View source for Wiki143:Village pump/June 2003 archive 4

----
This has probably been noticed before, but there are some words that apparently confuse the search engine of Wikipedia. For example, a search (using the "Search button") for the phrase "logical not" returns the following:

:A database query syntax error has occurred. The last attempted database query was: "SELECT cur_id,cur_namespace,cur_title,cur_text FROM cur,searchindex WHERE cur_id=si_page AND ( (MATCH (si_title) AGAINST ('logical')) NOT ) AND cur_namespace IN (0) LIMIT 0, 20" from within function "SearchEngine::showResults". MySQL returned error "1064: You have an error in your SQL syntax. Check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near ') AND cur_namespace IN (0) LIMIT 0, 20' at line 1".


Obviously the word "not" is the culprit here. Using the "Go" button solves this problem, and correctly goes to [[Logical not]] (which redirects to [[Negation]]). Similar problems with "and" and "or", as expected. -- [[User:Wapcaplet|Wapcaplet]] 15:39 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

----
I'm having trouble. I want to upload a picture for use on the wiki [[Team Rocket]] (I'm Not a pokemon fan, whatever you say), and it's copyright to nintendo (or whatever(, but i found the picture on another site, and I don't think there's a copyright notice. Should I play it safe and not upload it? [[User:Ilyanep|Ilyanep]]

:Sorta depends on what the source of the photo is, I guess. I personally would play it safe, but you may be able to get away with it under [[Fair use]] doctrine. Just because copyright is not explicitly stated does not mean there is no copyright; if it's a commercial illustration, it's pretty likely there is a copyright. If you want to contribute to that article, maybe it'd be good to write a little bit more on the subject - the one-sentence description that is there was written by an anonymous user who apparently was not interested enough to come back and make a proper article out of it. -- [[User:Wapcaplet|Wapcaplet]] 21:37 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

----
----

Regarding the previous discussion on [[Fieldism]], just an idea on how to prevent "invented" articles: Is it technically possible to create a "new articles" list with a number of Google hits for every new Article title? This could help to spot Articles that "test" Wikipedia's reaction to nonsense ;-)   [[User:Fantasy|Fantasy]] 11:22 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

:It would seem that the greatest potential for unrecognized patent nonsense (UPN?) is with obscure topics that no one recognizes.  Few among us is enough of a student of history to discard with confidence an article on a bogus lesser personality or social movement from centuries past.  But then, it may not matter much.  There is plenty of UPN on Google, in that it indexes web sites full of such material.  That doesn't make Google less valuable.

:A mechanism for users to note that they have reviewed a page and made no changes might help somewhat.   [[User:Kat|Kat]] 19:03 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

: "Fieldism" was an oversight, it did not "survive", it was missed because of its virtual orphancy. Nobody serious searched for Fieldism, nobody active looked for it, so nobody Wikipedian had the opportunity to rectify the problem. 

: It was created when active maintainers were busy with something else, in the meatspace or composing new articles. "Fieldism" explicitly mentions a ridiculous ritual of "believers of Fieldism must sit naked in a field." This is blantant and extremely obvious sign, no, not sign, evidence of nonsensical crap.

: By the time maintainers looked at the RecentChanges, it's gone already. 

: This is not the maintainers' fault. The RecentChanges system can be improved: New articles should've stayed on RecentChanges longer than copyedits (minor or not) by registered users of more than 3 months. And new articles made by Anons should stay even longer. 

: --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 20:14 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If you're interested in catching new pages of junk, there is [[Special:Newpages]]... [[User:Evercat|Evercat]] 20:21 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
Whenever I create a page which has a multiple word title, someone comes along behind and replaces the spaces with uderbars, like this should be written in VBA.  I can't find this in the conventions (and where do those come from?).  Can someone point me to the correct reference page? -- [[User:Richj|Rich J]] 22:18 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:The wikipedia makes spaces into _ in the url b/c there shouldn't be spaces in filenames.  This shouldn't affect the page title.  [[User:Mbecker|MB]] 22:44 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:: url (ur real location) I understand.  What is b/c? -- [[User:Richj|Rich J]] 23:05 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
::: Actually URL is [[Uniform Resource Locator]]. b/c is because. [[User:Evercat|Evercat]] 23:11 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
::::That was a joke, son -- [[User:Richj|Rich J]] 01:23 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

::: We tried not to abbreviate informally too much (and almost never in real articles). But MB has a colourful vocabulary. :-) They're fine as shorthands in Talks (Discussion pages).
::: The truth is that underscored Wikification links (Wikilinks) are actually quite hard to type (with shift keys and all that). Plus, it's kind to read, sort of LikeThisStickedTogether. Not that bad, but not very good either. We try to do it naturally. Make it appear simple. --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 23:19 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

----

When I entered [[Graveyard]] I got a page with 1 REDIRECT [[Cemetary]]. When I went into the page to correct the spelling, I  got #REDIRECT <nowiki>[[Cemetery]]</nowiki>. (ie, when I got to the page I get an unlinked ''wrong'' spelling. When I try to edit, I get a different ''correct'' spelling.)  I did this four times just to make sure I had not made a mistake somewhere, but the same thing happens. Wrong spelling when I see the page, right spelling when I hit ''edit''. BTW when I went to the recent changes page to add it in to the ''new server madness'' page, that page had gone. What is going on? (After Friday 13th was a few days ago!) [[User:Jtdirl|FearÉIREANN]] 00:07 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

: If you look at the [[PageHistory:Graveyard]] you'll see that it was created then edited 2 minutes later. You probably looked at it in that time period. Or you may have a browser cache issue... especially if you used the back button to go back - this doesn't always refresh the page to the latest version in all browsers... Try going to the page and hitting reload. [[User:Evercat|Evercat]] 00:12 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Try '''Ctrl-F5''' if reloading doesnt seem to resolve the issue. [[User:Pizza Puzzle|Pizza Puzzle]]

Thanks folks. Whatever it was everything is working fine now. :-) [[User:Jtdirl|FearÉIREANN]] 00:55 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

-----

=== ''Gray's Anatomy'' illustrations ===

I have never seen the illustrations of ''[[Gray's Anatomy]]'' until [[User:Tristanb]] scanned some. They are actually very detailed and modern, except the font. :-) But [http://www.bartleby.com Bartleby.com] has also scanned many unaltered diagrams from ''Gray's'', such as [http://www.bartleby.com/107/illus84.html the cervical vertebra]. We cannot use Bartleby's because those ancient diagrams was uploaded thru their modern scanner? --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 04:56 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

:IANAL but I do know that a photocopy of a public domain work does not create a new copyright for the photocopy. So if all they did was scan-in the public domain images then they cannot legally claim to have copyright over those images. But any changes they may have done to the photo may be considered to be under copyright.... I say we can use them as public domain and not worry about it. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 05:38 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

::I've wondered about that too, but no-one seems to know anything definite. The problem with the Bartleby pics, to me, is that they've been coloured in, and probably clarified, by them. This is their ''original'' design.

::Obviously Bartleby's have no power at all to stop me scanning the originals from Gray's, but whoever made the veins blue and the arteries red, and even the guy that removed the scanning artefacts, might be able to claim copyright. ??? They've got a much better original source than me, and a better scanner :( so it's very tempting to steal them.

::Aside from this, we don't really need another copy of Gray's Anatomy on the net. The pictures were designed as engravings, so a century of graphic development is lost by using them too much. Also some of the terms are outdated. (They're better than nothing though, and provide a nice stencil for lineart.) [[User:Tristanb|Tristanb]] 04:35 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

::: The scans look great to me. 
::: Gray's illustrations do more than adequate. Without them, we have to endure the geometric horror such as that on [[Circulatory system]]. Mwahahaha!.... 
::: Which reprint is your copy? --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 11:21 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

::hahaha, your diagram shows the double circulation nicely :-) It reminds me of my [[Spinal nerve]] pic.
::I'm using a 1994 reprint of Gray's. It's probably been reduced in size slightly, and the printing and the paper aren't really optimal. (The paper looks like it's been in a fire.) I want to have a go at colouring some pics in nicely, using Gray's drawings as a plan, but i'm really no artist :-) [[User:Tristanb|Tristanb]]
----
=== Watchlist Coloured Links ===

My watch list is growing and growing (as is yours, probably ;-). I just thought, it could sometimes be of help, if the links on a page that are already on my watch list, would show up in a different color. Would this make sense / be helpful / did someone already think of something like that? Thanks, [[User:Fantasy|Fantasy]] 06:44 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

: But isn't old-new distinction relative and not absolute? How do you draw the line? --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 09:51 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

:: I did not mean old or new, I meant ''watched links'' and ''not watched links'' on any article. Would be nice to differentiate. Is that possible? [[User:Fantasy|Fantasy]]

::: So this has nothing to do with watchlist really. Just about Wikilinks which you have watched. And when you look at the RecentChanges, those that you watched will be a different colour? They already are, in a twisted sense. They appear '''bold''' on RecentChanges. Is that what you were getting at? If not, give it another shot if you're not tired. :-) --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 11:10 16 Jun 2003 (UTC) 
::: p.s. I'm not a developer, so I cannot tell if it's possible or not. Just trying to clarify the suggestion here. 

Sorry, seems that I had not used the right words. Maybe an example helps: Take the article [[Patent]]. This article contains links to [[government]] and [[inventor]]. I have just [[inventor]] on my '''watchlist''', but not [[government]]. But how will I find that out? I have to go to both of them, to be sure, that I am watching both. There is no other way to find out, if I watch an article, as far as I know. If they would be of different colors (watched/not watched), I could just go to the article that is missing on my watchlist and add that one. Does this example help to understand my question? Thanks for your patience, [[User:Fantasy|Fantasy]]
----
=== "As of 2003" ===
Why is [[As of 2003]] a Wikilink of its own, instead "As of [[2003]]"? --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 09:51 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

: Have you considered checking [[Talk:As of 2003|its talk page]]? ;) -- [[User:JohnOwens|John Owens]] 09:59 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

:: Thanks for the directions. --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 11:13 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hey guys, I've done a little something with [[Wikipedia:As of]]... please visit its [[Wikipedia_talk:As_of|talk page]] and discuss whether that was a good idea or not. --[[User:Skyfaller|Nelson]] 20:44 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

----

=== Citing content in an editable website ===
Hey there.  I run The Athenaeum (www.the-athenaeum.org), which is a user-editable humanities site.  I have read the text of the license, but I'm still a little foggy on it.  How should I cite articles when I use them on my site?  Furthermore, what are the restrictions that places on my users when they are editing the articles (on my site)?  If they change the articles "enough," does that remove the attribution requirement(s)?  If so, what constitues "enough"?  I'd like to be able to use some of the articles, and to point users here for source material, but not if the licensing/attribution issues are complex enough to be a barrier to entry.  Any pointers or FAQ's I can use as a guide?"

: [[IANAL]], but it's all in [[wikipedia:copyrights]] and indeed in the [[GNU Free Documentation License]]. The key section for you will be "4. MODIFICATIONS", since you want to allow users to edit the article. Have a read through - come back if you have any questions. It's simpler than it looks! [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 23:32 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

----

I have a cunning idea! There seem to be no public domain pics available for personalities such as Princess Diana or Picasso. However, many famous people are portrayed on postage stamps. If stamps can be freely used in Wikipedia as illustrations, is this a source of such pics? In short, are stamps public domain?<br>
[[User:Arpingstone|Adrian Pingstone]] 17:48 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

:Not in the United States at least. In the US the copyright for stamp designs is held by the US Post Office which hasn't been a US Department since the mid-1970s IIRC. And illustrating an article on a person only with their postage stamp is not a good idea - but allowable under fair use me thinks (IANAL). --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 18:01 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

:: Go to [[List of people on stamps of the United Kingdom]]. The stamp I put there has an excellent pic of Princess Diana. Do I have to remove it? Does anyone know the copyright situation for UK stamps?<br>
::[[User:Arpingstone|Adrian Pingstone]] 18:12 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

::: In the UK they would be copyright the Royal Mail, who issue the stamps and comission the images. I think the profile of Her Majesty (which is used on both stamps and coins) is Crown copyright. [[User:Cgs|CGS]] 18:17 16 Jun 2003 (UTC).

:::: Images of stamps are pretty clear-cut cases of fair use, since they're like album or book covers, they're "visual quotations" of the actual objects.  From a practical point of view, a postal administration would be insane to turn down the free advertising - they're always hoping to sell stamps to people who will never use them, it's like free money. :-)  [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 02:25 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

----
Where can I find a list of all the 'variables' such as the "CURRENTTIME" or "NUMBEROFARTICLES" Variables? [[User:Ilyanep|Ilyanep]]

----
Hey folks, I was wondering, is it possible to download the software that the Wikipedia uses anywhere?  I'd like to put up a Wiki, but I despise CamelCase, I much prefer Wikipedia's <nowiki>[[links]]</nowiki>. --[[User:Skyfaller|Nelson]] 20:47 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net

You may also want to try out [[UseMod]], which is much smaller and easier to install (Wikipedia originally used UseMod, but UseMod's search and scalability are limited because it doesn't require a database). It can be configured not to use CamelCase. The [[infoAnarchy wiki]] is based on it. --[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]]

----

=== Math formula background transparency ===

Hello!  I try to color the statement of math theorems  or conjectures in order to improve readability.  However, I have discovered that the image generated by &#0060;math&#0062;-tag is not transparent and so the effect turns out to be ugly: see [[Riemann hypothesis]].  Could anyone give me a helping hand? -- [[User:Wshun|Wshun]]

: colour does not improve readability. -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]] 21:41 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

:: but it does improve visibility. [[User:Jtdirl|FearÉIREANN]] 03:09 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

:: Then why are links shown in a different colour to other text in all web browsers? :) [[User:Cgs|CGS]] 21:44 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

:: yes, it does.  It helps when we want to emphasis something but '''Bold'''  and ''italics'' are already used heavily on a page; and it helps if someone just wants to get the theorem without really reading the article. -- [[User:Wshun|Wshun]]

Transparency is more practical in a long shot. What if one day, WP decides to change white -> say, sky blue, for a day, during certain occasion/holiday/festival/celebration.  (Just a hypothetical.) 

In any case, when you print, it doesn't matter if the background is white (like now) or transparent (like Wshun's suggestion).

I assume to keep nice alias smoothing-outs (as opposed to the coarse antialias) is why the background is white now, but if set transparency barrier to over 50% but under 95%, it'd make no visible difference on ''lighy'' backgrounds. Unless you are a graphic artist who strives for the perfection of beauty. WP will win many awards, I doubt graphic design will be one of them any time soon. So a little "flawed" is an acceptable compromise. --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 03:41 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Menchi said "What if one day, WP decides to change white -> say, sky blue, for a day". That would be very difficult. It would be easy enough to change the our TeX markup system to display a different background colour, but that's not the main problem. Do you know how many images we have with white backgrounds? Surely it must be in the thousands. They'd have to be automatically converted. That's an idea... Can a command in TeX change the background colour, now or in the conceivable future? That would solve the current problem. Transparent PNGs are difficult because IE doesn't support them. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 07:30 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

:Of course, ideally, in the future we won't need the math PNGs at all, because all our browsers will support [[MathML]] :-) Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia talk:TeX markup|I'd suggest]] using a colored border instead of a colored background. -- [[User:Wapcaplet|Wapcaplet]] 11:33 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Closely related to the above, there have been some different approaches to demonstrating samples of Wikipedia code (and the resulting output) on [[Wikipedia:Alternate text for images]]. These are partly an attempt to make such demonstration clearer, and stand out more clearly from the explanatory text around it; they might also serve to work around the problem of having TeX markup on a yellow background. Finally, and probably most importantly, they are possibly a better solution than the use of tables for showing example code. See [[Wikipedia talk:Alternate text for images]] for an example of how one of the tables that used to be here turned out in Lynx (bad, to say the least). It is possible that other how-to pages (such as [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page]]) might benefit from similar formatting. Clearly, by the above discussion on highlighting mathematical theorems and the like, this approach may be applicable to other areas as well. Discussion, criticisms, suggestions, etc. welcome at the above talk page, or at [[User talk:Wapcaplet|my talk page]]. (If this has already been covered elsewhere, please point me in the right direction.) Thanks! -- [[User:Wapcaplet|Wapcaplet]] 17:52 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

----
I wanted to post that "Donald Duck" : page is 36 KB long,
but the Villagepump is also too big to post there.
So could someone split these pages ?

:[[Wikipedia:Browser page size limits|Get a better browser]]. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 11:09 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

----
=== "Watched" links in articles with different colour ===

I try to reformulate my question: 
* I open an Article .
* The Article contains links to other Articles.
* I would like to know, if the linked Articles are already on my watchlist.

Currently I have to follow every single link to the corresponding Article to check the "watch this page" button. I think it would be helpful to show (e.g. by colour) if a link is watched or not. Would something like this be possible / helpful? [[User:Fantasy|Fantasy]] 12:25 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

: This reformulation is very clear. So it's ''in'' the actual viewing content (not editing, not in Watchlist) of an article. Get it.
: Another colour may be helpful, but it should be a neighbour colour (i.e., steelblue, cyan, moss green, or navy blue, in addition to the current cobalt blue or whatever it is). Colours that differ too much would make the page like a clown face. :o)
: I think bolding can be used here, but that'd potentially be confused by viewers as alternative title though. However, I have not yet come across an alternative title having its own Wikilink, since it's usually explained in the article where it is.
: --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 12:39 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

----

I've just changed the [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License]] to version 1.2. I've mentioned this on the village pump (a couple of times) before now, and nobody raised any objections. Mentioning it again, though, just in case... :) [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 12:20 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
Somebody just redirected or moved the talkpage of [[John Dee]] to [[Arthur Dee]] (probably erasing the stuff written on the talkpage in the process). I am not sure it can be fixed, but maybe one of the old hands knows how to minimize the damage?
 -- [[User:Cimon avaro|Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick]] 16:23 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

:I think I kept it minimal.  I've moved the talk page back, and reverted from the added text, the history is still intact for that page.  I had to replace the [[Arthur Dee]] article by c&p, but put an explanation of the source in my edit comment.  I hope all this was the best way of doing it - I don't think the two edit histories could be separated at this point. -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] 16:38 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

----
Generally we only link to the first occurence of a word in an article. What is policy for lists/tables? EG see [[Formula One]] lists at end of article. -- SGBailey 2003-06-17

My personal policy is to only like the thing being listed, leaving dates and any comments unlinked. However, in some cases, like the tabled list at Formula 1, it doesn't look bad to link everything; on the other hand, the untabled lists at the same page, do look pretty bad with everything linked. Basically, if u link a bunch of stuff in a list, its "hard" to actually find the list and click on it. [[User:Pizza Puzzle|Pizza Puzzle]]

: I took the question as being not so much about whether or not to link, e.g., the years at all, but rather whether, for instance, you link [[1969]] every time it appears or just the first, ditto for [[Finland]], etc. I consider this a bit of a judgment call; in a short list, where the linked occurrence is easily found, I'll link only the first, per standard operating procedure, but in a long list like that, it's obnoxious to have to go back and find the first [[1969]], so it seems appropriate. More of a grey area would be when [[France]] won two years in a row, for example; I might not link the second appearance in a row myself, or even repeated appearances within one of the shorter lists, but I just might, and I certainly wouldn't think it wrong to link them, in a case like that. -- [[User:JohnOwens|John Owens]] 20:42 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think it can sometimes be a good idea to link multiple times, for two reasons. Firstly, for aesthetic reasons. If you have a list or a table and you think it looks better with an entire column linked rather than an entire column minus two entries, by all means go with your instincts. The second reason is when you have a very long article, and a concept is briefly mentioned at the top and then discussed in more detail much further down, it can be a good idea to link to it again. This is again a stylistic choice. I find it makes articles easier to skim through rather than read end-to-end. There are also a number minor/technical reasons for linking multiple times, which I won't go into here. Suffice to say it's a rule not written in stone. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 01:08 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Multiple wikilinking is desirable in both alphabetized  tables and lists, because is the first reference could easily become the second, the third,..., when new items are inserted with before that the current 1st reference. --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 01:31 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

asethetically, I think its best to link either all or none of an occurrence. Linking occasional dates here and there, makes for a spattering of blue links which is distracting to the eye. On the other hand, linking all the dates/etc makes it harder to see the list itself (unless its in a proper table). It should be noted that in any case where we have a list, any of the "further information" like dates is pretty much guaranteed to be linked to from the listed article. [[User:Pizza Puzzle|Pizza Puzzle]]

== 142.177.etc ==
''move to [[user talk:142.177.etc]] when done''

On [[Wikipedia talk:What it thinks it is]] I find myself inadvertantly talking to [[wikipedia:bans and blocks|hard banned]] user [[user:142.177.etc|142.177.etc]]. Surprisingly, [[User:Maveric149|mav]] [[User talk:142.177.97.154|condones]] my breach of Wikipedia protocol.<br>
I'm happy to bow to the consensus of the Wikipedia community here, whatever it may be. Should I:
# Continue to engage 142.177.etc in discussion
# Move all of 142.177.etc's edits to [[user talk:142.177.etc]]
# Revert all of 142.177.etc's edits
# Essentially ignore 142.177.etc.
# As one of the above, but additionally apply IP blocks.

You may confer... [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 23:32 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

:Just view this as one last chance to reform this person. As soon as I see that 142.177 is up to his old tricks then I'll reinstate the hard ban. Call this an experiment. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 01:53 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
Is there a limit to how many pages can be listed on a "what links here" page? I noticed that I just linke to [[Native American]] on my new [[Aztalan State Park]] article, but it doesn't seem to show up on the [http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Native_American "What links here" page], which is rather large. -- [[User:JohnOwens|John Owens]] 00:05 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

----

How can I enclose a block of text, such as -100, such that it wont be broken into two halves when at the end of a line? [[User:Pizza Puzzle|Pizza Puzzle]]

:You can use non-breaking spaces in place of normal spaces: <code><nowiki>Some&amp;nbsp;text</nowiki></code>. I'm not clear on what you mean by "-100" though... does that get broken? -- [[User:Wapcaplet|Wapcaplet]] 13:22 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, the negative gets left behind on the top line. [[User:Pizza Puzzle|Pizza Puzzle]]

:Yuck! It doesn't do that on my browser, fortunately (Mozilla 1.3.1). Which browser are you using? Apparently, some browsers interpret the dash in front of a negative number as a hyphenated word (the [http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/text.html#h-9.3.2 HTML specification] says something about this, too). Anyhow, it looks like maybe you can use the entity references: <code><nowiki>&amp;#45;</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki>&amp;#x2D;</nowiki></code>. Of course, that'll make it a pain to edit... hmm, I'll see if I can find something better for ya. -- [[User:Wapcaplet|Wapcaplet]] 13:34 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

:Try the minus entity: <code><nowiki>&amp;minus;100</nowiki></code> -- [[User:Wapcaplet|Wapcaplet]] 13:41 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

----
[[User:troubadour]] has a question :

in which way is it perceived interesting to be able to see what other people have on their watchlist? (if they let you)
or be noticed in some way when other people have/put the same article on their watchlist as you

in which way is there an interest to 'define' contributions better
for example : simple information gatherer role
and writing role
that way a lot of people that know some true info but don't like to write
would also be able to contribute

things like this

something else:
could i get in direct contact with a person who really has a clue about wikipedia policy and technical background
i am writing my thesis on awareness and would like to ask some specific questions
if so : mail me troubadour77@yahoo.com

thanks

:I think it would be nice to know what other people have on their watchlist. That way you can judge whether or not a user is likely to notice a talk page entry, or an article change. Sysops can view other people's watchlists, and I've done this a number of times since I became one. I hope no-one sees this as a privacy violation. The SQL query is on my user page, if anyone's interested. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 03:35 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

----
Anyone seen [[User:Timwi]]'s recent additions, to wit:
[[New York Times stories of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack]]?
Seem rather more like primary source material, not encyclopedic, and there may be copyright concerns.  [[User:Kat|Kat]] 18:06 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

:Check [[wikipedia:votes for deletion]]. -- [[User:Notheruser|Notheruser]] 18:12 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
Would using [[TechTV]]s logo be a copyright violation? Would it be covered by the fair use doctrine? [[User:Ilyanep|ilyanep]] 00:10 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

: We generally dislike the use of logos since they are covered both by copyright and [[trademark]]s, and their use may therefore be also interpreted as "trademark dilution". --[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] 00:39 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

----
HI! Does anybody know about copyrights in France? The question i easy: Can I post on Internet images printed in France in 1912? -[[User:Dixi]]
:Aren't the copyrights international? Especially since France is one of the more "open" societies of Europe. [[User:Sigg3.net|Sigg3.net]] 09:19 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
They differ from USA to Europe, there may be some specifics... Since I want to publish images from '''1912 Larousse''', I need to know exactly, in order not to put Wikipedia on any risk...

I think I can help you: [http://www.caslon.com.au/durationprofile.htm]. France is interesting in that copyright expiry was suspended for a few years during the world wars, so it can be up to life+84 years. I have a feeling that if the copyright is held by a corporation, or if there is no one single author, or something like that, then it's just 70 years from the date of publication, plus war time. I know this because we discussed it [[Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/archive|here]] and [[Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 4|here]]. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 10:21 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
::'''Thank you, Tim, for your help'''. Since my Larousse was published 1912, I assume what simple arithmetics tells me: 1912 + 14 + 70 = 1996 so I can publish those images '''without any risk for Wikipedia'''. (It already gives me 7-year safety margin.) Thank you again, I've gone through the addresses you gave me, and it seems 84 years after publication should be OK for French images. I will post your answer on my Talk page on Polish Wikipedia, for good of other users, Wikipedia and... owners of copyrights, I guess.

::: If you've not already been asked, please could you also put the date+place of publication, etc, on the [[wikipedia:image use policy|image description page]] :) It's good to [[wikipedia:cite your sources|cite your visual sources]]... [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 11:17 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

----
Could someone update the snapshot of the lonely pages list - It is May 13, over a month old (and incomplete then). -- SGBailey 2003-06-19
----
Whenever I am on RC (far too often), I get the impression that the input to the encyclopedia is rather unbalanced: lots on computer stuff (surprise!), science, pop music, sci-fi/fantasy, bits of geog/hist. The impression is that the typical user is a young male with computer qualifications and stereotypically geeky interests. (How many Tolkien or D&D articles do we need?). I'm not sure what can be done to redress the balance, but at least we should be aware of it.
[[User:Jimfbleak|jimfbleak]] 12:17 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

: I brought this up over 12 months ago, and I don't think I was the first. Seems like we still have a long way to go! -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]] 12:26 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia is heavily biased towards computer generated articles on US towns and cities. Surely they must outweight the Tolkein and D&D areas combined! I don't think balance matters because we've got good organisation and no space limit. I prefer to think of the missing articles as the problem, not the ones we have in quantity. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 12:28 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)


: The inclusiveness is part of the project's culture, though I believe it detracts from the overall value of the effort.  I myself believe that the project would have better balance if we made an effort to keep article length proportional among topics of similar importance.  For example, Tolkein's literature does not deserve a more lengthy writeup than Dickens' or Steinbeck's books.  D&D should not enjoy a more lengthy writeup than contract bridge, dominos, or mah jong--all of which have subtleties and histories rivaling that of D&D.  And the [[Dead Kennedys]] should not enjoy a more detailed treatise than does [[Franz Liszt]], who left a greater and far more enduring mark upon musical history.

: The numerous articles on various fictional universes, particularly, do not appear to me to be encyclopedic in nature.  What reader will turn to an encyclopedia for an entry like [[Bree (Middle-earth)]] or [[Aragorn]]?  I'm not trying to pick on Tolkien, as I enjoy his writing immensely; the Star Trek articles have the same characteristics as do many others. These articles pollute the namespace and have far less potential to become encyclopedic than the geographical stubs from the census data.

: IMO, for a fictional work, character, or setting to be encyclopedic, there must be references to it elsewhere in art or literature.  Consider the Greek and Roman mythological pantheons.  Portions of them appear throughout literature, sculpture, painting, and so on; an article on [[Aphrodite]] is unquestionably encyclopedic.  Where are the sculptures of [[Aragorn]] or the literary references to [[Sarek]] outside the series of works where they originally appear?  Now, perhaps we can do with an article on [[Mr._Spock]] owing to the inseperability of that character from pop culture of the 1970s.  But Sarek?  [[User:Kat|Kat]] 16:19 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

:: Are you seriously proposing to delete all the articles about Star Trek, Middle-earth and other large-scale fictional universes? Perhaps most encyclopedias (like EB) don't contain an article about [[Sarek]], but why is that reason for us not to have one? Perhaps encyclopedias are not normally considered a place to look up facts about fictional universes, but there's no reason for Wikipedia not to change that. I don't see why the articles aren't "encyclopedic in nature". I also object to your argument that they "pollute the namespace" (we can move pages and disambiguate; it's never been a problem), as do I object to your claim they have little potential to become non-stubs (see [[Vulcan (Star Trek)]] for an example I de-stubbed).

:: Also, how do you define "references to it elsewhere" -- [[Sarek]] is referenced in several of the Star Trek series and movies ;-). I also remember reading (though I forgot where) that there exists a full-size model of a Vulcan space ship in one of the various places called "Vulcan" in North America. Is that a "reference elsewhere"?

:: All this aside, I really don't see the problem with those articles simply existing. I mean ... you don't have to read them, do you? It's a bit like saying a program that has atrocious stability and limited usefulness should be deleted from the Internet. -- [[User:Timwi|Timwi]] 17:22 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

----

There could be a strict policy of banning users for rudeness.  One ''ad hominem'' remark and poof, you're gone.  Would get rid of a lot of geeky young males in a hurry, plus make it a much more enjoyable place.  I am serious about this BTW - it's acceptable to call an act of editing "stupid", but wrong to characterize the whole person as such.  Witness the "ignoramus" comment by [[User:RK|RK]] quoted just below, and the well-meaning but misguided tolerance of this by [[User:Evercat|Evercat]]. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 14:27 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

: *sigh* Because banning has proved ''so'' effective in the past?
: I suggest that if you see an ad hominem attack that you find objectionable, you replace it with a link to [[wikipedia:no personal attacks|no personal attacks]], or delete it, or move it onto the user's talk page. They're rarely helpful in our ''goal'' of writing a collaborative encyclopedia. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 14:43 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

: I don't know, Stan, isn't your characterization of such posters as ''geeky'' in itself an ''ad hominem'' remark?  The younger members have their contribution to make as well, and I don't see what gender has to do with it.  Besides, they are more likely to learn forebearance by example than through an attempt by others to apply force.  [[User:Kat|Kat]] 16:19 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

----
From [[Talk:Anti-Zionism]]:

* Dear ignoramus. Please stop lying about historical facts...the fact you are using anti-Semitic historical revisionism to hide this fact makes me question your motives. [[User:RK|RK]] 13:03 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

::This seems a bit much...Does anyone have any comments? [[User:Pizza Puzzle|Pizza Puzzle]]

Oh, lots of arguments get like this. I would let it drop. [[User:Evercat|Evercat]] 13:30 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

:heh...[[User:Pizza Puzzle|Pizza Puzzle]]

That is RK's normal style of discussion. If you continue to discuss with him, he will sooner or later call you a vandal and a troll. It is always the same, and he will never learn to change his behaviour. So, follow Evercat's advice, and stop discussing with RK. It is absolutely useless. -- [[User:Cordyph|Cordyph]] 13:37 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

: Congrats, Pizza the Hutt - you're now part of the club of folks that RK has called anti-Semitic. It's not a very exclusive club - create [[user:MyRedDice/Wikipedians insulted by RK]] if you like. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]]