Wikipedia:Village pump/January 2004 archive 7

Linking Wikipedia to 1world2travel[edit]

Dear editors My compliments for the Wikipêdia initiative. I already added a lot of links to my pages! The homepage is www.1world2travel.com It is a one-man-site (I really am the only one working on it) promoting countries for tourism and culture. The site is private and non-commercial and started two years ago when I studied the net, learning how to produce a website. You will find most of your links on my country-portals, the 'starttips'. You will find them immediately by going to www.toerisme.starttips.com and then search the continents. These pages started in Dutch but I'm extending them and translating them into English. An example I just finished South Africa (www.zuidafrika.starttips.com) giving a mass of information. China will be next. Some European and African countries underwent these changes already. Maybe you can use my site? Put some links to your pages? I don't think you will find many other sites offering the same volume of information to their visitors. Kind regards Walter Vaerewijck Menegemlei 15 2100 Antwerp +32/475/386-486 wvaerewyck@pandora.be 1w2t@pandora.be

PS - Personal info: I'm a retired journalist. Still active in touristic trade magazines and a tourmanager for the Flemish TO 'VTB'.

Copyrights[edit]

Anyone heard about that ? http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/01/23/182255.shtml?tid=103&tid=123&tid=99

Footnotes/Endnotes - a proposal for a new MediaWiki feature[edit]

There has been a lot of talk on WikiEN-l about the need for citations in articles. I tend to agree with that. But our current system of wiki refs only

encourage the creation of footnote-like references to external websites (which is less than ideal).

I have put together a proposal that, if enacted, would create a more wordprocessor-like footnote system that could be used for all types of footnotes (web, ISBN, journal articles, and written out dead tree citations).

See and respond on:

meta:Footnotes

--mav 01:42, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:Conflict resolution for a possible way to better handle user and article disputes. --mav 19:03, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)

Cardinal Konig again[edit]

Could someone sort out Franz Cardinal König? Some idiot insists on putting "Cardinal" in the title. Now the two articles each redirect to the other. Adam 16:33, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is not the way to talk about other Wikipedians. The "idiot" expects an apology from you. <KF> 16:49, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And while you're at it, you might as well apologize to the authors who created the following pages:

<KF> 17:03, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Clerical_names -- User:Docu

See my note (with apology) at Franz Cardinal König. I did ask here what the policy was, and was told that article titles should not include personal titles of any kind. Why are Cardinals exempt from this rule? Adam 02:01, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That policy was formulated by JTDirl in this edit [1] about nine months ago, and from what I can see on the talk page, it has been uncontroversial... <ominous mood> until now </ominous mood>. -- Cyan 02:29, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well I have to say I disagree with it, so now it is controversial. Why do Cardinals deserve titles while Archbishops, Bishops, Ayatollahs, Grand Muftis, Grand Rabbis, Moderators, Patriarchs, Doctors, Professors, Knights and Dames do not? Why is Bernard Law entitled to be Bernard Cardinal Law while Rowan Williams gets no title? This appears just to be privileging Catholicism over other religions. What is the justification for this? Adam 02:58, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why do Popes, Princes, and Princesses get titles while Kings and Queens do not? --Jia ng 03:00, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Because they change their names - Karol Wojtyla became John Paul II. "Cardinal" is just a title, like Dr or Professor or Rabbi. Please answer my question and don't raise side issues. Adam 03:33, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This relates to the general topic of naming conventions, but I may raise as many side issues as I want. You have the option of not answering. Why for Princes, and Princesses and not Kings and Queens? Why are are Queen consorts also stripped of their titles - Mary of Teck and not Princess Mary of Teck? --Jia ng 04:09, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My view is all biographical articles should use the person's name, unadorned by any title, unless the title has completely replaced the name, as with Popes and the Dalai Lama, for example. Peers as we know have their titles appended to their names, but the peerage is a uniquely complex institution. I see no reason why Cardinals should have a mere title added to their commonly used and well-known personal names, when no other equivalent religious or secular titles are so privileged. Adam 04:14, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My view is that I don't care a whit which name gets the article, as long as both are present and one redirects to the other. -- Jmabel 04:21, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ditto. Dpbsmith 18:32, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Adam: Linguistic custom. Since at least a few centuries back. Also, commonality. Who would remember John Cardinal O'Connor if you didn't mention he was a Cardinal, for example? The common usage is to do write it like that. -172.148.55.189 04:27, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Linguistic custom" and "common usage" would dictate that everyone gets all their titles in their article titles: Sir John Smith, Dr. John Smith, Rabbi John Smith, Emeritus Professor Dame Margaret Smith. If that is to be the convention, fine, but so far it isn't. The convention is no titles. I ask again, why are Cardinals a special case? Adam 04:50, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have also created articles for people who had titles etc, but I used their real name. Using titles in article names seems POV to me. Please, move all Cardinals to their normal names and keep the "cardinal" articles as redirects. It is unencyclopaedic to use titles in article names. Optim 07:01, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- It is unencyclopaedic to use titles in article names. Not true. I have the Cambridge Paperback Encyclopedia open in front of me, and it has articles on "Albert, Prince, in full Francis Albert Augustus Charles Emmanuel, Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" and "Gielgud, Sir (Arthur) John" and "Condorcet, Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas de Caritat, Marquis de" and "Richelieu, Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal and duc de". However, it has "Carey, George Leonard" and "Clinton, Bill". So titles in titles have precedent as being encyclopedic, but apparently aren't essential. Onebyone 22:59, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

For quite some time, dictionaries in the U. S. have been descriptive rather than prescriptive; i.e. their intention is to report frequency of usage. Atlasses generally adopt the "neutral" policy of using the place names "used by the authority administering the territory" or something along those lines, although occasionally you will see an alternate in parentheses. One policy would be that the article should use what the author reliably believes to be the most common name by which the person is known, and include redirects from all other well-known names. I see that Mark Twain brings up an article, while Samuel Clemens, Samuel L. Clemens, and Samuel Langhorne Clemens come up dry... There's a lot of variation in Wikipedia right now as to whether people who referred to themselves with initials get entries with initials, or with fully spelled out names... A few lucky people, like Mozart, get redirects from their surname alone, others don't; is this POV or just an attempt to reflect frequency of usage? This IMHO is not an issue to obsess over. It's most important to see that ALL well-known names by which a person is known get entries; whether they are main entries or redirects is not important. Dpbsmith 18:32, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) P. S. OK, I see that Samuel Clemens does redirect as a link... but it does not work when I typed it into the "Go" box. I wonder why not?

The issue is not what policies other encyclopaedias have, but what issue Wikipedia has. Its policy appears to be no titles except for Cardinals. Unless someone can give me a convincing explanation for why Cardinals should be an exception to the rule, I will start to move some of the articles listed above. That should flush out the Cardinal-lovers. Adam 09:47, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's no titles except for Cardinals, Popes, Patriarchs, Dukes, Barons, Princes, ect. If we can have Charles, Prince of Wales rather than Charles Mountbatten-Windsor and William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin rather than William Thomson, then why can't we have John Cardinal O'Connor rather than John O'Connor? The title of Cardinal is of the peerage of the Holy See, as cardinals are princes of the church and electors of the Vatican City, and the title is at least as important to who they are as Lord Kelvin's Barony is to him. Gentgeen 10:26, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Éire[edit]

I've seen multiple references to Éire where it would seem that linking to Republic of Ireland would be the significantly better option (IMHO as a dumb American). See The Simpsons#TV Channels that air The Simpsons, for instance. I was just wondering if I'm lacking some insight that makes Éire the better choice than Republic of Ireland. Is this some nationalistic thing? Oh well, not a whole lot that can be mucked with at the moment anyway since What links here is currently disabled anyway. —Mulad 08:04, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree that for an English-language 'pedia, Republic of Ireland would be better. Both are "official" names of the state and Eire does tend to be favoured by nationalists and Irish language spearkers. Bmills 09:13, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Since the articles aren't the same, each link to should decide which of the two it wants to link to, and link to that one. Republic of Ireland is about the country, and Éire is about the use of the name "Éire" in the constitution. Onebyone 23:06, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Then the Simpsons article is simply wrong, pointing to the wrong article. Somebody ought to fix it (along with others, once What Links Here is working well again). Nice Eire article, btw; should it be Featured? Ignorant foreigner speaking. Dandrake 07:55, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

It is a nice article ant I'm going to nominate it for Featured articles this very day. Bmills 11:35, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Test Wikipedia[edit]

Is there a standard page where the current state of the Test Wikipedia is kept up to date? Since the database was wiped, all the instructions for the new experimental rendering features (chess, music and sundry other stuff) seem to have vanished. Also helpful would be documentation for the editing toolbar. I have tried searching but all I can find is the Wikipedia:Sites using MediaWiki page which really says almost nothing. --Phil 12:07, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

No, there isn't. Feature documentation is inconsistent. You can sometimes find it in announcements on wikitech-l or somewhere on en. Eventually, all features should be documented on meta. In theory, feature descriptions gather at m:MediaWiki development and m:MediaWiki User's Guide. If you want to know about a given feature and you can't find documentation, you should ask the person who developed it. The rendering features were by Peter Danenberg, and the edit toolbar by Erik Möller. -- Tim Starling 01:00, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

Sik Rescue Team[edit]

moved to Wikipedia:Reference_desk

News mention[edit]

This Yahoo News story links to us - someone want to put it where it belongs? -戴&#30505sv

Edit war in progress?[edit]

What does one do if an edit war seems to be developing? I added comments to the talk page for Lucy tuning, but people reverted to a crackpot form of that article anyway without doing me the courtesy of explaining why. I wrote this there:

I've restored the non-crackpot version again, and moved the kook version to Wikinfo, which does not believe in NPOV. If you don't believe that is a kook version, you should either discuss that here or go to tuning@groups.yahoo.com and present your case to the experts.

This seems to me to be the least someone might do who thinks they know better--stand up and be counted, and have the courage to take the matter up with the experts. - Posted by User:Gene Ward Smith 02:34, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC) (sig added by Anthropos 14:10, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I know virtually nothing about music, and absolutely nothing about Lucy tuning. However, it seems to me that both (all) parties to this dispute should provide some references for their statements, i.e. some published (and preferably peer-reviewed) paper, book, etc. If both (all) parties can provide such documentation and a disagreement still exists, then the article will have to be written so as to include both (all) points of view.

In my opinion, calling other people's changes "crackpot" or the like does nothing positive for the situation. It will only serve to harden others' positions, and fan the flames of the edit war (sorry for the mixed metaphor).

In my opinion someone editing a page on his own at least very controversial theories, which is what I think is happening, is a total violation of NPOV and an utter abandonment of any intellectual standards or notion of peer review.

Standing up for what you believe is right is only to be admired, especially if you can provide rational reasoning and/or documentation for why you are right.

I wrote something in the talk page, which Mr. LucyTuning did not do. I presented a case, he has indulged in what amounts to vandalism. I proposed we take the matter up with the experts, and told where they can be found. What, exactly, do you want out of me--the intellectual timidity born of ignorance?

But, in my opinion, using descriptions such as "crackpot" is nothing to be admired. -Anthropos 06:27, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You are not required to admire my language. However, I am not required to admire the abandonment of any standard of rationality. Is allowing the Wikipedia to become a dumping ground for crank theories really what people want? If so, I have no interest in the project. However, that is not what we are told is the case. Are there going to be some standards of evidence and reason here, or not? Are people going to be allowed to toot their own horn and promote their own goofy ideas, not accepted by their peers, or should that sort of thing be the provence of Wikinfo? In other words, people, are you serious? - Posted by User:Gene Ward Smith 08:32, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC) (sig added by Anthropos 14:10, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC))

Thanks for the signatures, Anthropos. It's an interesting battle and I'm still not sure of the players or of their credentials, but that certainly helps. It's a bit ironical and not impressive to me when an anonymous poster demands that their opponents identify themselves, as happened above.

Excuse me, but I did sign my name. Gene Ward Smith 20:10, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

GWS, I don't want to make a big deal about this, but I also don't want to leave the implication that I have falsely claimed to have added your sig. If you check the page history ([2] and [3]), you will see that your first two edits were not, in fact, signed. Again, it's not a big deal to me -- I have done the same thing in the past. Since there is a history page, sigs are only for convenience anyway. -Anthropos 22:09, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

IMO there's more to this than meets the eye. Meantone systems have always been controversial. But, their previous period of popularity was in the days in which keyboard instruments needed to be tuned, or even built, to a particular tuning. So the instrument was more or less dedicated to that tuning. This is no longer the case with electronic keyboards, as I indicated below. As alternative tunings are now so readily available, we should expect systems of merit to be widely used and acclaimed. This isn't happening in Australia AFAIK. How about the USA? Or is it all talk so far?

While some music needs to be written or at least arranged to take advantage of different intonations, much does not. Any piece which only ever modulates to (or uses accidentals from) keys closely related to the original (or not at all), for example, can be played in just intonation with no modification at all, and is already normally so played by sufficiently competent bowed (fretless) string instruments playing alone, and sung that way by the better a cappella groups. Andrewa 17:23, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is by no means always true, see mathematics of musical scales.

Gene Ward Smith 20:10, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, there can be a problem with chord II as this article points out. I admit I've overstated my case here. (And so has one of the writers of this article. I think their sweeping statement that chord II is the most important minor chord in a major scale is a bit doubtful.) The underlying argument remains valid IMO. Andrewa 10:47, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm beginning to smell vanity pages here. This so-called "Lucy Tuning" doesn't seem to be offered by any of the major "pipeless" organ companies. The significance of this is that these instruments are computer-synthesised and quite expensive, and used mainly in churches, a very competitive market, and are aggressively developed, updated and marketed. They typically offer several mean-tone systems, plus both just and even temperament, all available at the push of a button. They could easily offer another meantone tuning, at negligible cost. If they don't offer this one it suggests to me that perhaps it's not useful.

I'm a professional mathematician too, with an active and long-standing interest in musical tuning systems, and I can't see any advantage of the so-called Lucy Tuning myself. It's more an intellectual exercise than a significant departure from existing meantone systems. So IMO if it's to be described in Wikipedia at all it should be under the name of its inventor, John Harrison, as a curiousity of that era.

Charles Lucy unearthed it, named it after himself, and is assiduously promoting it, and that was the name of the page when I started editing it. Obviously it has no particular advantages, but it has no particular disadvantages either, beyond having fifths a little more flat than is usually done. It can serve as a good particular example of meantone. Lucy is claiming (he's now confirmed he is making the edits and is arguing his case on the tuning list, tuning@groups.yahoo.com) that the fact that the flattened fifth generator of 1/2+1/(4π) is a transcendental number is what makes Lucy tuning special. Of course this is nonsense for various reasons, one being that the 1/4 comma meantone of log2(5)/4 is also a transcendental number, and etc etc.Gene Ward Smith 20:10, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It seems quite possible that Charles Lucy, a computer-literate person still living, has now named the system developed by Harrison after himself, and is vigorously promoting it, including on Wikipedia. My one attempt at reason was met with passionate resistance. I don't know whether it's Lucy himself that we're dealing with here, but it's food for thought.

Lucy has certainly named it after himself and is promoting it, but I don't think he started editing the page until I mentioned it on the tuning list, which he also reads. Gene Ward Smith 20:10, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I could be wrong. Maybe it is significant. In which case, it's untried original work, and doesn't yet belong in Wikipedia. Andrewa 10:07, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's not significant at all; that is why I made it the subject of my first editing attempt--First, Do No Harm. Little did I realize what I was getting into, though knowing Charles Lucy, I suppose I should have done. Gene Ward Smith 20:10, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Main Page/Yahoo silliness[edit]

Does it bother anyone that when you follow the link YahooNews:Wikipedia on the main page, the #1 item is: "The Eight Biggest Tech Flops Ever"? :) - Fennec 02:54, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Eeek! It sounds like we've been bombed. That's a known weakness with Yahoo's algorithm. Andrewa 05:53, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what "being bombed" means in this context, but the reason "The Eight Biggest Tech Flops Ever" is at the top of the list is that it's the only match from Yahoo's own news service. Wikipedia is mentioned only once in the article, and not as a flop but as a recommended source of further information.

The top item, objectively speaking, is the far more relevant "Wikipedia emerges as credible resource".

—Paul A 06:42, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

PS: The same article is also first on the GoogleNews search, but from a different site that gives it the headline "Online reference to reach milestone". I like the first headline better, don't you?

Online refrence ... was the headline when the story first appeared in Sunday's San Jose Mercury News. Think I'm going to cut it out and post it on my refrigerator. Gentgeen 06:55, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sadly, while the article claims the wikipedia is emerging as a credible resource, there is no data in the article to back it up. Elde 09:11, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Cloudy and Gary Ferland articles[edit]

I'd like to start an article on cloudy, the photoionisation modeling code that is used in many, many physics simulations - see [4] for more. I've been trying to find where to create the link - any ideas - so far the only idea is Model, but there must be something better. Tompagenet 17:26, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Anyone enjoy editing?[edit]

There is a list of articles in need of formatting, wikilinking, and other forms of editing at Wikipedia:Cleanup#leftovers. If you have more, please add them to the top of the Wikipedia:Cleanup page. Onebyone 23:06, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wikisource[edit]

I failed to find any instructions about putting materials to wikisources. Any advice? Mikkalai 23:08, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wikisource is still very new and no-one has got round to creating any help pages yet. You could try asking on their Village pump. Alternatively, the people nominated for adminship are the most active editors over there, so they might be able to help. Angela . 23:39, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

url submission[edit]

Hi, We are a new Independent Record Label and wonder if we can be added to your list of indie labels? If so here are our details:

IRL: ShanelsWorldRecords http://www.shanelsworld.com 'We are a new independent Record Label specialising in commercial hip-hop and urabn music'. CONTACT: info@shanelsworld.com

Thanks for your time whether or not you could submit it. SWR

Titles in names[edit]

When was it decided to have article titles like Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson instead of what he is usually known as? This sseems to go against the established guidelines I know of -- Tarquin 14:47, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just a comment, he's known as Nelson, but is that because you're calling him by his surname or his title? And take Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington as an example. He's famous as Arthur Wellesley and Wellington. And the 1st/2nd/3rd bit might be useful in distinguishing between generations when title holders might have had the same firstname lastname (not uncommon)? Fabiform 16:05, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think it's true any more that Arthur Wellesley is known independantly of his title as Duke of Wellington - I'd say it was only true up to the point he was ennobled. I think that Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington and Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington should all usher you to the same place, but I find it difficult to sympathise with any emphatic arguments about which of the three should be the real article. I'd probably go for Duke of Wellington myself, on grounds that it probably wants a disambiguation link (see below), and hence can't be a redirect, and thus might as well be the article. That said, several other Dukes of Wellington were also called Arthur Wellesley, so it's all a bit tricky. Onebyone 01:03, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I see your point, but I know him as well or better as Arthur Wellesley because I often read books set before his elevation to Viscount then Duke etc. We should consider that people may come across a contemporary reference to someone before they were ennobled. And it's not uncommon for people to slip slightly knowing references to people who would later become famous (i.e. "artist in 1930s Germany" (I think!) = Hitler, "promising young officer Arthur Wellesley", etc, etc). I'm just saying it's difficult for us to determine what a potential wikiuser will know, what search terms they will come up with, so I don't think it's a bad idea to put peers' highest title in the article name along with firstname lastname. Fabiform 02:15, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

While we're up, how about Sir Winston Churchill? Not Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, a 20th-century prime minister, but Sir Winston Chuchill, father of John Churchill first Duke of Marlborough. Seriously, an article on that gentleman would not be out of place, and I might contribute a short one, but how would one title it? Arguably, Winston Churchill might be a disambig page, which would be mildly annoying to nearly everyone who happened on it. Dandrake 20:42, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

I'd usually deal with this using a disambiguation page. The most famous one can go at Winston Churchill, with text at the top saying something like This article is about the 20th Century British Prime Minister. For several others of his family with the same name, see Winston Churchill (disambiguation). They would then be named with whatever disambiguation is necessary - the two usual methods are the format "<name>, <number> <noble_title>" and date disambiguation: "<name> (<birth>-<death>)". Onebyone 01:03, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In fact, I see that the disambiguation page is at Churchill (disambiguation). Otherwise, my comments apply to that, and I'd still modify the top of Winston Churchill to be more verbose and to specifically mention that there are other Winston Churchills. Onebyone 01:10, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Linking to images from other language wikipedias?[edit]

Is there any way I can link to an image on the German 'pedia?

I want to include http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Suetterlin.png in Sütterlin, but I can't figure out how to do it. [[de:Bild:Suetterlin.png]] or [[Image:de:Suetterlin.png]] and related tricks won't work. Jo r 17:14, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You'll have to upload it again here. The languages don't share images: a) we'd never agree on file names, b) disk space is cheap! -- Tarquin 19:02, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

However, people are lazy and don't wanna re-upload one thing that is the same again again again. Some suggested m:WikiImages.org. Currently not under development. --Menchi (Talk)â 06:08, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

About switching to a Power Macintosh G5 to run Wikipedia[edit]

I Know! I've written to Angela about this and she didn't understand, so I'm asking that anyone who has the expertise switch the Database from a PC based Server to a Power Macintosh G5 Based server (I've read the MySQL article!) ask permission to do so and to send a message to everyone about the switch. thataway, you'll get the following advantages:

1. No need for a firewall

2. UNIX based strength in the OS

3. Can be left on with no damage

4. No more connectivity issues

5. Gigabit Ethernet

and the best feature of all:

6. No Viruses!

What do you think? Jack Zhang 12:12 Jan 28 2004 (UTC)

Well, we've got $19,000 worth of Linux machines about to be delivered so it's a bit late. ;) As for the points you give, they all apply equally to these machines. --Brion 20:19, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh, Then the server downs account to power failures/surges? Jack Zhang 12:26 Jan 28 2004 (UTC)

Overloaded machines, defective motherboards, hard drive failures, and occasionally configuration errors. Remember this site gets over a million hits per day, there's a fair amount of stress on the web servers and database. I love my PowerBook, but Apple isn't immune to occasionally shipping broken machines either, and any machine that can't handle the load it's been given will be slow, no matter whose logo is on the box. --Brion 20:38, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! I also am going to get a PowerBook, But it'll be a PowerBook G5, It'll be bought when I graduate! Jack Zhang 15:55 Jan 28 2004 (UTC)

You think we'd be using Windows???! ;) -- Tarquin

Without mentioning any names, a professor of mine is chief system administrator for a major national power company. He had a great quote last year, when we were discussing beowulf systems. "Somebody sends you 4,000 Gateway PCs. What are your problems? Well, first, about 500 will be dead on arrival..." →Raul654 11:07, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

Image issues[edit]

Can someone else confirm that there's a problem with the images that I recently uploaded? They were working fine previously, but now they seem to be semi-missing. Examples include images on CDROM, LPDA, and telephone. --Dante Alighieri 21:50, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The image I added to Belinda Stronach has also gone missing. :-( dave 22:38, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I can see the CD but cannot see the Belinda Stronach image. Sennheiser 22:44, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I can see all those images, cd-rom, telephone, etc... but my Belinda Stronach image is still missing and uploads seem to be disabled right now. dave 22:57, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The images from MER-B seem to be missing from the server. Sennheiser 22:47, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually, every image that i've ever uploaded seems to be missing from the server. Sennheiser 22:48, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I also can't see the MER-B image. dave 22:58, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Images should now be current through Jan 24. The server that en.wikipedia.org has been on the last few days has developed -- you guessed it -- disk problems! I suspect it's the controller, not the disk, as this is a replacement for the previous disk. We should have the latest changes copied off it by Friday at latest (depending on whether we can get it going remotely or have to wait until Jason goes in on Friday to physically tinker with the hardware.) --Brion 23:00, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, does this mean that images uploaded since Jan 24th are lost and should be uploaded again? Or does it mean that the recent images will reappear eventually? Dpbsmith 02:38, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

From Brion's comment on the mailing list, I'd assume you don't have to. (See message below). Angela . 02:51, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

Uploaded images from en are current on ursula up through January 24, 
but newer updates are still on pliny and can't be copied off due to the 
disk errors. If we can't coax it into cooperating remotely, Jason 
should be able to reset things when he goes in on Friday and copy them 
off then. Brion Vibber.

We should be able to recover everything. If you want to put your pics back immediately (or to add new files), I've gone ahead and re-enabled uploads. Holler if there's any problem with it. --Brion 03:28, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Providing the entire encyclopedia for download[edit]

As a student at a school which does not offer internet access, it would be wonderfully useful if there was a copy of the site available for download - of course I'd miss out on updates, but periodically re-downloading it would fix that.

I understand that it'd be a very massive collection of files and folders, and may be nearly impossible from a technical standpoint (I don't know how much of this is generated dynamically), but it would be fantastically helpful to many.

spankypoo att excite dott com

Please see Wikipedia:Database download. --Brion

about English churches[edit]

moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk

New England[edit]

I don't want to sound too Americo-centric here, but I'm wondering just how often the phrase "New England" is used to reference the region in Australia. I ask because it is very commonly used in the United States to refer to the northeastern region, and the vast majority of pages that link to the disambiguation page are for the U.S. region. Would it be fair to move New England (U.S.) to New England with a proper disambiguation block at the top linking to the article on the Australian region? If these two meanings are equally common, then things should stay as they are, and my ignorant inquiry disregarded (but the links still need to be fixed). --Minesweeper 05:05, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

I think you're right. New England should be moved to New England (disambiguation) (waste not, want not), and New England (U.S.) should be moved to New England. —Paul A 05:53, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

To answer the question "how often [is] the phrase "New England" is used to reference the region in Australia [?]" - the answer is - it depends on where you are! Round here, the Australian region is meant implicitly and understood as such by the several million people who live here - where? New England (Australia), of course! While most Aussies are easy going and not prone to getting too upset about it, there might be a few who'd prefer that the "default" didn't automatically mean the US. Why not just make New England the disambiguation page without explicitly naming it as such, and leaving the other two exactly as they are? People will both be easily able to find the right page if they just entered "New England", Aussies won't feel like second-class citizens, and those who never even heard of the Australian region will learn something ;-) In other words, it's fine as it is. Graham 05:59, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I did the following: (1) created New England (disambiguation), (2) Moved New England (U.S.) back to New England and added the "alternate meaning" thingie at the top (standard for stuff like Ottawa), (3) Moved New England (Australian region) to New England (Australia) per Wiki standards (if there's N.E. (U.S.) there should be N.E. (Aus.)--both are regions. This maybe should change in the future, but right now the large number of links to New England are overwhelmingly about the U.S. region. jengod 23:33, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Graham, and think that you've probably been a bit hasty to make the change. My gut reaction was to revert, but I held back. I'm from England (not New England) by the way, so have no real interest in the specific example, but as a general case I think it only reinforces the US-centric feel of the pedia. (Mind you, I would object to a disambig page for England that pointed to New England (either one!). Is this hypocritical?) HappyDog 02:17, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree about the Amerocentrism of the 'pedia, and that's something that's going to need to be battled for some time to come, but before you lump that problem into this particular decision, I beg you to look at [5]--there about 350 links to New England that refer to the U.S. area. I hope as much as you do that New England (Australia) is eventually as linked, but right now it's just not, and it seems silly to break up what looks like a fairly tight web. jengod 07:22, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I have an idea/suggestion/question. Is there a benchmark for what gets the "main page" of a link--like maybe if 85% of links to a page mean one thing, that page gets to keep the domain, but below that the domain should go to to a disambig page? Has this been covered anyway before? Is there a rule? Something similar came up on New Deal and I felt guilty about moving the UK stuff to another page without building a disambig page as a front for both. jengod 07:35, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether such a ruling exists, but I am kind of against the idea because I think there will be a lot of instances where the number of articles is irrelevant, or where there are too few articles to make this split. Also, because there are quite a few situations where one useage is obviously going to be much much more common, regardless of the number of articles.

For example, moderator, where the much more common sense (of someone who moderates e.g. a forum/mailing list/etc.) is sharing a disambig. page with neutron moderator, which is a very specific term in a very specific discipline.

However, I am with the idea that there should be a guideline, which should be used if a consensus can't be reached. The drawback of not having it as a rule is, of course, that if (like in this instance) people don't respond quickly enough the change will take place without discussion and therefor without concensus.

I'm not sure I've been very clear here, so in summary: A guideline would be good, but I'm ambiavalent about whether it should be a rule or not. HappyDog 20:47, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

House and Senate Committees[edit]

I've noticed that the committees of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate don't have articles. Can they be located somewhere else? I ask so I don't do a lot of duplicate work rewriting them for nothing. Also, if I do write them, what should the titles be? Thanks, Meelar 05:12, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hallelujah! These committee have needed pages for quite a while.

As for naming...I suggest: U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary; U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means; per the House's own Committee Page--I'd love to write out United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, but really...

For the Senate I suggest, U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations; U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations per the Senate's own Committee Page (click to see full names). jengod 23:53, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

Page Blanking[edit]

I don't know if this is a software glitch or what, but I just saved a page and rather than updating it, it blanked it. mydogategodshat 05:34, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Are you, by any chance, using Internet Explorer? -- Finlay McWalter 21:51, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Last time I checked I was using Explorer, but being an AOL subscriber the Explorer or Netscape screens are not visible to me unless I check. That was the only time the blanking happened, hopefully it will be the last. mydogategodshat 04:29, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This just happened to me here on Village pump, it was taking a while for the edit to complete, and all of a sudden there were two edits, and one of them wiped out a huge part of VP. I am using Mozilla 1.5 on Win XP. Dori | Talk 07:24, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about the welfare economics one, but might the problem here have been the page length >32k issue - it currently weighs in at 100k, after all! When you say "all of a sudden there were two edits", do you mean the edit conflict screen? Because even if you were originally editing a section, that contains the whole page, twice... - IMSoP 12:52, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No I meant in the page history, i.e. my edit turned into two edits. I've edited large pages before, this is the first time this has happened. Dori | Talk 14:13, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

This has happened to me several times, usually when the page is very slooooooooooow to save. Bmills 14:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's happened to me too. What I meant is that it has never deleted a page. Perhaps, besides the delayed edit, there was also a conflict. And the second delayed edit (which might have been on a section, I don't remember), could have overwritten the other edit (i.e. the whole page, with a section). Dori | Talk 14:49, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)