Wiki143:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Template:Short description {{Wikipedia:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/M}}

June 22

Wikipedia in the early years

I'd be curious to know how many editors were active on Wikipedia in the first era of its existence and how many of those editors are still active today. Are most of them still around or most of them long gone? How about editors that made over 10,000 edits and admins back then? Are most of them still around or inactive? For the purposes of this question, I am defining the first era as the period between 2001 and 2006. Also, what was the process of becoming an administrator in that same time period? I know what the process is now, but what was it like back then to become one? Was it easier or more difficult compared to now? Interstellarity (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

For answers to some of these questions - see Wikipedia:Statistics and https://stats.wikimedia.org Nanonic (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It was much easier to become an admin back then. Just look at Wikipedia:RFA by month or read old RfAs (mine is here). In particular, it was not hard for dedicated vandal fighters to become admins without any content creation. As to how many of us "early" Wikipedians (I made my first edit in 2004 when Wikipedia was almost four years old, so it did not feel "early" back then) still edit: many have stopped editing, some have died, but hundreds of the old admins are still editing. —Kusma (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I have been editing fairly steadfastly from multiple Library, Workplace, 'Job Club' and Home PCs since 2002 (if not 2001), but have always deliberately remained an account-less IP (and now TA) user, so I will not figure in any recorded statistics. I can remember at least one other regular editor from that time who is also still active, but will not name them, since it's their choice whether or not to respond to this thread. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

87.81.230.195, I've seen you around the 'pedia before. I'm curious; how long did you edit using the IP address you identify yourself by? And why do you choose not to have an account? Thanks. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 02:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You can check it out in contributions by 87.81.230.195. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

What Bugs said. That was my fixed home IP until my ISP was taken over by another, who switched to semi-dynamic IPs.

Having overcommitted to diverse different interests early in my life, I long ago adopted a policy of joining or signing up to as few things as possible, online or off.

I'm comfortable with only doing things on Wikipedia that don't require an account, and having one would be a psychological commitment on my part to doing more, and doing tasks that interest me less (because that's how my brain works). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

2006 is in the "first era"? I thought I came in in the middle. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

This is really for a different thread, but while we're here... I'm more interested in long-standing Ref Desk editors who are still posting. I started posting on the ref desk in 2006, firstly under another username. I think

1. REDIRECT Template:Reply to

Template:Redirect category shell was around at that time as well. Most other RD editors from that time seem to have fallen by the wayside. Who else is still around? --Viennese Waltz 08:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I've been around since December 2003. I think I chanced upon the ref desks around mid-2004. I could check if you need details. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. I don't need details, I would just be interested to know if any RD editors you remember from the mid-2000s are still posting here. --Viennese Waltz 12:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I started answering questions here in July 2006. I asked my first question (about Bloop) a few days later. Matt Deres (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Wasn't there a database truncation around 2004? I remember something about it, but I'm basing the year on personal events that seem to align with 2004. Point being: User edits might stop in 2004 and not go back further. ~2026-35239-54 (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I remember reading about that too, some years after the fact. I had thought it was more like 2005, but yes, somehow the oldest data got whacked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I've had a look at Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the reference desk. Most of those editors do not contribute any more. My memory says that the following have been around for many years, but I can't say how far back they go: User:Alansplodge, User:DuncanHill, User:Sluzzelin, User:Trovatore, User:Lambiam, User:Baseball Bugs. Some who were around when I came on board, like User:SteveBaker and User:Jayron32, have gone on a break and never come back. Maybe they're just biding their time. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I think my first question was in 2007. I'd had an account for about a year before that, but presumably hadn't found the desks until then. DuncanHill (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I hope Jayron's all right. DuncanHill (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

He's alive and well, he contributes to another well-known user-generated website under the same username. I wish he would come back here, but I guess he has his reasons for stepping away. --Viennese Waltz 10:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad to hear he's well. DuncanHill (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

His account was hacked and it turned out to be an onerous process to resolve. When I reached out to him some time ago he said he would likely come back, but that he was also enjoying his "off" time. I guess he has continued to enjoy it. Matt Deres (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I see Steve on Quora from time to time. Personally I joined in mid-2005. I remember when there wasn't a math refdesk, and it got added. (It used to be a lot more interesting than it is now. The attempts to get rid of the refdesks failed, but they got people into a rule-following state of mind that made them, in my opinion, less valuable than they used to be.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are a few definite results.

• TakuyaMurata contributed to the reference desk as early as 11 March 2003 (as a questioner) and as recently as 20 June 2026 (as a respondent).
• Jpgordon contributed to the reference desk as early as 30 September 2004 and as recently as 13 June 2026.
• Shantavira contributed to the reference desk as early as 11 December 2004 (as a questioner) and as recently as 10 June 2026 (as a respondent).
• Trovatore contributed to the reference desk as early as 30 November 2005 (as a questioner) and as recently as 23 June 2026 (as a respondent).

The esteemed editor known to Wikipedians as Jack of Oz kicked of his ref desk career on 15 October 2004 with a question.

My first ref desk posting is only from 26 April 2006, also as a questioner.  ​‑‑Lambiam 22:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. However I wasn't a questioner there. Someone had put their e-mail address in a question and I, for whatever reason, redacted it. I probably wouldn't do that now. --Trovatore (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

My earliest ref desk item seems to be from summer 2009, but I don't know how to find the actual "earliest" other than manually schlogging through my own histories. Maybe there's some gadget for that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Some of us were born to schlog. Your first contribution was in April 2009. Mine was in November 2008. --Antiquary (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

December 2008 here. The first sentence sounds a bit blunt... --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I started in 2006. I graduated in 2009, left school, lost access to my school email account, lost my Wikipedia account. Been an anon IP ever since. ~2026-35239-54 (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

My first edit was in September 2003, and I was made an admin in September 2004 (I agree with Kusma - the process was certainly a lot easier back then). Not many of us still around from those days, I fear. Proteus (Talk) 13:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

It's interesting to look at our RFAs (short things they are!) and note how many of the voters are still around. Only one of the voters on my page has been blocked, a sockpuppet of the Jimbo-banned Wik. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I remember there was someone blocked for socking who at one point had several admin accounts. He said (I think jokingly) that he expected to eventually fill most of the arbcom seats with his sock accounts. ~2026-38373-07 (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

RFA became way more bureaucratic sometime after the era you're thinking about. The early days, what I call the "early Jimbozoic", were before my time but I gather Jimbo made a lot of administrative and policy decisions personally, on the fly. Even after that, the sayings were "adminship is no big deal" and the criterion for getting it were basically knowing what you were doing and "won't misuse the tools". It's hard to say how many early contributors are still around, since per the late great User:Aaronsw's 2002 study,[1] most of Wikipedia's contents were contributed anonymously back then. Enrolling an account was something you did if you wanted to become an admin. I don't think the term namefag was used much on Wikipedia, but was on some other sites, which saw it as a form of ego gratification that led to lower quality contributions, or stuff like that.[2] If you really wanted to study how many old accounts are still active, you could do that by processing a meta history dump (m:Data dumps). ~2026-38373-07 (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• Former admin, bureaucrat, since 2004. Andre🚐 20:49, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Also I'd say "early Wikipedia" ended sometime before the switch to the new software (before Mediawiki, the Wikipedia software was a bunch of Perl scripts). I think that was around 2003. ~2026-38373-07 (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

June 24

Quills

Does the hollow shaft of a quill act as an ink reservoir, any better than a baloney does?  Card Zero  (talk) ※ 12:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Not really. The shaft of the quill is not intended to be a reservoir. It works by holding ink by surface tension in the slit in the nib. It isn't a tube full of ink that slowly comes out. ~2026-35239-54 (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the same, and there's no citation, and yet ... a lot of the article seems well-researched. It says calamus, that sounds very authoritative! But perhaps the editor just wanted to use the word. Later on it says Template:Tq, and that's most likely true and sourced. So I'll wait a while before rewriting the reservoir fact to the more correct-sounding but still uncited version. You can see from the quills in the picture that they aren't dipped any further than steel nibs would be, and if they were, you'd get inky fingers, as well as all the ink dribbling straight out again probably ... ah, but surface tension might magically hold the ink in and make it work?  Card Zero  (talk) ※ 13:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Essential Guide To Feather Quill Pens | Tutorial & Brief History seems to say that the calamus does act as a reservoir. As one who learned to write with a steel-nibbed dip pen at junior school, I would tend to disagree, as those do actually retain the ink in the slit, but I've never written with an real quill. Alansplodge (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

That's a blog, not a reliable source, and does it post-date our article's claim? DuncanHill (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

While the calamus of a quill often contains a small amount of ink, it is not a functional ink reservoir. The presence of ink is merely a byproduct of capillary action within the nib slit; the rear of the calamus is naturally sealed, creating an air pocket that prevents significant fluid storage. Therefore, the calamus serves as a structural anchor rather than a device for holding ink. ~2026-35239-54 (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't imagine the entire shaft serves as a reservoir, but it does seem conceivable that, since it's typically narrow, it might hold a single drop just above the nib, via surface tension. -- Avocado (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's plausible, I remain sitting on the fence about it. Ink goes quite far (if you're lucky, it goes onto the paper) so a single drop would be plenty.  Card Zero  (talk) ※ 23:36, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't omit the fact that the calamus is sealed. It is not a straw. It is closed on one end. For ink to go inside, it must fight against the air pressure inside the sealed calamus. It appears that the assumption being made is that the calamus is a thin straw. It isn't. The solution, invented long after dip pens, was a mechanical anchor on the side that could be used to draw ink into the calamus. Often, it looked like a lever on the side of the pen. Quill pens do not have this lever. ~2026-35239-54 (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Huh. That goes into some detail, including the part about capillary action drawing the ink up the tube, which if true would obviate the problem of not wanting to dip the outside of the pen beyond the nib. I have some goose feathers and I will test this out, but of course whatever I discover that way is definitely OR. (Imma try cure them first with an electric iron?) I often use steel nib dip pens, and I'd say that they retain ink all over the surface of the nib; the slit, which widens when the pen is pressed to paper, functions to encourage the flow of this small but sufficient amount of ink, which is not held in any particular place but is just generally adhering. Retaining too much ink leads to blots, so the way to work is to wipe the nib on the side of the pot immediately after dipping. But I'm drawing with them, not writing essays or legal documents, for which purpose a reservoir function would be attractive. Then again the Victorians wrote a lot with steel dip nibs, somehow. There are letters that were written with dip pens, in a hurry, while on trains! I'd love to know the ergonomic ink management tactics used.  Card Zero  (talk) ※ 23:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I dimly recollect a calligraphy handbook by Edward Johnston, which recommeded inserting a thin S-shaped steel strip inside the stem to better retain the ink. Maybe Writing & Illuminating & Lettering (1906)? (My laptop is refusing to open archive.org at present) Alansplodge (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

"A strip of thin metal (very thin tin, or a clock spring with the "temper" taken out by heating and slowly cooling) is cut the width of the nib and about 2 inches long. This is folded into a "spring" (fig. 23). The spring is inserted into the pen (fig. 24). The loop a b c is "sprung" into place, and holds the spring in the right position. The loop c d, which should be rather flat, holds the ink in the pen. The point d should be about 1/8 inch from the end of the nib." DuncanHill (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I've now found it on Google Books [3]. Johnston later says that a "spring" insert is only "necessary under difficult conditions such as writing on the flat", since when using a writing slope, the quill is held horizontally. He also recommends using a brush to refill the quill (p. 35). My rather limited dabblings in calligraphy suggested that Johnston was using a rather thicker ink than the modern stuff intended for fountain pens. Alansplodge (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Article now updated accordingly. Alansplodge (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

June 27

Headline changed but same article

Is there a phrase for the practice of a website changing the headline of the article but keeping the article the same? An example would be you see a headline, you click on an article to read it, you leave the website, then a few hours later you revisit the website, see a different headline, you click on the article and it is the same article, you read a few hours ago. (~2026-36918-67 (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2026 (UTC))

That typically happens because they're A/B testing headlines to see which one gets the most clicks. -- Avocado (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. That was very helpful. (~2026-36918-67 (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC))

June 30

Restoring images of RTS Couleur 3 archived webpage from 1996

Hello! Could you restore all the images from the archived Wayback Machine webpage of RTS Couleur 3 from 1996 (see: [4]) because are broken? Thanks! DanielParoliere (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure what makes you think Wikipedia can restore these images. Wikipedia is not affiliated with the Internet Archive, the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation, or Couleur 3.  ​‑‑Lambiam 14:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

But we have a time machine. Couldn't we just lend it to them? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

July 2

Mahalevona vs. Mahavelona

Something weird is going on with this article on a town in Madagascar. The article is titled "Mahalevona" but the body of the article uses "Mahavelona". The French name for this location, hopefully a more stable identifier, is Foulpointe. The town has a population of 10,000 and it seems to have a tourism industry.

There are many sources equating Foulpointe to Mahavelona, including some dating back to the 19th century. There are also some sources equating Foulpointe to Mahalevona, but only from the last several years, such as this 2021 journal article, this 2023 article in the London Review of Books and this 2023 book chapter.

My current guess is that this confusion arose in 2021 when User:Tonton Bernardo moved the article from Mahavelona to Mahalevona. I suspect that this needs to be reverted. Hopefully someone else can check my work and get to the bottom of it.

I'll also point out that there are other places in Madagascar with these names, complicating matters: e.g. Mahavelona (disambiguation). I suspect that both names are in use, but for different places. ~2026-37147-35 (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

All my investigations lead to the name "Mahavelona". Of the 14 other-language Wikipedias that have a linked article, one, the Italian, has Foul Poite – which I think is another misspelling – while 11 have "Mahavelona" or Cyrillic "Махавелуна". The remaining two, Arabic and Urdu have a tranlsiteration of "Mahalevona"; these were both created after the English name change and have no real content.

Most telling perhaps is that a search on gave no Madagacar-related hits, while the Arabic transliteration of "Mahavelona", , gave a link https://www.expedia.ae/ar/Mahavelona-Hotels-Au-Beau-Sejour.h35558036.Hotel-Information. The corresponding English Expedia page states: "Located in Mahavelona, Au Beau Séjour is in the city center and on the waterfront. Spend some time exploring the area's activities, including whale-watching. Visit our Foulpointe travel guide."^[5] So I did; the travel guide lists three Foulpointe hotel deals and one more vacation rental, all four in "Mahavelona". Further searches on the names of these hotels confirms that they themselves are of the opinion that they are located in Mahavelona, Madagascar.  ​‑‑Lambiam 07:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Mahavelona is Malagasy for "place that brings life." Mahalevona is nonsense, not a Malagasy word or phrase. ~2026-35239-54 (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

July 3

Walter Preston Battle

I'm working on finishing up an article about Tennessee Judge Walter Preston Battle, but I still need to flesh out his name. His family has many people named "Walter Preston Battle", and there is some indication that he went by Walter Preston Battle Jr. until college. After graduation, he seemed to drop the Jr. and went by "W. Preston Battle", however, there are many indications he was also known as "Preston", particularly in books published after he died. Apparently, there is some kind of tradition in the South where the middle name is used as the first name, but I am only aware of this anecdotally, as I have friends from the South who also go by their middle names. What is the history of this tradition, if it even exists? Also, how do I mention that Battle went by Jr. until college, used only the first initial of his given name after graduation, and was also known as Preston? Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

It looks like he used "Walter Preston Battle Jr." far longer than I thought. Unfortunately, I am waiting for my newspapers.com subscription to renew, so I can't find closure on this, but as far as I can tell, he used "Jr." for a long time, then just stopped using it one day. By the 1950s, "W. Preston Battle" became dominant. What's weird is that I only see (Judge) "Preston Battle" after his death, as if people suddenly dropped the "W". I should note that official government documents then and now only refer to him as "W. Preston Battle", so I'm thinking that the shortened form may be from local sources? Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

His use of his middle name does not need to be a local tradition. I myself do the same, even though I am from and in a different continent; there is no 'tradition' that I know of to do so, but I have encountered/read of plenty of other individuals who do as well, from individual circumstances and personal choices.

Why not simply have a short paragraph in an appropriate section succinctly recounting the history of his name usage? It seems appropriate for a biographical article, and useful to minimise possible confusion in historical documents. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, but I was asking how to do it. Have other articles done something similar? Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The Tennessee Blue Book lists him as "W. P. Battle, Jr." in 1938. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Added a footnote. Let me know if this works.[6] Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I've had both relatives and work colleagues who were effectively "Juniors" and went by their middle names. And they are/were all from the American Midwest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The obituary posted on his Findagrave.com page calls him "W. Preston Battle".[7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

It's far from unknown in Britain. My father was always known by a diminutive of his middle name, and it's a remarkable fact that 10 out of our last 22 prime ministers (Law, MacDonald, Chamberlain, Eden, Macmillan, Wilson, Callaghan, Brown, Johnson, and Truss) have used their middle name or diminutive thereof instead of their first. In some cases, I think, that will have been because the first name sounded too posh to appeal to voters, so perhaps that's not representative. --Antiquary (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

On the other hand, how many British kids get named Neville nowadays? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

In the US in 2025, 13 babies were given the name Neville [8]. In the UK in 1066, the Norman place name "Neuville," meaning "new town" or "new settlement." was brought to England following the Norman Conquest and thereafter associated with historical landed gentry. Parents today know the character Neville Longbottom from J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, whose journey from a clumsy, insecure boy to a brave hero has shaped the name's perception. [9]. Famous people include Neville Chamberlain — British prime minister, Sir Neville Marriner — British conductor, Neville Cardus — English cricket writer and music critic, Neville Goddard — American–British mystic author and Neville Bonner — Australian senator. ~2026-21660-55 (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

"Firmly established as a given name" according to a British book last revised in 2013. --Antiquary (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

According to ONS, Neville briefly appeared in the Top 100 Baby Names in the 1930s. Babycentre rank it at Number 839 in 2025 following a massive upsurge. I believe there is a famous footballing family. DuncanHill (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2026 (UTC)