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 Twisted Metal 4 music 2 LENS 3 Tom Wilson 4 Average Watchlist Size 5 Scientology overcovered? 6 The category "terrorists" 7 Oldest Image 8 Need More Information! 9 Contact Us Complaint 10 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll 11 Izehar 12 592 × 599 pixel 13 Should external links be inside TV infobox 14 Broader input on naming of Tea tree oil 15 Infobox Television Links 16 The source used "early in 2007" to state an approximate date 17 Tagging articles about places, but with no coordinates 18 January 4, 2007 19 Statistics 20 User:The Transhumanist 21 April Fools 2007 22 Raising my voice 23 Looking to Interview Wikipedians 24 Watchlist error 25 Featured 26 Is it irrelevant? 27 Per nom and per? 28 I need help finding a topic for Political Philosophy project 29 Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives 30 Darkness of Meta 31 Copyright vs. Trademark? 32 WP:AFC 33 Wikipedia mention by Michael Scott in "The Office" 34 Sabotage by subject of article 35 Quick question of absolutely no importance but it's been bugging me 36 Random article link

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] Twisted Metal 4 music

As a player of Twisted Metal 4, I happen to know that the song: Closing Time [Live] is the song played in the Neon City level.

Time's Running Out is the one played in the next level.

Cypress Hill does Closing Time [Live] in Neon City.

(Minion1112)Minion1112(Minion1112) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] LENS

I believe LENS (the new technology) should also be listed on the Lens page...

see www.ochslabs.com

thanks

chris collins, st. louis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.123.78 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's a "Lens" disambiguation page, then you can add it to the list. You can also write an article on it, as long as it conforms to Wikipedia standards. Eilicea 16:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Wilson

I hope this is the right place for this type of thing, I wasn't sure where else to put it. I've already mentioned it on the discussion page for two of the articles in question, but I wanted to mention it somewhere that others would see it, not just those checking the specific articles.

When I typed "Tom Wilson" into the search field and hit "Go", I was looking for the Back to the Future actor, but instead I was lead to the producer. Now, I know that there's a small group of people on the producer's discussion page hailing him as a hero and whatnot, but is he really the primary Tom Wilson that someone should be automatically taken to when looking up the article for that name? Between the aforementioned actor and the Ziggy cartoonist, I submit that there's no real justification to say that any of these 3 is necessarily more likely than the others to be the person someone's looking for when they look up the name. I propose that the article currently called "Tom Wilson" be renamed to Tom Wilson (producer), and that Tom Wilson be changed to redirect to the Thomas Wilson disambig page. It might also be a good idea to start removing some of the people from the list, since more than half of the links are currently red. - Ugliness Man 10:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's one thought: Have you tried comparing Google search results? Take the name in quotes (the common name "Tom Wilson" or "Thomas Wilson" might be best, but I'm not sure) and in different searches use a single word associated with only one of these people (for instance, movies that only the producer or actor were involved in but not both), then do a search with the name of the cartoonist and, I guess, Ziggy. If none of the results are enormously bigger than all the others, you've got some evidence to show other editors why it would be a good idea. I'd make the argument on the Tom Wilson page. It's up to you to decide if it's worth the effort, of course. As to removing people from the red links, the question I ask myself is: would it be more useful to readers if this stays or if it goes? Noroton 18:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea. I did Google searches on both names, and the evidence seems to support my position. The only links relevant to the producer are links to the current Wikipedia article. I reported a more detailed version of my findings on the talk pages for both relevant articles, and if there are no convincing arguments to the contrary in the next few days, I will "be bold" and begin the moving/renaming process myself.

As for the red links, I'll leave those alone, since someone may consider one or more of them article-worthy any day now. - Ugliness Man 23:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost a week later and no comments, in either article, on the subject supporting or opposing. I've renamed the article to Tom Wilson (producer), and I'm currently in the process of editing articles which link to Tom Wilson with piped disambigs. - Ugliness Man 21:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to add a note that I'm now taking this page off my watchlist, so if anyone wants to discuss this with me for some reason, please do so on my talk page. - Ugliness Man 11:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Average Watchlist Size

Just out of sheer curiosity, is there some ancient poll somewhere that asked people how many articles are on their watchlist? Is there some commonly accepted number, or formula (i.e. Edit count / 100)? --Ybbor^T 21:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of one, though I'd be interested to know as well. (Mine is 2120 right now, and I cleaned a couple hundred redlinks off of it yesterday.) --tjstrf talk 21:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be nearly impossible to get an "average" of any sort, but if you're curious, mine is currently 97. I wish there was some way for Wikipedians to allow others to see their watchlist. - Ugliness Man 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if that information is public (as in, it is found in the database dumps), although administrators can see a list of articles that are not being watched (as in, no contributor having it in a watchlist). In my case, the "formula" would be edit count / 10 (3000 items, and I always try to keep it as close to 3000 as possible, because that is my limit, around 500 items in a 3-day watchlist). -- ReyBrujo 23:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, how can you people stand such large watchlists? I can barely survive with my 700-or-so watchlist. My "number of days to show in watchlist" option in Special:Preferences is set to 0.010416666667...which I forgot how many minutes that is. --Iamunknown 23:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the pages on mine are redirects, old AfD discussions, deleted pages, talk archives, etc. that really shouldn't need to be edited much if at all. They don't clutter the watchlist view, but in the rare cases where someone vandalizes an old AfD or archive, or recreates some long-dead POV rant page, there's a chance I'll notice. --tjstrf talk 01:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a fool, but I only have 38 pages on mine. Captain panda In vino veritas 23:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Worry not, I have 48, having purged about 30 from it because it was too "difficult" to keep watching them all. I guess I am just lazy now, seeing everyone elses' numbers. x42bn6 Talk 16:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think someone had like 20k (there was a question where his watchlist was missing some items, and wondered if it was due its size). As I said, I notice 3k is the biggest I can handle, that gives around 150 "last changes" to review when I arrive home from work, and review them all in around an hour (giving me like 40 edits, including {{unsigned}} templates, answers, deleting offtopic questions, some vandalism leftovers, and answering talk page). Breaking the total, 90 categories, 1 portal, 80 templates, 1874 articles, 182 pages in the Wikipedia namespace and 833 images. So, in my case I can say that, every day, 10% of the articles I have in my watchlist are modified. -- ReyBrujo 01:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed mine down to 555 from 1000-ish over the past year, sticking to articles I know something about, losing topics I only find intriguing. Maybe 3/4 are real articles, the rest are redirects etc. I'd love a way to order them by last edit, so I can see what articles that I started are the most dormant. - DavidWBrooks 17:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1500 and counting. From time to time I join in the fun that is WP:NPP, and tend to leave the nonsense pages on my watchlist so I can see when they get recreated. Chris cheese whine 01:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems to merit further investigation. When I get back from vacation I'll make a page trying to gather this information on a larger scale. --Ybbor^T 02:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question. Mine currently stands at 9,108 pages, although I'm attempting to whittle it down somewhat. The majority of pages on my watchlist are either not edited often or are archived debates. However, the number of changes per day is roughly 500-600, so I have my and bot edits hidden to keep it manageable.--cj | talk 10:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW - 4213 articles on mine. I don't check every single one of them, unless it is a suspicious looking edit. -- Chuq 05:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Mine's five. It's normally four, though. On that note, I have never seen it enter double figures, ever. At the moment, two articles, one userpage (my own), and two Wikipedia pages (one of which is temporary, the "fifth" page). I suspect this is ridiculously low, compared to most administrators and editors :) Daniel Bryant 09:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Boy, if a list ever does get compiled, it's going to have a standard deviation larger than the mean! - DavidWBrooks 14:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm back from vacation, and created a survey page here, and started off with the information provided here. Help spread the word, and if you haven't done so already, please respond. --Ybbor^T SURVEY! 21:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

See also meta:Watchlist sizes for enwiki 2004-08-11. Also Help:Watching pages#Size limitation suggests ~9800 pages is the upper limit for a functional watchlist.--cj | talk 05:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology overcovered?

Here is Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology which now includes 240 articles. There seem to be about 100,000 Scientologists in the world so there is one article for every about 420 of them. Do you think this is a little bit too much? Thanks. Steve Dufour 11:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Talk:Scientology#How_many_Scientology_articles_are_needed.3F for more on this discussion thread, also see comment there by User:Raeft: There should be as many Scientology articles as there are coherent and individual informative occurrences, locales, people, or other originators of encyclopedic content related to Scientology. Adding information serves to make Wikipedia -more- coherent and encyclopedic, not less, and adding too much material to one article makes it overlong and clunky.

Incidentally, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts has 319 articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons has 745 articles, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo has 1,608 articles. Smee 15:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

More people are interested in these topics than in minute details of Scientology doctrine and history. Steve Dufour 13:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? Have you talked to them? That is, both the people more interested in those other topics than in Scientology doctrine and history's minute details? Because I posit that I know many people more interested in the latter than the former, and thus we are tied. I mean, even if we HAD statistics stating exactly how many people were interested in every topic on Wikipedia, the current guidelines would NOT, Steve, NOT mean that this made one bit of difference.

The only number of people who need to be interested in an article in order for it to be on Wikipedia, is one. One person interested enough to find documents or examples, if they exist, of materials about the article subject which are verifiable, reliable and therefore notable. Please read these guidelines before you continue to make the mistake of equating sheer -number- of believers, interested parties, or adherents to the notability of an article.

I have said to you before that the bar of notability for Wikipedia is deliberately low. That is to say, if it CAN be written about in a reliable, unbiased, and substantiated fashion, it should be, if someone wants to write about it. The higher we set the bar, the more articles get taken out, and the less Wikipedia can claim to be a comprehensive and reliable encyclopedia on every possible topic.

To simplify this further, I quote Wikipedia:Notability:

• A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial1 or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."

Please, go there and read up on the discussions about what constitutes notability. If you, as such an experienced editor, with so many valuable edits, had known about this, I feel sure the recent failed AFD application for article Xenu would not even have been initiated and time would have been saved. Now, to the bulk of things:

Steve, I do not know how many times I shall have to say this in the space of encountering you on Wikipedia, but I shall say it for the 5th time here, without being so trite as to cite the other times:

The standard of notability on Wikipedia is not how many people are interested in, believe in, or know about a topic, of necessity. The standard relates only to the presence of reliable sources, and the verifiability of same. Wikipedia is a Wiki, a huge, capable, utilitarian and powerful distributor and container for knowledge. If one source on an article which is intensely reliable, or multiple trivial and valid sources can be found, an article can be written.

This spirit of verifiability and reliability is what makes it possible for TV shows, even ones no one has ever heard of or which were never shown on TV because they were dropped while still being written, to still have an article for every episode if we have reliable sources for them and verifiability is established. Interest does NOT equal notability, and I do not know any other ways to say it except those I have been using.

Even apart from this, there are many Scientologists (the Church claims over half a million), and aside from that, many people outside are interested. Pop culture has directed attention at them (YTMND and South Park, others too), aside from which, even the obscure articles in the Scientology series, you have -admitted- (I will not be so crass as to cite you now), are well written and well sourced. Since well and verifiably sourced equals notable by Wikipedia standards, well... I leave the other conclusions for those following the discussions on Xenu's talk page and the attempted AFD there, as well as that for Scientology, and Wikiproject: Scientology.

Peace. Raeft 15:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of hard work has gone into the Scientology series of articles. I just think that 240 is a lot on this one subject. Steve Dufour 17:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you measure that, though? How do -you-, personally, determine what is "too much" information about any one given topic? This is an encyclopedia, more information is a -good- thing. Now, if any of the information is inaccurate, not neutral, or in some other way messed up, that can be addressed on the individual article's talk page, etc. And can be fixed. But sheer number is -not- a reason for there to be less. Chances are good there will only ever be more, and since this is an encyclopedia being built? Bigger is good. If I search a topic I'm interested in on Wikipedia, and don't find some information, or it doesn't have a page, chances are good I'll MAKE that page. Everything can be written about, if you have the sources, that's the beauty. There is no such thing as too many articles about one subject. As long as each is unique and a stand-alone article. And if it's not, there's merging, but merging should be restricted to when two things are so close in topic that a suitably organized page can be knocked together from them. Peace be with ya.Raeft 19:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You say each article should be unique and stand-alone, but in the Scientology series a lot of pieces of information are repeated in multiple articles. Steve Dufour 19:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the reason for that is that Wikipedia pages cannot cite themselves. Each article has to be both unique, AND stand-alone. Statements and sources have to be repeated if they are condusive to information about the subject of the article. The triviality of difference between two closely related article can basically be summed up in saying that the closeness has to be great. Multiple similar articles are often used to keep already-long pages from becoming inconveniently long pages, AND to separate different topics. Really, if the information is repeated, one can only justify removing it from an article if it doesn't BELONG there, if the information does belong, it's perfectly acceptable to repeat it. Sometimes repeat material can be removed from an article if the information is key and prominent in a closely linked article (Such as in the "see also" section, or something linked in the text), but it can NEVER be removed altogether, since taking information which is well-sourced and verifiable out of Wikipedia is destructive to its overall goals. Thus, it is better to have the information twice, than to risk not having it at all, and if an article ceases being comprehensive due to someone removing material they feel is "repeated", and the lack of said material leaves a casual reader less informed, the editor has done a disservice to the base of knowledge present. But, I'm through quoting and paraphrasing Wikipedia guidelines, the process handles itself rather nicely when everyone does their best, and the number of Scientology articles on Wikipedia is not going to stop growing. Peace, and Eris be with you. Raeft 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think that two articles could be merged if they contain the same information. Steve Dufour 22:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Not if they only contain -some- of the same information, you see. For instance, sometimes the same information is relevant to two different lines of thought and discussion, and placing it only in one place would be counter intuitive to single articles being informative in many cases. Cheers, I'm done here. Peace. Raeft 01:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I might post another notice when the project reaches 365 articles, one for every day of the year. Steve Dufour 03:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Violation_of_WP:POINT. for more on this user's attempted disruption of the project. Thank you for your time. Smee 15:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Steve's statistic seems a bit exaggerated. If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/publicwatchlist you'll see that many of the articles listed are related to Scientology rather than about it - an important distinction. Examples include Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, Christopher Evans (computer scientist), Erhard Seminars Training, Gabe Cazares, Penet remailer and of course John Travolta. As for the rest, Steve needs to remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and therefore, to quote, "there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." -- ChrisO 07:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. There are a few on that list that do not seem to be mainly about Scientology, most do however. Steve Dufour 16:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is where I got the number 240: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Scientology articles by quality statistics. There are now 247 Scientology articles. When the count reaches 250 there will be one article for about every 400 Scientologists in the world. Steve Dufour 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The category "terrorists"

There is a simple problem which confused me greatly, and I am unable to persuade myself successfully. I hope a more experienced wikipedian can care to help me on this.

I came across a category Terrorists. I am quite surprised that this category actually exists on Wikipedia - and it seems to have survived many suggestions for deletions - given that this term is generally considered to be a negative - and relative - one. Isn't that "One man's terrorist may be another's freedom fighter/liberator", possibly in somewhere, some time?

What confused me even more, is that bin Laden - a "popularly acknowledged" "terrorist" - is not among that list, while it contains many more people I don't even know. Yes, I acknowledge my knowledge is extremely shallow, but I wonder...

Are those listed in the category have, in an NPOV way, been CERTIFIED to be a terrorist?? Are they categorized as "terrorists" just because someone (or some organizations) believe they are?? If so, why are President Bush and Chairman Mao not categorized as one, despite a significant number of people believe that they are? (despite the fact that they are [or were] heads of government, are their actions considered "actions of a state(s)" instead of "actions of one person"?

I am not implying any definition of the meaning of "terrorist" here, nor anyone is one.

Any suggestions to explain this is very much appreciated. Thanks a lot. --155.198.13.29 00:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Osama is on the list, under the subcategory al-qaeda members. Additionally, the category has a disclaimer on it. mrholybrain's talk 01:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the disclaimer mentioned by mrholybrain (probably because it is so small). Regardless, there are significant issues which cannot, unfortunately, be overcome when deciding to categorize people. This is the product one of them. The category may also be indicative of the bias of most Wikipedian editors of the English-language Wikipedia based largely on our demographics. I imagine (though cannot currently prove) that some editor or anonymous user has added George W. Bush to this particular category. I would also imagine that said editor would be flamed, labeled a "troll", etc. by the active editors. That is, likely, what the consensus of established editors of the article agree upon. While it may be viewed as unfortunate or as biased, it may also be viewed as good, at least to the extent that it can be interpreted to show that consensus works.

Anyways, I'm just rambling now, but those are some of my thoughts. --Iamunknown 01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oh boy, hm. You'd think such a category would be a bad can of worms to open up, eh? The term "Terrorist" seems pretty subjective. I'm frankly surprised that the category survived a CSD. .V. _[Talk|Email] 14:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest Image

Anybody know what the oldest image uploaded to Wikipedia is? -- Robert ^See Hear _Speak 05:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure. You might be interested in Wikipedia:Usemod article histories, User:Conversion script, User:(Automated conversion) and Special:Unusedimages. Basically, as you may know, Wikipedia originally was on a Usemod-type system which did a very poor job of keeping track of edit histories. When the devs switched over to mediawiki, they imported as many histories as they could and had conversion script and (automated conversion) do some too. The earliest image indicated in unusedimages is July 2002. I imagine one was uploaded earlier. --Iamunknown 06:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Isis (talk • contribs) probably has some of the oldest contributions, all dating back to 2002. Unfortunately, she contributed back when there weren't the nice new logs that we have now (there isn't even a block log entry), so it's kind of hard to track what images she might have uploaded. The first one I found was Image:Tulip_redoute.JPG, which was uploaded on 26 August 2002. Hbdragon88 06:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. Image:Gracieal.jpg was uploaded on 9 August 2002. Anybody up for finding anything eariler? Hbdragon88 06:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Canada article seems to have had an image added on on March 26, 2002. That image, ca.gif, has since been deleted and no record remains, but my guess is it was a Canadian flag. - SimonP 15:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need More Information!

Hi,

I am working on a project for my English Class in which we had to edit or create an article on Wikipedia. We are in the revisions stage of the project, and even though it is due for completion soon, I could still use information on my topic even after the deadline to enhance my article. The article that I'm working on is 'Blink', so there's nothing tooo stimulating, anything I did find is in there now! So if anyone has any ideas to add to the article or how to edit it to make it better stylistically, or anything please let me know!

Thanks Baleyp Baleyp 06:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)baleyp

This might help Wikipedia:Five pillars.--Paloma Walker 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey. That sounds like a very interesting project -- I wish my teachers assigned us stuff like that ;-). It looks like you've added some great content to the article. Here's a page I found [1]; I don't know if you've seen it, but it might have some stuff you can use. I also found these two articles with Google Scholar Search: [2], [3]. Anyway, if there's anything I can help you with, please let me know! I hope you decide to become a permanent Wikipedian. -- Robert ^See Hear _Speak 02:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Although a bit technical, this page seems to have a detailed physiological analysis. --Ybbor^T SURVEY! 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contact Us Complaint

I find it appalling that a button labelled 'Contact us' actually leads to "here are several hundred FAQs, none of which are the Q you are asking, but this should keep you from contacting us and wasting our time." page.

Has anyone at Wikipeadia measured how many clicks and how many minutes it takes to find anyway of asking Wikipedia (as an organisation) a question?

After 50 or so clicks and 20 minutes, this is the only place I can find to type, let alone ask a real question with any confidence that it will be answered by anyone in authority.

Wikipedia may wish to refer to Wiktionary:
Contact
Transitive verb: to contact
definition 2) To establish communication with something or someone

and Communication
the concept or state of exchanging information between entities.
Note the use of the word 'exchange', this implies a 2 way process.

Nic Williamson
Azteck

Wikipedia isn't an organisation. It is a website, of which most of its content is user-contributed. It is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, and their email addresses are linked from the 'Contact Us' page where it is relevant, such as the "press enquiries" page, "copyright violations" page, and most of the items on the "other queries" pages. There are not email addresses listed on most pages, for example the "how to edit a page" or "resolving disputes" sections, because the Wikimedia Foundation isn't involved in the day to day changes of the actual content of Wikipedia, so to email anyone would be pointless.

What is the actual question that you wanted to ask? -- Chuq 13:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I just saw your message at Village pump (policy), which implied you were looking for information about creating pages about commercial entities. The first item under "Top questions" section is about creating an article, and links to Wikipedia:Your first article, which is full of the information that you are after. -- Chuq 13:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you really need to get in touch with The Wikimedia Foundation, for example to report a copyright dispute or get copyright permissions, you can go to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Designated%20agent, or to report an article that contains incorrect information about a company you represent or about you, you can go to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject).

38.100.34.2 17:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

Per comments on the Talk page here, and in other locales, it appears groups of editors are specifically against Jimbo's specifically requested public poll to gauge thoughts/support on the idea of the ATT merger. As it has been stated that the Poll is "dead" per users such as User:WAS 4.250, I am nominating this. If there is wide spread support to run this poll, this page should be kept. The MfD is here:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

Thank you. - Denny 16:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The result of the Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion poll was speedy keep. 38.100.34.2 18:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Izehar

Can anyone tell what happened to User:Izehar. He was one of the Wikipedians which enjoyed a huge amount of respect from my side. Anyone knows what happened to him? --PaxEquilibrium 22:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to his contributions, he stopped editing on January 16. On January 30, he deleted his user and user talk pages on ([4], [5]). Then, he created the page User:Izehar/meta, which seems to be some sort of confirmation page that he is the same user as m:User:Izehar on meta.wikimedia.org; he created its meta counterpart a little while later. That seems to be the last edit he made anywhere that I can find. -- Robert ^See Hear _Speak 03:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 592 × 599 pixel

On March 17, I posted a succinct item here indicating an error:

On image pages, we currently see annotations like:

   Size of this preview: 592 × 599 pixel
   Image in higher resolution (1195 × 1210 pixel, file size: 541 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

Emphasis added. In English, the plural of "pixel" is "pixels".

It is still wrong, and nobody even replied here. Was this the wrong place to post this? I assume that the relevant text does not come from a page that "anyone can edit". 207.176.159.90 23:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The text can be changed at MediaWiki:file-info-size but only by an admin. Tra (Talk) 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Units of measurement don't always have to be expressed as plural just because there's more than one. For example, if a flagpole is 8 feet tall, you could refer to it as "an eight-foot flagpole". A vinyl LP is referred to as a "twelve-inch record", not a "twelve-inches record". It depends entirely on the context. If you were referring to the image in a full sentence, you would say "this image is 592 pixels wide and 599 pixels tall", but when giving the measurement as point-form data, the singular isn't necessarily "wrong". - Ugliness Man 23:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As you say, the correct form is context-dependent. However, in the context described I believe the plural is correct. If you were to read the above you would say "Size of preview, five hundred nintey-two by five ninety-nine" in which case "pixels" is clearly correct. I believe this should be changed, but it is in fact rather unimportant. Cool3 01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's "rather unimportant", but it's text that people see all the time, so when it's wrong it looks dumb. (It could be that the thing was edited by someone with a foreign accent, or someone who had in mind something like metric symbols where "3 m" never takes a pluralizing "s"; but it looks dumb.) Therefore it's worth someone's time to fix it (and look for any other places where this may have been done). 207.176.159.90 06:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should external links be inside TV infobox

Should external links be inside Template:Infobox Television. See WT:TV#Infobox Television Links. -- Ned Scott 18:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broader input on naming of Tea tree oil

Hi there. I'd like to get some broader community input on the naming of the Tea tree oil article. There is a disagreement between me and User:Siraj555 about whether the name should be Tea tree oil (the current name) or Tea tree oil (melaleuca oil). If you have an opinion one way or the other, please comment at Talk:Tea tree oil#Concerning the Recent Rename. Mike Dillon 19:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Television Links

Discussion continued from the WikiProject Television talk section.

The proposal is that the IMDb and TV.com sections of Infobox Television should be removed. The reasoning is that the infobox should not favour IMDb or TV.com. The amount of traffic that television show articles receive is high, and linking to commercial entities in infoboxes is a form of advertising. It is also anti-competitive for these two commercial websites to receive high amounts of traffic via wikipedia, as opposed to competitors that provide similar services. There is also no justification for the links' existance in the main infobox, when they also appear in the external links section. The basic outline of reasons are:

1. WP:MOS states that links such as these belong in the External Links section (Wikipedia:External links).
2. It is anti-competitive to include these commerical entities in the infobox, and we obviously can't include all television websites.
3. An External Links section is linked at the TOC, which means it is highly accessible.
4. Infoboxes are generally used for quick, at-a-glance-facts and not navigation.

At current, a high majority of participants in the discussion agree that the IMDb and TV.com links should be removed. However to gain a higher consensus I have brought the issue to the Wikipedia Village pump. Please discuss below. Thanks. Stickeylabel 10:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The source used "early in 2007" to state an approximate date

When we quote a source stating that something is expected to happen "early in 2007", when should editors change the tense from present to past -- that is to was expected? Is March 31 the Wikipedia-standard end of "early in 2007"? patsw 23:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we be reporting predictions in the first place? Steve Dufour 05:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

An expectation is not the same as a prediction. The conditions that fulfill the expectation are under the control of the source. When does early 2007 end? patsw 17:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me offer my own definitions:

• Early January 1 through April 30
• Mid May 1 through August 21
• Late September 1 through December 31

What do think? patsw 00:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging articles about places, but with no coordinates

There's a new, template, {{LocateMe|April 2007}} (for example), for articles about specific places, but with no coordinates. Should it go on their talk pages (as in the few examples currently tagged) or on the articles themselves (like other clean-up tags, such as clean-up itself, or "uncited" and so on? Andy Mabbett 23:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it would go on the talk page if it's a cleanup related message. --Ybbor^TSurvey! 23:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. May I ask for additional comments? We've tagged over 500 articles, and met vociferous opposition from 3 or 4 editors, on this point. I'd consider that a fairly low number, given the number and variety of articles tagged, but they clearly don't see it that way. Andy Mabbett 23:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] January 4, 2007

I went to RC and got a message saying:

All users should register their credit card at Wikipedia:Credit Card Registration by noon on 1.4.07. Otherwise their editing privileges will be suspended. Members of the cabel are, of course, exempt.

January 4, 2007 was almost 3 months ago. Please fix this. Georgia guy 00:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm English. It 1st April 2007. Hope this clears things up. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Now Theresa, I know this is supposed to be an International encyclcopedia, but can you quit it with the humour and guerilla spelling campaigns? --Iamunknown 00:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You are asking the impossible. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

Has anyone here done or know of any polls on how many users are registered only for vandalism? This would be a very interesting thing to read, as then it would help people know who to look more at. As common sense, edits by newly registered users may be more suspicious, but is there any real analysis of this? Also, if you know of any other statistics about wikipedia, I would love to look at them. Thanks!! - Hairchrm 04:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don;t know where you could find vandlaism statistics, but WP:STAT lists many kinds of studies, starting with Special:Statistics. --Ybbor^TSurvey! 12:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they have a study quite like what you've asked for, but you may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:The Transhumanist

Is there any other users with userspaces that serve as a similar tour de force through Wikipedia? Aditya Kabir 07:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not quite the same thing, but I do have an index. For different approaches, see User:Thunderhead/Bookmarks and User:*Kat*/organizing. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WOW! Double wow!! Thanks. Now, is there any users who have attempted summarizing or clarifying the wiki-labyrinth of history, culture, community, codes, guidelines, policies, collaborations, traditions and what not on their userspaces? Aditya Kabir 16:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, is there any system of recognizing best userpages? If there is none, are there any user with a particularly breathtaking (more for beauty and such stuff, if not for usefulness)? Aditya Kabir 15:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April Fools 2007

Was there any big event that occured on Wikipedia this year, like in 2005 and 2006? I haven't noticed anything other than maybe the George Washington coffee featured article. Just wanted to know. --FlyingPenguins 03:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Try this list on BJAODN. 69.179.47.147 06:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raising my voice

Wikipedia has become what most people dread. Let me explain myself, when I first came here in 2003, I fell in love with Wikipedia because it was so different to other encyclopedias as it aimed to be. No other encyclopedia in the world can boast of having an article about Jose Luis Ramirez, which I wrote by the way.

Wikipedia could attract people from the "other side of town" into learning in an entertaining way. Those students and children or grown ups who are bored by Britannica and the other, uptight encyclopedias that seem designed so that only highly intelligent people and those who did not need to learn in the first place can enjoy it. You can bring that "wikipedia is not..." all you want, but as writers we are also teachers and it is our responsability to teach those who are hungry for learning, as well as those who already have knowledge. So if it says somewhere Wikipedia is not a school, well, all serious encyclopedias are schools anyways.

Which is my leading, but not only, argument, to the new, exaggerated measures taken by Wikipedia's new blood, people who werent even here to begin this wonderful project in the first place but who have taken it upon themselves to make sure Wikipedia becomes ridiculously meticulous and strict-exactly what Wikipedia did not want in principle to be, another Britannica or Webster's.

Take Genieveve Jones, for example. She has become a large celebrity, even labeled as The Black Paris Hilton over the internet. I was going to reinstate her article until I found out you have to put 5 tags and let 5 people know that it will be reinstated, so that the people who voted for it to be deleted can put it for deletion again. Do you see what I mean?????? A Harvard professor or a laureate, for example, thinks she is not worth it, therefore they out it for deletion, 15 scientifics vote for it to be deleted because shes not notable in their fields and the article is once again deleted. Despite her obvious celebrity (look on the internet), some deem her not to be important-she is gone. Some 15 people who are closed inside their labs and not obvious to what's going on around the world, and who decide to go against the millions who do know who she is, therefore making her a celebrity no matter what 15 people think, but the 15 people have her deleted...ha!

Carol Castellano, a very significant personality in boxing and International Boxing Hall of Fame shoe in dies and her death is listed by VERY RESPECTABLE wikipedians, and other wikipedians who don;t have a clue about the HISTORIC sport of Boxing delete her name just because they in particular don't know her. Ms Castellano judged more than 60 world title fights around the world and the entire world of boxing is saddened by her parting. Tell me her death is not significant. The Carol Castellano who is president of some animal organization may have more websites but Carol Castellano the boxing judge is likely to become a Hall of Famer in Boxing, and the Carol Castellano director of something is likely to retire into oblivion.

Not to talk about Judith Pizarro, not known in the USA but known by about 80% of the 4 million Puerto Ricans residing in th8at island, yet someone says she's not notable and erases her name from the recent deaths list.

Another item is that, lately, there seems to be an unwritten Wikipedia law that those related to celebrities shouldn't have articles about themselves despite their own celebrity. Skylar Neil became a celebrity apart from her dad, Vince Neil, because of her tragic disease. She even has a fund named AFTER HER, a celebrity goldf tournament and an MTV feature. Clara Benitez is mentioned commonly in Puerto Rican newspaper as an important woman in the boxing world. But their articles redirect to their relatives, in Clara's case, Wilfred Benitez. They are CELEBRITIES, or at least well known, whether their relatives are more famous or not. Soon we may have Ashlee Simpson redirected to Jessica Simpson just because. Relatives of famous people who have gained fame on their own should not have their own articles redirected. Else we can begin by redirecting Prince Harry's article. He is worldwide famous but only because of who he was born to, otherwise no one would care what school he went to or what scandal he caused.

Wikipedia needs to go back to the simpler, easier format encyclopedia everyone liked. A potential Wikipedian who may be a young teen or a person who had before never been interested in encyclopedias-a potential benefactor of Wikipedia's vast article list-writes about his or her favorite New York Knick basketball player and some highly rated law student puts the page for deletion, and the new writer comes back and sees his or her article about said basketball player on a vote for deletion two days after it was written. Do you think that's a way to encourage people to come to our website and learn or expand their knowledge?? NO.

Wikipedia needs to go back to the simpler, friendlier while also watchful encyclopedia it once was. Wikipedia's fathers ran it VERY WELL like that.

Antonio Outspoken One Martin 9:48 GST, April 2, 2007

There's nothing wrong with articles on obscure people as long as the information is attributed to a reliable source. Otherwise we will end up with pranksters creating lots of articles about fictional people (who don't exist in the real world or in any existing fictional work). Wikipedia is not a soapbox for the publication of creative works or original research; if you want to publish that, go to Wikibooks. For an example of a properly researched biographical article, see my work at Roger J. Traynor. If people really care about celebrities, they will find the time to dig up a couple of citations to articles about them!--Coolcaesar 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a classic example of the battle between the good and the perfect. If every article had to be perfect we'd have precious few articles available. I say lighten up a bit on the need for excruciating source attribution, lots of articles simply don't need it. Perhaps there should be an easy way for the contributor to indicate they don't have source references and they are contributing on a "best efforts" basis. Or perhaps the wikipedia software could use some algorithm to assign a "credibility rating" on an automatic basis. GregInCanada 02:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Looking to Interview Wikipedians

I am a researcher seeking to interview Wikipedia contributors, especially occasional, new, or “average” editors. In-depth, one hour interviews may be conducted over phone or email. Compensation for your time will be provided – a $10 gift certificate to Amazon.com. Must be 18+ and U.S. resident. Contact Benjamin Johnson, Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media, Michigan State University, by email at john2429@msu.edu or by phone at 517.230.1272.

John2429 16:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you time a one-hour interview over email? - DavidWBrooks 16:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It took me a little over an hour. This is a great chance to express your opinions about WP. I passed on the gift card, however. Steve Dufour 01:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watchlist error

I can access many other pages but every time i try to access my watchlist, a Wikipedia error page keeps coming up. Whats going on? Simply south 18:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It works fine for me. What does the error message say? That might provide a clue. Have you put any pages on your watch list? — RJH (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Its started working fine now. It was about the foundations servers experiencing technical difficulties. (I have a copy from trying to access my page so many times). Simply south 18:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured

There are featured articles and featured lists. Is it possible to get featured disambiguation pages? Simply south 21:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine any case in which a disambiguation page would merit a featured distinction. Wikipedia:Featured content only lists

• Wikipedia:Featured articles
• Wikipedia:Featured pictures
• Wikipedia:Featured lists
• Wikipedia:Featured portals
• Wikipedia:Featured topics
• Wikipedia:Featured sounds

so: no. If there's some page that really merits consideration I suppose you could bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Featured content, although I doubt it would meet to warm of a reception. --Ybbor^TalkSurvey! 21:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it could but i guess it would just qualify under featured lists as they are almost the same. Simply south 11:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it irrelevant?

[6] > the user who deleted this picture from this article says this picture is irrelevant and I completely disagree. It was included in a section untitled "Criticism of and opposition to Mugabe" so it's not irrelevant to show a demonstration against him. It's totally neutral to show a demonstration. It would have been irrelevant if it was written something like "fair demonstration against Mugabe's crimes" under it but it wasn't. Moreover, there aren't many pictures in this article so I think such a picture was welcomed. Of course, I have to admit that I might not be objective since it's my picture but I wanted to know what people generally thought about it before trying to restore it. Thanks. --Two Wings (jraf ) 08:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

hmmm...I have never thought about a picture of a demonstration against the subject of an article. If the article was about me I'm sure I would feel it was unfair. Did the article itself mention the demonstrations? Were they especially notable? If so I would say the picture is ok. Steve Dufour 01:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention this particular demonstration but it mentions that many protests and oppositions exist throughout the world so the picture was useful because it illustrated an example of protest (what's more a foreign protest). Same as George W. Bush in the "Foreign perceptions" paragraph. --Two Wings (jraf ) 20:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Per nom and per?

Hi. Although I am not new, but I saw "per nom" and "per" in barnstar discussions. What do they mean? If you know the answer, please answer my question on my talk page. --Jacklau96 09:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Per can be closely said as in accordance with. In this case, I guess that per Person means that the user agrees with Person's arguments and draws the same conclusion. x42bn6 Talk 13:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

... and "nom" means "nominator". -- Rick Block (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I need help finding a topic for Political Philosophy project

Basically, the title says it all. I need to find a topic that I can talk about for 30 minutes that is within the realm of Political Philosophy. I have to make my presentation before May 16th and it's a big part of my grade so it has to be good. Anyone who has any suggestions is much appreciated. Thanks! --Pirateslife14 19:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just look at Communism, you could talk about that for hours. The Placebo Effect 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I guess we really do have a category for everything: Category:Political philosophies --Ybbor^TalkSurvey! 01:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Libertarianism would be my choice. It is probably the most simple. (I didn't say "simple-minded".) Good luck on the project. Steve Dufour 20:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"The influence of John Rawls on the contemporary developments in political philosophy" would be a good subject. The difference between positive liberty and negative liberty. As would the relevance of Plato's Republic or Aristotles' Politics for current political philosophy/politics. Or the relationship between libertarian and communist conceptions of the self (see analytical marxism and especially Gerald Cohen). Alternatively the debate between utilitarianism and deontological liberalism. The conception of labour in the works of Marx and Locke. Enjoy! C mon 20:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives

I stumbled across the above page months ago and didn't think about it. After becoming more understanding of wiki-philosophy, I wondered why all the pages listed were articles. Would it just be O-Kay to move them straight to the Wikipedia namespace because they don't meet any article qualifications and inflate the article count by 20? The Placebo Effect 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darkness of Meta

I just got a message (reprinted here) through my wiki email. Anyone else get this? I was just wondering if I have to register to "establish the ultimate scourge" or if I'm automatically enrolled as a member of the cabal?--Isotope23 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

When do I get my share of the world? Corvus cornix 22:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright vs. Trademark?

Does anyone know something about the difference between the two according to US law? If so could you check out the discussion on Talk:David Miscavige? It seems like the two are being confused and someone is saying that a copyright has to be renewed every year. Thanks if you can help. Steve Dufour 19:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My training is in writing rather than in law so what I write are pragmatic observations rather than legal opinions, but yes DES appears to have a very firm grasp of the matter and Steve Dufour is unfamiliar with the fundamentals. No, this isn't a discussion of trademark law, and the issue of copyright renewal is not copyright has to be renewed every year but that United States copyright law used to require a single renewal 28 years after publication. That particular issue is a delicate one because the matter of what constitutes publication is somewhat nebulous and the works under discussion could have disputed copyright status for several reasons. Copyright law also changed several times during the late twentieth century, which potentially affected various works within the author's corpus. Durova^Charge! 14:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You both were very helpful and it seems that the question has been cleared up now. Steve Dufour 19:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Primex7 22:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AFC

Any help here would be appreciated. For a while, almost all submissions have been entirely untouched. Patstuart^talk·edits 18:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia mention by Michael Scott in "The Office"

Is there any discussion in Wikipedia on this humorous and very high profile mention on the April 5 show? I thought it was very funny, because the principle of Wikipedia does sound pretty silly when you say it like he did, that "anyone in the world can edit it" and that's a good thing. I happen to think it is a great thing, but it does sound ridiculous when you outright say it like he did. It was perfect for that character and show. Spalding 17:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned on Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio, but I haven't seen it anywhere else. --Joelmills 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sabotage by subject of article

This has been reported on Talk:Barbara Schwarz. What do you think? Steve Dufour 00:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question of absolutely no importance but it's been bugging me

I use {| id="EnWpMpBook2" style="width:95%; height:100px; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 0% 20%;background-color: #ffffff; border: 1px solid #88a; -moz-border-radius:10px; margin-left: 2.5%; margin-top: 2.5%;" |} on my userpage, which gives whats at the bottom of this post.

Does anyone know what I could replace EnWpMpBook2 with? or what the id=" " part of it does? I pulled the script out of another userpage and I think it came from an alternative main page - but I would like to change the image. As I said, no importance but it's been bugging me for a while - even if i could find the script that id=" " links to, I could probably figure it out. Thanks, ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random article link

I tried this for the first time today. I was really very impressed with the quality of the articles that came up in a dozen or so tries. It makes WP look a lot better than some of the controversies you run into on the discussion pages. Steve Dufour 21:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)