Wikipedia:Village pump/December 2003 archive 3

Removing NPOV dispute notices

I believe that the current version of the 12th Street Riot article, which is currently linked to the NPOV dispute page seems okay.

How do I go about suggesting that an article currently under NPOV dispute be removed from that list/have the notices removed? I've noted my opinion on the article's talk page with a summary to that effect, so it's in recent changes, and, obviously, here.

Is there a different mechanism for asking people to take a look and comment/vote on removing articles from the NPOV dispute list that I haven't found yet? If there isn't, should there be? I'm thinking of something similar to the brilliant prose candidates page. Thalia/Karen 03:56, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think there is a policy. I would make sure that you really believe the article is in NPOV. Then, what you can do is: first leave a note in the talk page saying that you believe the NPOV notice is no longer needed, wait a while and then remove it. If someone believes otherwise they will come and put it back in. Dori | Talk 18:08, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Dori. Any thoughts on whether it would be useful to have a page listing candidates for removal from NPOV dispute status? If there were such a thing, would you (or anyone else who's reading this) use it? I'm willing to put one together; I just don't want to do it if no one else thinks it would be worthwhile. Thalia/Karen 21:18, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Karen, I don't know if it would be useful to have such a page. I am more likely to put an NPOV notice than to remove one. Perhaps you could just list such topics at Wikipedia:List of controversial issues. Dori | Talk 23:15, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

When you believe the neutrality of an article is no longer disputed, remove the dispute notice. See also wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute, IIRC. Martin 23:52, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Martin, thanks for the link; it was helpful. What you said certainly makes sense. But I wasn't involved in the dispute, so I wasn't sure. I know when I think something's neutral, but not when others do. I thought perhaps a single page listing similar articles might provide a) a consensus-building route out of NPOV disputes/editing wars and b) an easy way to speed cleanup of pages that were worked on after disputes, and then forgotten about. There's enough to do without chasing after pages that really don't still need attention. Still, as I said, I doubt I'll put one together if no one else thinks it'd be useful. Thalia/Karen 20:32, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Usernames

Would it be feasible to put a 32-character limit on usernames? - Hephaestos 04:57, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You read my mind. Actually I think you read the mind of many people. It might interest you to know that the longest apparently non-trolling name on the English Wikipedia is 37 characters "Johann Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet". The longest name overall is our friend "What most..." at 62 chars. -- Tim Starling 06:59, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

I agree that such a limit would be a good idea. I think 32 or 40 characters are enough for everyone, but the limit could be just 20 or 24 too. Peace. Optim 07:28, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maybe the limit could be 3-4 characters, actually... That would probably deal with long usernames completely. Κσυπ Cyp   09:16, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

With a maximum of 3 characters and with the English 26-letter alphabet, we can have up to 15600 different Wikipedians. With 4 characters we can have 358800. With 5 characters 7893600. Check Permutation. how many registered users do we have right now? Optim 20:57, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just FYI, 32 bytes may be as little as 8-10 characters for some languages. --Brion 09:19, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can the limit be on characters (i.e. Unicode codepoints) rather than bytes? --Delirium 03:21, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

er...

Where do i click to just tell you guys that this is a really cool site!!

You just did. Alternatively, you could click on this one: [1]   :)  -- Finlay McWalter 20:37, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Definite articles in article titles

We've been having a lively discussion on Talk:List of Marvel Comics characters about whether to name articles of superheroes whose names have traditionally included the definite article "the" in their name. Examples:

1. The Scarlet Witch
2. The Vision
3. The Wasp
4. The Incredible Hulk
5. The Avengers
6. The Sandman (vs. Sandman (comics) - these pages need to be merged sometime, but that's another issue)

We seem to have reached an impasse, and with only 3 people actively debating (myself, User:Lowellian and User:UtherSRG) I don't think consensus can be reached. (For points from both sides of the debate, see Talk:List of Marvel Comics characters/Archive 2.)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions doesn't seem to provide any guidance on this issue, as far as I can tell. The only relevant advice seems to be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), however there is even debate about which form is the "common" one.

My feeling is that there are certain characters - including those above - whose article titles should include the definite article. Others, such as (The) Batman have evolved to the point that the definite article is optional or has fallen into disuses, and leaving it off those pages is fine. And in particular, names which are also names of actual comic book publications which include the definite article (The Avengers, The Sandman) should include the article in their article titles.

One point for me is that it's generally much more natural to write about these characters using the definite article (e.g., "The Scarlet Witch married The Vision", as opposed to "Scarlet Witch married Vision"), and it therefore seems more natural to linkify The Scarlet Witch rather than The Scarlet Witch.

What is the general feeling about this issue? --mhr 21:38, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No one has been consistent on this over the years - least of all the publishers. Every Managing Editor's attempt to achieve consistency has devolved into a Tower of Babel. As a searchable database, however, consistency is something we do have to achieve. Omitting definite articles seems definitely more intuitive for searching. Making links look nice can be achieved by [[Vision|The Vision]] which comes out as The Vision - unkamunka. 23:46, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I say use "the" where it's a part of the name or title. The only reason I can see to drop it is to appear in the right place in alphabetized lists. Since this is not an issue really (and even if it was, redirects would fix it), there's no sense in living them out. Zocky 03:26, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Not in every case. The Tasmanian Devil points to the Loony Toons charactor, while Tasmanian devil points to the actual animal. The same is true for The Tick and Tick, and I'm sure many others. Gentgeen 07:27, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't think you would write "The Scarlet Witch married The Vision"...you might write "The Scarlet Witch married the Vision," with lowercase definite articles...Anyway, most of my arguments are already summed up at Talk:List of Marvel Comics characters/Archive 2, but what I wanted to say here was that how about this compromise: for something like the Avengers, have The Incredible Hulk point to an article about the comic book volume/title, while Hulk (comics) points to an article about the comic book character. --Lowellian 19:45, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

I'm indifferent on using lowercase definite articles. Capitalizing it I think is a valuable visual cue that the article is part of the character's name, but to be honest I don't vacillate on that issue myself.

I'm not really interested in separate articles about individual titles, unless they have historic significance on their own (e.g. Action Comics). Separate articles on each, say, each Spider-Man title seems truly like splitting hairs.

It's specifically the characters whose names include definite articles where I'd like to see the article included in the article titles. The film may have been Hulk, but the character has always been The Hulk, just like it's always been The Shadow, The Beatles and The Tonight Show.

Sadly, there seems to be no consensus on this issue. sigh -mhr 07:18, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Numbers vs. years

Would it be better to move the years to "xxxx AD" instead of just the number, and move the actual number to the numerical name? For example, move 101 to 101 AD, then move One hundred one to 101. This seems simpler to me, and right now it seems strange to have "For the number 101, see one hundred and one," at the bottom of 101. Evil saltine 22:38, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't think that would be very intuitive. How many people do you think will link 2004 AD when they mean the year instead of 2004 the number. Very confusing and very unnecessary in my opinion. Dori | Talk 22:46, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. It just seems strange to me to have the actual numbers relegated to Number 1, Number 2, Number 3, etc. Evil saltine 22:50, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maybe a better solution would be to put the numbers at 1 (number), 2 (number), etc... and leave the wordings (one hundred, etc.) as redirects; of course this isn't much different than the way it is now.. ehh oh well. Evil saltine 22:53, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I like the idea of xxxx AD, but that would probably be extremely confusing. I think "for the number 101 see" should be at the top however. Greenmountainboy 00:15, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Isn't convention to use CE and BCE anyway? Dysprosia 02:52, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I dont think so! Most people use AD so we should too. Greenmountainboy 03:01, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

CE and BCE are NPOV, while BC and AD aren't. I prefer CE/BCE. Optim 06:22, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

CE/BCE express the point of view that identifying the era's start as the birth of Christ is somehow bad form; BC/AD express the point of view that it's ok to admit that the Gregorian Calendar is based on a Christian event. Neither is a neutral point of view. -- VerbalHerbal 06:27, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In the same way that not using terms like "civilised world" for the west is POV in that it assumes a point of view that it is wrong to classify non-western civilisations as uncivilised. This is a fallacy of definition the normal use of POV means avoiding a term that applies to a specific point of view. To extend the definition to say that POV includes a decision that biases should not be given is fallacious. -- Chris Q 12:11, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, AD means 'Our Lord' and some people will find it totally unacceptable. While CE means Common Era and has nothing inside it. ilya 17:37, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For numbers 1-100, it's possible that they are linked more often than the years. For the 1500-2003, it's definitely more convenient to link them as dates, e.g. 19 December 2003. It might be easier to read if the numbers were at Number 101 Number 102 or 101 (number) 102 (number), rather than [[one hundred one]] [[one hundred two]]. BTW I suggested an addition for the link to numbers at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Years. -- User:Docu

Please don't move the years! All the ones I checked had at least 500 links to them. It would be a nightmare to try and fix them. :) Angela. 08:40, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes. Renaming the year entries is not a trivial exercise, and any change would need to be carefully justified. My feeling is that the current standard is quaint, by which I mean not entirely logical but workable and strangely appealing. So IMO the years should be kept as is and other standards adopted for other numbers, as at present. I'm not too worried about these other standards, but others in WikiProject Mathematics might be keen to contribute ideas. Andrewa 11:56, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think as long as someone adds reference to the number pages to all those years which have a corresponding number page, we should be all right. I haven't checked, but do all the first century years have links to their number pages? -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 21:25, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

GFDL vs Fair Use

At Talk:Settlers_of_Catan/copyright_and_fair_use there's a point that no one seems to have noticed, at least on that and related pages:

... As Wikipedia is a free, open content encyclopedia, we encourage commercial companies to help us redistribute our material, possibly for a fee. So although Wikipedia is not-for-profit, and therefore could in theory take full advantage of fair use, we like to steer a slightly more conservative course in order to preserve our freeness... Martin 02:25, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

End quote. But hey!

'The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially.' -- from the GFDL itself [2].

Isn't this a problem? If we rely on fair use, and we rely on being non-profit to make it fair use, then we can't "assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it", and we can't release it to the world under GFDL. Can we? Dandrake 07:20, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Read recent discussion in wikilegal-l on this very point. Martin 00:33, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fair-use says 'personal, educational or noncommercial purposes'. Is Wikipedia educational? Dbroadwell 03:21, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

I'd say yes, without any real problem in that respect. (IANAL, but then, even a lawyer's advice here wouldn't be binding, as it were, because WIkipedia is not a client paying for legal advice.) The specialist whom I consulted formally and in detail on fair use issues considered the law pretty liberal with respect to what's scholarly and educational. But that leaves the question as to re-use by others who aren't non-profit educational entities; for this we need to see wikilegal [[3]]. Dandrake 08:45, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

(OPINION) Depending in interpretation (again wikilegal-l) even commercial education falls under fair use.(/OPINION)

However, to keep this same basic question from continuing to pop up see; copyright, GFDL, fair use and Wikipedia and Copyright Issues to get yourself up to speed on the issue then finally the Contributing Faq and decide for yourself. It doesn't seem like it can hurt to copiously ask permission. Dbroadwell 04:14, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC) - had to update links for Contributing Faq and Copyrights they were broken Dbroadwell 08:40, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Merging pages - technicalities

Hi everyone - I was involved in a thorough rewrite of baseball, done at baseball/temp. The new text is now ready to be moved, but I'm not sure about the technicalities involved. Methinks it would be best to follow the procedure given at Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page#Fixing cut and paste moves, however the original page was edited in between, so that might not work. Any suggestions? Thanks, Kosebamse 07:30, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If you do merge the pages, the five edits that occurred on baseball will look strange when you view the dif. As it's only five edits, perhaps that isn't a huge issue. I'm not sure. Most people tend to avoid merging histories, preferring a redirect, but, personally, I would rather see all the author attributions in one page history, even if it does make the dif look funny on five edits. Angela. 02:14, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Talk

Hi. When somebody puts some message in my talk page, where should I answer? I have the options either to answer at my talk page, or to the other user's talk page, or both. Is there a standard practice regarding talk replies? and btw, maybe its time for archivation, the page is already 84k long! Peace. Optim 07:33, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There's more chance of them reading it if you reply on their talk page. That way, they get instant notification of it. If you reply on your page then you have to assume that the person has your page on their watchlist and are actively checking their watchlist. Angela. 07:35, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Not necessarily. They can just monitor "My contributions" and check if their edit to the talk page is still the "top" edit.—Eloquence

That's exactly what I tend to do. If I particularly want to continue a conversation that someone else has started on my page, I'll drop a note on the user's own talk page. But many replies I just put on my own page, figuring if they want a reply they'll watch for it there. Some conversations develop, some don't. Most that do develop quickly move to an article talk page or similar, to enable other interested parties to find the material. Andrewa 11:30, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is generally a matter of user preference. I like to reply on my talk page, but if the user is relatively new I send them a little "Replied on my talk page" notice to let them that I've done so. Some people like to reply on their talk page, some people like to reply on the user's talk page - it's up to you to decide! :) Dysprosia 07:39, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As someone who hasn't looked at my watchlist since December 10th, I strongly suggest you do let the other person know if you have written something you want them to see, even when they're not a newbie. I know Eloquence and mav reply on their own pages and because I know this, I'm more likely to look there if I expect a reply, but in most cases, I don't. Angela. 07:45, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I usually reply at their talk page. If not, I reply at mine and leave a message at theirs. WHen I am expecting a reply intended for me, I also add their talk page to my watchlist. I agree that it's a bit messy and unclear though. Dori | Talk 07:49, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

There is no standard. If I write something to a newbie, I include explicit instructions on how to reply (i.e. click on my name and click "discuss this page" and click "edit this page") and thus assume they understand. In some cases, I add a talk page to my watchlist, though this is more often if I suspect the user will not answer and I will want to know what others tell him/her. In any case, if someone leaves me a message, I almost always leave a message on their talk page, even if it's only See: Talk:Music of Scotland. Generally, conversation should be kept in the article talk:namespace, and not in the user area. There are no rules though, so your mileage may vary. Tuf-Kat 08:33, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

I usually do it both places. I'll put a reply on my page (so other people writing me won't post the same comment several times) and on their page (so they'll know I answered their response.) -- Paul Rfc1394 14:51, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

WikiProject Games

I've started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Games page to help standardize what a Wikipedia article on a game should include, looklike, ect. If you are interested, please check it out. Gentgeen 08:34, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Avoiding edit conflicts

Sick of edit conflicts? Just add the following code at the top of the article you want to work on:

{{msg:inuse}}

This will add the following text:

NOTE: This article is currently undergoing a major edit. Please do not make edits to this article until this message is removed, to avoid edit conflicts.

Please remember to remove the note as soon as you're finished editing.—Eloquence 13:09, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

great! exactly what I was in need for! Optim 19:29, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Looks great. I have two suggestions. Firstly I think that anyone using this should put a signed, dated message in the talk page (using ~~~~) to identify themselves. Second, I think there should be a page (perhaps in the Wikipedia namespace) to which this box links, to provide further explanations and to allow dead boxes to be found and removed, perhaps after a specified time period. Andrewa 20:12, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:Edit conflict could be used for the link checking. It doesn't have too many links pointing to it. I agree about the username, but it's difficult in practice -- just adding a sig after the box is ugly, and getting it into the box is non-trivial (the sig macro is not parsed when using transclusion). The name is always in the page history anyway.—Eloquence

great idea, Eloquence! —Noldoaran (Talk) 21:32, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

There needs to be a date in that box or next to it. Too laborious to search the history for when it was included. Personally I would always include something saying "The edit is expected to be done by 12/31/03" so that if it's 2005 and another wikipedian sees this, they can feel free to attack. Tempshill 23:58, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

PS: I didn't intend to merely complain about this -- thanks, this actually is a good idea. Tempshill 00:14, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Point taken. As I said, it's a bit tricky to include this message in a visually appealing way. But I hope that we will eventually expand the MediaWiki namespace to support parameters, so we can do neat stuff like that. In the meantime, I think going with the history will be enough, because I do not expect this problem (messages left in place) to happen very often. I might be proven wrong, of course.—Eloquence

What a terrible idea. When did an article become the sole possession of a single editor? RickK 06:11, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I can see definite disadvantages to it. People putting it on during an edit war to stop their version being reverted for example, or leaving it for hours, if not days, and going mad when someone removes it. If it's just a few minutes, then perhaps that's ok, but I think encouraging people to edit offline or use the preview button is a better solution. Angela. 06:21, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Some of those concerns are easily adressed. Have a guideline that only a page with no significant dispute be eligible for this msg. Frex talk pages should always be fair game for the msg while archiving. I remember trying to archive a page despite some half a dozen edit conflicts with the user who originally requested the archiving (I won't say who, but you are free to speculate), and the file was 'bout 90k at that. Also have a clear guideline that complying with the request is a purely a courtesy, and not even a at the level of a recommendation. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 12:55, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

90kb talk page. Hmmm. Now where could that be? ;) I think if those points are made clear then this notice shouldn't cause any problems. Angela. 13:09, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually it was Talk:Jesus. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 11:45, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Rick. This is not about making articles the possession of an editor, it is about the times when someone is about to make major changes or rearrangements in an article, and wants to avoid the tedious and annoying edit conflict tool -- for himself and for anyone else working on the article. I'm sure you are familiar with that problem.

Many wikis implement this technically, by either showing a warning message or locking articles that have been recently opened for editing. I consider it better to use a "soft" solution that can be ignored when needed.

We should perhaps make clear somewhere the appropriate time limit for using this message, and that it can be ignored in cases of controversial edits.—Eloquence

A good idea, despite the real reservations expressed. Recently, I've been adding a note to talk pages and a link to the rewrite in progress in my user namespace when undertaking major rewrites. I do this to invite contributions to the rewrite as much as a notification. So far, nobody seems to respond, although I've been working in the relatively uncontroversial area of "high culture", which may explain that. I like the idea of putting something on the actual article page, but feel it might be good to add an invitation to communicate with the poster so as to possibly contribute to the rewrite? If an article is so controversial that such an invitation might cause problems, then the notice probably shouldn't be there in the first place. Bmills 11:56, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Red links

Discussion about message shown for newly created pages moved to MediaWiki talk:newarticletext.

Unwanted sign

This may be a minor point, but something I can't explain: At Die Fledermaus#Film adaptations, just above the table, there is a -?- in the left-hand corner that doesn't belong there. Does anyone know how to get rid of it? --KF 17:39, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It was between /tr and tr, so it wasn't a part of any row, and hence not a part of the table. I removed it and it now works as expected. Zocky 17:42, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

delete, redirect

Hi, I created a new page for something which I now want to remove. I moved the article over to become part of another article. I want the link to go to the section of the pre-existing article, and get rid of the article I wrote, then thought better of. heidimo 19:24, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm guessing you meant Ambient groove, which I've now deleted. Wikipedia:redirects for deletion is the best place to list them in future. Angela. 20:18, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Angela, thanks. But, I still want "ambient groove" to go somewhere, to the ambient page, subgenre where I transferred what I'd written. How do I do that? heidimo 01:33, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ok, you mean you want a redirect from Ambient groove to Ambient music? I've undeleted and done that now. You can redirect a page by typing #redirect [[page title]]. See Wikipedia:redirect for more. You can't (yet) redirect to a specific section though. Angela. 01:53, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That helps, but yes, I did want to direct the link to a particular section. Guess that's the best solution for now. Thanks! heidimo 02:15, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Anglela. Sorry to contradict, but I think you can. Example: typing [[Village_pump#Red_links|My link]] gives My link. Anjouli 11:54, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You know, that's funny because in the past I seemed to be able to link to a section, but the last time I tried to do it (using the syntax you show), it didn't seem to work—the link took me to the top of the article rather than to the section, even after ten minutes of tinkering and staring at the exact wording of the link and the section. Dpbsmith 15:37, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I tried it and it worked! The link now goes to the section in the article where I wanted it to. Thanks, everybody! heidimo 17:29, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oops, no it didn't. It only works if you click on the link on the actual "redirect page." It doesn't work from a list of links. Darn. heidimo 21:05, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I meant that you can link to a section, you can't redirect to a section. Angela. 21:08, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Right, then, I think this time I've finally got it. Hopefully I will have learned something, too! Thanks again. heidimo 04:54, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

About red links. Really!

I have rescued the following bit from an earlier discussion, since it was not really addressed at all:

Similarly, a lot of VfD pages seem to have started out as ill-considered red links which got turned into stubs - so we really should not red-link anything that would not make a suitable article in its own right and we should remove any such red links when detected. I generally do this, but it does not seem to be common practice and I have not seen any guidelines. Anjouli 13:50, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think this really merits serious consideration. The closest thing we have to a list of all red links on wikipedia is the list of non-existent articles with the most red links pointing to them. And that is a static list I gather. Is it totally unfeasible to just compile a list of existent redlinks ordered alphabetically, without counting how many of each there are, with a ready action link to a Whatlinkshere thingummy which would show all the pages where that particular bogus subject has been linked. Is this technically unfeasible, or is there a fear of abuse of such a facility?

Actually, now that I think about it... One would assume that a bogus article subject would not get too many links to it, unless the linker was someone doing it willfully. And someone like that wouldn't be deterred by the absence of links anyway... Maybe the answer would be to have a list of only those article subjects which have one or two red links pointing toward them. Would that be feasible? As Anjouli intimated, such accidental or semiaccidental creations of articles which do not deserve it, might be just that easy to deter.

If someone were too quick to remove red links, I'm sure it wouldn't be too ardous to replace them. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 20:03, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with removing the red links that only occur 1 or 2 times in Wikipedia. Editors are placing them there for a reason: They would be articles that should exist. Why override thousands of these individual editors' judgments in an automated way? Are red links so bad that you have to throw up your hands and shield your eyes at the sight? (BTW, the "most wanted articles" pages are great.) Tempshill 00:12, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please reread the above. Nowhere does it say that all red links which only occur one or two times should be deleted. But rather that a list of such links were available, so people could see which those links are, and which of those are invalid and which not.

Nothing about it would be automated save the generation of the list itself. A list which the majority of would be valid links of course. Each subject has had only one link to begin with (barring some truly spectacular examples of GMTA).

It is true that the creator of a link may have knowledge about what makes the link valid, which some other folks might not have.

Does someone really know what percentage of deleted articles were originally linked from somewhere, and where and how many places were they linked from? If a significant number were creations resulting from red links which were bogus to begin with, maybe there would be some justification to seek some way of hunting down those bogus red links. (I fully admit that I may have created bogus red links myself, some days I really have played by the rule. "If in doubt, feel free to link." Which I now realize was not a good idea, but what can you do.)

No, I mean really, what can you do? -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 01:39, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

Feel free to go over recent items from Wikipedia:Deletion log and try the "What links here" button on them. --Brion 02:40, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. Thanks. (now, why didn't I think of that?) -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 07:28, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

I think there may be a bit of "concept-drift" here. When I started this, I did not for a moment mean to suggest we delete valid red links, and certainly not on a basis of link-counts. But we should delete obviously stupid links like this one. (I just know that's going to end up as an article on VfD) The second point is where a newbie clicks a red-link, creates an article there, then gets blasted on VfD because the subject is trivial, inappropriate, or duplicates an existing article. It would save everybody a lot of heart-ache if such links were proactively fixed - or even better, done properly the first time. I take the point that the original author may know something that a potential link-modifier does not, but the link could be researched first - as (I hope) we all do now before placing an article on VfD. I think anybody who believes in fixing bad red links should simply do so. If anybody objects to a "bad call", they can always revert, or we can discuss the matter.Anjouli 11:39, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well maybe. I think the larger point I was trying to make, is that there is at present a very limited toolbox of utilities that are directed at red links, and their pruning, fixing etc. As the number of red links grows, this may well be a crucial nexus for preventative action which is too easily missed. Removing a bogus red link is a very easy thing to do as an act, but it can forestall the need for much gnashing of teeth and bad feeling. It would be good if such targets for easily done very significant positive action were also easy to locate. Well that is just me musing aloud again. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 12:34, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

ISBN link - how to?

Hi, how do I link to an ISBN with alternate text? i.e. I want the link ISBN 0767901320 to read Success is a Choice.

I'm trying to put this into Rick Pitino.

Thanks! Goodralph 02:12, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

We don't do it that way. A link reading "Success is a Choice" is expected to go to a Wikipedia article with that title (or an external website, if it's a different colour). ISBN links are consciously left to read the actual ISBN so the user knows that it is an ISBN link. -- Timwi 02:26, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Social Security #s on pages

The recent activity (I believe it borders on vandalism) by a particular user raises an interesting question: Does a social security number constitute public information that should be viewable on Wikipedia? I disagree myself, but I figured I should raise the question for discussion.

--Metasquares 02:43, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't rule out a situation where it might possibly be appropriate for some reason. But to put someone's SSN in the first paragraph of an entry about that person? No, there is no reason at all for that, and it does constitute vandalism. A SSN is what passes for private information in the US these days, and the addition of a SSN adds no relevant or necessary information to an understanding of that person within the context of an online encyclopedia like Wikipedia. --Moncrief, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Social security numbers should not be added to the pages because social security numbers are not supposed to be public knowledge. It is part of the information required to steal someone's identity and for example get a credit card as that individual. I think that constantly adding the information to the start of the biographies after being repeatedly asked not to is definitely bordering on vandalism. Maximus Rex 02:50, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Some SSNs are public knowledge. If it were possible to steal Bill Gate's identity, then it would have already been done by now. These numbers were published online by the United States government since 1995. I was never asked not to, and certainly not by anyone who was in charge of this site. Anthony DiPierro 02:54, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I disagree that knowing his SSN deepens anyone's understanding of Bill Gates (or anyone else) in any way, but I object most strongly to the information being put in the first paragraph of the entry. Even if you think the information is approriate for inclusion somewhere in the article (which I personally don't), there is no possible reason why it should be in the lead paragraph. His SSN and the context (unchecked, but I'll assume it's accurate) in which it became public ARE in fact in the Bill Gates entry, but very near to the bottom - which reflects the importance of the information to the entry. A compromise could be to leave it in that position. I don't agree, but it's better than the inexcusable entry of the info into the first paragraph. Moncrief

[4], [5] and some persuassion from Anthère on IRC has led Anthony to agree not to put this information up. Angela. 03:12, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

While I agree with the conclusion that SSNs do not generally belong in an article (exceptions are possible) it is worth noting that the act referenced appears not to have become law. Jamesday 05:51, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There is no reason that an SSN should exist in a wikipedia article. They are not noteworthy or relevant to anything. The only reason they would be posted is in an attempt to subject a target (not necessarily the subject of the article) to identity theft. I think it should be Wikipedia policy to disallow the posting of SSN's, national ID numbers, or other equivalents in other countries. Tempshill 22:03, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Legal and privacy issues aside, inclusion of SSNs should surely pass the same common-sense test that including anything in an article should - is it relevant? Alexander the Great's hatsize is irrelevant, but O.J.Simpson's glove size is relevant. The dimensions' of John Holmes manhood are relevant, those of Sherlock Holmes are not. If one were writing an article about how SSNs are assigned then some significant cases (e.g. the first recipient) would be relevant - but those of J.Random Person would not be. If one were writing at article about numerology (attention: straw man) then the "fact" that Lee Harvey Oswald's SSN is 512 666 2666 (which it almost certainly isn't) would be relevant, but if the general article on Oswald said it was 512 943 4693 then that is (surely) utterly irrelevant. So I anything can, in theory, be included if relevant - but (as should be rather obvious) I had a very hard job of figuring out even a clutching-at-strawman for SSNs. -- Finlay McWalter 22:31, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A social security number is nine digits long (###-##-####) and therefore we can say that Lee Harvey Oswald' SSN certainly isn't (not just almost certainly isn't) 512 666 2666. <ducking> Dpbsmith 01:36, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC) (Sorry) (Very sorry) (Terribly sorry)

Social Security numbers are public information. I remember that the original social security card said "not to be used for identification." Also, social security numbers are publicly discolosed in such things as University grade reports. Greenmountainboy 01:41, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No they are not. If your university is doing this they are violating FERPA. Maximus Rex 01:45, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I suppose I'm baffled by this whole discussion. Why would anybody even consider adding social security numbers to an article? Why is this relevant biographical information? --Delirium 04:41, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know. Best to ask the person who kept adding the SSN to the first paragraph of the Bill Gates article. Moncrief

Policy on Signed Pages

In Military training a sandbox is a box of sand used in conjunction with military models to model terrain and demonstrate tactics. Anjouli 16:03, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The text above is contained in the main article of Sandbox. Do we have a policy about signed articles? Is this acceptable in wikipedia? Optim 04:12, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

We don't sign articles. I assume it was accidental and I've removed it now. Angela. 05:04, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I hadn't time to check the user's page but maybe he/she is just new here so I hope that he/she doesn't continue signing his/her edits. At first I was about to remove the signature when I saw it, since I haven't seen any signed articles here and I think they have no reason to exist in a wiki, especially when we can use the Page history to check who edited what... But then I decided to ask here in order to be sure that I will not do something wrong. Good that you removed it. Optim 05:27, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Internet-Encyclopedia does have the option for respected users to sign articles, after which they must approve all edits to the article. Hopefully the user isn't from there, and didn't intend to do that... Pakaran 05:08, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

how do you think about adding the no-sign policy to the edit page so that we will avoid this situation in the future? especially now that another wiki (Internet Encyclopedia) allows signed articles, some users may get confussed and also sign here. Optim 05:27, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It was probably just done out of habit, for the same reason I find myself trying to sign emails with ~~~~. :) Angela. 05:13, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

lol Optim 05:27, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I did in fact accidentally signed myself once in Current events, which made it, misleadingly, look like I invented that story. --Menchi (Talk)â 06:04, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry guys. Mea culpa. Just signed by force of habit. Perhaps a wake up call that I'm spending too much time talking about other people's contributions and not enough time on my own. I promise to write a nice long article on a really dull subject to show I'm sorry. Anjouli 11:08, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism by 12.64.etc/12.65.etc

Over a long period of time several hoaxes have been added to Wikipedia from these IP ranges. Many of these hoax articles seem perfectly reasonable at first glance, often mixing facts in with the fiction. One of their favorite targets seems to be LeAnn Rimes. Some have been in concert with User:199.248.201.253. I am not sure if they are from the same user, but they appear to be. Examples (very incomplete):

• Bonnie added by User:12.64.96.86, co-vandalised by User:199.248.201.253 and User:12.64.96.74
• Slope_field added by User:12.64.96.60, co-vandalised by User:12.64.96.112 and User:199.248.201.253
• Bryleigh's_Theorem added by User:12.64.96.112, co-vandalised by User:199.248.201.253
• Jayne Bryleigh added by User:199.248.201.253
• North Sodor, Gatineau Toll Road added by User:12.65.24.47
• Goebbels Equation added by User:12.65.0.158

I am posting it here so that hopefully more people will see this. --Maximus Rex 08:17, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Recently," "at this writing," etc.

I see a problem; I don't have a suggested solution. The article on Siegfried & Roy opens (italics mine):

Siegfried & Roy are longtime Las Vegas headliners whose illusion and magic act recently closed due to a tragic incident in which Roy was mauled by one of the act's performing white tigers.

I personally have written passages in which it seemed natural to say at this writing thus-and-such. It seems to me that when a term such as "recently" or "at this writing" is used, there should be some easy way for the reader to tell just when the passage was written.

• The page history isn't very suitable for that purpose, because, given a particular passage, it doesn't tell when that passage was changed.
• I've tried putting the year in—e.g. "at this writing (2003) a transition to digital photography is well under way, but film is still the predominant medium for ordinary family snapshots"—but it looks stupid.
• It does not seem reasonable to insist that the writer of something like the Siegfried and Roy article stop in their tracks and not proceed until they can determine the exact date when the show closed; that's a nice-to-have, not a must-have.
• I don't think it's safe to assume that any given article will be reviewed and updated on any regular schedule and that any usage of "recently" or "at this writing" will automatically get changed when it becomes stale.

Any thoughts about this?

This leads me naturally to my next query... footnotes... (because they are one conceivable way of handling the problem...) Dpbsmith 16:07, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd say just give the best explicit date you can manage. "Siegfried & Roy are longtime Las Vegas headliners whose illusion and magic act closed in November 2003 [or whenever it was] due to a tragic incident in which Roy was mauled by one of the act's performing white tigers." Precision isn't necessary if you can't manage it - "closed in late 2003" will do for now if the writer doesn't know more precisely. If you're talking about something which is ongoing or likely to be ongoing, you can say something like "as of 2003, a transition to digital photography is well under way...". --Camembert

In this context, can I point out the existence of the [[as of xxxx]] system. The idea is that if you know that the information will need to be updated later, you put an As of link in - "[[As of 2003]], Michael Palin's latest travel documentary is Sahara", for instance - and then some future person with time on their hands can go to Special:Whatlinkshere/As of 2003 and get an easy list of articles with information that might be out of date. Wikipedia:As of has more information. —Paul A 06:18, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That's worth knowing. Thanks; glad I asked! Dpbsmith 21:05, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Footnotes? moved to Mediawiki feature request and bug report discussion

"This thread really should be at meta:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion. --mav 16:27, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)"

Done. See meta:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion#Feature request: footnotes Dpbsmith 20:04, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Linkspam

Hi, im a user of the german Wikipedia and i recently found a lot URLs, which are obviously spam. The linked websites contain some basic infos, but it seems that their main purpose is to promote some commercial links on the bottom of the pages. I found 19 affected domains so far on de: and removed them from the articles. By accident i saw, that these links exist on en:, too. Maybe someone wants to search and remove them. I mainly used a local SQL dump and the contributions page, because these links are always added by some anonymous users (IPs). Here's a list of domains: cocktails-machen.de aquarium-starter.com aquarium-starter.de strategiespiele-guide.de strat-games-chronics.com llcoolj-fan.de jayz-fan.de madonna-fan.de sportwagenfan.de sportwagen-fan.de bob-marley-fan.de fried-gedichte.de jujutsu-info.de lecker-sushi.de whiskey-fuehrer.de janullrich-fan.de pur-fan.de ebay-ratschlaege.de franz-revolution.de

I dislike the idea, that someone wants to get a commercial benefit from our google ranking or whatever. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on de: [6]. Regards -- 213.54.99.133 16:22, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC) aka Fab

Just created an account on en :-) -- Fab 16:27, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just made an update of the spam-domain-list on my user page -- fab 23:15, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, we get a lot of *.de spam on Wikipedia:Friends of Wikipedia too. Thinking of submitting a spam report to the ISP from all those IP addresses... Dysprosia 09:50, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• media power dissertation question -->Wikipedia:Reference desk
• cheap .ca-domain (Canada)-->Wikipedia:Reference desk

List of links

The (now alphabetical) list of pages that link to World War I starts with 1066 and All That (i e numbers) and ends with European influence in Afghanistan. What about letters F to Z? --KF 21:56, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I get the same. Looks like a bug to me. I guess we should raise it as such. Andrewa 12:35, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I just noticed that 1945 is even worse -- links only down to the letter D. I have no idea how to report a bug. I read Wikipedia:Bug reports carefully but just don't understand it: I wouldn't know what to do. --KF 22:34, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

NPOV clarification, request for feedback

Please see Wikipedia talk:NPOV tutorial and comment on the recent changes made to the tutorial.

Verse formatting

The first time I had to enter some verse in which successive lines were indented by different amounts, I tried preceding them with colon and colon-colon, e.g.:

:When I was one-and-twenty
::I heard a wise man say,
:"Give crowns and pounds and guineas
::But not your heart away;

which results in:

When I was one-and-twenty

I heard a wise man say,

"Give crowns and pounds and guineas

But not your heart away;

Unfortunately, when you do this, the Wiki-html-generator-thing-plus-browser-whatever inserts extra spacing between the singly and doubly-indented material, which I think looks grotesquely wrong (take a look at Limerick_(poetry), for example—does anything think this is the right way to present a limerick?)

After some experimentation, I settled on using a variable number of nbsp's at the start of each line, followed by a br at the end, e.g.:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Give pearls away and rubies<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But keep your fancy free."<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;No use to talk to me.<br>

which yields

    Give pearls away and rubies
        But keep your fancy free."
    But I was one-and-twenty,
        No use to talk to me.

As displayed in the browser, I think this is perfectly acceptable.

Well, the last time I did THAT, someone edited it to use the space-at-the-start-of-a-line method, e.g.

    When I was one-and-twenty
         I heard him say again,
    "The heart out of the bosom
         Was never given in vain;

I detest the monospaced typeface you get when you do that, but otherwise I thought it was OK and I assumed that if someone had changed it that must be the Wikipedia Way, so that's what I did the next time I needed to enter a piece of verse—

—and when I did, someone changed it to alternating colons and double-colons!

What is the preferred Wikipedia markup for verse with variable line indentation? Is there a guide to this anywhere? Dpbsmith 13:38, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, both Limerick (poetry) and your colon-based example above look perfectly fine for me, both in IE and mozilla. But as to the nbsp way - I think someone probably mistook your effort for those of a newbie - perhaps if you leave an html comment above the limerick in question, saying you're doing this on purpose (and having the above stuff on the corresponding talk page) then I think it'll be left unmolested. -- Finlay McWalter 14:18, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

WTF? Varying rendering of colon-indented text in different browsers

In an example above, and in Limerick_(poetry), in which successive lines are indented different amounts by using different numbers of colons, the appearance in Apple's Safari and IE 5.2 for Mac OS X is similar. The browser displays a blank line separating a source line beginning with a single colon and a source line beginning with two lines. Thus, the appearance of

:From the hag and hungry goblin
:That into rags would rend thee
::And the spirit that stands
::by the naked man,
:In the book of the moons defend yee.

in these two browsers is

File:Browserrendering.png

On the other hand, on my wife's PC running IE 6.0.2008 under Windows 98, the interpolated blank lines are not seen.

On whatever browser you're using now, it renders as:

From the hag and hungry goblin

That into rags would rend thee

And the spirit that stands

by the naked man,

In the book of the moons defend yee.

Whose bug is this? Is there something wrong with the HTML that the wiki is generating? It certainly is unpleasant that the same browser, Microsoft Internet Explorer,' gives different results on different platforms. Right or wrong, you'd think MS would at least be consistent with themselves. Dpbsmith 16:37, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

MSIE is hardly ever consistent with itself :-) Also, MSIE for the Mac is, to the best of my knowledge, developed separately from MSIE for Windows. The case you mention is probably just a situation in which the default spacing for definition lists (which is what is generated by leading colons) is different for various browsers. Not a bug, really; just a quirk. -- Wapcaplet 16:45, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The difference is almost certainly the handling of stylesheets between the various browsers - CSS handling between browsers is rather inconsistent (and will remain so for the next few years). In the meantime I suggest you a) file a bug against wikipedia's stylesheet (it is possible, with much effort, to make truly portable stylesheets) and b) stick with the nbsps in the interim. -- Finlay McWalter 16:47, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no way for HTML to indent text, really. We cheat with a DL and different browsers have different ideas on how to display this -- Tarquin 17:23, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC) (This should be FAQed)

There is no bug here. The HTML standard does not really specify how something should be renedered, so it's up to the browser. Some choose to put a blank line, some don't. They're both following the standard though. CGS 19:45, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC).

Indeed, but the wikipedia is suboptimal on at least one major platform. This is something in our power to fix - some more specific handling of CSS margins in the stylesheet (for dl tags) should do the trick. -- Finlay McWalter 19:50, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On the contrary, I find that the rendering in IE/Mac and Safari is much superior for our primary use of the colon-indentation, which is threaded commentary.

Anyway, I tried playing with stylesheets a bit out of curiosity; the IE/Win and Mozilla behavior can be replicated in IE/Mac by setting the margin-top and margin-bottom on dl and dd elements to 0, but oddly this doesn't affect Safari (tested 1.1.1 v100.1). --Brion 03:17, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've submitted a description of this issue to SourceForge as bug 864015, MediaWiki project: "Different colon indent levels/blank lines/Mac browsers." Dpbsmith 21:32, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)