On 31 Dec 2006 at 17:54, Luna <lunasantin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I suppose we could use {{CURRENTSECOND}} to transclude 1 of 60
> sub-templates, which in turn contain something around 200 #ifexist:
> statements to transclude the various AfD sub-pages.
This will fail on the occasions when a leap second is inserted, as
this is the 61st second of its minute.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
I've compared the standard of some current deletion debates with some
from a year back, only informally of course and without much system,
but it seems to me that:
* really obvious deletions are much less common, suggesting that PROD
is doing its job
* blatant spam and band vanity is no longer a significant contributor
to AfD
* quality of debate seems higher, with more references to policy and
guidelines and much less bald !voting
* more contextual knowledge is evident now, suggesting that
categorisation may also be working as intended
One thing which is not fixed: articles towards the end of the AfD day
attract much less input than articles at the beginning of the day.
Does anyone have a good idea for fixing that?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
> From: zero 0000 <nought_0000(a)yahoo.com>
>
> One of the most common complaints about the <ref>...</ref>
> feature is how it disrupts the line spacing. Have we tried not
> raising the reference numbers at all? It seems to me that
> judicious use of font size and color would work ok even
> when the reference numbers were sitting on the basline.
> Then the line-spacing problem would go away.
I'd like to think big here and work in a more general way on the
problem of making references have a less intrusive appearance.
Of the people who complain that dense references make articles
unreadable, I am not sure to what extent they are truly complaining
about the appearance or to what extent they simply disagree with the
verifiability policy... but under the current system dense references
do interfere with readability.
While we're doing this, I'd like to see something else. The present
system is an imitation of the superscripted-footnote-reference system
used in books. It works well in books because the text of a book
doesn't change after it has been printed.
In Wikipedia, a reference should mark, not the end of the fact being
supported, but the _beginning and end_ of the fact being supported.
As things stand, careless editing (and there's no way to enforce
careFUL editing) can easily make unsupported statements appear to be
supported. A recent example, from the article on the Statue of
Liberty. A passage once read:
The seven spikes in the crown represent the seven seas and seven
continents.[2]
In due course, or undue course, someone decided to add what I think
were personal musings about the statue symbolizing "the American
Dream," a concept I think was unfamiliar to Bartholdi, and the
passage mutated to:
Each spike on the Seven-spiked crown denotes the seven seas or the
seven continents. The torch embodies the meaning of enlightenment and
guidance for the millions of immigrants seeking freedom from
oppression. The broken shackles lying at Lady Liberty's feet confirm
this view.[2]
You see the problem. The cited source says nothing about shackles or
immigrants. (For that matter, it says nothing about _each_ individual
spike denoting the seven seas or seven continents. Now, personally I
think spike #1 represents the seven seas, spike #2 the seven
continents, spike #3 the Seven Dwarfs, spike #4 the Seven Deadly
Sins, spike #5 the Seven Samurai, spike #6 the Seven Pleiades, and
spike #7 represents the day Bartholdi rested...)
[cc to wikien-l, wikipedia-l and foundation-l - this is why the text
on the bottom of each page on en:wp is suddenly a bit longer ... I
shoulda found the MediaWiki message in question a month ago!]
On 08/12/06, florencedevouard <anthere(a)anthere.org> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>>On 07/12/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>I want to get your ideas on how we can take this message forward as part of
>>>our PR blitz for the fund drive. As I think back to the Atlantic and New
>>>Yorker pieces, and even Mick Brown's piece, "the good ones" - "charity"
>>>wasn't really an emphasis. We have been a "phenomenon" - but not a
>>>phenomenal charity.
> >The message at the bottom of every page of English Wikipedia says:
> >"Wikipedia(r) is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc."
> >How about:
> >"Wikipedia(r) is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation,
> >Inc., a US-registered 501(c)3 tax-deductible nonprofit charity."
> >Or something like that.
> You got it right David !
> With a link under us-registered 501 :
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Deductibility_of_donations
This is actually a Mediawiki message, [[MediaWiki:Copyright]] - so
anyone with admin access on a given wiki can change it once we have a
translation.
I've just put the above text (with link) on en:wp since Florence
approves of it. If the wording is not *precisely* legally correct,
could Brad or Danny please correct it promptly!
The text I've placed (a curious mix of wikitext and plain HTML) is:
All text is available under the terms of the <a class='internal'
href="{{localurl:Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation
License}}" title="Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation
License">GNU Free Documentation License</a>. (See <b><a
class='internal' href="{{localurl:Wikipedia:Copyrights}}"
title="Wikipedia:Copyrights">Copyrights</a></b> for details.) <br />
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the <a
href="http://www.wikimediafoundation.org">Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc.</a>, a US-registered <a class='internal'
href="{{localurl:501(c)}}" title="501(c)(3)">501(c)(3)</a> <a
href="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Deductibility_of_donations">tax-deductible</a>
<a class='internal' href="{{localurl:Non-profit organization}}"
title="Non-profit organization">nonprofit</a> <a
href="{{localurl:Charitable organization}}" title="Charitable
organization">charity.<br />
Note the links to [[501(c)]], [[Non-profit organization]] and
[[Charitable organization]] as well.
> Also, on Foundationwiki, at the bottom, we have "About Wikimedia Foundation"
> Instead, we can change it in "[[About Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia
> Foundation]] is a us registered blablabla
Wiki admins and translators, please? The essential message is that
this is a charity, not a for-profit company.
- d.
One of the most common complaints about the <ref>...</ref>
feature is how it disrupts the line spacing. Have we tried not
raising the reference numbers at all? It seems to me that
judicious use of font size and color would work ok even
when the reference numbers were sitting on the basline.
Then the line-spacing problem would go away.
Zero.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
On 01/01/07, James Forrester <jdforrester(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Re. tomorrow, how about meeting in central London - such as the
> Montague Pike (reasonable Wetherspoons on Charing Cross Road between
> Tottenham Court Road and Liecester Square) at 17:30 or thereabouts?
> If this is OK with you, can you send an e-mail to wikimediauk-l and
> the usual gang/etc. with invites? That'd probably be quickest!
You heard him :-) Bunch of us are meeting down the pub, so Wikipedians
in London are most welcome. Chris Sherlock (Ta bu shi da yu),
Brassratgirl and Austin Hair are in town as well. I'll be along around
6:30 or 7ish after work.
- d.
I understand that new articles get close scrutiny but just how do
deletable articles that have been around for a while come to the
attention to those who regularly nominate articles for deletion?
(especially if the article is otherwise well written)
I ask this because recently I came across a fairly well written
article about a computer term that had a prod tag on it for being an
unsourced neologism. It probably was since all the google hits for it
pointed to mirrors of its WP article but I still decided to replace
the prod with a sources tag to give the original author a chance to
add a source. However, I started to wonder why the person who first
prodded it suspected it was a neologism as it couldn't have been the
first term he ran across on wikipedia that he never heard about. Does
he prod them all?
The same could be asked about notability. Just what makes one suspect
that a particular person/band/school/company/webcomic etc. is not
notable? Please note that I am not saying that such articles should be
kept but there has to be something in an otherwise well written
article to cause someone to investigate the article's eligibility to
be in wikipedia besides "I've never heard if him/it"
On 31 Dec 2006 at 18:26, "K P" <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> No, there's not even necessarily an 87.3% chance that the statistic given is
> *made up*. And not just because something made up need not be wrong.
But anything written by the rotten scum who top-post their replies
always will be.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/