version's complete; really sorry for the week-long time delay, just didn't find the kind of sit-down time to work on it. How do you like atlas now? I hope I licked the 4 details you wanted :)
BTW, I haven't read any of the comments you left me on my talk page yet, I'll reply when I get the chance. -- penubag (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Country profiles?
Hi, I saw your notice on the community portal, what exactly is it that you want people to do? The notice is not very clear. --Zvika (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was, for only a round of proposals. The type of lists I work on don't readily fit the current featured list model, and that's fine. But for an entirely different reason, I don't think the FLs are ready for presentation on the Main Page. They are highly disproportionate in coverage, with many more entries from media, music, and sports (especially sports). The Transhumanist 00:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Sorry to bother you, but I'd like to know if you could give me any information on starting a collaboration? I have a really good idea for one, but some of the information on starting a collaboration is just so confusing, I don't know where to look. :-) Thanks,--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks great overall. When looking at it in a thumbnail, it took a while to get my bearings of what part of the world I was looking at. Maybe switch around the colors to make the oceans gold? –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone00:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it zoomed, you can see that the words protrude from rather than being carved into the base - this might be why they look unnatural. It looks like they've been stuck on there (like the stick-on letters you can buy at the store). Penubag, can you invert them so that they are receding rather than sticking out? The Transhumanist 21:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lettering on atlas is carved. Your mind just perceives it as it's protruding, sort of like what happens when you stare at this image for too long. I could protrude it and see if it looks different to you, but doing so will make it look like it's protruding to other people. -- penubag (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chirag's Comment
As a Advertising and Marketing professional, I prefer simplicity. This logo is quite complex. Rich colours and too many things happening. Thus said. Design is a personal preference. You could try the same thing in out in line art, or run it through a charcoal filter or some such. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I don't like the blue colour for the bottom bit, it looks a bit too odd. What context is it supposed to be used for? The man's face isn't visible and I don't think the gold goes well with the blue. I like the idea of a globe with the wiki logo, however. TheHelpfulOneReview18:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I always thought that the blue balanced out all the yellows on top. But if not, what color would? Would it look better if I desaturated (took out some blue) or grayscale it? When you say the man's face isn't visible, are you saying it's too small, or too blurry or what? Please see the full resolution. -- penubag (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think desaturating might help with the blue, but the man's face on full resolution looks too blurry, on the normal one it's too small and too blurry. The bottom half of the globe where the water is looks odd with lots of little circles? I think the blue of the water looks too fake, what about a more definite shade of blue (just an idea). TheHelpfulOneReview13:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
coolgyingman's comments
I think it is good but you should probably get rid of the bottom block or change it. It clashes with the gold and just looks completly unnatural. But other than that it is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolgyingman (talk • contribs) 22:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AstroHurricane001's comments
Hi. Overall, it's pretty good. I do notice a few small minor problems however:
The bluish colour does look a bit awkward compared with the gold above, and the pattern is just a bit boring.
The edges of the image of the Greek god statue (Atlas?) look a bit unnatural, especially with the right elbow and foot on the left side of the image.
I don't think this is a big problem, but the Caspian Sea and Great Lakes are missing on the globe.
The "ocean" areas of the globe are mostly OK, but I think it could be a bit better with a slight tinge of gold blended in but still with enough contrast, and there appears to be an odd pattern near the equator, and the NE Pacific looks strange compared to the other areas of the ocean.
The puzzle pieces could use some of the Wikipedia logo's characters, if that's allowed (ie. no copyright issues).
The darkest parts of the statue are a bit too dark.
There appears to be a weird bulb-like thing on the statue's left foot (right side of image), which looks like the foot is squished or split in two.
It's kind of hard to tell what the creature on the statue's right shoulder is...a dog?
The inside of the globe looks just a little bit unnatural.
The "r" on "Developer" looks too close to the edge of the blue block.
Good points. Here are some further comments on each:
Maybe the base should be black and white, or grayscale?
It appears the edges were damaged when the original image background was manually erased. To fix that would require re-extracting Atlas from the original image. Atlas' right foot (on the left side of the image) does appear to be damaged. See the original image for comparison at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Jimbo_holding_Wikipedia.jpg . It appears some of the original image's background wasn't erased.
I didn't notice the Great Lakes/Caspian Sea thing until Astro mentioned it - and he's right, they've disappeared! (They were on the previous version). Penubag, can you restore them?
Perhaps the oceans should just be a darker shade of gold than the continents? Then it will look like they are part of the same integrated whole. With the oceans a different color altogether, it looks like the globe is made of copper with gold continents added.
The symbols on the wikiglobe were left out because they are simply painted on - which doesn't fit with the sculted nature of the rest of the trophy. If they can be carved into the globe, I wouldn't mind having them put back in - but I have no idea how to do it.
Concerning the dark areas, the image has somehow become warped there. Look at Atlas' right gluteus maximus (butt cheek) in the original image. In the current version his butt cheek has become totally deformed. Can that be fixed?
The blob on the left foot is actually behind it. It's the lion pelt he's wearing - it drapes to the ground. The image would look better if that were removed so that his foot could be clearly seen.
If people don't recognize a lion pelt when they see one, I don't think there's much we can do about it. Though you can see the paws and claws pretty clearly in the original image, but these have been blurred beyond recognition in this version. Can that be fixed?
The color of the inside of the globe doesn't match the color of the outside of the globe (of which it should be a darker shade).
Don't worry about the word placement at this time - they will likely be replaced with a new trophy name.
Regarding the base of the trophy, I'll come up with a desaturated and a grayscaled one.
I hadn't noticed that some of the pieces have been destroyed, that'd be easy to fix though.
Carving the symbols onto the wikiglobe would make it be too crowed imo. Having the map, the puzzle, and the symbols would be too much.
About his gluteus maximus, I though that part actually looked good like that. But I guess it looks too wrinkly. I'm not sure how to fix this but I'll give it a try.
I'm trying to make this project active again and I'm doing a fair bit to make us be able to rate articles etc. Here is a userbox you can add if you wish Wikipedia:WikiProject_Health/Userbox. Do you know of a way we can let people know about the project to bring in people who would like to be members if they knew about it? I suppose there's the little 'adverts' the top of wiki sometimes displays. StickyParkin19:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the userbox - I've added it to my userpage.
There are a great many ways to advertise a WikiProject and attract new members, but first it is important to establish the direction the WikiProject is going to take. It would be awkward to have lots of members with nothing for them to do.
I feel that rating articles is unnecessary overhead and that it is more productive for editors to actually work on articles.
Have you personally surveyed (browsed) Wikipedia's health coverage? (Not talking about insurance here). :) What problems did you notice? (It helps to jot them down in another window as you spot them).
A good place to start is with the subject's access pages: indexes, tables of contents (including outlines and lists), and glossaries. Here's a starting point for you:
Articles are only useful if you can find them, so providing decent browsing tools (refrence pages, etc.) is a must because the search box only lets you look for topics you already know about. Reference aids like those mentioned above help map out a subject so that you know what's there and how it all fits together.
What role should WikiProject Health take in developing and maintaining these?
After you've browsed the subject, please answer these questions: Did you notice any gaping holes? Is there anything particularly important missing from Wikipedia's coverage of health?
By the way, there's a related WikiProject. In your opinion, what differentiates WikiProject:Health from WikiProject Medicine?
What should the relationship be between these two WikiProjects?
And this brings us to innovation, from an encyclopedic point of view...
Is there anything special that Wikipedia can provide to help its readers in the overall topic of health? What do other encyclopedias have that we don't have? What do health books have that we don't have? What would be most useful to someone trying to get healthy? And for staying healthy? Can our readers find all the informational resources they need here on Wikipedia? What's missing?
I'm very interested in health and health issues, but I won't be generally available to assist until the current project I'm working on is completed (we're creating country outlines for the geography branch of Wikipedia's outline of knowledge. One outline for every country of the world.). So I will be tied up for awhile (several more months at least). But I plan on shifting over to health when I'm done there.
I look forward to your reply and to your answers to the questions above.
Sorry about my lag in thanking you for your help, I have been rather busy and away from my computer for a few days. I greatly appreciate your helpfulness with my research, it was very kind of you to help me out with this. In response to your question, I did find it helpful, as it gave me a place to begin in my research, and allowed me to build from there. I even quoted you in my research paper! In the end, I focused mostly on Renaissance humanism, as the report was for a Literature class, and humanism essentially created the Renaissance and, consequently, lead to most western literature, but your resources provided a great way to contrast how humanism has evolved and expanded into a modern worldview that continues to influence literature and its movements. So, I am in debt to your kindness once again Transhumanist! Scapler (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My idea for a Collaboration
Oh, thanks for the help. My idea for a project is a collaboration that checks deletion logs, finds deleted articles, and tries to figure out why they were deleted. Then, the problems can be fixed, and the articles can be rewritten. I don't know if someone already created this project, but it sounds liek a good idea to me. Again, thanks.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you wish to resurrect articles from the dead, do you? The department that processes requests for resurrecting pages from the deletion graveyard is Wikipedia:Deletion review. The people who hang out there generally pass judgement in discussions similar to those at AfD, and they don't usually work on the articles themselves (but some do). All requests to undelete articles must go through DR.
Keep in mind that Deletion Review is itself a list of articles that people are trying to undelete. The users going through deletion review are often desperate for help to save their articles, as well as those going through AfD. AfD and DR can be very stressful, especially for newcomers. Save an editor's article from deletion, or bring it back from the dead through deletion review, and you've made a friend for life!
The WikiProject or Department that is dedicated to saving articles from deletion is the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. They generally focus on articles in AfD, so you could either expand the scope of the operations there to include saving articles that have already been deleted, or create a new "Wikipedia:Article Resuscitation Unit".
Keep in mind that the word "collaboration" has a very specific context on Wikipedia: collaborations are periodic tasks sponsored by a particular WikiProject. To see a slew of examples, search for "Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week".
So, while a WikiProject works on a particular subject or problem continuously, it's "weekly collaboration" (sometimes they are monthly) would focus on their chosen article of the week (or month), bringing people together to improve that specific page.
To create a collaboration, simply set up a collaboration subpage for the sponsoring department or WikiProject, and then add a collaboration subheading on that department's main page with an explanation and a link to the subpage. You can also provide a template that users can display on their talk page which announces the latest article in the collaboration. There are plenty of examples to model your collaboration idea after.
Oooooh, thanks for your reply. I've been out for the night so this is the simple version for the moment:-
"By the way, there's a related WikiProject. In your opinion, what differentiates WikiProject:Health from WikiProject Medicine?" -TT
Wikiproject Medicine goes into more obscure and scientific detail such as more detail about diseases, obscure parts of the body etc, wikiproject health would cover more general, simple and approachable articles for the layman imho, such as diet and exercise. Some of the medicine articles are really dry. But I'll have to do a bit at a time as at the moment I've got gripped by Wikipedia:WikiProject Running and Category:Running :) I thought there'd be a 'wikiproject health and fitness' or something, but there's not lol :) StickyParkin02:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your wish is my command. WikiProject Health is now WikiProject Health and fitness, to match the subject titles in the main contents pages:
I can see why this article was deleted in the past as it reads like a how-to guide User:Sticky_Parkin/Marathon_training, but I do think the subject could be covered more on this wiki in an appropriate way, probably within the 'marathon' article. Blimey, I've never heard of a triathlon with that length of run etc. in it:) It's enough for me to be trying to do a marathon next year, but the weather has put me off training I have to admit. :) StickyParkin13:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A description of the training rather than a step-by-step guide would probably be OK. Training links could be included in the external links section.
See full distance triathlon (Ironman). There are also the Double and Triple Ironman. And in just running, there are 100-mile endurance runs. In my opinion, all of these are exercises in pain endurance. Now that I'm up to 10+ miles per day, weather doesn't deter me much, though safety comes first - no swimming in ice cold lakes, and no cycling on ice- or snow-covered streets. It would take 2 feet of snow to force me to take my running workouts indoors, or I might just don a 40-pound pack and hike through it instead.
The Wikibook link can also be included in the see also or external links section. There's a special box template for that.
I wouldn't want the likelihood of niggling injuries that perhaps is entailed in that intensity of running- that would only mean you have to stop for a while to mend anyway- or do you manage to avoid injuries mainly? I'm trying to clean up the running category, but tomorrow I should be back on form properly to look at our new project.:) Thanks for the change of title- it seems somehow more focused I think. Do you think this article Eco-running should go? I couldn't think where to merge that one. There are some seriously :) non-notable races and things in the category. StickyParkin02:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you manage to avoid injuries - once your body is used to this level of activity, and by practicing preventive sports medicine and nutrition (for example strengthening your bones and joints - and the rest of your tissues for that matter - as much as is feasible by optimizing your body's collegen production with optimal vitamin C intake, etc.). With respect to exercise, consistency is the key - that is, do your training milage regularly without fail, increasing your output slowly over time (whether in speed, distance, or weight carried), cutting back whenever the symptoms of overtraining show up. In addition to this approach, cross-training is extremely effective at preventing injuries and the effects of overtraining. Triathlon training and training for the other "athlons" (except the biathlon) are the ultimate cross-training activities.
See also: Weight training, which can be added to any workout regimine for cross-training effectiveness.
Note that optimum health, whether you are exercising or not, is impossible without an optimal nutrition program. Just like drug effects, nutrient effects are dose dependent, and the state-of-the-art in experimental nutrition science (with respect to what doses to take of what and why) is decades ahead of regulatory agencies' and general practitioners' standards. Certain life extension nutrition programs are probably the most effective, since they attempt to optimize health in all areas to optimize one's life expectancy. "Youth" is nearly synonymous with "health", and so a key health-optimizing strategy is to remain as young as possible as long as possible. You do that by slowing down the processes of aging (yes, there are more than one) and degenerative diseases (cardiovascular disease, Parkinson's etc.) as much as you can.
There's irony here, a Catch-22 in the scientific (and bureaucratic) approach to anti-aging (health optimization) research. If you do as the establishment recommends and wait for a successful anti-aging experiment to be completed before you risk trying it, you'll be dead before the experiment is over, because the test subjects will have outlived you. So logically and strategically, the only way to beat the current life expectancy as supported by currently approved methods is with educated guessing in the selection of experimental methods. That is, to be a "test subject". The trick is to pick the right experiments. Whose educated guesses can you trust?
Have you taken your antioxidants today? :) Linus Pauling made a compelling argument for taking large doses (13 to 20g per day) of vitamin C (even more when you've got a cold or the flu), with baking soda to reduce the side-effects from its acidity (indigestion, inflammation, etc.). See his book How to Live Longer and Feel Better (in my opinion one of the best nutrition books ever written). He was both a genius and a hero (he got above-ground nuclear bomb testing banned and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for that in addition to receiving the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for developing modern chemistry). He was not prone to wild claims or devious thinking - throughout his life he endeavored to improve the common welfare of mankind and he stated his reasoning supporting his hypotheses very clearly. Decades ahead of his time in almost everything he did, he's definitely worth reading.
By the way, Linus Pauling's patent for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease expires January 11, 2011. You'll never guess what's in it - 3 nutrients you can buy at any health food store. See the General Applications section. Three ingredients which work together, from the selection provided in the patent are vitamin C, Lysine, and nicotinic acid (vitamin B3). In his book (mentioned above) Pauling states that the ratio should be 8:1:1, and recommended 8 grams of C, 1 gram of Lysine, and 1 gram of B3.
Eco-running is notable enough to keep - it gets sufficient Google hits. What it needs is a good reference or two from metropolitan newspapers or widely distributed magazines. Or from a couple mainstream ("reliable source") websites.
Only up through the J's, plus the ones that support the 29 country outlines that have already been moved to article space. I've skipped to the N's and I'm working on those. The Transhumanist 04:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did a few last night, but it seems a few people are against the page moves/disambigs/whatnot. I think it might be best to start a discussion at the relevant WikiProject's talk page... –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone17:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only by trial and error can you determine for which pages a rename is objectionable. I've moved hundreds if not thousands of pages, following the approach of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for each page. To have proposed a move for each page I have moved over the years, would have taken years. If someone feels strongly about a particular page's name and wants to keep it that way, I usually simply let them have their way and move on - it is just too time consuming to engage in the proposal process if one can avoid it.
"Germans" is fine the way it is. I had forgotten that the disambiguation page I created at Germans had been deleted by someone (and not through AfD).
My favorite move of all time was Geometry to History of Geometry (since that's what it really was). See the very beginning of Geometry's edit history - I'm listed as the creator of the page! I restarted the article as a stub, which was amazing because of the mainstream level of the topic. So, in October of 2006, when virtually all major subjects had already been covered on Wikipedia, Geometry was a just a stub! The mathematics guys pounced on that in one hell of a barnstorming collaboration to write the article. :) That was a fun one. Be sure to see the post I made to talk:Geometry to kick it off with a challenge. See also the discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 18#Major reworking of Geometry.
Ok, I'll try to get to 'em soon, but I've been busy lately (both on and off Wiki), and I might not be able to get to it for a while. Is there anybody else we could ask to get it done more efficiently than I could? –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone01:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Population etc
I have looked at this before, a few months back.
Extracting the data is easy but inserting it into the articles is less so. I'll review again soon.
The problem is I can't spot what you are doing with the countries etc, can you point me to it with words of one syllable?:) We already disagree a bit about what to put in our project, as to me most of category:life extension is an alternative medicine or not entirely mainstream topic. The parts that are accepted by mainstream science perhaps aren't usually referred to as life extension, it'd be called preventative medicine or anti-aging research or whatever. I'm quite conservative when it comes to what science/health advice etc I adopt- vitamin c in large amounts for instance would just leave the body through the urine. My religious beliefs and attempts at supernatural healing are a different matter and I accept that it's mainly for psychological benefit rather than anything else.:) If you show me in words of one syllable or with an example diff what you're doing with the countries let's make a deal- I'll do at least two edits to a country thingy like you want a day if you do two edits slightly related to a (boringly mainstream) health or fitness topic (you probably will do anyway), so we can say our project is active.:) StickyParkin01:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't spot what we are doing to the country outlines? Considering Wikipedia has edit histories for every page and contribution lists for every user, I find your statement odd. The only way for you not to have spotted what we are doing is by not looking. Take a look.
What we're doing is completing the outlines. That is, we need to fill in the blanks, bluelink redlinks (by creating redirects for them), replace incorrect data (such as in the government branches sections - which was generated by template when these outlines were created), and add missing links (doing a Google search of each country name on Wikipedia to find major subtopics not yet listed on its respective country outline).
Two edits?!? That's not quite what I had in mind. :) I was hoping you'd roll up your shirt sleeves for this one. Our basic approach has been to do "passes", that is, for each task we generally process one item across the entire set of pages. That's 247 edits minimum per task.
For example, for one task I went through all the pages and filled the "x is:" entry with what the entity was (country, autonomous dependency, island country, landlocked country, etc.)
Thehelpfulone filled in the "Economic rank:" entry for every country, amongst many other passes: he's done search/replaces with AWB, and is currently studying regex so he can handle advanced S/Rs. He filled the external links sections for each country, and more.
ChiragPatnaik bluelinked (i.e., fixed the redlinks) "Army of x:", "Navy of x:", and "Air force of x" (where "x" is each country's name) by creating redirects pointing to wherever the relevant information was, for every country for which he could track down Wikipedia's coverage on these topics.
Doing the same type of edit to each page makes it go a lot faster, especially with the advanced wiki-tools that we use (Firefox, WP:LINKY (using "Linky lists"), WP:AWB, WP:WikEd, etc). Search/replaces usually go at about 6 edits per minute, most edits take less than a minute each, while the more involved lookups take a few minutes each.
AWB and Linky typically load all the pages for the task. AWB automatically loads the next page in the list as soon as you've saved the current one (which it also closes). Linky makes it easy to zap a tab (sub-window) when you are done working on it.
What we're trying to do is pump out as many hundreds of edits as possible to get this set of 247 pages done.
P.S.: Conservative is fine, but being well-informed is better. There is a large body of evidence that large doses of Vitamin C have significant effects. Your statement "vitamin c in large amounts for instance would just leave the body through the urine" was proven false decades ago and is an outmoded paradigm. Here's a recent study on the excretion of vitamin C.
All I'm worried about is that if we put less mainstream stuff in it, our project won't be taken as seriously, as people will think we're trying to push some ideas or something. StickyParkin01:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put "less mainstream stuff" in what? The encyclopedia? Wikipedia is comprehensive in scope. The scope of a WikiProject is determined by its title, and includes everything that falls under that subject. If that weren't the case, the WikiProject would be POV. We're bound by Wikipedia's policies. If a topic is notable, then it gets included in Wikipedia.
Besides, Wikipedia's coverage of health is already very expansive, going way beyond what would be considered conventional. And the main thing that determines how seriously a WikiProject is taken is how active it is. The Transhumanist 02:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like each access only gets counted once. That is, when you click on "List of basic cell biology topics" the counter might just be counting that page and not the one you are redirected to. There are more links to the old page name than to the new page name.
What interests me more is that Portal:Molecular and Cellular Biology got nearly 8,000 hits in October. We need to find out why and apply what we learn to increasing the outline's traffic. My guess is that it has to do with the links and linkboxes leading to the portal.
To be honest I have never understood the purpose or value of the portals. I find them unwieldy to navigate or browse and can't imagine why anyone would use them (though I assume people do or they wouldn't exist), so needless I have no idea how to improve them. Earthdirt (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misread what I wrote. I'm not interested in improving portals - there are plenty of people to do that already. I was merely pointing out that more people access the portal on cell biology than access the outline on the same subject. If we can figure out why (that is, by what routes they arrive at the portal on cell biology), then maybe we can apply the same type of link pathways to provide better access to the outline (Topic outline of cell biology). All we have to do is use "what links here" and follow the path back to the starting points. The Transhumanist 20:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, you are correct I definitely misunderstood what you were saying. Does wikipedia track stats on how people get to certain pages? It's fairly standard for most web pages. Don't the portals do have those nice little template banners stuck all over various pages? Thanks for clearing up what you meant for me. Earthdirt (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia does not track paths (that I know of). Also, Wikipedia's tracking isn't very accurate, because of how access is handled for the World Wide Web in general - Wikipedia is accessed through caches on servers all over the internet, and Wikipedia's traffic counter can't see the hits on those caches (which very likely exceed Wikipedia server hits many times over). But my guess is that Wikipedia's traffic stats are proportional to the actual traffic (WWW-wide hits of Wikipedia's content), and is therefore useful for making comparisons.
Portals have template banners, yes. And a main portal page that is accessible from the top of virtually every portal for excellent cross-connectivity. And a link to 8 of the most major portals on the Main Page. The Transhumanist 23:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps the solution is to include a one sentence statement at WP:NOT#Dictionary that glossaries are different than dictionaries and are allowed... and then include a link to that MOS. Such a statement and link would have resolved my concerns right away. Blueboar (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, glossaries aren't different than dictionaries, they are a subclass of dictionary. They are in fact small dictionaries (of a particular type and purpose). See the definitions at wikt:glossary and wikt:dictionary. And yes, I agree with you that the exception for glossaries should be made clear at WP:NOT, and made more clear in WP:DICT. And by the way, you are welcome. :) The Transhumanist 22:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Topic outlines
Hi. I just edited a few articles and drafts, you can check my contributions if you wish. I'm less available nowadays than I used to be, I could probably still assist with periodic maintainance and other work on the topic outlines, but it's just that I usually won't be able to edit every day. I added some climate change and earthquake-related topic links to a few articles; I'm not done yet with these.
I realise that not every article has the information for these, so I'm just filling out the ones that already do; please make suggestions if you would like. I see that the WikiProject is using a template for every article, and this should be fine but the articles still need to be adjusted to include topics specific to that country/territory in particular that other countries may not have regarding. As for Linky, I do not use Firefox. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)03:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what we're doing. Each outline that has been moved to article space so far has been differentiad from the template. Before each move, a search for links is conducted, including using Google to search Wikipedia for the country's name. The Transhumanist 23:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wholesale moves from "Cuisine of ..." to adjectival form
You have undertaken a monumental job, but in my opinion before making such bold massive changes, you should have discussed it with the relevant audience on WikiProject Food and Drink. Some "foodies" may have thought differently. Needless to say, I hope you are implementing the change consistently across all cuisines. Good luck. --Zlerman (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bold yes, massive, no. I've only moved about a dozen. :) I plan to wait and see if any objections come in before continuing. Thank you for your support.
By the way, by which method did you notice them? I'm just curious if we use the same monitoring techniques.
The cuisines that I regularly work own (Tajik, Uzbek) came up on my watchlist this morning. Then I looked in your contributions and saw the rest of the seemingly endless list. Yes, I support your systematization effort, but I still think you should put a note on WikiProject Food and Drink -- especially if you are looking for feedback. If you don't want to do it yourself, I can do it for you, but we must alert everybody. --Zlerman (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You used the word "own". A curious typo. :)
By the way, no thanks. I decline. I'd rather move on to something else that doesn't involve a proposal process. Post a proposal if you plan to implement the changes yourself. But count me out. I'm done. Cheers. The Transhumanist 02:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't leave the job unfinished! Forget about the "proposal process", but eventually please finish the process systematically. Otherwise, this will just create further confusion. --Zlerman (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using WP:POP, run your cursor over the links at User:The Transhumanist/Cuisine by country list - you'll see it's not that big of a task. I agree with you that the current naming, split between the adjectival and "Cuisine of" naming conventions, is confusing (and raises the question of why some country cuisines have their own special name and others don't). Younger students may become confused as to what they're actually called. Since you believe consistency is important, I'll take a look at the remainder on a case-by-case basis as I come across them in the future. Maybe starting in a week or so. Thank you for your feedback. The Transhumanist 03:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fascinating vision. Thank you for sharing it with me. I now understand the "genesis" of the cuisine moves. I really need some time to study the examples you give and to think about the implications. Perhaps what I will do is simply take one of the countries I am familiar with (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, etc.) and see if I can fit it into your outlines. I do not know what system you propose to use when substituting your finalized outlines for the existing articles, but please bear in mind that you need to tread very carefully in Central Asia and Transcaucasia: a single word may lead to endless passionately charged discussions. The same is probably true for many other parts of the world, so do tell me how you intend to implement the change. How will you bypass the "proposal discussion" stage? With regard to CIA World Factbook, I am sorely aware of the standardization (and updating!) problems, but this is a separate discussion.
I do not know anyone whom I can refer to your project. Since the magnitude of your project obviously requires exclusive full time commitment, I cannot promise my own participation, but, as noted above, I may dabble in the margin. Will this be helpful in any way? I have no skills in using any of the advanced editing tools that you mention, but I am quick to learn if you are willing to guide me. For instance, I have picked up WP:POP from your recent comment and I now see the advantages of using it.
The outlines aren't replacing any articles. They are part of Wikipedia's content system - like any article or portal, the creation of this type of page does not require preapproval. As we complete them, they are added to Portal:Contents/Lists of basic topics. We've completed 29 countries so far. There are dozens of outlines completed over the past 3 years on a wide variety of subjects.
The project is in the middle of a namechange, which will take another couple months or so, and this explains why you haven't seen "Outline of knowledge" anywhere. :)
Please keep your eyes open for prolific editors and send them my way.
And you are most welcome to help out in any volume that you like. I'll be happy to provide you with guidance on how to use the tools, and on the type of tasks we work on.
Good morning. Please look at the outline for Tajikistan. I have edited Provinces and Districts following the example of Russia. However, it looks odd to me that in addition to listing Provinces of Tajikistan and Districts of Tajikistan as linked entries in the outline, we also give full details for these two sections. Aren't the links enough? Why are these two particular topics different from all the other topics, for which only links are given (I think...)? It would be fun to work on some of these outlines, but I need to understand better what kind of editing is required here. Is the editor expected to add topics to the outline, to write articles for red-linked items, to make topics consistent across different country outlines, or what? Also what kind of editing did you have in mind in connection with data imported from the CIA World Factbook? I am sorry if these are stupid questions, but I am just trying to understand how I can help (if at all). I am totally unfamiliar with the concept of outlining in the Wikipedia context, so if you think that answering my questions is too much trouble, just say so: I will understand and simply walk away to my usual things. --Zlerman (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE: I challenge you to participate in a race
I accept the challenge and have contacted Blackadam2 but before we start, can you clarify what you mean, I have checked a few of the pages and am not sure what you want us to do? Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 16:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC) (be warned, I'm a bit rusty on my capitals at the moment!)[reply]
For example, the entry:
* [[Capital]] of Colombia: [[Capital of Colombia|Capital of Colombia]]
needs to be changed to:
* [[Capital]] of Colombia: [[Capital of Colombia|Bogotá]]
Candidates have been opposed for having supports in place prior to transclusion, I would advise that you go and re-sign the nom. –xeno (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"regex" is short for "regular expression". When you click the regex box, AWB interprets search/replaces as regular expressions. I haven't started using them yet, as I didn't realize how powerful they are. I'll start just as soon as I get a new laptop. The Transhumanist 20:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regex can do things that the basic search/replace feature can't, like search for blank lines, and add blank lines in. You can also search for multi-line entries, which is an extremely powerful ability. The Transhumanist 20:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to User:PeterSymonds, you are very good with graphics. I was wondering if you'd be willing to design an icon for WP:AIVC. I pretty much suck at graphics, and I'd like a good icon, so if you'd want to, let me know. (Of course, I'd give you credit). Thanks, DavidWS(contribs)20:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Heard"? As in audio communication? Hmmm, I didn't know people were talking about me. :) I'd like to help, but I'm stretched very thin right now. Besides, Grey Knight is much better than me at graphics, and he may even render something for you in 3D. I highly recommend him. The Transhumanist 20:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, it needs to be filled in. Especially the government branches sections.
Redlinks need to be bluelinked - standard article names have been used on all the pages. They should be preserved in these outlines (and developed for Wikipedia in general) by making a redirect to wherever the information is on Wikipedia.
Then a google search of Wikipedia article titles needs to be done for the country's name, and links to any essential topics found need to be added to the outline.
Then is the fun part: adding maps and images to the page.
The above development process results in a nice solid start, which others will be proud to further improve.
Please look at my first shot at bluelinking in Topic outline of Tajikistan. I need your feedback, especially regarding two issues: (a) some of my new blue links are to snippets of information in subsections of other articles -- is this how you want it? (b) some red links (e.g., Mountains of Tajikistan and others) could not be bluelinked, because they refer to sections in more than one article. Thus Mountains of Tajikistan occurs (with different content!) in Tajikistan#Geography and also in Geography of Tajikistan. What do you propose in such cases? Write a new article Mountains of Tajikistan, combining the information from the other articles? Standardize the information in both articles? This and that? Let me know what you think. --Zlerman (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article on a subtopic generally has precedence over a section on that subtopic, even if the section is in a parent article. Note that the subsection should have the {{main}} template at the top, and that the article should be more extensive than the subtopic of the parent (if it isn't it needs to be fixed by adding the subtopic material to it). Sometimes a split isn't done right, and the material is merely copied - the section is supposed to be trimmed down to a summary in the parent article when the split is made.
The method we've been using for bluelinking is by creating redirects. Not pipes! That is, don't change the standard links (they are the same for all these outlines). Instead, click on the redlink and create a redirect to it. Note that redirects can point to a section of an article.
The links have been named with the most likely title to be used for such an article, so that when such an article is written, it will be done over the redirect. Having the links to these redirects ensures that the outlines' links always lead to the right place. The same strategy works well in articles too. Then only the redirects need to be updated, not the links all around Wikipedia.
This approach also allows us to correct many outlines at a time, by creating lists (in userspace) of the standard links, and then bluelinking them from that list (by creating redirects for them).
This makes perfect sense: I was getting very worried about changing your List of this and List of that links to specific article and section links. I will study the examples and see how to do the redirects that you suggest. Then I will go back to the Tajikistan draft and redo it according to this system. If you have any useful guidance regarding the implementation of the redirects, please give it to me now. I have never tried this switch from pipe to redirect. --Zlerman (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, redirecting to snippets is OK as long as they are the main content in Wikipedia on that topic. The redirect can always be checked and updated later.
And now on to the next item...
For the entries with colons at the end, the part before the colon remains the same, and you add the missing information after the colon. Such as for "[[Currency] of x: ".
You wrote: "The redlinks also show a lot about the coverage. Redlinks can indicate that the articles aren't named according to the standard used for most country articles. They may also show how far coverage has expanded ("Economy of x" is an expansion of "x", for example). That is, topics generally start off as subtopics of another article before they are split off into their own articles. Redlinks show how much splitting off is still left for the country."
So perhaps instead of bluelinking the red links by redirects to snippets of information within sections, we should keep the red links in full prominence in such cases and create redirects only if there is an independent article or at least a full-fledged section for the red link? Guidance please! --Zlerman (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't want a redlink when there is coverage available. It's more important to take the user to the information. That's because, first and foremost these are navigation aids - to the knowledge of the world and at the same time they are part of Wikipedia's contents system. Their role as development tools is secondary.
And there's the competing editors. Some editors hate redlinks and actively remove them from lists. Which forces us to monitor for redlink removals. They are more apt to remove them the more there are, so the more we can bluelink, the better!
We're keeping all the items, even when the country doesn't have them, for comparison purposes. For example, when there are no glaciers, we state "none", instead of removing the link.
Many countries do not have navies for example (such as many landlocked countries). We still blue link those, redirecting to wherever the relevant information is. If it isn't stated anywhere on Wikipedia that they have none, we state it on the most relevant article (in this case, Military of x), and redirect there. Also add a colon followed by "none" in the outline.
What do you need here? Highest-lowest, or east-west/north-south? Cannot have both under one redirect, because they come in different places (if at all). --Zlerman (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you direct me to somewhere where this approach is explained? (I assume there's somewhere outlining it given the amount of work going on) I assume there is a reason for creating topics alongside existing articles, eg Topic outline of Zimbabwe as well as the existing Zimbabwe. But so far I don't get it. Babakathy (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Topic outlines are lists, and fall under the guideline for lists. They are also part of Wikipedia's contents system. They were formerly called "Lists of basic topics", and that/this department is still in the midst of a name change. The topic outlines serve as navigation aids (and/or site maps) and at the same time show the structure of their respective subjects (after all, that's what outlines are for). A similar project undertaken at the Encyclopedia Britannica was called the Propaedia. There are no instructions for developing these, because we are still working on the standard design and the situation remains fluid. Until the design has matured, an instruction page could stifle (bog down) further development. For all we know, these things may look totally different next week. Ninety percent of them are still draft pages in the Wikipedia namespace. The completed ones (moved to article space) are:
We moved these to article space to get some feedback from readers and because these lists are complete enough to be useful. The remainder include incorrect data that was generated as a starting point because it matched most but not all of the information for certain sections. When those sections are corrected/completed, the respective outlines will be moved to article space.
We are gearing up for a major collaboration to develop these outlines, in which awards will be made available, and for which an intensive recruiting drive will take place, etc., and the instructions (which are in the midst of being drafted) will be posted once that project officially begins. In the meantime, I've been overseeing development and keeping everything moving in the same direction. I have been spearheading this project for the past 3 years.
I do not see anything that covers export-import or foreign trade in the country outlines. If this is an unintentional omission, it has to be rectified. This should come in the economy section.
Incidentally, you can write to me on your talk page without bothering to put alerts on my talk page. I have put you on my watchlist. --Zlerman (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The design is expected to expand as Wikipedia's coverage expands. I left off topics that are primarily (90%+) redlinks (in those cases that I was aware of such poor coverage), but we can go ahead and include them to show what's missing, or we can wait until there is more coverage before doing so. It's a "which should come first, the chicken or the egg?" type issue. Since you want them, I'd say let's take the initiative and include them, but this should be done on all of the country outlines, to keep the design standardized.
By the way, you might like to keep an eye on Lists of countries, which like Wikipedia, is continuously expanding. You might spot other items missing from the outlines.
There is an apparent redundancy in Uzb and Taj outlines, where we have both Energy policy in ... (under Economy) and Energy in ... (under Infrastructure). This redundancy has been eliminated in France, for instance, but there Energy is under Infrastructure. Why? In my view, Energy (including policies) should be under Economy. Guidance? --Zlerman (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Energy distribution systems (power lines, transfer stations, etc.) are definitely infrastructure (like roads, bridges, dams, water mains, etc.). Infrastructures are generally considered to include the administrations that oversee them. Redundancy doesn't hurt - if something belongs in more than one section, we should include it there. The Transhumanist 23:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, "Infrastructure" should probably be moved to become a subsection of economy, as infrastructure is capital, which falls under the larger subject. But since it applies to all the country outlines, it should be undertaken on all of them in a single task so that they stay standardized (there's no sense in changing 2 or 3 only). Then energy could be moved to "infrastructure" and by doing so would still be retained in the economic section, and redundancy will have been eliminated. Thank you for the input. The Transhumanist 23:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of my absence, among other things
Sorry it has taken so long to reply. I have been incredibly busy with my extracurriculars as well as my college applications.
I'm glad that the Around the World Project goes swimmingly. I do hope that this bold, new project does not share the same fate as our much-maligned (and now deceased) Award Center. I suspect your largest problem will be the retention and recruitment of proficient and dedicated editors. As such, I would focus your personal efforts towards keeping the editors you have in a happy state while also always reaching out for new recruits. The members themselves, when presented with problems, should be able to take care of almost everything else without an extremely heavy-handed, highly centralized administration (although, as I don't run the Around the World project, I could be completely wrong).
As for that image, I think the text could look more realistic. Other than that, I have no major gripes about the design (although, I must profess, I have never been the most visually artistic person, instead choosing to discharge my creativity through the written word).
And with regards to my nonattendance, I must admit that I have missed this site greatly, more so for the people than for the duties I undertake (although the pleasure my duties give me, the sense of satisfaction obtained from contributions to Wikipedia (whether they be insignificant or otherwise), is unmatched by a good deal many of my other feats). While I cannot guarantee my increased involvement on this site after college applications are out of the way, I can attest to the fact that someday I will return and once again contribute dangerously (mostly relating to my health, as one can always contribute more to Wikipedia instead of sleeping sufficiently) to the Project.
Until that day, however... well, I'll try to get into college first. With your Around the World endeavor, I offer you the best of luck. You'll need it.
Yes, your education comes first. I'm glad you have your priorities straight. By the way, the Outline of knowledge shall continue to be developed with or without "Around the World" (which we're ditching anyways, for a totally different approach - to avoid G4). Thank you for the encouragement. Never give up, and never say "die". The Transhumanist 23:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message on my talk page. I tagged the page because it had virtually no content, there was no list. If something has been deleted and you would like to recreate it, I suggest you contact a Wikipedia admin and ask for help, see here. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's done, sorry for the delay. See here: Image:Racewik winner.png. Let me know if you want something fixed.
A race sounds interesting, maybe you can fashion a tournament similar to the World Cup (I've seen something like that here) the grand prize could be atlas (which I haven't yet forgotten), that'd be interesting. Is there a centralized page for all of this? I haven't seen it yet. I know I don't have the time or knowledge to get much of anything done, so I'll stay on the sidelines and help indirectly. -- penubag (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am very confused on what we are supposed to do. I was confused since the beginning. What am I supposed to change? Am I supposed to change the links on the page or do it on the page itself? I am thinking about aborting the race all itself. I am of course a child who is in middle school and have a lot of homework this week. Please write me back, thank you.
Nice to see you again Transhumanist, how have things been? I was wondering whether you can offer me some advice into tweaking my user page a bit. I wanted to go for a simple page for the time being and want the links "Sandbox" to be further to the left and "Sydney" to be further to the right. Can you please tell me how to do this? Also as a result of this format, i now have a scroll bar at the bottom of my page to scroll right just a tad. Can you please tweak this to make sure i dont have to do this? I am not sure what is wrong. There is no problem in Firefox. Thank You Monster Under Your Bed(talk)08:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont worry, its not worrying me, i can see everything on the page anyway, its just that it wasn't there before. Just tell me how to shuffle the headings a bit and ill be fine. Cheers Monster Under Your Bed(talk)06:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Race
Actually we pretty much gave up the race idea due to time zone differances, and I fear me and you may have the same problem but I'm willing to do it anyway, without it being a race, so far I've got as far as B so a long way to go yet, cheers anyway Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 16:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not entirely planning to give up. I just have no idea of what I am supposed to edit. Show me an example with one of the ones you did maybe. Any way, I have to leave right now because I have Boy Scouts
Now I think I understand what to do. I was wondering if I could pick up where you left off and I can continue the race with Highfields. Please send me back a message on my talk page as soon as you get this message and I will receive it at about 3:00 PM (MST) or 10:00 PM (UTC). I would like to do this race so i'll thank you in advance if you decide that i'll take your place. Madadude (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will start with the race so please write me back at your next convienence. I will take your spot in the race against highfields for I understand now. Madadude (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., I need to know which one to start on and I am curious which one Highfields is on. Also I saw the award that Penubag made and it is pretty cool. Can you make one for 2nd place that says 2nd or loser for whoever loses. Thank You, Happy Holidays, Madadude (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's never a trophy for second place in a 2-person race. ;) But you can join other races. We'll have more races. Penubag isn't quite done with the award, but he's a great graphics guy, isn't he? You're doing the second half of User:The Transhumanist/Country list. Start at the end of the list, and make your way backwards. That way, you'll both be heading toward the middle. If you get to the middle before your opponent, keep going. This whole list needs to be done! Only when the whole list is done will I give out an award.
Penubag is a great picture maker person, whatever who call them, I've seen his pictures before. I will wait for another race so please keep me informed about any other races (I am very competitive), even races that arn't about geography, that you hear about. Also I would like to help editing articles but I don't know where to begin. Do you know of anything that I can do because I am bored and would like to help Wikipedia. Madadude (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I know you are a prominent person on Wikipedia and on Wikiproject Geography so you might know this. Is there a Wikiproject Geography Bulletin because I would like to know more information and help out on articles/other things. Thank You and have a good weekend, Madadude (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant what articles can I help out with. Please I would love to help Wikipedia by editing on Articles/Portals/Wikipedia pages. Also, I used to have Firefox but it didn't work good on my computer so I got rid of it. Also I don't use Internet Explorer, I use Safari, the Apple Web Browser, and it is really really really fast. Probably not as fast as Firefox but pages load up 10 times faster than Internet Explorer. You might be thinking that how can I have Safari if I have a Windows Vista computer, Apple came out with a Safari that works on Windows XP and Vista. Also as I said before, Is there a bultiin for Wikiproject Geography or is there any articles that I can help, I am bored and want to do more things than just editing my userpage on Wikipedia. Madadude (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are lots and lots of pages that need little changes. To do that, you really need the programs I told you about. You should look into why Firefox didn't work right on your computer. There's usually a way to fix the problem.
The "Demographics of x" articles need a lot of work. (replace x with any country name) Demographics is information about the population and population distribution of a group of people (like the people living in a country, or from a country, etc.). You know, things like how many people in a country belong to each religion. Or how much money people make there. Or a comparison of the size of the ethnic groups. Pick a country you like, and start looking up stuff on Google about its demographics. You might want to start with a small country like an island, and then move on to bigger countries.
One more thing before I finish my report. If you can send me a list of articles that may need to be edited. Wait (I think of something and a better solution, maybe I can just go to the To-Do list for Wikiproject Geography. Man I am stupid. Madadude (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's right up my alley (if I have an alley, haha). Demographics, Political (like capitols and population, thats why I memorized all of the capitols), and Governmental Geography is what I'm good at. I will join Wikiproject Demographics and try to help out. Oh and where are the "Demographics or x" articles you are talking about? Oh well thanks.
Oh and by the way I finished my report, he is actually one of many people I have to do, we are given a list of 50 prominent people from the time period we are studing in Social Studies (this quarter was the Civil War) and half to do a page or two report on 30 of them. Ralph Waldo Emerson was my 29th so I have one more to do and it is due on Monday. Madadude (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Since you took the liberty to move this article to "Afghanistani Cuisine" based on an insufficient understanding of the discussion and it's outcome, please take the liberty to correct it. The correct term is "Afghan". Therefore, you should move the article to "Afghan Cuisine" or "Cuisine of Afghanistan". --EatTheMenu (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is specifically about the food and meals typically eaten in Afghanistan, not by the more widespread Afghan (Pashtun) ethnic group. Because it is the country the article refers to, and not the group, "Afghanistani" is the proper designation. The Transhumanist 23:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the proper demonym for an inhabitant of Afghanistan is "Afghan". Likewise, the adjective "Afghan" is used to describe something of or from Afghanistan. The discussion you were following was between two banned users who have been unilaterally replacing the word "Afghan" throughout wikipedia based on some fringe political agenda. The issue of the fabricated term "Afghanistani" has long been resolved here. So before you declare yourself an authority on this subject, I suggest you change this article back to the way it was and check other articles pertaining to people or objects originating in Afghanistan for the proper conventions. --EatTheMenu (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also suggest you google the following terms: "Afghan Food", "Afghanistani Food". The first one returns 66,900 results while the second returns 323. Don't be foolish enough to think you know what you're talking about. --EatTheMenu (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on this template: 1. However, for the first point the asterisk is not changing to a bullet point, I am unaware of how to fix it, can you help? TARTARUStalk20:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello The Transhumanist, and first of all, thank you for your time. I am seeking input regarding my userpage. My userpage, and the header for the rest of my pages, reflects my personality, that is to say they are incredibly quirky. While this appeals to me, I would greatly appreciate the opinions of other editors I have interacted with on the site. So, as an editor I have come to respect, I kindly beseech you to place any comments, ideas, or opinions you may have on the subject of my userpage or page navigation header bar on the corresponding talk page. Thank you friend, and cheers! Scapler (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Note that we must make sure the language information is correct. It would be bad to say "there is no language by this name" if in fact one (or even a dialect by that name) exists. If there is a language or dialect known by that name, a google search will usually reveal it.
Redlinks in disambiguation pages are frowned upon (more than elsewhere on Wikipedia), and so we should bluelink them (using redirects) if at all possible. Though if we can't bluelink them, we should keep the redlinks, because they are likely to turn blue in the future (based on how country coverage on Wikipedia expands).
When the article Languages of x does not exist, the information often exists at Demographics of x#Languages. It did in this case, but I had to format the CIA data at the destination. After formatting it, I created a redirect to it (see Languages of Malawi).
Cuisine is often covered in Culture of x, but nothing on Malawi's cuisine is covered yet on Wikipedia, so I left Malawian Cuisine red.
Note that most countries don't have an article on their people, and so a generic link was not included in the persons entry. But some countries do, especially major countries, and so for each country a search for that page must be made and a link to it included if such a page is found. For example, search Wikipedia for the plural (Malawians), and for "people of Malawi", Malawian people, and anything else you can think of.
For those dab pages in which you include such a link, you should change "For information about the Malawian people," to "For more information,".
By the way, our goal with these pages is to provide links to the most relevant information available on Wikipedia. And so we are trying to anticipate readers' needs, and filling their informational needs. The Transhumanist 00:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You removed "For specific Maldivians..." You should leave it in there (as every country will eventually have a list of people from there), and bluelink it if at all possible. Sometimes a list of people from a country can be found in a subsection of List of x-related topics (where x is the country's name). You can either split that section off as a stand-alone list, or create a redirect to it, at List of y (where y is the plural demonym - in this case: List of Maldivians. Sometimes there's already a stand-alone list at List of z people (such as List of Maldivian people - but it should be renamed if it exists (to List of Maldivians to match the naming of other lists of this type, or redirected if it doesn't yet exist and a stand-alone list at List of y (List of Maldivians) does. Make sense?
Languages of x (Languages of the Maldives) should be bluelinked rather than replaced. Most countries have CIA demographic data in their Demographics of x article, which includes a "Languages" section listing all the major languages spoken in the country. Though the data hasn't yet been wikified in all the articles it appears in - but that's fairly easy to do. See Demographics of the Maldives#Languages.
You are not being a pest - I'm impressed with your attention to detail. Here are my observations:
"West Africa" is the name of the region article linked to. Redirects should be used only if there is a special reason to do so.
There is no People of Mali, Malian people, or Malians article, which means the "person from Mali" entry should remain unchanged - exactly the way you did it. Excellent.
I could find no language called "Malian". I assume you checked. You did this entry correctly. Excellent.
The redirects should be to the most relevant links. The closest match for "Cuisine of Mali" is Culture of Mali#Festivals, food, and clothing. Eventually, "food" will be split-off to its own section and then to its own article. Each successive level down (Mali = top or level 1, Culture of Mali = level 2, Cuisine of Mali = level 3, etc.) should include more detail. If a higher level includes more info on a particular topic, that info should be copied or moved to the deeper level. That is, "Cuisine of Mali" should have more info on Mali's food than "Culture of Mali".
Remember to hit "Search" instead of "Go" for this assignment. You missed two (four) entries entirely, which I've added to the dab. You missed the Mali Empire and the Ancient Greek Malians, and by extension, persons from those. ;)
Wait was I supposed to be racing against Highfields, I thought you (the Transhumanist) said you were going to take my place. Oh well. Madadude (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are visiting my talk page, read this!
A huge undertaking is underway to provide easy access to Wikipedia's coverage of country-related topics, and you are all invited. As part of Wikipedia's outline of knowledge being developed by the outline of knowledge WikiProject, a topic outline is being created for every country of the World. A team of editors has been hard at work on these for months, and all the drafts are beginning to take shape. Come take a look! These outlines map out the topics about each country, and because of this they serve as wonderful development tools for evaluating coverage of countries (they reveal gaps and expansion patterns). And because they all use a standard format, they are great for comparing countries and country coverage. Drop me a note if you are interested in helping to develop these outlines or improve Wikipedia's country coverage.
The above outlines have uncovered some major problems in country coverage, and the outline team has been working to correct these. We could sure use your help!
Country adjectivals (e.g.: Dutch, Zambian, Peruvian, Taiwanese, etc.) - most of them were just redirected to the corresponding country article, with no coverage.
"Demographics of" - this set of articles is in serious need of help
Many of these have no lead
Most of them have the demographic data from the CIA's World Factbook, but for only about half of these pages has this data been wikified. In the rest it is poorly named, poorly formatted, and leadless.
Most of these are missing content, with the CIA data being their only content
Country cuisine articles lack a naming standard.
The articles are in the process of being standardized to their country adjectival forms (Japanese cuisine, Italian cuisine, etc.).
A redirect in the name "Cuisine of" is needed to point to each of these articles, to make them easy to find and to link to.
Many article types are hard to find because by their very nature they lack standard names. The following sets of redirects need to be created:
"Head of state of"
"Head of government of"
"Humour of"
"Sports in" - for many countries, the standard is "Sport in". The reader needs to find these regardless of which form he or she types in.
"Sport in" - for many countries, the standard is "Sports in". The reader needs to find these regardless of which form he or she types in.
I'm still not 100% on Regex, but I'm sure that I could find a user to help me with the task, but I'm not exactly sure what I need to do! Sorry, but you've confused me with talk about what you have done, what do you need my help with? ;)
I would like to try and standardize the "Demographics of" articles for the 12 CIS countries that I am familiar with. Unfortunately, even the articles that have been recently "done" (Azerbaijan, Belarus, Russia) do not have a standard structure. Could you please direct me to an example of an ideal layout or template that I should follow? Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only parts Thehelpfulone and I have been working on are the lead and the CIA demographics statistics section. I would suggest you develop one of the twelve articles first, and once you have it to the structure you feel is ideal (feel free to ask others, including me, for feedback) then change the structure of the others to match.
The biggest problem we've run into is that two approaches have been used with the CIA statistics. Some have expanded it to include statistics from other sources, while in some articles the statistics are kept in sections by source (which I think is preferred, because it makes it easier to update them in the future).
Keep up the good work, and feel free to ask me anything, and I'll answer to the best of my ability.
... when I get bored. Which happens a lot. Apparently you often have "behind-the-scenes" stuff going on that needs editing/updating and other Gnome-ish stuff. Let me know on my talk page at any time when you have such stuff. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transhmass!!!!
·Add§hore·Talk/Cont is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
A disambiguation page provides entries for the contexts of a single term - that is, it presents topics with the same name. A dab is not a collection of all the titles with that term in them! The dab title must mean each entry. Take "Chinese" for example. It's an adjective that means "something of or from China" (e.g., I bought a Chinese vase, he's Chinese), and it is the name of the Chinese people (the Chinese almost took over the world under Ghengis Khan), the name of their family of languages (pardon me, do you speak Chinese?).
But the "Chinese government" isn't called "Chinese", it's called the "Chinese government" or sometimes "Beijing" (like the U.S. government is often refered to as "Washington").
Also, "Chinese cuisine" is called "Chinese", such as when you're "going out for Chinese", or when your wife asks you "should we order a pizza" and you reply "I'm in the mood for Chinese".
Is a Mauritian passport called a "Mauritian"? Do customs agents ask "Can I see your Mauritian please"?
Note that a Manx cat is called a Manx, which is also the adjectival for the Isle of Man. Does "Manx" mean "Manx surname"? Are there any other entries that don't belong in that dab?
I was looking at this message and realised that completing these find/replaces takes a long time, and it seems that there are going to be a lot more of these little tasks for Demographic of articles. Therefore, what do you think of a bot request to use for AWB to automatically run these tasks?
Bot requests are for industrial-sized chores that are precisely defined. This little set of pages doesn't warrant a bot. Besides, the edits need to be supervised by a human to make sure there aren't any errors.
But going for a bot that you can use AWB for simple search/replaces would really helpful. I'm not sure what they will say to your request, but you'll probably have to prove that you won't do any erroneous replaces with it.
In the meantime, for simple search and replaces you could place the tasks up at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. Complex tasks tend to be ignored on that list (but not always). There are lots of AWB'ers who love to do the easy ones. By the way, you have a volunteer there willing to help out on the CIA statistics on the "Demographics of" pages! You might want to contact him. :) (He's under "Here's a juicy one"). The Transhumanist 22:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are either a firm friend of mine, have signed my autograph book, are a member of WPTC, or are someone I simply like or admire:
Dylan620ContribsSign! is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
A glass of milk, to wash down that cookie, and to promote more WikiLove!
Don't forget to put this on top of your Christmas tree...
Thanks for the encouragement, Transhumanist. :-) Judging by your opinion, I'm probably a lot more prepared than I thought. Time for an editor review. How do I initiate Wikipedia:Editor review/Dylan620? Meanwhile, I don't plan on running for adminship until at least April or May, but would you support me if I ran for adminship today? --Dylan620ContribsSign!23:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Demographics Userbox
Hello, The Transhumanist, long time, no message. I have been a little busy with schoolwork, messin' around with my new ipod, creating videos, and keepin' up with the grammys, so I havn't had much time to help with WikiProject Demographics. I promise I will help as much as I can after the holidays. I have made this user box
for people participating in WikiProject Demographics. I don't know if you want it or not but I mainly made it for me. Use {{User:Blackadam2/Demographicsbox}} for the userbox if you want to. I will put it up on the WikiProject page.
Please write back on my talk page and tell me what you think.
A week or two ago, I looked at the Iraq article, and it was in bad need of attention. It seems to incite hopelessness in editors, and political angst in all readers. I've been systematically trying to address concerns, complaints, missing citations, by improving which articles it links out to, but I'm afraid in the process I'm overdoing the Modern History, which seems to be most contentious to our US based audience. I'd like to find the right balance of material between the pages Iraq, History of Iraq, Topic outline of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, Iraq War, United States-Iraq relations among many others. Specifically, my problems are between being encyclopedic and summarizing. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, but I'd really like to see Iraq and its supporting articles be a helpful reference to the general public, and get up to Good Article status within the coming weeks. Could you spare a second pair of eyes? Any attention, advice, or feedback is warmly welcomed. Bagsc (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My initial advice is to map out the Iraq-related subject material first, which means build (and refine) the Topic outline of Iraq before you do anything else. You will find it invaluable as a table of contents or index to get around, to see the structure of the subject, or to see what is covered and what is not. The Transhumanist 23:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't very active around the time you replied and I guess it got archived before I noticed it. It's strange that I'm not listed at WP:AWB/CP because I do have AWB installed. I think it might be because I'm automatically approved since I'm an admin, cause I was approved to use it before I became an admin. So, what's next? :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
Sorry, but I've been really busy lately with my own projects. Being an admin takes a lot of work, you know. :)
At the moment, with my administrative duties and trying to keep up with article writing, I'm afraid I don't have a lot of time for the country lists. I will, however, help out as soon as I get some free time. In the meantime, Dylan620 (talk·contribs) is always looking for tasks to complete, so he might be able to help out. Apologies for the inconvenience. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone03:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, that brings me onto another thing. Regarding the continent WHS lists, each page has different titles for the sections:
List of World Heritage Sites in Europe has ==Austria (8)==. Now if Austria gets another WHS at any time, that number will change and any incoming links to that section will be useless. Also, per WP:ACCESS, section headers should not be wikilinked because they cause problems for screen readers for the blind. This is especially true for section headers that are only part linked. Depending on the screen reader, it will only read "Austria" or "(8)".
List of World Heritage Sites in Africa has section headers such as ==Algeria== (using {{flagicon}}), meaning there is now an image of a flag in the section header, and a wikilinked word. This causes the screen reader to read the filename of the flag image and the country name.
List of World Heritage Sites in the Americas has section headers without linking the country, as in == Argentina== (using {{flagicon}}). Again screen readers will either ignore the image and read the country name, or read the filename of the image and not the word itself.
Each page should be consistent and to meet WP:ACCESS I think it would be best if it were just the unlinked country names. The flagicon templates, (8)s and (also under Europe) are not good for the section headers here. The latter can be indentented added in itallic text under each entry, perhaps.
So before I start working on the linking in each topic outline, I think the section headers of each list need fixing first. You know more about the desired outcomes of these lists though, so let me know if I should go ahead and fix them. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done I found myself with a little free time, and used it to fix the headings according to your observations above. You are right, article headings should not have images or links in them. Note that Contents pages are an exception, and some of them include images in their headings. The Transhumanist 00:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](http://www.halexawards.com/images/0180Dachievement.gif){kind=link}
