Misplaced Pages

You're wrong. Firstly, Word does not force the -ize spelling. Secondly, -ize is not an Americanism. Both -ize and -ise are standard English spellings. In the UK, -ise is most commonly used by the layman, and -ize by academics. Americans only use -ize, which makes it seem like an Americanism, but it is not. -ise is a rare example of the UK using simplified spellings (usually, US variants are the simplifications, e.g. "encyclopedia" for "encyclopaedia".) — Chameleon My page/My talk 09:24, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good point. We should have en.wikipedia.org for American English, and en.wikipaedia.org for British English. Problem solved! --Wclark 05:00, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

I was so sure that you were wrong about this and that the choice between ize and ise was a modern one becasue of transantlantic influences. However, I have a four volume Imperial Dictionary c. 1890s and behold: "REALIZE" and "REALIZATION". Only in my modern "Chambers" dictionary do I get a choice and in my "Websters" I naturally get "ize"s. I bow to you as I am obviously not academic enough ;) Dainamo 19:31, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I love being right. Heheheheheh. — Chameleon My page/My talk 01:56, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, I gdon't understand why should using an "s" be a simplification when the sound is a Z anyway? And also how do you get word to accept "ises" other than adding each word everytime it picks it up? Dainamo 19:33, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ahah, yes, it is indeed pronounced with a /z/ sound (I'm using IPA here), but this is normal: the letter s probably represents the phoneme /z/ more often that it represents /s/ in English — the sound is certainly rarely represented by the letter z, which gets nice high Scrabble scores accordingly! What I'm saying with the "simplification" thing is that Webster spellings usually lighten the load on the brain by reducing the number of spellings to memorise/memorize. That is to say, standard English distinguishes between "licence" and "license", "check" and "cheque", "story" and "storey", and Webster's mergers of such spellings make things simpler and easier (though looking a bit dyslexic).

The "-ise" usage in the Commonwealth is the one example of Brits doing the simplifying, because, if you write "realize", "organize" etc., you have to remember that "advertise", "revise", "televise" etc. must be written with an s, but if you just use an s in all these words, you can't go wrong!

In case you hadn't realised/realized, the suffix in question is from the old Norman French -izer, from Latin -IZARE, from Greek -ιζειν. Popular Commonwealth usage has been influenced by the modern French -iser, but this has never caught on with academics and scientists. The other words are from old Norman French advertir, viser, etc. and have thus never been written with a z. By lumping together these words of completely different origin, we are being as bad as the "check"-cashing, "license"-granting Americans!

For these etymological reasons, I always used to prefer the zed in the words ultimately derived from -ιζειν, but then I got on the web and starting coming across Americans like the one who started this section, and so I began using "-ise" just to annoy them.

Ironically, due to the abovementioned rarity of the letter, a z glares at the reader from the page, leading to it being the main symbol of American spellings in people's minds, despite the fact that it is not one. My Aussie girlfriend identifies American texts as the ones that are "full of zeds", forgetting that the real Americanisms are things like "color", "gonna", "thru", "theater", "maneuver", and lexical differences.

As for MS Word, what version are you using? I believe earlier versions were erratic, but in my copy of Word 2003, I can use either of the correct spellings for -ιζειν derivatives (but only "advertise", of course). If I set the language to "English (U.S.)" — suppressing the shudder — it insists on the etymological zed. I'm not sure whether it always accepts both spellings when set to Commonwealth English, or whether it is programmed to learn from what the user most commonly types. — Chameleon My page/My talk 01:56, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Surely MS Word insists on the etymological zee... Adam Bishop 18:08, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I knew someone would say that. — Chameleon My page/My talk 21:14, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes my Word 2000 is fine it seems to be Word 97 that is the guilty party. Incidentally much of American English language seems quite archaic to many Brits. Aside (or is it Azide? hehe) from obvious examples such as still suing bushells and pecks, Dickensian words like attorney and words of even earlier eras like gotten, not to mention a different nick name for every coin echo what has been lost in Brit-English Dainamo.

As with any comparison of dialects, some differences are due to archaisms, and others are due to corruptions/innovations. — Chameleon My page/My talk 21:14, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I find such schisms in languages fascinating; amazing what splitting 250 years ago (and longer) can do for a language; one side may retain old terms that the other doesn't, and both sides come up with new terms for a new concept. What's the British word for attorney? --Golbez 17:53, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The legal profession in the UK is divided into two groups - barristers and solicitors. Basically, a barrister is a 'courtroom lawyer' whereas a solicitor deals with legal matters that do not usually end up in court (like deeds, real estate etc). Mark Richards 18:03, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not to mention Scottish "advocates". — Chameleon My page/My talk 21:14, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Somewhat of out date Mark! Solicitors have directly represented clients in lower courts for decades (and I think always have exclusively in magistrates court) They are increasingly doing so in higher courts now, although the tendancy is to still appoint the specialist advocates known as Barristers who previously had exclusive rights in higher courts. Barristers are appointed by the solicitor and have no contact with the client. Dainamo 15:31, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hm...speaking of the usage of -ize and -ise, I've read the use of -ize in a bunch of short stories written by a son of Arthur Conan Doyle and some other writer — they were Sherlock Holmes stories, but I doubt if anybody considers them part of the official canon. Regardless, the book came out in the 60s, IIRC, so either Conan Doyle's son must have been Americanised/Americanized or someone else (his co-author? The publisher?) must have had some influence on him. Johnleemk | Talk 08:41, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you read the stuff above, you'll see there is no need to suppose any American influence just because he spelt such words with a zed. Even Fowler, in his famous usage guide, advocated in favour of zed. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 17:18, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"It's not a motorcycle, it's a chopper baby"..........(a cryptic joke for movie fans)Dainamo 15:41, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Old features removed in new skin; Categorizing

I remember that in the old skin you could edit the article's summary with an link that always appeared at the top of the article. That link doesn't appear in the new skin and everytime I want to edit the summary of an article, I have to click the "edit this page" option which downloads the whole article instead of the summary alone. Could we get that back por favor?

What about ]? It is not centering the thumbnails. :/

Could we have the images on the Image description page centered? They are now aligned to the left.. suxxors.

What the hell happened with that feature where you could specify if the image that you were uploading was public domain or not so that we didn't have to manually edit the Image description page? It fucking sucks to edit every image that I upload, that can be done with a simple form. Who was was developing that?

And, is there a way that when you categorize, the article put in the category appears as you specified it on the brackets? For example, if you list Einsten as ] could it be listed in the Category as Einstein, Albert instead of listing it as Albert Einsten under the E section?

—John | Talk 22:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Range block

As per policy, I'm reporting here that I have blocked range 64.12.116.10/31 for 48 hours. This is probably wrong, since I really have no idea how to do it, but I used the Wikimedia calculator to try to figure it out. The user has been using IDs from 64.12.116.10 through 64.12.117.22. RickK 22:24, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Add 205.188.116.19/31 for 72 hours. RickK 22:38, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

That was AOL. The block was far from effective, since it only blocked two IP addresses, and it still had the potential to drive away possible contributors. I have unblocked all of the AOL IPs. Guanaco 04:37, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

You're really good at undoing blocks and really bad at protecting the site from vandalism. You might try stopping doing one and starting doing the other. RickK 19:19, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

I think his point is that AOL owns a huge number of ip addresses, somewhere close to what used to be called a Class A address space (subnet mask 255.0.0.0), but spread out amongst multiple actual net blocks. Blocking all AOL addresses would potentially block dozens of anonymous users. - Kenwarren 19:37, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY PROTECT THE SITE FROM VANDALISM. I've discovered by bitter experience it doesn't stop the vandal and does generate a flurry of aggrieved email from victims of collateral damage.

Guanaco has however been experimenting with 1-hour blocks, which switch off the vandal for that session (I think) with minimal inconvenience to legit AOL users. Hopefully he can give us his results from this approach soon - David Gerard 11:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And this is bad because...? Adam 09:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hiding Text

To avoid an editing circle of well meaning, but incorrect changes and then necessary correcting that is being made on a few particular pages (due to a commonly held misunderstanding) I would like to enter an explanation text that appears in editing but does not appear on the page. How do I do this? Dainamo 23:34, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• You can enclose the text inside of HTML comment delimiters, like this: <!-- comment here -->. It might also be a good idea to put your comment on the article's talk page as well. -- Wapcaplet 23:58, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Or even better, explain the misunderstanding in the text of the article, so no one is tempted to "fix" it. Nohat 07:08, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This method sometimes works, but other times it really fails. An article can lose its coherence when it is peppered with subclauses and get-outs aimed at satisfying the varying demands of writers, rather than readers. Depending on circumstances: it is often best stick to the talk page, and an HTML comment as a back up for particularly crucial items. Pcb21| Pete 07:30, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are Congressional Archives Copyvios?

Would it be a copyvio to use information (or copy-pastes) from http://bioguide.congress.gov/? It's a federal website, but the "copyright information" page at http://bioguide.congress.gov/copyright.htm only mentions the image; it mentions no copyright or license on the text at all. Ideas? --Golbez 01:56, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the text of that site is an official US government publication and thus public domain. Given that it doesn't say otherwise, it's a safe assumption. Just be really careful about the images. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:08, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The text of the congressional bioguide is public domain. However, you should attribute it as a source to give credit where due. If you like, you can include {{bioguide}} in an article which adds the text:  This article incorporates public domain material from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. older≠wiser 02:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh. Someone beat me to it. Okay. :) Thanks --Golbez 02:38, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've been using those images; they're public domain. ] 13:41, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Well, I don't think they would specifically mention that "not all images are in the public domain" if that were not the case. I have not come across many that are, but in such cases, there is copyright information by the image. older≠wiser 20:32, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

II, III

I don't think there's an entry in the naming conventions for this, so which is the proper format for a name with a II, III, etc, that isn't a royal name? Article in question is John H. Bankhead, II. Should it be with or without the comma? I note that "with" comma takes up the bulk of redirects to Bill Gates, but the article itself mentions him as William Henry Gates III, no comma. Any suggestions? --Golbez 02:38, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The more common practice is not to use commas before II, III, etc. (unlike Jr. or Sr. where it's the other way around), so I would use John Smith III (but John Smith, Jr.). A redirect from the other version is always useful, of course. Gzornenplatz 03:23, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

How?

I wanna do something like this:

For some articles Ive written, for example, for Edwin Rosario. How can I do that?

Thank you and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, "Antonio Bananaramo Martin"

If you mean that you want to create a nice table, then you can check out Misplaced Pages:How to use tables. If you mean that you want to create a nice boilerplate template message, then you can check out Misplaced Pages:Template messages, or if you want to create a new one, then copy this into the address bar: http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:THENAMEOFYOURMESSAGEHERE, and edit the page so that the message is how you want it to look. Then, simply copy this onto a page: {{THENAMEOFYOURMESSAGEHERE}}. -- Mike Storm 03:18, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would really really really suggest you do not. Creating a category is a better idea (IMO). Put <tt>] at the bottom of the articles in question. Check there isn't already a suitable category. You can also put categories into higher categories - David Gerard 11:07, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias copying from wikpedia

Its one thing to encourage free use of articles, but there seem to be a lot of on line encyclopedias who are copying wiki without crediting. Even if they mention wikipeida they are lifting imcomplete articles and provide no facility to correct and sometimes have some kind of software conflict that makes the display wrong anyway, all of which make Wiki sources look less credible. What is the point of this? why don't they just link to wikipedia as a resource?. I think that the terms of free use should prevent this type of thing if this is possible. Dainamo 09:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Uhm, yeah, except it wouldn't be _free_ anymore. Free GNU licenses don't impose restrictions on how the material may be used, it only requires attribution and requires that derivative works are licensed in specific ways.

Many do a very rough job of taking Misplaced Pages's articles, but as long as they don't violate the license, that's OK. They may take partial articles and mangle them as they see fit. What kind of rules would you like to see? — David Remahl 09:49, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Er, the whole point of the GNU FDL is to make Misplaced Pages a free and open resource which means that anyone, (even the unscrupulous), can make use of it. The real problem imo is the fact that Google ranks these pages higher than Misplaced Pages's in may cases due to the prevalence of spamdexing which these unscrupulous operators rely upon. If Google's engine were better and more discrimating than this would not be an issue. Sjc 09:53, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we should get sneaky too, and do stuff to improve our page rank. — Chameleon My page/My talk 10:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No black SEO tricks. Play fair. Eventually Google will reduce the effect of various tricks anyways. gracefool 03:22, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The search engine experience is the biggest problem, I agree In so far as "Free Use" is concerned, there are already conditions such as accreditation and an idea might be to exclude unapproved presentation in an another encyclopedia. Aa religious analogy might be: Whether he approves or not God gives us freedom to do what we want, but does not permit us to to be God I know its a bit crap, but its the nearest I could think of. I am not a lawyer so I might be suggesting something that is totally impractical, but in that case there could be some mileage of a polite request to those who have some scruples. In so far as they are concerned, surely a link to wikipedia would be much easier anyway? If you can't beat them join them Dainamo 11:43, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, a simple link wouldn't bring them Google traffic, and then they wouldn't get money for their ads. They have no scruples. — Chameleon My page/My talk 12:47, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maybe the time has come to shaft the scumbags at Google once and for all; I am thinking we might have a Wiki spider; I am pretty good at this sort of stuff and know quite a few people who are of a similar mind. I will go and float some of this on Usenet and see what the feeling is. There is nothing worse than searching for something and having to wade through a swamp of spamdexed bullshit. Sjc 19:43, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have found that some of these other users don't even have an up-date version of Misplaced Pages. I was doing a search this morning for a topic I am curently writing about, was directed to another site and then found it was another user of Wikepedia who was not noting articles I submitted at the start of last week! I hope there is some system to have the Misplaced Pages at the top of the list just because it will always be the current version.Apwoolrich 10:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Countermeasures

I wasn't sure about something, and wanted to bring it up here. Basically, mirror versions are appearing much higher in google than we are. The explanation people give for this is that they're somehow manipulating the pagerank system. My question is not "how" (I'm not technical enough to really grasp), but rather "Could we do this too?". ] 13:44, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

One key way they seem to do this is by including a series of phrases such as (for an article called Stuff): "What is Stuff? Information about Stuff. Stuff definition..." — Chameleon My page/My talk 15:07, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How could we do this without putting it in the article text? ] 19:42, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

They often include it in the page <title>, and presumably also in the meta tags. It could also be incorporated in small text at the bottom of the article. — Chameleon My page/My talk 20:24, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I read somewhere on Misplaced Pages that at least once someone wrote to google about a mirror having a higher rank than the real wiki, and the people at google fixed it. Not sure if this is possible for the entire wikipedia, though. -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:16, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good idea, how about a few GOOGLEBOMBS too?

I propose we collectively draft an official letter to Google on the matter, as well as working at our end to boost our ranking to the level it deserves to be at. — Chameleon My page/My talk 10:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Such a thing is not unheard of; for special things, Google will give preference to certain sites over others, and these things are built in. See: UPC search, definition search. So it's not like Google would just dismiss it out of hand, and in fact, I think they might enjoy more integration. But how about WE get that integration, instead of one of the cheap ripoffs? I support this and think it should be done quickly. --Golbez 05:16, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Google has a feature that allows you to only search websites that have to do with certain subjects, like Mac, linux, U.S. Government, etc. I think that we should ask them to do a similar thing for Misplaced Pages. But is telling the difference between Misplaced Pages and a mirror really that hard? Search results that are from Misplaced Pages look like: ARTICLE NAME HERE - . ] 02:09, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The real problem here is that potential users of Misplaced Pages and thus possible long term contributors to the knowledge base are regularly diverted away from what is the real source of the information in the first place, and to which they maybe one day would otherwise contribute. However, as a follow up to my suggestion that we might think about a PD search engine to slaughter Google, it looks like the cathedral once again is out to do for the bazaar: Conceptually nice, however the thing seems to be down or broken a lot at the moment. However, I think this shows that the cathedral has had enough of the antics of the bazaar and has decided to act already. Sjc 10:57, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Database download gives the technical reasons we are almost assured a low Google ranking: because we're database-bound, crawlers are restricted to one access per second. Our mirrors are typically flat HTML, so can be crawled much faster.

I suggest that there's not much point worrying about our Google ranking until we are confident we have the server power (enough Squid frontends, I would guess) to handle the traffic. Remember that the deal with Yahoo doubled our load in a week - David Gerard 10:40, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NOTICE: New type of stub

If you support the idea of having substubs, then please list your name here. There's also lots more discussion about Misplaced Pages:substubs on the talk page.

A new type of stub has been created: it's called a substub. Substubs are like regular stubs, only even smaller. You can read more about the difference between stubs and substubs here, or view examples of stubs vs. substubs. There is also a new substub template message; the new message is meant to replace the normal stub message, but only where, of course, an article is a substub instead of a stub. The new message looks like:

This article is a substub! If it is not expanded soon, it may be deleted.

You can use this new message by either replacing {{stub}} with {{substub}} in cases when a stub is more accurately described as a substub, or simply inserting {{substub}} at the bottom of an article. Many substubs are automatically listed on Misplaced Pages:Shortpages. You can discuss this new type of stub here, on the template message's talk page, or, preferably, on the substub talk page itself. -- Mike Storm 03:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nice. When do we get {{subsubstub}}? ;-) Chris 73 | Talk 04:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A subsubstub is any article with fewer than 14 characters including any messages. Adding {{subsubstub}} would put it over this limit; thus such a message isn't needed! :-) --gadfium 04:41, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the proper boilerplate for {{subsubstub}} is {{delete}} (; —siroχo 07:28, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

{{delete}} - Yes, that's less than 14 characters, so we can use this. Now what do we write in the last 4 characters for a {{delete}} subsubstub? ;-)

"coke" (sans quotes of course) :-) Ilyanep (Talk) 20:20, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be cool if the contents of a template could be overridden on a per-user basis, like we do with the style sheets and javascript. Then I could blank templates like {{stub}} and {{substub}} because I don't find them useful (I can see that it's a short article, ok!) but others who like these messages for whatever reason can still see them. Whatlinkshere etc would still work as they do now. Pcb21| Pete 07:23, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good idea, like class='urlexpansion' for a text that may or may not be displayed.--Patrick 10:09, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think you could get that effect by editing Template:stub, enclosing the text in <div class="template" id="stub">...</div> and then putting div.template#stub { display: none; } into your monobook.css. I didn't dare try that one out on the live Template:stub, though, but a test using Template:testing showed that it works for the display. However, Template:testing has a link to User:Lupo/temp (a test page of mine), and "What links here" on User:Lupo/temp didn't show the page I had included "{{testing}}" on, only the template itself did. Is this normal, or are some templates (e.g. Template:stub) handled differently so that the pages including the template show up on "What links here" on Misplaced Pages:Perfect stub article? Oh, and BTW, could some admin please delete Template:testing again? Thanks. Lupo 11:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Deleted Bmills 12:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, you are seeing the standard whatlinkshere behaviour for all templates. Thus I think this solution works. The only argument against it is that it complicates the wikitext when editing the template. When considering who edits template pages (experienced), I think this cost is worthwhile - obviously the talk page and an HTML comment will make clear what is happening. What do others think? Pcb21| Pete 12:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

These complexities can themselves be hidden in a template. See User:Pcb21/stub test and its includees. Pcb21| Pete 12:33, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fine, then let's go for it! (Frankly said, I don't think the two-stage template solution in any simpler than just adding a <div> around the text. But I don't care very much about such a minor implementation detail, both are fine with me.) Lupo 12:41, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about {{nanostub}}? Exploding Boy 07:44, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, if you go to Misplaced Pages:Shortpages, you'll see that there are no pages under 14 characters. I think the smallest right now is 46. -- Mike Storm 16:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What exactly is this addition of another layer of complexity to the rules supposed to accomplish? You have a fancy new tag. Why? -- Cyrius|✎ 22:45, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think this is really rather silly. It doesn't seem to accomplish anything useful, it's just over-categorization. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 22:48, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

First topic: The whole idea is that substubs are in extreme need of improvement. Besides, while you complain about over-categorization, 200 other people scoff at Misplaced Pages and complain about how unorganized it is. Second topic: If you support the idea of having substubs, then please list your name on the substub talk page. Third topic: I have no plan to make a subsubstub. If anyone did, I would be against it. -- Mike Storm 00:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. While many substubs (damn, you got me confused, I almost put subsubstub :0) may be candidates for speedy deletes, it's a very fine line. And these are the articles that need help the most (and are easiest for aspiring writers such as myself). While this may be overcategorizing, it is better than having thousands of articles @ 15 bytes Ilyanep (Talk) 20:20, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Stubs include many articles where the article is clearly incomplete but still provides much useful information about the topic. Substubs seem like stubs which really need a bit more work. Highlighting the more deserving of attention group of stubs might be useful. Jamesday 11:35, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Issue on Isle of Sheppey

Note Wikipedians that an external link on the wikipage Isle_of_Sheppey references an offensive, self opinionated and unsuitable website that should not be on any wikipage. Yesterday I replaced it with a more suitable link, but it has been restored, and I am not about to begin a crusade over it, but feel the community should censor it Faedra 11:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Isle of Sheppey. Anárion 13:49, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Page disappeared

An article titled Vai viegli but jaunam? which I have edited a few months ago has disappeared. Searching the database returns the article among hits but clicking on the title gives the "Misplaced Pages does not yet have an article with this name" message. What has happened? Is there article deleted? Some software bug? Andris 12:27, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Our mirrors still have it, so apparently it and its history were erased here for some reason. Anárion 12:35, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If it was deleted, it's not in the archive. Bmills 12:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It appears that the software strips the trailing "?". Lupo 12:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A similar case was brought up on the help desk yesterday. The page can still be accessed here, though. Bit of an annoying bug really. - 13:25, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)

A month or two ago Brion fixed a glitch where articles with a ? couldn't be reached. It looks as though that glitch has returned. I'll mnention it to him. Jamesday 13:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the Admin section for restoring pages it says: 13:44, 21 Jul 2004 Jamesday deleted "Vai viegli but jaunam" (Correcting a bad fix for a software problem. The correct page name will be back soon. content was: '#REDIRECT Is It Easy To Be Young') and the last page was REDIRECT Is It Easy To Be Young. Guess the fix is in progress. -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

http://www.wikibooks.org gives GoDaddy holding page (fixed!)

Discovered something terrible when I typed in www.wikibooks.org . Some moron has forgotten to pay for the domain name and now it's for sale. Oh, no please admins or whoever is responsible for this. Get this domain back! I just wanted to add my first contribution in wikibooks but that's impossible now. By the way, I made sure to check whether I typed the right domain, but the link on the main page links to the same domain. If the domain is bought by someone else that's really a disaster. Please do something, whoever is responsible for this! Thanks a lot in advance. Laudaka

Works fine for me. Tried misspellings wikbooks.org, wkibooks.org, both are non-existent. wikibooks.com goes to the Wikimedia Foundation bookshop in German, which is odd, however. Dysprosia 14:18, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately I get the same behaviour as the frantic anon above. www.wikibooks.org goes to a godaddy.com "Page under construction page" Pcb21| Pete 14:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I get the same behaviour as well. Goes to godaddy.com. Andris 14:27, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

I just tried it and I do get to the english Wikibooks main page. Looks still good to me. Awolf002 14:29, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Goes to godaddy.com for me, too. Bmills 14:32, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Could be spyware. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 14:35, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Me thinks it is just a temporary problem with the registrar which was used to register Wikibooks.org. When checking the WhoIs information, it still shows our User:mav as the administrative and technical contact for both wikibooks.com and wikibooks.org. And both have an expiry date of 2013, so there seems to be no need to worry, should be just a technical glitch somewhere. andy 14:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Random web search identifies this random posting connecting godaddy.com with a scam faking an antispyware tool. Mind you, andy is more likely to be right, methinks. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 14:38, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I get the english wikibook page as planned. -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I get godaddy.com. — Chameleon My page/My talk 14:41, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I get godaddy.com also. Company PC which is actively checked for viruses and spyware twice daily. Anárion 15:12, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Checking the whois record in more detail it shows that zwinger.wikimedia.org is set as the main DNS, and gunther.bomis.com as the secondary. However zwinger seems to be dead (no ping answer), maybe this explains why godaddy then returns a wrong IP from their DNS. BTW: I get godaddy as well. andy 14:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Wikimedia servers are firewalled to block ping attacks and that also blocks normal pings. Jamesday 15:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This wikitech-l posting suggests that the DNS record for wikibooks.org was changed (by us, deliberately) within the last few days, and the old details are still cached for many people (who are now apparently getting GoDaddy). By the way, the GoDaddy page doesn't say the domain is for sale, just that it's coming soon and that you could register other domains through them.--rbrwrˆ 15:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There was a problem with DNS yesterday. Depending on how long your DNS server caches DNS information you'll see either wikibooks, nothing or the GoDaddy page. If you're using Windows, restarting your computer may clear a locally cached DNS result which could show you the problem for longer than most. Zwinger is fine. Its firewall is set to block ping requests. Jamesday 15:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was getting the godaddy problem yesterday (21 Jul) but it is pointing at the right place now (22 Jul); I suggest other users try again? Jal 10:54, 22 Jul 2004 (BST)

On Windows, run ipconfig /flushdns to flush your DNS cache (some web browsers have their own caches and may need to be restarted). On Mac OS X, run lookupd -flushcache. Gdr 21:56, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

www.wikibooks.org was going to the right place before the DNS switch, and people who are reporting a working en.wikibooks.org have the updated DNS information. So perhaps the old DNS server has been recently changed to mark www.wikibooks.org unused, despite the fact that the change in DNS server has not fully propagated yet. -- Tim Starling 16:00, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. On my computer I got godaddy.com first and I get wikibooks now again, the problem seems to have been fixed. Hurray! Wikibooks is working again and I'll contribute my first page today. Paulus/laudaka (add me to your YIM/AIM/ICQ/M$N M contact list if you like!) Laudaka's talk page 14:24, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

.

Has anyone else noticed that "." now appears in black under the title of each page above the main text? Also does the "edit this page" link at the top of the page look bold to you? (I'm using MonoBook, btw) —siroχo 17:38, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

The emboldening of the "edit this page" was suggested by Angela, spent the customary week without objections, and was then implemented, on MediaWiki:Monobook.css and its talk page. The re-instatement of the by-line was, I think, a technical fix to it being missing (it was there beforehand).

HTH.

James F. (talk) 19:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The reasons for the change, and the method to remove the bold text, are explained at MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css. Angela. 22:20, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

I still don't see why we can't have an edit this page link at the bottom of the page, where is where most people are (particularly in Talk pages) when they decide they want to edit. Adam 09:28, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just set your preferences so that double-clicking the page takes you to edit mode. Then you can edit from whereever you are on the page. Bmills 09:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You can add the links at the bottom yourself using your custom javascript and css pages. See m:User styles/bottom tabs for instructions. Angela. 18:43, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation Committee: New members needed

sannse, co-chair of the Mediation Committee, has just written on the mailing list that she believes the committee could do with expansion to help ensure requests are answered as quickly as possible. Please see How does one become the member of the committee? and nominate yourself there if you are interested in playing a part in the dispute resolution process. Angela. 22:20, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Should we ban JPEG images?

Those who want to ban MP3 sound (Misplaced Pages talk:Sound) from wikipedia might be interested in the Forgent patent affecting JPEG images which is in today's news. So far Sony has signed a license and an unnamed other company has paid US$15 million for one. After moving to ban the world's music format, should the world's photo format should be next? Japan and the US are the major countries which allow these patents. Should we instead refuse to deliver MP3 and JPEG content to viewers in Japan, to pressure users there to get their laws changed? That's the approach copyleft takes: make a large set of resources available, but only let you use them if you agree to the terms, so applying pressure to change your license. Jamesday 01:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I doubt the volume of users in Japan is enough to result in a law change. I would also hold off until a case goes to court and we have a finding - there is a lot of discussion about whether their patent can be enforced. --inks 02:24, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Japanese use is pretty high. US use is even higher (the US is the other country with software patents). However, I don't think we should ban any world standard format until there's a nearly universally used replacement. Jamesday 19:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The MP3 format is different, there is no JPEG alternative that i am aware of, this roally suchs though and i hope for a free image formats soon. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:35, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Yes, the case is different. However, PNGs can be used for the same content as JPEGs, and are lossless. It's just a pity they result in larger file sizes. — Chameleon My page/My talk 03:57, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PNG's are not comparable, they're a lossless compression format. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:56, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

PNGs are a replacement for GIFs, as they are truecolour and lossless. There is no widespread alternative for JPEG. Anárion 08:14, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

New language sister project

Where would people suggest I look for helpful information on how to start a sister project in a new language? A clear step-by-step guide in English would be fanstastic, if one exists. (I am specifically interested in setting up a new-language version of WikiSource, and I posted a query there as well, but I know there are tons of extremely knowledgeable here.) It would be great if anyone could refer me to such a guide or other helpful materials.Dovi 04:27, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Have a look at m:How to start a new Misplaced Pages? Although it is aimed at creating a Misplaced Pages, a lot of the information there will apply to a new Wikisource as well. If the Wikisource you want to create is a language that already has a Misplaced Pages, you should be able to create it very easily using the "create wiki" button that appears when you go to the correct URL. Currently, Wikisource has some DNS issues, so you might not be able to get to it, but once it is back, go to an address such as http://ro.wikisource.org/ or whatever language you want to create, and click "create wiki". The language will added to a queue and created within a day or so. The first thing you'll want to do is make sure you have the right namespaces (Wikisource instead of Misplaced Pages). Then you can begin creating your Main Page and advertising it at the sister projects (Misplaced Pages, Wiktionary etc) in the same language to encourage new users. Angela. 18:40, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Assuming that DNS means "domain namespace" or something along those lines, can anyone suggest to read about those issues?Dovi 03:52, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Actually you can't create new Wikisources yet. The remaining single-wiki projects are meta, sep11 and wikisource. Misplaced Pages, Wiktionary, Wikibooks and Wikiquote have multiple wikis. If there's support, I can convert Wikisource to a multi-subdomain project too. -- Tim Starling 07:33, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

I really can't comment on that since I'm a newcomer over there. But maybe you can help with this question: On those projects that do have domains and are written right-to-left, such as the Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedias, how is it done? In other words, is there currently a way for me to make Hebrew pages on WikiSource appear and load text from right-to-left?Dovi 08:24, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Fixing an accidental page move

When trying to rename Yabloko Russian Democratic Party to simply Yabloko (in keeping with the most-common-name rule), I cut-and-pasted "Yabloko" into the destination box, but somehow also pasted "To help support Misplaced Pages, please visit our fundraising page, or read about how we use the money" at the same time. I haven't any idea how that occured, but the article is now called To help support Misplaced Pages, please visit our fundraising page, or read about how we use the money. Yabloko. Could an admin please fix this? (And is there somewhere better to ask this sort of thing? Simply picking a random admin from the list and hoping that they're around seems a bit ... inefficient?) Thanks. -- Vardion 09:50, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

fixed. Bmills 09:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Vardion 10:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How to revert a page after vandalism

I noticed vandalism on Highland Park, Texas. I often see people reverting pages but I do not know how this is done. Feel free to revert it. For the future, please can somebody tell me how I can revert a page myself?
Bobblewik 11:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Go to History for the page. open the last unvandalised version (by clicking the time and date link for it) and save. Bmills 11:11, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks. I have learnt something useful.
Bobblewik 13:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:How to revert a page to an earlier version for all the do's and don'ts of reversion. - 11:18, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)

Ooh. I have just read lots of great advice and tips there. Thanks.
Bobblewik 13:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Etiquette for Dealing with Troublemakers

An anonymous contributor (69.194.239.250) edited User:Trebor1990 and added quite some useless and unwanted junk. Does Misplaced Pages have certain etiquette for dealing with such problems? --Trebor

Sure - see Misplaced Pages:Dealing with vandalism. Just revert the change, then put a warning on the talk page for that IP. If it is persistent you can list it on Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress, but usually an admin quite quickly will ban that IP then. andy 19:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just remove it when you notice it, on your user page or any other. If it becomes repeated vandalism then treat it like any other vandalism. Jamesday 19:20, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alexa

Alexa has a feature where you can put your logo into an alexa toolbar and distribute it to visitors on your site. Perhaps we should try it? Ilyanep (Talk) 21:12, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the feature so we can see what it does exactly? ] 00:25, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it refers to the Alexa toolbar. I personally dislike 3rd-party toolbars, and as I don't use Internet Explorer but Firefox, it probably doesn't even work. -- Solitude 10:22, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah its an IE thing. Pcb21| Pete 10:36, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maybe someone could make up a Misplaced Pages skin for Mozilla? Although I am rather attached to my "Vorkosigan Comconsole" :-) --Phil | Talk 13:47, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Second of all, a wp skin for Mozilla would so totally rock!

First of all, I use Mozilla, not IE. Second of all, it has a feature where you can add you logo into an alexa toolbar and distribute it, it's something like Alexa associates or something.

Headbutting

Do we have an article about headbutting anywhere? I thought we did but can't find one, maybe it was deleted? Thx. Pcb21| Pete 08:15, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The closest thing I could find was Scottish kiss. -- Popsracer 13:33, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why are the Wikistats pages so far behind?

I noticed that the English Statistics page lists 297,000 pages, but the Special:Statistics page lists 310,000 articles. Any idea why are they different? The wikistats seem to be lagging by over three weeks. Jrincayc 13:24, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The statistics are generated from the most recent dump. This may be up to a week old. They cannot be done in real time, and running the stat scripts loads the server quite a bit. That's my understanding at least. Dori | Talk 22:28, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

What links here (Abced)

Is there any easily understandable reason why the "What links here" links are in only slightly alphabetical order? -- Picapica 19:41, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The links are in temporal order, the one added most recently at the bottom. Both alphabetical and temporal ordering has its uses, and IIRC when it was switched to alphabetical once there were several users asking for the old ordering. andy 20:36, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the temporal order was due to a bug, which was interpreted as a feature :) Dori | Talk 22:30, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

When the link tables are rebuilt, they are done so by going alphabetically through all the articles, so rebuilds end up with alphabetically ordered lists. However, adding a link subsequently causes it to be added to the end (unavoidable without a re-write of how the database works, AFAICT), and so occur in temporal order.

HTH.

James F. (talk) 00:21, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee elections

Jimbo has proposed that two new people be elected to the Arbitration Committee. Please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004 for a draft page about how this will take place. The page is based on Jimbo's mailing list post and is not yet finalized. Angela. 23:01, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Renaming files

Can image files be renamed after they are uploaded?Justin Foote 00:12, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not currently. They will have to be reuploaded at the new name, and the old file will have to be deleted. Dori | Talk 00:36, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

The procedure for non-admins is to upload the image with the correct name, change all liks to th new image, and list the old image on Misplaced Pages:Images for deletion, mentioning the reason and the new image. An admin will delete the image in time -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:23, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User persists in re-publishing squicky clothing material

I've been working on the clothing page intermittently and running into problems with Pedant17, who is extremely attached to his original article -- which strikes me as the work of someone sexually aroused by smelly torn clothing. Whatever I do to address his concerns, he retaliates by re-publishing his original work. Now it's up as "Sociology of Clothing" -- which it isn't. I'm editing out the link to his page from the Clothing page, but leaving his page up. I could use a mediator! Advice! Anything!

Zora 07:59, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I've reviewed the (recent) changes on the clothing page, and the Sociology of Clothing page (You might have provided the links!) and I think that you are blowing this out of proportion. I have minimal interest in the subject, but the contributions by User:Pedant17 look very useful, and the sociology of clothing is a massive subject with vital implications in some societies. Consider Punk and Goth: the adoption of clothing styles that separate these groups from mainstream society is a major part of their lifestyle choice, and thus intensely relevant to any discussion of clothing. My opinion (for what it's worth) is that you revert your changes and include the link back in (and the stubs to all the other potential regional clothing style pages). Both items look encyclopedic to me! (I don't think much of the content of Sociology of Clothing at the moment, but over time I'm sure it will develop.) Noisy 08:31, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Had a quick look at this; article is deficient, and needs much more work but is a beginning. Should probably be marked stub in terms of content since it doesn't really have a proper introduction, a context, or anything else much other than a list of conditions which clothing can be. Sjc 08:39, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But it's NOT sociology of clothing -- the persistently re-published article is about current youth culture markers for "deviant" clothing. "Sociology of clothing" would have to be about clothing as communicator for all cultures and times, and is probably better handled in history of clothing and also regional styles. I put in a section on "Western counter-culture" clothing which repeated a lot of Pedant17s points and put them in historical perspective -- but it seems that nothing but his wording will do.

I would give way *instantly* to someone who sewed and/or had valid anthropological/sociological/historical knowledge of the subject, but I having problems deferring to more parochial visions, which are at best "native informant". Zora 11:04, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've slept on the issue and figured out what's bothering me so much about all this: the lack of any community of knowledgeable people on clothing/sewing topics. The more knowledgeable people involved and contributing, the greater the chance that the article is going to be state-of-the-art. But Misplaced Pages is still heavily biased towards a Slashdot demographic (not my observation -- it was someone on Usenet who'd used Misplaced Pages for this and that), which means that the geeky topics are well-done but others may be sketchy. I've noticed this not just with the "fashion" articles, but also with literature and the arts. IF there were others besides just me and Pedant17 working on the Clothing article, the Clothing: Talk page would be the venue for discussion and we'd probably hammer out something acceptable. But when there's just the two of us, we're stalemated. He thinks I'm a snob and I suppose I am; I'm not deferring to someone who can't tell a peplum from a toga virilis. But there are many thousands of people out there in the real world who know a heck of a lot MORE than I do -- how to get them involved in Misplaced Pages? Zora 21:55, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

1. Somewhere on the web there are message boards that are dedicated just to the subject of clothing: hunt them out (it may be hard, and you may have to learn new skills just to find them) and invite them to help. (e.g. newsgroups)
2. Look at Misplaced Pages:Village pump#Other encyclopedias copying from wikpedia, above. Is there any way that you can help?

Otherwise, raising the issue here is a good place to start. Just seeing the issue here may cause some people to contribute. Good luck. Noisy 23:27, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

External links vs External link

I started a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (headings) about using the singular vs plural form of the ext lk section heading in articles with one link only, where I make a case for the latter. Please comment. --Wernher 13:54, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

how to pick a piece of the wikipedia

i've been searching this on the faqs. i'm writing a open software and want that in a certain moment it picks displyas information from pages in the wikipedia. i want to control it's appearance, and also add one image if there's one. so three questions:

1-where do i learn how to do it? is it a crawl? shall i use a simple bot or what?

2-well some images are copyrighted. i'm not making money of this soft, how do i know if i can use them?

3-in the end i want to link back to wikipedia. what precautions should i have to avoid bringing a horde of barbarians (i don't know who is using my soft but could be a bunch of crazy teens) who don't know anything about wiki?

thanks. i promise to move everything to the right section after. --Alexandre Van de Sande 16:44, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I personally can't help you with the technical side, but I can tell you that image use shouldn't be a problem. The vast majority of our images are under the GFDL licence. Some are used with the concept of "fair use", and if we can get away with it, so should you. If you want to play it safe and not have fair-use images at all, then don't use them; they are clearly marked. If you know how to write bots, it should be easy to automate their exclusion.

I wouldn't worry about barbarian hordes. We get huge amounts of traffic from Google already. This isn't an élite thing. If people commit vandalism, we'll just revert it. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 17:08, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

CSS problem

I've been creating a new custom user CSS which I call "Neptune". The background code is:

/* Main body */
#content {
    margin: 2.8em 0 0 12.2em;
    padding: 0em 1em 1.5em 1em;
    background: #0099ff;
    border: 1px solid #00ffff;
    border-right: none;
    line-height: 1.5em;
    position: relative;
    z-index: 2;
}

This is supposed to make the background blue. The weird part is, on the main (or article) namespace, the background is white. On every other namespace (Misplaced Pages, Template, User, etc.) the background is blue (which is correct). All the other CSS code works correctly in all namespaces. How do I fix this? The entire code can be found here. ] 21:31, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Child Safety and Misplaced Pages

Is there a policy in Misplaced Pages to deal with the inclusion of material that may be considered unsuitable for children?

Obviously Misplaced Pages is about open sharing of information. However there are entrie that will inflame some parents and terrify school administrators. (see Oral sex) What will inflame some parents will not cause a stir among others. Misplaced Pages and censorship to not go together, however it will be a tragedy if Widipedia is blocked in its entirity from schools.

Yes. The policy is that this is an encyclopedia, and it's up to parents to monitor what their children read, not us. RickK 23:38, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

So, for example, does a list of which movies Drew Barrymore appears nude suitable for inclusion in an encyclopeadia? Paul Beardsell 23:41, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, because the information is sub-trivial. That she has appeared nude, and even a semi-nude photo of her, would be of value to the encyclopedia, but a list of someone's opinion as to whether she was or was not nude is not. And besides, you've only given half the information. Was it full frontal nudity, rear nudity, side, partial, see, your trivia could get even more trivial, so why stop there? RickK 23:53, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that Misplaced Pages relies on self-censorship. That is an ethic that I subscribe to. I don't believe that formalising the system will make any difference. On the other issue, all I can say to Paul Beardsell is "Grow up". Noisy 23:59, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If resorting to bowdlerism is being grown up then I want none of it. Presumably Noisy actually knows what side of the argument I am on. Paul Beardsell 00:04, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, why stop there? Paul Beardsell 00:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is so much useless sub-trivia on Misplaced Pages. Why are we discussing only nudity references? Paul Beardsell 00:09, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are two legitimate concerns here - protecting Misplaced Pages from being blocked by censorware vs keeping our content as accurate as possible. Our ad-hoc policy is one of common sense - if you go to penis, don't be surprised if you see an explicit photo - it's assumed that you knew what you were getting into by going to that article. By and large, it's generally understood that clinical anatomical pictures are OK, but that's about as far as we're willing to go.

Also, we only put that kind of content in places you would "expect it". By the same token, there's a concern that we shouldn't "push" that kind of content onto people, which is why it is unlikely that such a picture will ever make it to the main page.

As far as a list of nude pictures that Drew Barrymore has appeared in - a text list isn't even close to something we'd need to censor. →Raul654 00:16, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Besides, thats a hypothetical example of the problem of unecyclopedicness and superficiality - not of decency. ;) -SV

Well, where in Misplaced Pages would one expect to find a list of the pictures that Drew Barrymore appears nude in? I too am not entirely sure that the list is important enough to be included, but somebody thought so. What I was objecting to was the removal of that information, the Misplaced Pages default being that info is not removed. It is accurate info, presumably. That there is som much seemingly useless trivia in Misplaced Pages does not lead RickK to delete that. When he does the nudity but leaves the rest then that is nothing less than Bowdlerism. Paul Beardsell 00:30, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Good point. (Sorry about the edit conflict - things can be hard to post here on the pump.) About keeping info versus deleting it, I tend to lean toward keeping, but in the context of a useless trivia article, triviality is fine. In the context of a biographical article about an actress, a separate list of where that actress appears nude is rather trivial. I agree theres a lot of trivial stuff on wikipedia - Pruning the category list ought to be a top priority, but there needs to be better ways to visualise it in order to get to it. -SV

This is a very topical subject these days on Misplaced Pages. In the general sense, the extreme ease by which materials are avaliable on the web will have a reconciling effect on the extreme interpretations of decency. On the practical side, the battle is between what should be done (according to common sensical, moderate, and agreeable standards) and what can actually be done about it. Artificial control means are completely antithetical to WP, and everything done here has to be done in the name of NPOV and openness, or it just doenst have resonance. If Misplaced Pages is to appeal to parents for their children's use, the basics should be considered; even vulgar topics are not to be treated profanely here, and articles that are problematic could be categorized as (adult) of (mature) in nature, and not included on certain DVD distributions of WP. If kids are online, they have access to any number of possibly profane things, and WP is the least of those. IMHO "A child-safe internet" is an oxymoron, wo then how much is Misplaced Pages expected to be like Netnanny or AOL, rather than what it is? -SV 00:34, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that wholeheartedly. But that very good point does not apply. We are not talking about porn or even the use of swear words. There is no way that I wish a first time user of an encyclopedia (a very advanced 6 year old, say, or an average 10 year old on their first independent school project) to be protected to the extent that (s)he is not allowed to know that sometimes people appear nude in movies. And that Drew Barrymore actually has a vagina! (Although that point does not yet appear in the article.) Paul Beardsell 00:48, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, I disagree - its not about that at all. Your talking about defending superficial use of a list - which is a methodology intrinsic to categorization; categorization must be encyclopedic. Sorry if I misunderstod the topic.SV

RickK is not removing a list but simply removing (censoring!) half a dozen occurrences of the word "nude" from the list. That lists are or are not desirable really is not the issue here. Paul Beardsell 01:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the consensus of opinion is that there is no good reason to censor the article. Who disagrees? Paul Beardsell 02:25, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it trivializes an article on a legitimate actress to highlight, in the list of her movies, which ones she appears nude in. This is not something we normally include in profiles of actors and actresses, nor shoudl we. It's one thing to discuss nude appearances, in the text of the article, where they are relevant to a person's career, and another to turn the list of what films someone has appeared into a "hey, if you want to see her naked, rent this movie." -- Jmabel 04:29, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

What would be wrong with that? It is (by definition) prudish to object to what you are objecting to. But, by your own measure, this issue is pertinent to her career and thereby acceptable. Paul Beardsell 13:35, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a generic article of Nude scenes of famous actresses would be somewhat appropriate; it *is* somewhat, vaguely, in a certain dimension and when you're looking at it with one eye closed, encyclopedic. At least for a perv like me. On a side note, every time I see "Drew Barrymore's nudity" in my Watchlist, I come here thinking someone's finally posted an example. Meanies. --Golbez 09:31, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a PICS label , or do we already? Kokiri 16:04, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

where are the images?

I tried to add Image:HAtomOrbitals.png to the quantum mechanics article, but images don't seem to be showing up right now; not even the VP picture in this page is showing up for me. Ancheta Wis 00:38, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The picture is showing up for me; so it must be a problem with your browser of CSS settings. Have you been messing around with your user CSS lately? ] 01:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The picture is showing up for me, too. I added it to the quantum mechanics page, and the picture is showing fine. Please check the caption. --Chris 73 | Talk 01:34, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you both for your information. The VP image is showing up now, with no actions on my part. I will look at the QM article. Ancheta Wis 07:59, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The caption is good. No acceleration of the electron is implied, so we don't have to explain away any radiation from the charge, etc. Ancheta Wis 08:04, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Notice of poll opening for managing disruptive or antisocial editors

Polling opens on the proposed new policy for managing disruptive or antisocial editors at midday (UTC) today.

A number of us have been thrashing out the details for the policy for the last two weeks and I previously invited everybody at the troll polls and here at the pump to participate. There has been some healthy debate and the policy is now “locked” for two weeks to allow us to vote.

There are still some points that will need a bit more discussion and these may produce secondary poll questions or we may put them off until after the policy has been tried for a while.

Please come and vote! (from midday UTC)

Be warned this is a relatively complex proposal for a difficult problem. So if your initial reaction is to vote against the proposal then I urge you pause before voting. There is no rush. Voting is open for two weeks. Take the time to read the ‘frequently raised objections’ on the talk page and re-read the policy. If the FROs don’t deal with your concern then please raise it again on the poll or policy talk pages. Hopefully one of us can then explain the rationale for why policy is as it is and we can work through alternatives. We may also be able to frame a secondary poll question if needed. Best wishes to all and see you at the poll! Erich 04:38, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

using content in discusion forum

I run a UK Discussion forum/online community. Within my forum I have subforums for each and every city/town in the UK. The forum is designed to be an interactive resource for the UK. However, I am in need of basic content to kick start these regional boards.

My question is: Can I use the content available here in my forum by posting it? If I can, what steps do I need to take?

Thanks

Sure. See Misplaced Pages:Copyrights#Users.27_rights_and_obligations. Johnleemk | Talk 06:43, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

External links to H2G2 entries

Recently an anon edited Homeopathy by adding an external link to the H2G2 Edited Guide Entry on the subject. A quick search showed several other places where H2G2 is in the external links. We should certainly keep the ones in the H2G2 article itself; there might be a reason to keep some other particular link (e.g. we might link to an entry on a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy topic if it was written by someone who had a unique personal connection with the subject). Despite these exceptions, I think most of the links should be removed. They don't meet the general standard for external links. Before I remove any of them, though, do people think we should apply a different standard to H2G2, e.g. as a courtesy to a somewhat similar project? JamesMLane 09:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Seeing as it is a similar project in which anyone can write anything, that makes it all the less credible to link to. Unless you want to link to a sepcific revision of the document (if I understand how H2G2 works). Ilyanep (Talk) 12:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would take it strictly on an article-by-article basis. Is that H2G2 article particularly good and relevant? That sort of thing - David Gerard 13:21, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On requiring users to sign in

Has there been any discussion of this anywhere? Specifically I'm wondering whether it's ever been suggested or debated whether we should require all editors to have a user name before editing? I ask because it would make recognising, tracking, and blocking vandals a lot easier. A quick look at the Block log shows that nearly all the accounts blocked for vandalism and other bad behaviour are anonymous. I think it would be fairly easy to implement such a change. Any thoughts? Exploding Boy 10:57, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

IIRC there have been such discussions before (can't provide much help tracking them down, though), and in short, the answer is: This is a Wiki. Wikis are built with the idea that anyone can contribute. I dobut we'd have as many good editors as we do now if we made logging in mandatory. A scoutmaster who copyedited Persekutuan Pengakap Malaysia anonymously was reluctant at first because he thought registration was required, until I pointed out that it's not necessary. Making registration mandatory will only turn away helpful editors and not stop determined vandals/trolls. Johnleemk | Talk 12:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See m:Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles. Angela. 12:06, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. I do like one of the suggestions (linked to the above) that anonymous users would be limited to a certain number of edits per day until registered (but not the bit about web-based email addresses).

How about coming up with some more ways to encourage people to sign up for user names? What about creating a {message} to place on anonymous users' pages? Perhaps something like:

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, the 💕. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Misplaced Pages, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, and gives you many benefits, including:

• The use of a username of your choice
• The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
• Your own user page
• Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you emails without knowing your e-mail address
• The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
• The ability to rename pages
• The ability to upload images
• The ability to edit specific sections of a page
• The ability to cusomize the appearance and behaviour of the website
• The eligibility to become an Administrator or Sysop (can delete and undelete pages, protect them from being edited, edit protected pages, and block users for violation of our policies)
• The right to be heard in formal votes and elections, and on pages like votes for deletion

We encourage you to create an account!

What do you think? Exploding Boy 12:35, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

An excellent idea, I first thought, until I realised it continued after the first sentence. :p Personally I think that "many benefits" should be a wikilink to another page describing them, similar to your bulletpoint list. Sounds like a good idea as long as it's unobtrusive (Something Awful's notice for registration is simply horrid), especially since users will be alerted to the fact that they don't have to login to edit articles. Seems win-win to me. Johnleemk | Talk 12:48, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There actually is a page that lists the benefits already, but in very long form. Since the idea is to encourage people to create an account rather than remain anonymous, I thought it would be good to make a short(ish!), easy to read list of the benefits of signing up, in an effort to lure people into doing so. And since most anonymous users don't use their user/talk pages (maybe because they don't know they have them?) this will also draw their attention to that. And if it's too long, they can always delete it! Exploding Boy 12:56, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but then having this message on every page would be quite obtrusive and disturbing. Or perhaps I misunderstood you? Johnleemk | Talk 13:12, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, not on every page, just on anonymous users' talk pages. Exploding Boy 13:25, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense I suppose. Johnleemk | Talk 13:29, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to go ahead and give it a try Misplaced Pages:Template messages. Exploding Boy 13:41, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

AFL dot com spaming

http://www.conigliofamily.com/AFLdotcom.htm

I think people who are associatied this website are using Misplaced Pages to promote their group. I just removed a para from the NFL which seems to be continously put back into the article. That para appears on this group website as a quote of what others are saying about the AFL. Basically implying that some neutral 3rd party thinks the AFL was so much better than the NFL.

Now I realize we are only talking about a couple of football leagues and not some hugely more important issue but spam is spam Smith03 13:56, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I made the above link into a text only link. The VP does not need to advertise them, either -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• The paragraph in question seems to be:

The official scoreboard clock, two-point conversion, player names on jerseys, network-televised games, gate and television revenue sharing, and imaginative offenses were all elements of pro football that the NFL adopted from the American Football League. Even its first modern expansion, into Minnesota and Dallas, would likely have taken years longer if it had not been precipitated by the emergence of the AFL as a serious competitor to the NFL. 

The first sentence would appear to be an assertion of fact. Is it true, or not? It's a little tendentious but it seems to me to be OK if factual. The second sentence is a little iffier.

The website in question, AFLdotcom, looks like a reasonably rich and interesting resource, clearly an AFL fan site and clearly "pro-AFL." The site's counter contains only 10,000 hits, not an awful lot. However, the site doesn't seem to be selling anything, and the generally amateurish presentation (e.g. they haven't bothered to shell out $9 to one of the GoDaddies of the world for a real domain name) looks to me a like an authentic labor-of-love production.

It doesn't appear to me that anything at all is being sold on the AFLdotcom site. Spam is usually defined as unsolicited commercial email. To me, this is not an issue of spam, it's an issue of whether this is a vanity site and whether it is notable. Personally, I'd leave the link in, because the site looks as if it could be moderately enjoyable for an AFL fan.

As for the paragraph it looks to me like a case for editing, rather than removal. When faced with POV material, one of the best ways to avoid edit wars is to try to edit it so that it still presents the factual point that the contributor was trying to make, while toning down the interpretation. I don't know enough about the AFL or NFL to do this myself. What is the paragraph really trying to say? Something like this?

Fans of the AFL credit the league with pioneering important elements of American football, and complain that the NFL has done little more than copy what the AFL has done. For example, the official official scoreboard clock, two-point conversion, player names on jerseys, network-televised games, gate and television revenue sharing, and imaginative offenses were all elements of pro football that the NFL adopted from the AFL.

Just my $0.02. Dpbsmith 15:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the link and site are information filled but if you check all additions that these users add not only to the NFL page but other football related articles, they have an agenda that sadly I believe because it is related to a sport is not being challenged by wikipedias. this comes from there website: It gives the appearence that some other source has come up with this conculsion instead they just wrote, regardless if they are selling something or not they are using wikipedia to further their cause.

Below are excerpts from several sources on the influence that the American Football League has had on modern professional football.

From Misplaced Pages, on-line encyclopedia:

Some innovative rules changes were also put into place, such as the two-point conversion (later adopted by the NFL in the 1990s); the use of the scoreboard clock as the official game clock (adopted by the NFL when the leagues merged--prior to this time, the official game clock was maintained by an official on the sidelines, and often did not match the scoreboard clock very closely); the use of player names on jerseys, (also adopted by the NFL); and the sharing of gate and television revenues between home and visiting teams (also adopted by the NFL). In short, the NFL adopted virtually every pioneering aspect of the American Football League, except its name.

By the way college football had adopted the two point conversion in the late 1950s, so the AFL "borrowed" that idea from them. One could argue that the talent level in the early years of the AFL was so poor that it lead to point a minute offensives because the defenses was so poor, Someone could write on the AFL page that they borrowed from the NFL the idea of divisions and a championship game, the idea of a college draft, a post season all star game, harsh marks, and seperate offensive and defense units, but that would be silly and pointless. I do believe that these users have provided a great deal of information but they have also slip in their agenda that gee the NFL really stoled everything from the AFL. I agree the AFL added a lot to modern day football but don't overstate it. Smith03 18:00, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yaargh!

I was just experimenting with My Preferences and something's gone horribly wrong. I've lost the link that's usually on the left of each page to My talk, plus those links have all moved around and it seems the page is a different colour, and some of the links at the bottom of each page seem all bunched up now, and I don't know what else. The only two things I changed were I unchecked Underline links and checked Show edit toolbar. I've changed both back, but nothing. Any suggestions? Exploding Boy 14:15, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

I've just realized that the search box has also moved from the left to the top right. It almost looks as if I'm not logged in, but I am. Exploding Boy 14:29, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Go to Preferences and to the "Skins" section. Set your skin to "MonoBook". This is an annoying bug I encountered too, but I figured it out on my own. Johnleemk | Talk 14:53, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

YESSSSSSSSSSS! But just so anyone else having problems knows, the Monobook skin turns everything into something resembling the blue screen of doom. It's the Cologne Blue skin that you want. Thanks Johnleemk. Exploding Boy 14:58, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Political Color Coding?

On the article for the US Senate Republicans are represented by red and Democrats by Blue. At the last presidential election, the map states being changed as votes came in shown on News bulletins followed this convention on some networks, but on others GOP was blue and Democrats were Red. The latter were predominantly BBC, SKY i.e. British whereas FOX and I think CNN i.e. Ameirican followed the former convention. In Britain Blue and Red are synonomous with Conservative and Labour; or right and left so perhaps that is the reason this method was used instead. Whilst as a non American I am likely to assume that Red for GOP and Blue for Dems is correct IS IT? or were the NEWS channels just selecting one colour for each for the sake of illustration which could just as easily been stripes and polkadots? Dainamo 15:54, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, in U.S. red for Republicans and blue for Democrats has become traditional. Accordingly, the center of the country is often called the "red states". No idea why nor when this was first adopted. Do we have an article discussing that? -- Jmabel 17:03, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

There's Red state and Blue state, but I'm not sure they discuss the origin. Talk to an older political junkie than me. ] 18:02, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

Goes back to the 19th century I beleive Smith03 18:03, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of XXX necessary?

since the new namespace "Category" is introduced, are the "list of XXX" pages still necessary? --Yacht (talk) 16:09, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, because lists work in a slightly different matter. They are not build automatically, and can thus contain more info, better formatting, etc. Dori | Talk 16:11, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

What links here wierdness

I'm not sure what is going on with this. When I check What links here for Beaver Island, I get a long list of articles, none of which, as far as I can tell, actually link to Beaver Island. Can anyone explain why this is? This certainly makes it difficult to check if it needs disambiguating. older≠wiser 17:24, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looks like a one-entry link table corruption on the Falkland Islands redirect. These can be easily repaired by going to the page, hitting edit, then immediately saving without changes. Now the what links here for that page shows only three links. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:12, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do we need a list of articles with "To do's" ?

In the frame of the WikiProject Science, we have started to write "To do lists" in the talk page of articles needing improvements. The goal is to give specific suggestions to make the article "Feature class", and to encourage editors to do them.

We see this as a complement of the "Pages needing attention", i.e. those in which problems are know. "To do lists" are long term, while "pages needing attention" require immediate correction. This helps keep the list of "pages needing attention" short and accelerate the corrections. See the WikiProject for more details.

Was anything like this attempted before ? Any suggestion on how to do this better ? Would it be OK to generalize the process and write a general "List of articles with To do's". Pcarbonn 18:15, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)