Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive

Village Pump - Archive

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Post replies at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Note: Please add new material at the bottom of the page and remove any duplicate sections.

This talk page is automatically maintained by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump/Archival dump, where they are deleted. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

4000metres = ?

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

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

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

Beware - there is more than one definition for 'foot'. In the US, there is a "surveyors foot" which is still in common use - and a different definition of the foot prior to 1959(!). From the GNU 'units' program data file:

"The US Metric Law of 1866 gave the exact relation 1 meter = 39.37 inches. From 1893 until 1959, the foot was exactly 1200|3937 meters. In 1959 the definition was changed to bring the US into agreement with other countries. Since then, the foot has been exactly 0.3048 meters. At the same time it was decided that any data expressed in feet derived from geodetic surveys within the US would continue to use the old definition."

Notice that last bit...*MANY* existing US GIS data sources (maps and airport runway data) are still using the surveyor's foot - and lots of references pre-date the 1959 (or even the 1866) laws and have "non-metric" feet (isn't that an odd phrase!). Then of course in non-US countries, the laws changed at different times with differing intermediate definitions. Hence it should come as no surprise that everything is a horrible mess! SteveBaker 19:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

But the difference is small - 1 200 / 3 937 = 0.30480061 So for a 4000 m runway, that is either 13,123.3333 ft for the old definition or 13,123.3596 for the new definition, ignoring sig. digits. For most applications this is within measurement uncertainty. --BenBurch 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

you can use google search to convert. but i just tried it. it didn't work this time. how strange. i used to be able to enter a number, then it will convert it to metric system. anyone knows the proper way to use google search to convert? SummerThunder 12:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Type your query in the search box so it looks like this: 4000 metres in feet. Tra (Talk) 13:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

oh, yes. that is good. i didn't know that. i don't know the standard way to do it. so once in a while, google will give me the result, other times, it won't. SummerThunder 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Angel Diaz Nieves

What do we do with this redirect?

—Nethac DIU, would never stop to talk here—
17:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to do anything with it. Is there a problem with it? Does something need to be done with it? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You could nominate it for deletion. I don't see any reason why someone would switch those two words. Then again, it doesn't really take up that much space. Xiner 18:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of Iberian naming customs leads me to believe that it would be very likely someone might switch the words.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Template windowHome

I created a new template based on an Italian Wikipedia template that I think it could be useful. You can see it in my own page User:Dejudicibus, whereas the tempalte itself is in Template:windowHome. Here is an example:

Template:WindowHome

Wikipedia censorship

Where's the link leading to something about censorship on WP? I looked and searched but couldn't find it. ДҖ--Huanghe63^talk 02:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#CENSOR ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 02:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Other information can be found at Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates, Wikipedia:Profanity, m:Should Wikipedia Use Profanity, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 23:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Free_speech --pgk 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Views please: "Criticism of X" articles.

This may have been discussed before: if so please just point me to the right place. Its probably buried in an AfD discussion or something.

An issue has come up in several places with "Criticism of X" articles versus NPOV. There are plenty of these associated with religious pages for example. I've been asked whether these articles should include "response to the Criticism" (where it is notable) or just the (negative) Criticism. Part of the problem is that the word "criticism" is ambiguous: often it means arguments both ways (as in theatre critic, source criticism) often it means negative assessment only.

My tentative view (for which I am seeking support or disagreement) is that we probably wouldn't allow "Criticism of X" articles defined as "negative views only" because of WP:SOAP. So it probably should include both positive and negative assessments of X by third parties (when notable). As a strawman I guess if there are notable responses to the criticism by adherents to X they can be included in a separate section (so not point by point) up to 20% of the article after which they have to be moved to a new article "Responses to criticism of X" or similar. Does that sound reasonable? I will post a link to this question on some of the "Criticism of X" talk pages to try to get views. --BozMo talk 09:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm vorried about the whole "criticism of" trend on Wikipedia. We didn't have those articles before, and I think we were better off then. Criticism articles, or even sections, encourage the wrong kind of editors and editing where people try to push their POV through selective sourcing and citing. They are very hard to get and keep both encyclopedic and neutral. Everything in this world can be criticised and most of it has been, but is an encyclopedia the right place to discuss what is "good" and "bad" about something? I think probably not, and that we at the very least should be conservative in what topics we make criticism forks of. But deciding where we can write about criticisms and where not is hard. We have an article on Criticism of software engineering, while the featured article Ku Klux Klan doesn't even contain the word "criticism", much less a "criticism of KKK" fork, even though KKK definitely has had its notable critics through time. But I think we've got it right with the KKK-article and that wikipedia's focus should be on documenting subjects and topics, explain what things are, not to write what various people find "good" or "bad" about them. Shanes 10:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Am I the only one thinking Criticism of software engineering is a waste of space? It's unsourced (the two sources are for minor points raised), badly written and formatted, 99% original research, and just generally...awful. yandman 10:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"we probably wouldn't allow "Criticism of X" articles defined as "negative views only" because of WP:SOAP."

I'm afraid that I can't agree. My standard answer to any issue like this is that "Users who feel that something is unbalanced should quit complaining and write the other side of the story themselves". Too often users delete criticism content as a way of hiding the fact that the criticism exists (which is a form of POV Pushing), when they really should just knuckle down and find something that either answers or rebuts the criticism in order to turn the page into a nice rounded one.

perfectblue 11:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. "we probably wouldn't allow "Criticism of X" articles defined as "negative views only" because of WP:SOAP." I did not imply I had any problem with negative views. Just an article exclusively for them seems inappropriate. You have just said "write the other side of the story themselves" but apparently imply somewhere else...? --BozMo talk 11:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. Common sense dictates that the only appropriate place to answer criticism is on the same page that the criticism is made, and vice versa. Otherwise a user would need to flip backwards and forwards between two pages just to see what was actually being argued/rebutted.

One of the primary reasons for a separate "criticism of X" entry is page page size, another is content balance. In some cases the criticism section is farmed out to a separate page purely to prevent the main page from becoming huge and unwieldy, in other cases there is actually more criticism content than there is content on the issue being criticized, meaning that unless it was farmed out the criticism would dominate the entire page. Which isn't entirely desirable.

perfectblue 11:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV already prohibits one-sided articles - if any article includes disputed viewpoints, it should also discuss the viewpoints of the other side, giving due weight to each side.

I am suspicisous of most "Criticism of X" and "Z's views on W" articles as POV forks that belong in the actual articles. The Criticism of software development seems to fall in that group - one long paragraph in the software engineering article would be enough to summarize the contents of the criticism article. CMummert · talk 14:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, all to many users try to AFD or crop a one sided article when they should try to balance it by putting in the other side of the argument to even things up. There really needs to be more in NPOV etc that states clearly that addition is a better way to add balance than deletion.

After all if the criticism is valid, it has every right to be included.

perfectblue 14:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's stick to Criticism of software engineering. The general thrust of the information deserves to be included somewhere, proabably in the software engineering article. But it doesn't deserve its own article, even if it is "valid criticism". There are two policy/guideline reasons for this

1. The article gives undue weight to viewpoints that are not widely adopted (WP:NPOV). Since there are a large number of software engineers, the criticism must not be convincing to them.

2. The topic of the article is not software engineering, it is "criticism of software engineering." The criticisms themselves are not notable, not having been discussed in multiple reliable sources independent of the person doing the criticizing (WP:NOTE). Non-notable topics should not be given their own article.

There are a few topics where the criticisms are notable on their own - Evolution comes to mind - but this is not the usual case. The undue weight and notability problems about software engineering criticism can be best fixed by cutting the article down to a summary and merging into the article on software engineering, which is a notable topic. CMummert · talk 15:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I get in Websters Dictionary for "criticism": 1 a : the act of criticizing, usually unfavorably b : a critical observation or remark . 2 : the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature; also : writings expressing such evaluation or analysis3 : the scientific investigation of literary documents (as the Bible) in regard to such matters as origin, text, composition, or history." See also the definition of "critic". I think for our purposes we can adopt a definition of "criticism" that includes positive and negative reviews of a topic, rather than just the negatives along with responses. The way a movie critic doesn't only point out negatives in the movies he reviews. It seems all the criticism articles here have become debates, an unsightly thing in an encyclopedia. It also does seem to me that the criticism articles do violate WP:SOAP, and WP:NPOV. MinaretDk 17:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

While individual criticism of X articles might violate WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV, they don't have to. It's down to individual users to add in the rebuttals etc, in order to make the pages nice and balanced.

perfectblue 17:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's possible, unless we adopt (and announce on the respective pages) a definition of 'criticism' which allows for both positive and negative views on the topic. Also, its my observation that on any given subject, there are many more professional critics than there are 'responders to critics'. A view suggesting a positive perspective on X would be original research in an article unless it explicitly responds to a criticism. Under the banner of a criticism article, a positive take on X would be deleted for lacking 'criticism' or being a direct response to criticism. What if the response suggests a different point of view from the critic, but still doesn't respond to the exact criticism? Users will delete it as being irrelevant to the title of the article, and rightly so given that the topic is 'criticism' and not 'admiration'. That a "Criticism of X" article is only composed on "expressed negative opinions on X, + responses to negative opinions of X" without positive opinions independent of criticism makes any criticism article as we now see and accept then inherently biased regardless of what the individual users say or do. Such articles unavoidably violate WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV, and under their current titles, cannot be made neutral or evenhanded regardless of the intentions of individuals editing them. MinaretDk 20:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You know what? We shuld rename all "Criticism of X" to "Critiques of X". Critique can be both good and bad (so can criticism of course, but the word criticism has an inherent negative connotation). That way both good and bad can be put in. Rumpelstiltskin223 22:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Any other votes for it? --BozMo talk 11:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Would a vote here mean anything? I'm all for it. Critique, defined as 'positive and negative reviews of'. MinaretDk 21:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

Couldn't find it. Where can I post questions concerning images and their licensing?--Vayaka 16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --Sherool (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Vayaka 16:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Points

On my watchlist there seems to be point tags (such as saying +1,212 etc etc). What are these? (I know this seems like a bit of a silly question but...) Jamesbuc

Help:Watchlist#What do the colored numbers mean? will explain it all. Harryboyles 12:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia devolving into a clique?

I'm somewhat worried by the sentiment expressed here that we should not 'pander' to new editors by altering our own behaviours to make it easier for them... This is exactly the kind of sentiment that leads to clique formation. Can it be that we're heading towards a Wikipedia where things only get done by those who 'know the secret handshake', and people say things like 'What can you expect of someone who doesn't understand the Wiki'? Maybe it's time for a systemic overhaul of what goes on in the 'process' side of Wikipedia to try and cull this kind of thinking, and make it all more transparent and easier on new editors and 'neophytes'. --Barberio 16:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your essay about not citing essays really doesn't have much at all to do with WP:OMG. On the larger issue, that's a slippery slope argument and not one that I see coming true any time soon. As Radiant said, essays have a big ESSAY tag on them, if a person assumes they're policy that just reflects poorly on their own reading comprehension. It's not an issue of pandering to newbies to not cite essays because it might confuse them, it's pandering to fools. Why should we enforce a rule saying to assume people are dumb and can't read? --tjstrf talk 17:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all essays or essay like pages in the Wikipedia namespace have an essay tag. It's even known for someone to create an essay, and remove the essay tags people put on it. --Barberio 17:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXTHEM. --tjstrf talk 19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Last time I tried putting an {{essay}} tag on someone's personal essay on 'how the wiki works' it was reverted almost immediately. --Barberio 19:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you try asking them why they didn't want it tagged? --tjstrf talk 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The response eventually lead to the above kind of comments being made. --Barberio 11:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) When you point to what you consider a problem, would you mind using a diff or actually citing the words that bother you, rather than just linking to a section of a talk page? I didn't find the word "pander" in the section you cited; I'd appreciate additional information as to what exactly leads you to worry about cliques, and (presumably) the non-observance of WP:BITE. Thanks. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 21:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, it absolutely appears that Wikipedia is RAPIDLY becoming dominated by a bunch of uncaring, overly-serious, elitist, holier-than-thou stuffed shirts. The openness is rapidly fading due to extreme deletionism and the increasing domination of a succession of vocal minorities that think that because they don't care about a topic, it isn't worthy of inclusion. The deletion process is overly opaque, making absolutely no sense, having little to no guidelines, and allowing 'consensus' deletions by a VERY small proportion of the userbase for often extremely suspect reasons. It appears to me that many of the principles on which Wikipedia was founded have been lost to these people. I am very, very close to considering the project an abject failure and wondering if we should start taking bets as to when it becomes so totally insular as to be unusable to the public at large. I've been lurking for years, making minor edits here and there, but nothing too serious. And the more time goes by, the gladder I am I never actually joined up. There does not appear to any longer be a 'community' on here, just a series of factions and subfactions, each espousing and pushing their own twisted little worldviews, and deleting everything else. -Graptor 66.42.154.17 01:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

While, of course, we don't want what Graptor said would happen to happen, I think that there is a balance that must be struck between the "elitist" and the "pandering" attitudes. (I'm only giving the "elitist" and "panderers" titles to these principles to ease explanation. I chose those two names for the two ideals because they were used in this discussion and are both derogatory, as opposed to one being a "nicer" name than the other.) Basically: we don't want Wikipedia to become a clique in which the aristocracy's views are the only ones accepted, but we still need the structure and guidelines and policies to keep this from being chaotic. If either of these are removed, Wikipedia will be equally biased, nonfactual and unusable. So people who want the secret Wikihandshake should, if you'll excuse this euphemism, "get lost", but we still need tight controls over the articles. If you see what I mean, anyway.--Dark Green 21:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Template

Could someone give me feedback on this template, I just created it because I've been thinking we've been needing one fora while, but I don't know if it's up to par with the other templates. Really appreciate it everyone, --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 02:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it. It will make a good addition to the catalogue.  ;-) --BenBurch

Too stern for my taste. What about something like this?--Pharos 01:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Trafficwatch

How about a wikiproject that keeps track of all the links from {{high-traffic}} sites, mentions on TV programs, references in webcomics, and classifies them for risk based on size of audience and whether the tone of the appearance could be considered an incitement to vandalism. --Random832(tc) 17:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Computer and video games

I've come across what looks like an attempt to hijack Category:Computer and video games and move it to Category:Video games. This name change and its effects on it child categories would be massive and I couldn't find any discussion of it on WP:CFD or WP:CVG, so I started to revert it. However, as I started doing reverts, I noticed more than one person doing the edits, so I have to wonder did I miss the conversation, or was my first impression correct? Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The conversation that triggered this move from CVG->VG started on January 13th on th e Talk:Video_game page, which triggered a rename and rewrite of the primary video games page... half of the bottom subjects on that talk page are related to this issue. It has also been discussed on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games page as well. There has been concensus so far among everyone to date. Since it is a clear case of terminology missuse the issue that this was contentious never came up. I'll gladdy file the CfD though.BcRIPster 01:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I should also note that the whole discussion of changing "Computer and video games" to "Video game" was discussed, fleshed out, and voted on. It isn't just a blind change over.BcRIPster 01:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I came upon this through the category rather than the article and without any direct mention of the rationale in the usual places, I was worried, especially when the initial change I came across was done by an anonymous IP. I don't see any problem once it's gone through CFD to keep paranoids like me from worrying. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've added the CfD as speedy on the Catagory:CVG page, and for good measure I added a CfD onto the WP:CVG page to get peoples attention.BcRIPster 01:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That's an amazingly poor decision. There aren't many people in the computer games business who'd describe what they do as 'video games' - the latter generally refer to console-based games which are a whole different thing from computer games that run on personal computers. Personally, I'd have pushed Video games into a sub-cat of Computer and Video games. The trouble is that these discussions are under-publicised so that very often the people who would be best able to comment on the change were not involved in those discussions. Not good. SteveBaker 01:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why it's getting talked about now, and technically computer games are video games. Computer gamers may not call their games video games because the term video game has been missapplied to just mean console games over the years. But just because it was missuesed doesn't mean it isn't wrong, and at to that end it should be touched on as part of the naming contraversy in the main article.BcRIPster 03:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

At some point, "Wrong" english usage becomes "Right" by sheer force of common usage. Just as "gay" once meant "happy" and "computer" meant "a person who does calculations" - so "video" used to mean any kind of raster scanned display, but now comes to mean things that are related to television sets rather than computer screens. Language changes. It's certainly not common usage in the industry to talk about "video games" when you are talking about something that runs on a PC. We will mislead and confuse a lot of people if we do that. SteveBaker 06:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think when you keep saying PC you mean Windows games running on a IBM PC derivative. Also "gay" still means happy. If you want to stress the point of the origins of "computer" fine, people origianally labeled the platform as "Personal Computer games" or "Home Computer games" (see Byte, Creative Computing, etc... from the 70's/80's) anyways, so "computer game" is just a common abriviation, let's drop it and use the full title then nobody is confused.BcRIPster 07:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a clearer and more coherent argument that relies on history. The first 'console' game was "Pong" - it did not contain a computer at all - it used a clever combination of analog and digital signals to make a video stream. It was truly a "video game" and did not involve computers at all - so you simply cannot call it a "Computer game". Subsequent consoles implemented games like Pong using computer technology - but they were still descendents of the truly "video" games. In parallel, people were writing games like "Hunt the Wumpus" and a plethora of StarTrek and 'Adventure' games that didn't run on raster scanned video screens at all for the simple reason that those devices were not commonly connected to computers early on - you cannot and must not call those things "Video games" - they are "Computer games". (I played "Hunt the Wumpus" on an ASR-33 Teletype connected to a Singer mainframe in 1975 - there wasn't a single video terminal connected anywhere). History has imposed the modern terminology that games that run on PC's (the great great grandchild of the Singer Mainframe) are "Computer games" and the ones that are distant relatives of "Pong" that come down via the console route are "Video games" - the technology is convergent - but the terminology is very separate. The games themselves are also quite different in many cases. Video games are played with joysticks - computer games with keyboard and mouse - so there is still great value to maintaining the distinction. In the marketting and financing of games there is a large difference too. Video games are licensed with the maker of the console that they run on in order that he can skim some profit from the games to cover the fast that he's selling the console at a loss. With PC games, the game company is independent of the big computer makers or the operating system vendors - they are independents. I'm also talking about what marketers and authors of these games call them - not just the players who do sometimes mix up the terminology (incorrectly IMHO). (I have worked in that industry). SteveBaker 06:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve Your argument above is neither clearer nor more coherent. Just because computer gamer's do not want to call their games "video games" doesn't it so. They are played on a video screen. As for terminal/teletype/mainframe games, all of them use a screen for display, only some of them required the use of paper to represent the display due to costs and communications restrictions. The game still output a "screen" of data each "refresh". As for your joystick argument, excluding Windows-PC games, every major PC in the 80's featured a significant number (if not majority) of games that used Joysticks (//e, C64, Amiga, etc...), so that argument falls flat. Marketing destintions are irrelevant in regards to technical realities... Lastly, I've been working in this industry too, so how is that relevant?BcRIPster 07:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems obvious what "Computer and Video Games" refers to, and I like to maixmize clarity where possible, so I would vote for that being the main category, if anyone's taking a vote. Cryptonymius 07:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As another person has pointed out elsewhere, just because LPs are Music albums, we don't see a Category:LPs and Music albums do we? I'm am building an umbrella CfD to file on the issue, so far the CfD done on Feb2 for the root catagory page has been majority for rename.BcRIPster 07:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Devices/techniques for detecting argumentative language

Hello. I am interested to know if there is any software or specific technique for detecting argumentative language/WP:WTA on Wikipedia articles. Its my habit to search for them on Google and just to browse categories. Any other help will be useful. AlanBarnet 03:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't mark words that are possibly problematical per Wikipedia:Words to avoid, so you'll have to do your own searches. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:WikEh?/Home/ and Wikiseek (beta) as alternatives to Google. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 16:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much John. At least I know. Actually my own searches are proving to be constructive so I'll continue to work and adapt to similar issues. I'll also report any successful strategies I have adapted to the WP:WTA talkpage. AlanBarnet 11:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WINAD means...

Until recently, the page said that "an entry that consists of just a definition doesn't belong." Now, it says that "an entry that talks about a word, even if it is built like an encyclopedia article does not belong." Anyone have any suggestions?? Georgia guy 15:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion there are words that deserve a WP article. Steve Dufour 18:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So where is a good place to ask for comments on a non-disputed page?

If one were to have a page to a point where it appears to be basically good, where would be a good place to ask for more eyes to comment on it and/or make or suggest changes? RFC doesn't seem to cover it as it is about disputes. --BenBurch 04:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review. Also the relevant WikiProject. —Centrx→talk • 04:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose we move Steven Colbert to Steven Colbert ...is a commodity

And leave it there because he is SUCH a jerk about sending out people to vandalize here...

Okay, so I wouldn't really do it. But saying it makes it feel better. --BenBurch 01:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize that Stephen Colbert the actor is different than Stephen Colbert the character? People would vandalize whether or not the character from The Colbert Report was telling them to. -sthomson06 (Talk) 16:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the spelling is different. --BenBurch 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand you. Stephen Colbert (character) spells his name the same way as Stephen Colbert the actor. However, the pronunciation is different. Steven Colbert is a mispelling. -sthomson06 (Talk) 21:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious. What is this about? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the recent vido segment on wikilobbying. - BanyanTree 19:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have to admit, it is pretty funny... And it "keeps us on our toes", as it were. Like a newspaper, magazene or any other form of media, Wikipedia needs a stir once and a while to keep from being jaded. By jaded I mean becoming biased or leaning to one side, if you see what I mean. So, no self-vandalization... Although, we may want to create a category for articles on which Colbert has commanded altering!--Dark Green 21:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is funny! I don't think we need to worry too much about this do we? He's not a jerk, he's a comedian. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn

It's even funnier after a few Cold Beer Reports... — RJH (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Gay Fukuoka, Japan

Fukuoka is the Capital of the island of Kyushu situated in Western Japan. It is the closest point of the Japanese Islands to South Korea and the Chinese Mainland. It is a major hub of activity for Asians going back and forth from Japan to Korea and China. Kyushu males are famous throughout Japan as being Handsome and at the same time nice guys, refered to as Kyushu Dan Ji.

Fukuoka City has three main gay areas, also known as Hut-ten-bah. They are all located in the central part of the city and most of the gay life can be found here. The main area where the male gay bars, saunas and brothels are is called Sumiyoshi and is located around a historic Shinto Shrine by the same name. There are 20 to 30 bars and tea houses where one can go to drink, sing; Karaoke or to cruise/buy other gay men. Also in this area are the two main gay book stores that cater mainly to gay men. An older and mostly died out area is called Gion where former gay brothels and bars existed.

A new gay area popular at night is sprouting up in the Watanabe Dori 3-chome area. It is here where exotic bars that cater to specific client tastes are to be found. Gay life in Japan is very specific and most Homosexual Japanese have specific tastes and preferences when it comes to male on male sex. Bars and venues cater specifically to these fetishes. For example: speedos, SM, cross-dressers, Fundoshi (Japanese loin cloths), old men/father types etc.etc. basically anything you can imagine. Also comonly held are functions sponsored by different groups eg. Muscle men,Chubbies. Information regarding these events (local, price, times and purpose) can be found posted in Japanese on a popular local gay website called K@toom.com. Often gay celebrities from Osaka and Tokyo are hired to host these events. While these events dont discriminate against foreigners often bars and venues all over Japan legally do, so be advised to check before planing a visit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rainbowotoko (talk • contribs) 12:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

If you're trying to submit an article, you can do this by going to Gay Fukuoka, Japan and typing the text into the text box that will appear. Tra (Talk) 15:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to cite your sources.

perfectblue 15:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that really a good idea? This isn't Wikitravel, we shouldn't split out city articles into ghettoized compartments. Why not add this information to the Fukuoka article? Corvus cornix 17:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

a few of my favorite things

I am a frequent Wikipedia user. It is such an amazing and helpful source and I was wondering if a "favorites" section could be added to allow your users to sort of bookmark Wikipedia pages we find interesting and would like to keep on hand. Is this sort of option possible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.235.167.199 (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Wouldn't it be easier to do via your own browser's bookmarks?Circeus 20:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Not if you access a lot from school/workplace. 88.105.241.148 20:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Registered users can establish a watchlist and access it from any computer. Durova^Charge! 20:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You can also set up a list on your user page. — RJH (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

wikisource

(I have removed right floating from the code for these to facilitate discussion) There are a number of inline (i.e. not transcluded) cases like, from Desiderius Erasmus, this:

or, from Origins of the American Civil War, this:

Now - the reason these came to my attention was in an attempt to obsolete wikisource-logo.jpg, but - these would be better as templates. Should I change them to use the template?

? Make a new template with "has the original text of"? Or just fix the logos in place?

-- Random832(tc) 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

---

My .02 is that {{wikisourcelang}} would be a good solution. There's no need for a new template for the slight wording change in the second example. The first example is just confusing - linking an English language title to a foreign language page. The title should be Moriae encomium if it's linking to a Latin page. - BanyanTree 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Was this too much biting?

I thought it was funny... check it: User_talk:Tmal15 MPS 17:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem too biting to me. Do you think you have offended him? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Macaw 54 sockpuppet

I want to know if User:Dnt23 is a sockpuppet of Macaw 54. If you can disprove this, please show me. Georgia guy 19:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's almost certainly Macaw 54/user:Primetime. I'm going to block the account as a sock. Good catch. -Will Beback · † · 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Who was Willy on Wheels?

In the seven months I've been here, I've seen Mottoes of the Day and the Wikipediholic test that say Willy on Wheels. I'm assuming he's a vandal (duh), but why was he banned? What were the crimes he committed? I'm curious... --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 02:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this the right place to ask this? Apologies if it's not. :( --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 02:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels was a page move vandal, known for moving pages to titles ending in "On Wheels". i.e: Chuck Norris would've been moved to Chuck Norris ON WHEELS!!!; or Jimbo Wales would've been moved to Jimbo Wales ON WHEELS!! (or even Jimbo ON WALES!!). It has also sparked a meme on this site. That's all I know. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 02:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 02:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just recreate Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels with a message that basically says what AAA! mentioned above and save ourselves some trouble rather than just leaving it delete-protected forever? --tjstrf talk 02:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't believe in giving notability to idiots. The sooner this guy is forgotten, the better. SteveBaker 03:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Making him be an esoteric secret gives him even more notability than having a boring factual message would. Because now, not only is he a vandal, he's a LEGENDARY vandal and knowing who he was is an in-group thing. --tjstrf talk 03:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We can hardly claim denying recognition when we constantly refer to him as the... prototypically dangerous vandal.Circeus 03:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Pfft... I chanced across the Emily Brontë biography today and it's in shameful condition. When all the major writers in English letters have featured biographies maybe there will be enough volunteer time to devote to a vandal. Per WP:DENY I'd rather not give that one's successors something to strive for. Durova^Charge 06:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll help if you want to work on Emily Brontë, Durova! The Library is closed tomorrow owing to MLK Day, but I'll try to get a few sources out later this week. BenBurch 06:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Durova^Charge 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What a memorial - to commemorate MLK the library is closed! What would he have said? Rich Farmbrough, 13:11 16 January 2007 (GMT).

Let me just say that I've been reading some comments scattered around the site that said he was also a bit of an attention seeker. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 13:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

While we're on topic, who was The Communisim Vandal? The Placebo Effect 13:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Some guy who kept plastering "Wikipedia is Communism" all over the place and kept creating User names with variations on that theme. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, he blanked pages and replaced them with the Hammer and Sickle picture and wrote "Wikipedia is Communism!" In the caption. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 11:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And another part of Wikipedia's history has been erased. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Just H 02:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well we are here to write an encylopedia, not to self perpetuate, if someone else wants to write a history of wikipedia, they are more than welcome. But we don't forget our history WP:VANDAL#Types_of_vandalism covers both those types of vandalism and more besides, no one is going to forget what pagemove vandalism is, nor is anyone going to forget that blanking a page and replacing it with some meaningless text is vandalism. --81.19.57.170 15:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people, though apparently the historian instinct is not strong in the community. (It's weird that so few specifics are recorded.) The section on vandals had been removed as WP:DENY. I tend to agree with 81.19.57.170. - BanyanTree 16:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Which was Willy on Wheels' original account? I saw Willy's contributions, and WoW's, but they didn't show any page moves. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

semi-protection on talk pages

I'd like to know policy on protection of talk pages. Where do people post comments if the talk page itself is protected? 02:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... I have never heard of a talk page being semi-protected. Where has this occured? Blueboar 15:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

All the village pump pages were semi-protected for a while. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For example, currently talk:reality is sprotected. 70.51.9.86 05:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a major rash of Stephen Colbert-inspired vandalism which required the protection of a large number of articles and talk pages. Are you planning on continuing that vandalism, or do you have other information to share on the Talk page? Why not put what you wanted to say on your User Talk page until such a time as the article talk page is unprotected? Corvus cornix 16:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why I should stand to be insulted. If you didn't notice, I asked a question about protected talk pages, ****not**** article pages. 70.51.8.181 10:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! WP:AGF - and it's, frankly, a bit absurd to think that no-one could possibly want to post to the Reality talk page other than to vandalize it. I don't see any justification for your confrontational/accusatory tone. You know, I just thought of something - what about a "talk-protection" where the only edit allowed to non-registered or new users is addition of lines in continuous groups with a signature on the last one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random832 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

do they copy wikipedia?

here is the link

http://www.aboutus.org/Oxing.com

???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.229.134.57 (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

No, I don't think so. They're just a wiki that use the MediaWiki software. Tra (Talk) 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Tra is correct, that is just another wiki. There are, however, websites that copy information directly from Wikipedia (with reference), such as Answers.com. --Xertz 16:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Tony Dungy entry problem

At the bottom of the Wikipedia entry regarding Tony Dungy, it states the following: "Despite popular belief and hype from the media (even from the NFL itself), Dungy is not actually of African-American descent, but is maojoritorily made up of other heritages. The writers of Black20.com have spoken out about this, but to little avail.[13]"

What language is the word "maojoritorily". Additionally, this issue of Dungy's heritage is exceptionally important and if the author could be specific, it might further the discussion. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.30.125.238 (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Hm. Just sounds like an awful typo to me. Seems like the editor who contributed that was trying to say "majoritively", which technically isn't a word, so placing it there wouldn't be the proper usage in any case. You might want to consider fixing it and rewriting that particular passage more efficiently, if you're so inclined. --Xertz 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fake administrators

How common are fake administrators with Wikipedia?? To clarify what I mean, what I mean is un-registered Wikipedians who try to make edit summaries as if they did the "rollback" option that only administrators can do. 209.177.21.6 appears to be one, as you can see by looking at their recent edits. Please check on this user's edits. Georgia guy 21:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is that indicative of being a "fake administrator"? It could equally just be someone trying to leave a helpful edit summary - plenty of people see it as the 'correct' way to revert because of the prevalence of rollback. Shimgray | talk | 21:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, until a few months ago Help:Reverting actually told users to exactly mimic rollback edit summaries. Since users (myself at least) make certain assumptions based on edit summaries (such as "rollback=admin", "manual revert by known admin=content issue", etc), it bears repeating that the rollback syntax should only appear in edit summaries when rollback is actually being used. - BanyanTree 19:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And then there are administrators such as myself who do rollbacks the old fashioned way out of habit. If a non-admin writes I am an administrator on a talk page, I'd take that seriously. Try not to read too much into little matters such as this. Durova^Charge! 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Clearly an IP couldn'r possibly be an admin so where is the issue? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the rollback edit summary should be modified to include [[WP:AES|←]] to make it clear that it is an automatic edit summary and to make it less likely for someone to manually type with that format themselves? Tra (Talk) 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Even with the left arrow, there's still the risk of "cargo cult edit summaries". I think it would be reduced if the rollback summary actually said "administrative rollback" or something like that. Just like how the undo summary changed recently from "undid ..." to "via undo" - maybe add "via rollback" to the summary for rollback? --Random832(tc) 15:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot Vandalism

The other day I was thinking about bots, and realized that they could be used for vandalism as well. Does Wikipedia restrict the number of edits you can do per minute? Otherwise, the bots that are used by wikipedians to revert vandalism could be run (unapproved, of course) to blank all the pages on the wikipedia database. This would be near impossible to stop if the bot ran through every page, at even a mere 100 pages per minute, it could become impossible to stop. Also, if the owner were smart enough to create 50 user pages before, then the bot could log in as the next user if it is blocked. Are there any measures that have been taken to avoid this? I'm sure I haven't been the only one to think this, but I don't know where else to ask. Thank You!!! -Hairchrm 01:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

See meta:Edit throttling. There have been vandal bots before, some quite vicious, and they were countered. Vandals read community pages and it would be inadvisable to explain how previous bad bots were handled, and it's not something I followed closely in any case. - BanyanTree 03:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"it would be inadvisable to explain how previous bad bots were handled"? [[Security through obscurity], much? Though, this thread falls under WP:BEANS. Anyway, the admins have a rollback button they can use from a user contributions page, and users can be blocked by IP addresses. --Random832(tc) 15:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, this makes sense how I can't really be told how, I just wanted to make sure that there was some way of handling them. Thanks again!! -Hairchrm 18:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcoming

Do you have to be on the Welcoming committee to welcome new members? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 22:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Anyone can welcome newcomers. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)