Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Village pump miscellaneous   post
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please try to post within news, policy, technical, proposals or assistance rather than here. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.	Shortcut: WP:VPM
Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page.	Archive

Village pump
News (post)
Policy (post)
Technical (post)
Proposals (post)
Assistance (post)
Miscellaneous (post)

Contents 1 4000metres = ? 2 Question... 3 Ninjas or Pirates? 4 The (Hopefully Reversible) Decline of Wikipedia 5 Encyclopidity 6 Growth Slowing 7 history of france 8 redundancy? 9 Model T pictured in Wikipedia's automotive history section is BADLY misidentified. 10 Condolences on talk page 11 Please Block User:Murdoc666 12 Wikipedia for sale on Ebay 13 design 14 Promotion of theft in Wikipedia 15 The art of welcoming new users 15.1 en.wikipedia.org : Welcome to Wikipedia! 15.2 fr.wikipedia.org : {{subst:Bienvenue | ~~~~ }} 15.3 Discussion 15.4 Very, very, very rough translation of French welcome template 16 Page Deleted for Unknown Reason 17 Some recent warning templates I created 18 Newspaper Article on Wikipedia 19 References with mandatory registration 20 American vs. Canadian spelling in color articles 21 Wikipedia is addictive 22 Consistency between similar articles 23 Nonsense vandalism fad 24 Who writes Wikipedia? 25 University students seek Wikipedia contributors for usage survey 26 small service 27 Portal:China 28 GFDL question

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

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

[edit] 4000metres = ?

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

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

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

[edit] Question...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Ninjas or Pirates?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The (Hopefully Reversible) Decline of Wikipedia

I've used Wikipedia for years. I've had an account for years. I'm posting this anonymously because, in the past, when I've been candid, I've found some people become personally abusive as a result.

Tonight, I happened on a page where perfectly legitimate, double-sourced material was removed as "defamatory" in a POV edit by what appears to be both an ignorant and overzealous "administrator" cum "censor." I checked the administrator's record; he/she has been a Wiki user for less than a year. This "administrator" clearly doesn't understand defamation (I am an attorney -- I do).

To me, this sort of behavior articulates the growing problems with Wikipedia in a nutshell: Wiki used to be about building a big base of free knowledge. Now it's all about people trying to become administrators and their petty powers and suck-up circle. (When I see people asking to be administrators and organizing little suckup campaigns, my first reaction is, "that person does not deserve nor merit to be an administrator.") The levels of bureaucracy and rules and policies and templates here make the DMV look like a lemonade stand. Wikipedia is now an AV Society of Asocial Geeks who are obstructive and self-protective of their ridiculous little circles of power. To preserve that power, they're destroying Wikipedia in the process.

As a result, Wikipedia is narrowing its potential pool of contributors by becoming an entrenched bureaucracy as petty as the faculty of any also-ran community college. Just look how frickin' complex footnotes have become; how is a new contributor supposed to understand all that coding? Who wants to waste time learning? What was wrong with the old, simple footnote policy? How many tasks forces and little online committees and requests for proposals were necessary to come up with that byzantine silliness?

Most dangerously, Wikipedia is now self-destructing with this "living persons" policy which, absurdly, actually is exposing Wikipedia and all of its assets to legal peril. Wikipedia, simply put, is voiding its 47 USC 230 (c)(1) protection with all this heavy-handed screening and editing. You're inviting yourself to be sued by doing this and, in the process, voiding your own legal protections.

So what is my solution? I didn't just come here to bitch. My solution: simplify. Go back to the basics of what made Wikipedia great. Trim back all the bureaucracy and all the layers upon layers upon layers of policies and reviews and tasks forces and procedures and yada yada yada. Make CONTENT king; don't make the petty and monstrous bureaucracy king, as it is now. I can remember when Wiki's policies took ten minute to read. Now it would take ten days to read. That's just absurd.

I will continue to use and contribute to Wikipedia. I was here in the beginning, long before the vast majority of present administrators had even heard of the site and were still busy wasting their time on Friendster. I fear, however, that what made Wikipedia great is being lost. It's about information, people, not the bureaucracy. It's about content, not petty little turf wars and seeing how you can flex your little administrative powers. I'm constantly shocked by the rude and heavy-handed actions by administrators. Police yourself, people, before you try to make yourself look big by being small. 207.69.137.12 05:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you expand upon the 47 USC 230 part? -- Kjkolb 08:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I will do so on the Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons page as that seems the more appropriate place.207.69.138.10 17:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If this editor is actually a lawyer and a seasoned contributor then I'm surprised he or she would choose to express complaints in this way. The obvious method for a practicing attorney to share a concern about potential lawsuit exposure would be to contact the Wikimedia foundation or its counsel. There are several ways to express misgivings about a particular administrator's actions. Open a dialogue with the administrator. Post to WP:AN or open a user conduct WP:RFC.

You state, The obvious method for a practicing attorney to share a concern about potential lawsuit exposure would be to contact the Wikimedia foundation or its counsel. The exact opposite is true. Because I am an attorney, it would be inappropriate for me to do so, and, possibly, violate the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility. That notwithstanding, you clearly don't understand the purpose of my statement. I didn't post this here to bitch about a particular administrator; I deliberately did not do so. You immediately dismissed the content of my complaint and, instead, began an ad hominem attack on me. That only underscores the scope of my original statement -- it doesn't sound like you're interested in improving Wikipedia; instead, you're interested in protecting the petty fiefdom of administratorship.207.69.138.10 17:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The way this editor presents the dispute, by making anonymous bad faith accusations against administrators in general and providing no page diffs or links, makes me doubt its credibility. Durova 19:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am shocked by the above comments of User:Durova; however, his/her reaction actually examplifies the anon's remarks. I fully agree with anon's comments, as I'm annoyed by the irrelevant clutter that is currently being increased about WP:NOR as more explanation about primary and secondary sources is being prepared while in fact no mention of such distinctions is required at all -- it's running out of control.

About footnotes however I have an intermediate opinion: for an effective application of WP:V it's very useful if not essential to have inline citations, and the basics of it are easy. Harald88 03:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Per above, you also have missed the point and are turning this into an ad hominem attack on me. This was not about a particular administrator. Don't make it into something it isn't. Don't insist on missing the forest for the trees.207.69.138.10 17:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In a 61 minute span the IP edited this page, Talk:Michele Bachmann, and Curt Weldon. It looks like this is about election politics. Durova 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume very good faith on the part of this anonymous IP. Perhaps, our check-users should be able to know of his/her real user identity, if he/she has one, so editing with a user name or an IP is immaterial. One has all the right to edit anonymously and to impute any motive to such anonymous edits is perhaps not a good idea. I also do believe that she/he is an attorney. Why he/she would assert so if he/she were not one? I also find that her/his general assertions are true. Wikipedia's style of functioning has become more rule-oriented and process-oriented, and this may not be killing wikipedia, it may be making the life of real editors and content builders difficult. --Bhadani 00:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This user has chosen to raise several serious allegations in a manner that almost guarantees they will not be resolved. Wikimedia's legal counsel probably doesn't spend much time at Village pump investigating anonymous allegations. However, I am an administrator who would investigate a situation where other users may have acted improperly. Because this appears to involve current events I would prioritize the matter. However, this editor has given almost no leads. I checked the recent edit history to look for subjects of interest. The time frame is not a subjective comment on the quality of the anon's edits, rather an observation that this randomized IP address was probably assigned to the same user during a single login. Checkuser is not for fishing expeditions. If this editor would like to follow up either on this thread or via my e-mail I'd give the situation an impartial review. Durova 14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Bhadani and Durova for having an open mind. However, I didn't post this here to complain about a particular administrator; I actually began that process elsewhere. I posted it as a wakeup call to begin a dialog. Wikipedia is seriously off track. People are too close to the archania to notice the big picture. I'm trying to get people to look at the big picture once again.207.69.138.10 17:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if one has done his/her homework fine, and preapred the materials, he/she could do more pages in 61 minutes. If one works off line for say one month, one may upload 10 good articles in 5 to 10 minutes. There is nothing surprising in such fast edits. --Bhadani 01:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure whether this anon thinks I have an open mind or am defending my petty fiefdom, but I'll accept the nomination: okay, I'm a Rouge admin. Durova 19:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We already know about these problems. Do you have a solution? Saying "let's go back to the way things were" isn't a solution. Unless you also want to ban everyone who's joined since then, I guess, and delete all the articles they've created. Things that worked for a wiki that no one knew about with 100 contributors and 1000 articles will never work for a wiki with thousands of contributors that comes up as the first result for many Google searches, is treated as an authoritative source in discussion forum battles, and has biographies about resentful people who want to discredit it. — Omegatron 20:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You ask, "Do you have a solution?" I already included a number of solutions in my original post. One: simplify. Everything. Simplify everything. Policies used to be a few pages. Now it would take days just to find all of them, let alone read them. The footnotes policy is a perfect example. Wiki for years had a simple footnote coding policy. Now it's been made infinitely complex so it only makes sense to people who spend hours on here every day.

I think the biggest problem is the complexity of the bureaucracy, which has created a need for way too many administrators, and many of those administrators are woefully unqualified. By simplifying the rules and procedures, Wiki will be more open to users at all levels. I think the whole policy of people begging to be administrators, then running campaigns, is a self-destructive way to run a system. Many of these new -- and very young -- administrators only have computer skills and nothing else. People who have been on here six or eight months shouldn't be administrators. They're more interested in playing with software and "administrative blocks" than improving content. I'm constantly amazed how destructive and rude many of these new administrators are.

I think the administrator/contributor function also needs to be split. You're either one or the other, but not both. If you're both, inherent conflicts-of-interest and turf wars arise. As well, administrators need to learn not to speak in jargon. Many newer users don't know what the hell they're talking about. So it makes Wikipedia seem an unfriendly place. Don't say, you're violating WP:3RR. Say, you're violating the three-revert rule; click here to learn more about it. Too many administrators like to show off their knowledge of jargon -- or how fast they can jump down someone's throat -- as opposed to actually helping out. (And, the three-revert rule notification process is another example of something that has become infinitely complex; the coding only makes sense to an advanced Wikipedia user -- the old system was far better.)

Another important solution would be to dial the hostility way back. Your response to me is immediately hostile and combative. I never said to go back to the way Wiki was when there were 100 contributors -- so please don't put words in my mouth. You're making this about me, not about Wikipedia. That's counter-productive. Let's make this about improving the system. Most of the discussion here has been to admit there are problems, and then immediately attack me without discussing the actual problems. 4.232.60.33 00:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I know this does not address the primary theme of the initial post. It does address some of the secondary themes.

The main reason that I have not contributed but have only edited has been the complexity of the site. I have spent many hours wandering around in the guidelines and have yet to find a format for footnotes. I know that Kate Turabian is out of favor and the latest edition that I have of her book is quite old. I am not certain of the current status of MLA but, again, the only version that I have of that is probably older than most Wikipedians.

The number of templates confuses me. The incessant and aggressive use of jargon is distracting and often unintelligible. (From the original post in this subject, “The levels of bureaucracy and rules and policies and templates here make the DMV look like a lemonade stand. Wikipedia is now an AV Society of Asocial Geeks who are obstructive and self-protective of their ridiculous little circles of power.” When I see “DMV” I think “Department of Motor Vehicles” whose rules and policies seem to me to be fairly straightforward. When I see “AV” I think “Audio-Visual” which is obviously not what was meant.)

The only problem that I have with the editing that I have seen is the prevalence of the assumption of bad faith. If something appears to be wrong, instead of attempting to correct the error or giving notice that the contributor of the apparent error will be contacted to make some sense of the matter, the perceived error is deleted, no questions or discussion.

JimCubb 01:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The user who started this thread hasn't offered any evidence in support of these claims. As this chart demonstrates, the English language Wikipedia has only 1 administrator for every 2489 registered accounts. That's the third lowest ratio of all Wikipedia language projects. The ratio of admins to users has actually declined steadily since January 2004. We're barely adding sysops fast enough to keep up with the growth in articles.[2] If an administrator abuses trust, go ahead and open a review at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct or visit Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship. There are also dozens of administrators, myself among them, who have volunteered to stand for reconfirmation if six editors request it Category:Administrators open to recall. Before I became an administrator I amassed nearly 9000 edits, contributed 3 featured pages, and opened the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Medieval warfare task force - so it's surprising that anyone would question my commitment to building an encyclopedia. Anyone who thinks administratorship is granted too lightly is welcome to join Wikipedia:Requests for administratorship and vote on open nominations. Also, anyone who wants to help organize and streamline Wikipedia's rules and guidelines is welcome to do so. Just go to an appropriate talk page and join the discussion or begin a new proposal. Wikipedia really is a flexible and open project. Durova 02:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the decline in number of administrators is the reason some of them are grouchy. We are each responsible for the well-being of 1377 articles, if distributed evenly among us, and everything is our fault when one of them goes bad. I have 2,180 on my watchlist (a lot of redirects, I hope) ;-) But it gets taxing. Jimbo's original idea of administrators was just people who had edited a while and proved they were trying to contribute to the encyclopedia; someone that could be trusted not to break things.

I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*. I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone. I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.

—Jimbo

— Omegatron 04:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with a lot of what the anon has said here, and I don't think people should disregard the message based on the method of presentation. It used to that we assumed good faith, it's a shame people attribute motive to communications to dismiss it rather than engage with the ideas presented. Wikipedia does need scaling back on the policy side and it does need better engagement from the board on legal issues, to be honest. Steve block Talk 10:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If I had disregarded the message I would have disregarded it. Instead I extended enough good faith to list my concerns. This anon's replies were extremely cursory: they not only fail to provide any supporting evidence but the anon appears to have mistaken me for two different people (after accusing me of running a petty fiefdom, the same anon thanks me in a later section for having an open mind). I still haven't received any substantiation of these claims either here on this board or in my e-mail. I've provided evidence for why I don't think this anon identifies any systemic problem - if you disagree then go make Wikipedia better! This is not a closed shop. Durova 16:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I never thought it was a closed shop, and I have argued the point the anon raises or ones similar to it at different times in different venues, and am currently, but thanks for the advice. My words were not directed at you in nature but outwards, and aimed in general. Steve block Talk 18:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, I agree with the policy issue. We're suffering from a serious, serious case of bloat. It's just mind-boggling sometimes to try and find something, anything on the policy/WP side because there's a million-and-a-half links on every page. And for every policy, there are 10 pages to read, to boot. We need to hack-and-slash the entire WP namespace to the bare bones of what is necessary. Simplicity is wildly under-appreciated here. --Wolf530 (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong - it's greatly appreciated, just impossible to accomplish. The problem is that my simplicity is your lack of value; what I think is necessary you think is superfluous; what I regard as intelligent pruning of pointless blather you regard as vindictive destruction of a great and noble institution ... and vice-versa, of course. All human institutions produce impenetrable rules, regulations, policies and procedures; the notable thing about wikipedia is that we've created so many of them so quickly. - DavidWBrooks 03:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not impossible to accomplish at all. It's just time to start going through the WP namespace and editing. We need to be more like book editors -- every word and link has to be absolutely critical. If we can get along without it, we need to. That's simplicity. That's accomplishable. --Wolf530 (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, despite the natural tendency of complicating matters, counterforces are at work.

For example Wikipedia:Attribution is a current attempt to merge and simplify the policies WP:V and WP:NOR with the essentials from the guidelineWP:RS which can then be dropped.

Only I doubt that enough people (and with fresh ideas) are involved in this. Harald88 16:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

To the original poster: I am currently working on an article about the "social aspects" of Wikipedia. I'd be very interested in talking to you about what you view as "suckup campaigns" and the need for people to become adminstrators. If you're interested, please email me at brianwrites@gmail.com68.39.158.205 02:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think what the anon original poster of this thread is missing is that, in his yearning for the halcion days of wikipedia's youth, he has missed the problems associated with the exponential growth wikipedia has experienced. I understand his concerns, I do. I personally think the rediculous number of notability guidelines only serves to obfuscate the purpose of the concept of notability. The issue is that people have become creative and sneaky about being intentionally disruptive to the editorial process. The whole beaurocracy of wikipedia exists to protect it from disruptive, anti-productive editing. I understand the general problem that thousands of users with sysop access generates. The question is: Do we simplify, as suggested, even if that means allowing disruptive editors to degrade the quality of wikipedia, or do we keep the huge, unweildy beaurocracy to deal with the problem, even if it means that some people who are admins don't belong there? Thus is the conundrum. Do you come down on the side of freedom, or law-and-order? Sounds like the same debate happening in every community of any size at any point in the entire history of the world. --Jayron32 05:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: The (Hopefully Reversible) Decline of Wikipedia:

Wikipedia has existed in a vacuum for a long time, but by proving the collaborative model successful, it now has serious competition. Competition is good. It will force Wikipedians to implement improvements. However, the "business rule" is that innovations sparkle for a while, but eventually get replaced by improved versions produced by stronger competitors. I would hope that Wikipedia would be an exception to the rule, but based on "hundreds of unfulfilled feature requests" and the prevalent culture of defensiveness and resistance to change, excellent leadership will be required to reverse Wikipedia's otherwise eventual decline. 70.112.29.65 09:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Culture of defensiveness. Hadn't thought of that term... describes very well what goes on around here a lot. --Wolf530 (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopidity

I've just discovered a brilliant new term that should enter every Wikipedian's vocabulary: encyclopidity [3]! A good article is one of "high encyclopidity". A questionable entry is one of "low encyclopidity" or "questionable encyclopidity". And if someone doubts something is appropriate for Wikipedia, why, they can say "I doubt this article's encyclopidity"! -- Ekjon Lok 02:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Growth Slowing

Did anybody else see on the Announcements page that the monthly new article count is way down? Is is possible that we've run out of new things to write about? (I feel that this is actually a good thing. The existing articles will get longer, more detailed, and, in theory, of a higher quality.) Any different opinions? Just curious. Steveo2 20:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I always wondered what the record will be. Here is a question. How many Wikipedia article titles are possible?? To calculate the answer to the question, take the number of unicode characters, and call this number U. The number is U + (U*(U-1)) + (U*(U-1*(U-2))) + (U*(U-1*(U-2*(U-3))))... with the last term being the product of all the integers from U down to U-255. Although this is a big number, it's still finite. Anyone know what it is?? Georgia guy 20:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I messed up. I made the mistake of thinking that characters cannot duplicate. So, the answer is U + U^2 + U^3 + U^4... with the last term being U^255. Georgia guy 20:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously it depends on what value U has; I don’t know what that might be. Estimating 100,000 for U, U²⁵⁶ would be 10¹²⁸⁰ We’re not there yet. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the Unicode site, this is how many characters are currently assigned:

Graphic        96,248
Format         134
Control        65
Private Use    137,468
Surrogate      2,048
Noncharacter   66
Reserved       878,083

The "graphic" ones (96,248) would be the ones that are currently suitable for use within article titles, though in theory the 137,468 "private use" ones could be assigned meanings that might be specific to Wikimedia projects, and the 878,083 reserved ones might have standard meanings in the future. *Dan T.* 12:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is, of course, silly. We're never going to write articles at titles resembling random and meaningless combinations of characters, which constitute well over 99% of these combinations. I think it's an interesting question why the new article count has dropped, but I doubt it's because we're out of things to write about - there are still many underdeveloped areas much in need of expansion, and many new subjects appearing everyday in the world worthy of articles. Deco 23:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This of course has already been done see The Library of Babel. --Salix alba (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

One possible explanation for the growth slowdown is the expansion of the speedy deletion criteria. Oldelpaso 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's because we've caught up with all the Simpsons references. And Pokemon characters. Once we're finished with every human being who ever appeared on a Dr. Who episode, the new-article count will plummet into single digits. - DavidWBrooks

[edit] history of france

Hi! I wanted to know what should we deduct from history of france. Thanks a lot

Try discussing this at Talk:History of France Tra (Talk) 18:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't. That's not what article Talk pages are for. Take it to the Reference Desk. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by 'deduct'. If you mean 'deduct' as in 'remove from the article' then the talk page would be the best place to discuss it. If you mean it as in 'deduce' then the reference desk would probably be the best place to go. Tra (Talk) 03:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] redundancy?

i didn't expect this Ohio 2nd congressional district election, 2006, and this Ohio 13th congressional district election, 2006, to still say "will take place on November 7th, 2006" (at the time of writing), but even if they were updated, don't you think wikipedia is getting a bit bloated with sub-sub-sections? try not to think of it in terms of how something "works" now, think of the maintainability of such articles in a few years in case they are forgotten and in case popularity of wikipedia doesn't grow. i'm not saying it should get as "general" as it gets, but i think some restrain should be in order. better not through strict regulation, more through agreement in way of operation. --87.194.72.129 07:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A deep question that has been debated since I started on wikipedia three years ago - and was being debated for the two years it was operating before that! I used to be err on the side of deletion, now I err on the side of inclusion - leave it in; even if it gets outdated or never finished, what's the real harm? Has your usage of wikipedia been harmed by all those %$#@ Pokemon articles or badly written fancruft on flash-in-the-pan bands? Then it won't be harmed by hundreds of single-election articles that may not be as complete as we'd like. In fact, what would be the harm is even greater hair-splitting - say, Ward 11, Ohio 2nd congressional district election, 2006? - DavidWBrooks 16:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

i'd prefer keeping that simply deleting, but what i'm saying is maybe more 'balance' on it is needed. e.g. it's not nice having a short encyclopaedia but it's not nice having one filled with stubs either --87.194.72.129 07:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Model T pictured in Wikipedia's automotive history section is BADLY misidentified.

First let me clarify that I am using a friend’s computer but I usually must use the library's computer for any internet use. However I do have an email address so anyone who wishes to challenge my accuracy is welcome to so do. However, bear in mind that it may take a week or two before I can reply because I have no home internet and I do not live on this thing.

So let me introduce myself. I am <e-mail redacted for spam protection>. I am a self-taught amateur automotive historian and would not venture to correct anything this public and this BODLY as well unless I was 100% sure of my facts.

So here is to what I am referring; the beige model T pictured under "automotive history" is a 1925, 1926, or 1927 model T YET captioned as "the brass-era model T." YES, the model T was introduced and produced throughout the brass era. As such, THAT PICTURE is highly misleading because that particular model T AND the majority of the 15 million model T's produced, including MOST of the BLACK-ONLY model T's were produced AFTER the END of the brass-era. Of all the model T enthusiast I have ever heard of, they NEVER refer to a BLACK-ONLY model T as a BRASS-ERA. Furthermore and just to thoroughly crystallize the point at hand, model T’s were available in colors BOTH at their beginning, BRASS-ERA years, AND ALSO at least from 1925 through their discontinuance (due to the availability of the then new Duco high-speed painting-process). I am not completely sure, but colors may have also been available in 1924.

What I am POSITIVE of is that the model T PICTURED is NOT a 1908 through 1913 which are the REAL BRASS-ERA model T's. The BRASS-ERA model T's have hoods and radiators which are VERY angular and look a little like the Rolls Royce's of that period. Furthermore, they have fenders that stick straight-out similar to the first Jeeps and DO-NOT curve down. Please do not just take my word for it. Look at that picture again and notice the SILVER RADITOR as opposed to a brass colored one. I believe you will notice that the radiator in the picture is chrome. ;>) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.165.101.255 (talk • contribs) .

You're right; that's a 1927 car and the Brass Era as described in the article ended in 1914. I have removed the image from that article. In the future you are more than welcome to remove or correct such inaccuracies yourself should you find them. Just remember to leave an "edit summary" (it's the little box between the main edit window and the save page button) to explain what you are doing and why. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Condolences on talk page

Talk:Gerald_Levert now has six messages, all of which are expressions of sympathy or the like on the death of Gerald Levert (an American R&B singer who died today at age 40 of a heart attack). This doesn't strike me as an appropriate use of an article talk page, well-intentioned though those editors may be. Should I delete these messages? | Mr. Darcy talk 05:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• • While I see your point and what you are sayinig, it is, after all, a talk page. There was some talk in the same lines about a page dedicated to someone on the talk page. I don't remember how it ended but I don't think anything was done. I mean, yeah this is a serious (though characters like me try to show the lighter side of it) encyclopedic piece of art but any way we put it a talk page is a talk page, and well, people use it to....talk. I really respect and value your job patrolling our pages. Thanks and God bless you!

Antonio Cuming 2u Martin

[edit] Please Block User:Murdoc666

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

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

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

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

[edit] Wikipedia for sale on Ebay

Check this out!! And for about 1 dollar or 2 pounds??? Either this is a joke or our Jimmy Wales has gone Wales over his top.Wikipedia at Ebay for sale. Thanks and God bless you!

Antonio the licka from Puerto Rica Martin

Umm, that's W1KIPEDIA.COM, not WIKIPEDIA.COM (notice the number, 1). --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 07:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

And the actual Wikipedia is at WIKIPEDIA.ORG'; note the .org TLD indicating a noncommercial organization. *Dan T.* 18:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] design

is it just me, or do == headings look different than before? and the main page headers are centered and only as big as the text... design change? i don't like it. 80.41.217.63 14:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that's been fixed now. Clear your cache to see the old design. Tra (Talk) 15:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promotion of theft in Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to make several comments here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The art of welcoming new users

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

[edit] en.wikipedia.org : Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome!

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

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

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

[edit] fr.wikipedia.org : {{subst:Bienvenue | ~~~~ }}

[edit] Discussion

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

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

  Cheers,

  Jmfayard 14:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Very, very, very rough translation of French welcome template

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

Welcome to French Wikipedia (your name here)!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Page Deleted for Unknown Reason

For what it's worth I see no citation of a criterion for speedy deletion here. We can't just delete 

things that seem non-notable on sight. Please exercise discretion. Deco 11:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It was moved to the user space at User:NEaB/Nowhere-Else and Beyond and then the redirect that was 

created by the page move was deleted. RJFJR 16:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I know why it was deleted, I talked with the admin that deleted it and found out why; but there was no citation of a criterion for speedy deletion given on the page which made it a bit frustrating to find. Also, it was not moved to the user space until I requested it for revision. Garth of NEaB 14:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The article was deleted for fairly obvious reasons. You might read WP:COI and WP:NOT. In general, articles are not ever moved into userspace without a direct request. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 15:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some recent warning templates I created

User:Iced Kola/T
User:Iced Kola/T2
User:Iced Kola/T3
User:Iced Kola/T4

I'm going to start using these as my warning templates (I love creating them =p), and I'm even going to inset them into my vandalproof. I'm just asking any and all users here on wikipedia if they can check them out and improve them/give me feedback on them. Thanks. I c e d K o l a ^{(Contributions)} 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

These look good. I'd say remove the class attribute in T, T2 and T3 because you're not really expecting people to customize how they appear through monobook.css. (It's OK in T4 because that's a standard class used in Wikipedia). You might also wish to consider inserting the code ~~<includeonly></includeonly>~~ immediately before the closing div tag, so that when it's substituted, your signature appears as part of the message between the lines. Tra (Talk) 00:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newspaper Article on Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

Bush looks like a chimp.

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

[edit] References with mandatory registration

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Village pump

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] American vs. Canadian spelling in color articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Wikipedia is addictive

Do you find Wikipedia addictive? I sure do.

oh yeah. - Kar_the_Everburning(not logged in)

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

[edit] Consistency between similar articles

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

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

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

[edit] Nonsense vandalism fad

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

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

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

[edit] Who writes Wikipedia?

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

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

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

[edit] University students seek Wikipedia contributors for usage survey

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

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

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

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

[edit] small service

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

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

[edit] Portal:China

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

[edit] GFDL question

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