Wikipedia:Village pump/May 2003 archive 7
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The words infamous is not NPOV. I am considering removing usage of the word in wikipedia, and sometimes replacing it with a more NPOV word (except in cases of fictitious accounts, which I will leave alone).
- Lucy's infamous football which Charlie Brown has never kicked would stay
- Some of the most infamous examples [of President for Life] include Idi Amin, Jean-Bédel Bokassa... would instead read Some notable examples [of President for Life] include Idi Amin, Jean-Bédel Bokassa...
- The ILLIAC IV was one of the most infamous supercomputers ever becomes The ILLIAC IV was a celebrated and noteworthy supercomputer.
It is going to take some thought to get the sentences right, but the word infamous is overused and not NPOV. However, before I even set out on the project, I wanted to get some other opinions. Am I just over reacting? Am I not seeing the value of the word? Can the word be NPOV? Kingturtle 19:46 18 May 2003 (UTC)
- then what about other subjective words that can be POV depending on use such as adorable, outstanding. Take Yamamoto Isoroku the intro says he is outstanding general. The trouble is how the word infamous is used not the word itself. -- Taku 20:04 18 May 2003 (UTC)
- I agree - infamous means 'famous for a (morally) bad reason', and thus is inherently non-NPOV, in all situations.
- James F. 20:05 18 May 2003 (UTC)
- Dictionary.com defines infamous as meaning "having an exceedingly bad reputation". I think that's NPOV. CGS 20:15 18 May 2003 (UTC)
- I agree with CGS. We may want to avoid "x is bad", but we should be able to say "x is usually considered bad" or "x is infamous", cautiously of course, only in very pronounced cases. - Patrick 01:04 19 May 2003 (UTC)
- Infamous is a perfectly good word to use where appropriate. I see absolutely no reason for advocating a kind of Wikipedia NPOV newspeak. (Reminds me of my argument with User:Isis about "unfortunate death") Mintguy 02:11 19 May 2003 (UTC)
- I think you're going a bit NPOV crazy here, Kingturtle. If you think about it, "notable" is POV. You may think it's notable, but I may not give a monkey's. If something is infamous to the general public, I think we should say infamous. If something is notable to the general publlic, I think we should say notable. CGS 21:25 19 May 2003 (UTC)
Please see Image talk:Philadelphia.jpg. Is the copyright requirement at http://openphoto.net/doc/html/license.html in concert with the GNU Free Documentation License? - Zoe 01:45 19 May 2003 (UTC)
I'm planning to include one or two tables but, as I'm not very good at that sort of thing, I don't know exactly how to go about it. In particular, I'd need headings not just for the columns (i e at the top of the table) but also on the left-hand side for each row. I had a look at false friend and cover version, but there the left-hand column I'm talking about is missing. Can anybody refer me to instructions on how to do it or a similar table which I could then copy and adapt? Thanks in advance, --KF 12:34 19 May 2003 (UTC)
- Is this approximately what you're looking for? (Please delete at least the table once you've seen it, don't want to clutter the Pump up too much.) -- John Owens 12:39 19 May 2003 (UTC)
- Have a look at the tables on the country pages (e.g. Australia), the element tables (e.g. Beryllium), and the taxoboxes (e.g. Crow). What exactly do you want to do? -- Tim Starling 12:46 19 May 2003 (UTC)
- http://www.htmlgoodies.com has a very good tutorial on tables. MB 17:30 23 May 2003 (UTC)
I've noticed that a few times when I am editing a text in the editing Wikipedia browswer window that the page would get saved inadvertently — probably by hitting the enter key on my numberpad — though I think it happened otherwise and I haven't figured out why. I was wondering — why does it default to the save page (that seems to be highlighted when I open an editing page) rather than the Show Preview button? Wouldn't it make sense to highlight the preview button, either for these accidents or to prevent people from uploading minor edits by default when they should be previewing their pages until they get them right? — Alex756 12:15 20 May 2003 (UTC)
- I use enter to submit pages all the time. I've never accidentaly submitted a page by pressing enter. At most this could be a user preference, off by default. -- Tim Starling 00:45 21 May 2003 (UTC)
-
- The only time I have trouble is when I am using my laptop, which has a touch pad. When I get tired, I will mis-navigate my finger on the touch pad in such a way that I tell the computer to go forward to the next page. And POWWIE, I've posted my unfinished edit. It happens to me about three times a week, usually many hours past my appropriate bedtime. Kingturtle 00:51 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Could someone that knows something about quantum mechanics or such take a look at the contributions of User:Stupidmoron? I don't know anything about this subject, but the first change this user made had the comment "some vandalism." As far as I can tell, the information is on valid subjects, but I can't tell if the information is valid. MB
- All User:Stupidmoron's contributions were fine (except for an unfortunate spelling error). I don't think "stupidmoron" quite understands the stir his/her edits created. Hopefully we haven't scared this intelligent contributor away. -- Tim Starling 00:45 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Long discussion of shock sites moved to Talk:Shock site by me, Tannin 10:21 21 May 2003 (UTC)
I have a 1881 book called The Young Folks' Cyclopedia of Persons and Places by John D. Champlin, Jr. It was published by Henry Holt and Company, NY. What is the copyright status of something like this? Would I be able lift portions into wikiarticles, the way we can with 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica? Kingturtle 05:50 21 May 2003 (UTC)
- Yup, no problem, see public domain. The question is, do you want to? Young folks' interests have changed a bit in the last 122 years .. --Eloquence 05:58 21 May 2003 (UTC)
- Something that old is definitely in the public domain and, legally speaking, material could be included into Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Public domain resources.) Keep in mind of course that old material (including the 1911 EB) can be problematic: information is out of date and needs to be cross-checked with more recent sources, strange points of view abound which need NPOVing. If there is useful material though, by all means make use of it. (If it has pictures that could be scanned, those could be useful too on historical subjects.) --Brion 06:05 21 May 2003 (UTC)
- Is there a specific date/year on the source we're allowed to copy? I.E before 1920 or something like that? I have huge amounts of old pedias and stuff. -- Sigg3.net
-
- Anything created before Jan 1, 1923 should be safe, according to public domain. --Eloquence 09:08 21 May 2003 (UTC)
- Woa! A century ago! I'd like to know how young people like to do a century ago! I think it'd be valuable historical insights. --Menchi 09:49 21 May 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Large Version is Smaller
In IE, the link to a larger picture on International Phonetic Alphabet actually reveals a smaller picture. A page with png alone automatically shrinks the png within the constraint of the page. I use 1024 x 768, and it's still slightly small. So the popular 848 will definitely reveals something even smaller, making the "Click here for larger version" label seems like a trick! ;-p
Is there any way to get around it? --Menchi 09:49 21 May 2003 (UTC)
- Not, to my knowledge, without automagically convincing every IE-enslaved Wikipedia user to go to Tools > Internet Options > Advanced and switch off "Enable Automatic Image Resizing". -- Paul A 10:03 21 May 2003 (UTC)
-
- "Automagically," nice word. "Enable Automatic Image Resizing" sure seems like the trigger, but mine has been off for a long time, and yet it still resizes automatically. :-? --Menchi 10:15 21 May 2003 (UTC)
- Or, at least on the version of IE I'm occasionally forced to use (and to think, they don't even need full physical restraints on me!), you can hover the cursor over the picture, and then click on the blue square with the arrows that pops up in the lower right hand corner, which will make it go back to full size. -- John Owens 10:08 21 May 2003 (UTC)
-
- You use Apple, don't you? Because nothing happens to me when I hover my cursor on the picture in Windows. Maybe freezing or crashing after Windows can't handle me anymore. But other than that, nothing. --Menchi 10:15 21 May 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- No, that's on a friend's computer, WinME, with a fairly up-to-date IE 6 on it. I don't know just where the option comes from myself, I would have assumed Paul A's suggestion to be all there is to it. -- John Owens 10:23 21 May 2003 (UTC)
-
Sysop
I am really sorry to insist, but I would be very pleased if someone took the time to explain to me that oddity.{...}
Anthere
- I don't imagine anyone is deliberately not answering, given the readiness to take up pens on almost anything. Maybe it is a mistake, or maybe the French sysop status has been carried across. As you may gather, I don't have a clue.
- jimfbleak
- No idea what happened here, Brion or someone else probably picked the wrong database by accident (can happen easily when doing the request directly on the DB server). I have reset Alvaro's status. --Eloquence 19:54 21 May 2003 (UTC)
-
- weird. I asked Alvaro directly on icq (I thought he was reading en.list, but he was not). We really need a processus such as the one Brion set on meta m:User details special page ant
Nearly every page in Wikipedia has a Talk page, with a 'Discuss this page' link at the bottom of the associated article. Several pages do not, mainly the Special pages, which are mostly dynamically generated (or dynamically generated into a static page).
Is there a talk page to discuss the Special pages? For example, what wording should go on them (the contents of several of them are not really explained very well), what their contents should actually be, etc. -- Nanobug 21 May 2003
- No, there's no talk page to discuss Special pages. I think a Special_talk namespace would be useful. For the moment however, special pages are discussed all over the place, but mainly on the Wikipedia:Mailing lists. If you just want to change the English translation of a Special page, and not the functionality, WikiEN-l would probably be a good forum. -- Tim Starling 02:49 22 May 2003 (UTC)
hi everybody....i don't have really a question but i dont know where to put this else.... i have a little idea, perhaps you know www.babylon.com, its a translater software with MANY other dictionaries, also encyclopedias. everybody can make its own dictionary (http://www.babylon.com/display.php?id=15&tree=3&level=2) so why can't anybody build a little tool to put the wikipedia material into the right format for babylon?? the great thing is that many babylon have many users an all the wiki links in topics page will lead directly into the wikipedia article (if formated as a web link)....sorry my english is very bad, and please shift this idea to the right place (but leave a message here for me please) its only an idea....ok....thnx for reading this (posted by User:Esteban Franz Tichy)
- Last I checked Babylon was spyware. I do not think Wikipedia would want to be directly associated with a company that engages in such shady business practices, but any of our developers may of course choose to implement your idea as he sees fit. --Eloquence 20:01 21 May 2003 (UTC)
- Can you please sign your comments, so we know who you are. CGS 20:05 21 May 2003 (UTC).
- You sign your comments and add a time/date stamp by using the tilde key 4 times. Like this: ~~~~ --Dante Alighieri 20:07 21 May 2003 (UTC)
- Why would we want to do that? I think a better goal could be to convert the wikipedia material to HTML, not some proprietary dictionary format. LittleDan
-
- It would also likely break the GFDL - proprietary formats are generally not "Transparent". Martin
-
-
- Non-transparent formats (such as printed paper ;) are fine, so long as you distribute with it or make available the network address of a transparent copy. --Brion 16:34 22 May 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- LittleDan, it's converted to HTML format ever time you load a page... ;) -- Tarquin 12:26 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Someone needs to delete Theravada and move Theravada Buddhism there so that the edit history will be preserved. Mkweise 01:14 22 May 2003 (UTC) DONE - Tannin
- dito for Mahayana Buddhism. Mkweise 01:23 22 May 2003 (UTC)
- Also, if possible, do the same for Zen Buddhism - Zen and Pure Land - Pure Land Buddhism. Theravada and Pure Land have the content so a reminder to save the article before deletion. Confusing, i know. Thanks. Usedbook 02:19 22 May 2003 (UTC)
-
- OK, I've swapped Theravada and Theravada Buddhism around, such that the article formerly called Theravada is now at Theravada Buddhism, complete with its edit history and redirecting to Theravada; the old Theravada Buddhism is now at Theravada, with the correct content and its history; and because of an interesting little bug to do with page caching and showing me out-of-date history listings for the wrong pages as I was checking that I hadn't got them mixed up and deleted the wrong things by mistake, the hair on Tanin's head turned a little greyer until he hit "reload" a few times. But it worked ot OK in the end. (Phew!)
-
- Now it seems to me that it is entirely fair and sensible to list the other mages mentioned above at Zen, Mahayana Buddhism, and Pure Land - after all, we don't have articles on Catholicism Christianity or Protestantism Christianity. But there would be quite a bit of stuffing about to revert the swap of those two, and there is some inconclusive discussion on the talk pages, so maybe it might be wise to announce my intention to swap them and then wait a little while to see if there are any objections. Tannin 03:31 22 May 2003 (UTC)
-
- We really appreciate your understanding and kind effort to help. As you know, the attachment of 'Buddhism' on the denominations is quite inconvenient and awkward. I hope it won't be too much trouble. Thanks again and be well. Usedbook 14:44 22 May 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- My pleasure, Usedbook. It's been quite a while since this was mentioned here, and I don't hear any screams of anguish about the moves, so I'll take care of the others shortly. Tannin 14:51 22 May 2003 (UTC)
-
Is the image on Mario_(Nintendo_character) a copyright violation? MB 02:43 23 May 2003 (UTC)
- If not copyright, I presume it is apparently againt use of trademark. -- Taku 03:01 23 May 2003 (UTC)
- There is a similar situation on The Simpsons. -- Minesweeper 03:04 23 May 2003 (UTC)
-
- Well then, is someone going to delete them? MB 18:05 23 May 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- Wouldn't those images be fair use? -- 129.93.10.144
-
-
-
-
- I dunno, would they? MB 19:56 23 May 2003 (UTC)
-
-
Is there a way for me to merge the contributions I made when I first started out at the wiki, while I was at work 139.85.23.43, to my contributions page? MB 02:59 23 May 2003 (UTC)
- Sure; I can remark the edits as belonging to your user name, so 'Mbecker' will appear in the history of those pages, and the edits will appear in your contribs list. As long as there's nothing from that IP that's not by you? --Brion 04:00 23 May 2003 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, it was a static IP at my job. Also, same with 66.250.142.130. Thanks! MB 04:01 23 May 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- Okay, both should be switched over now. --Brion 04:48 23 May 2003 (UTC)
-
Hey, cool. Can you merge 144.137.254.230's edit into my edit history? It was just the once, but knowing it's there and not marked as mine has been slowly eating away at my sanity... :) -- Paul A 07:26 23 May 2003 (UTC)
