Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump archive 2004-09-26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 203.51.35.140 (talk) at 12:29, 28 September 2002 (my input re Aria , etc). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

File:Village pump.JPG

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! If you have a question about Wikipedia and how it works, please place it at the bottom of the list, and someone will attempt to answer it for you. (If you have a question about life, the universe and everything, go to Wikipedia:Help desk instead.)

Before asking a question, check if it's answered by the Wikipedia:FAQ.

NOTE - questions and answers will not remain on this page indefinitely (otherwise it would very soon become too long to be editable.) After a period of time with no further activity, information will be moved to other relevant sections of the wikipedia, placed in the Wikipedia:Village pump archive if it is of general interest, or deleted.

Your questions answered here

Umm.... sorry, erasing the past so my browser will let my type in here. See history for old questions.

is anyone else getting php errors? Is there a story on this? Graft

I'm starting to hear more reports of congestion problems lately. I suspect that some server settings need to be expanded to accommodate greater traffic on the foreign-language wikis. --LDC

I've been seeing PHP errors that don't immediately suggest congestion. It looked to me like somebody temporarily mislaid a PHP document used for config. - Khendon 15:59 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

The error reported to me most recently was "can't load include file" because the system limit on number of open files was maxed out. That happens specifically when people access many of the foreign wikis at once, even if total congestion on the server is otherwise low. --LDC

Ah, okay. I retract my naive comment then :-) - Khendon 16:18 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

BTW Lee, last night I noticed the German, etc wikis weren't having the php files cached (no *_apc files), as the directory permissions didn't allow apache to write to them. I've chowned the 'w' directories to apache, and they all seem to be caching now. That may help, or hinder. Who knows. :) --Brion 21:02 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

This has probably come up before, so if I'm repeating tired old arguments, or worse still inadvertently walking into a minefield, apologies, but I think it would be nice to have a simpler, more wiki-ish markup for subscripts and superscripts, rather than relying on raw HTML (it was really starting to piss me off while doing the notation example in electron configuration). Something a bit TeXy, perhaps, like ^ and _ (though that leads to ambiguity over exactly what wants sub/superscripting so it might be best to use paired symbols ^2^ and _2_, or perhaps even ^2_ _2^, so that ^ meant go up a level and _ meant go down a level) --Bth

It has come up before, but it's well worth mentioning again! Something like ^^2^^ might be safer. It's also been suggested that we could use TeX itself to generate PNG images, thus: [[math:some TeX expression in here]]. I like this idea a lot, even though I'm of the age of WYSIWYG and I fear TeX -- Tarquin 22:10 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
(But TeX is lovely ...) The thing is, nice though it would be to have some sort of swish automagic mathematics-generator, I think this is a slightly separate (though related) issue: sub/superscripts are possible within HTML and they occur frequently enough (and not always in mathematical contexts) that it'd be nice to be able to do them wiki-style. --Bth

What is the thing to do when all links to a previous disambiguation page has been resolved? Is the disambiguation page just left there for future links to the page, or removed?

The former. --Brion 00:43 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)
Great, thanks Brion. Carl

---

I just made an article titled I'noGo tied but the link is from a lower-case "i" at the beginning, and I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be, at least according to my source (even at the beginning of a sentence, so I assume it's a pronunciation thing in Inuit). The system automatically switched it. Is there anyway around that? Not really a huge deal, I guess; it's still in lowercase in the article itself.--User: Tokerboy

You can link to it with leading lowercase, but you should talk to LDC about whether there's anyway to make it display the title with leading lowercase. --KQ
There isn't one, but you could talk with him about making one. --Brion

I'm not sure how the images are linked/stored but the Japanese flag is either mislabeled or just plain missing.... Japan Vik-Thor 05:04 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

White rectangle with a big red circle in the middle? Looks fine to me, both in Mozilla 1.2a and IE 5.5 (Win2000). --Brion 05:13 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to be quiet now... I swear, it was coming up with the Montana state flag, even after refreshing... Vik-Thor 05:31 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

______________

Guys,

Several issues.

A recent bit of expanding of Olivia Newton-John had me adding her date of birth at the start of her name in this style: (September 26, 1948- )

A certain astronomer then proceeded to change this to read (b September 26, 1948)

Which format is correct - and is there a correct format? I has a look in FAQ but found no help there.

Whilst we're at it, let's expand some more and ask : are there any standards as regards displaying peoples' dates of birth and death? There do not appear to be any. Some biographies start with just the years , often not in tag form (eg Fred VII (1654-1700) was a merry old soul); others do not start with a date of birth and/or death at all ( eg Luke VIII was a king of England who hated termites ...) ; others still use tags at the start ( Rodney II (June 15, 1936- October 31, 2001). Which format, if any, is standard? I prefer the lattermost myself.

One other thing. Whilst going through lists of the most popular pages, I was surprised to see one dedicated to someone called Aria Giovanni - some 4800 or so hits. When I investigated it, I was initially amused and then annoyed to discover that she is a Penthouse Pet.


I suspect that some of those 4800 hits were due to people looking for grubby pictures. Thanks to the tag at the bottom, that links to a site that, according to its own disclaimer, "contains explicit sexually oriented material" , they have access to them. (Oh, I should add, I did not look at this material...)

Seriously, though, is there any reason as to why the Asia Giovanni article should not be taken out? This website is not a referring service for porn, is it?

I should also point out that there is something patently ridiculous about a Penthouse Pet having a page that has a length compatible with, say Walter Burley Griffin, or is longer than , say, Aage Niels Bohr, two far more historically important individuals.

Arno

Yes, there are standards. They are outlined on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and yes, you guessed it, some are still being thrashed out, in typical wikipedia style ;) The correct style for dates, however, is decided on. YOu'll be pleased to know that your preffered style is the standard: ( Rodney II (June 15, 1936- October 31, 2001). For the not-dead-yet, we use (born June 15, 1936). -- Tarquin


To answer your other question; We are not a porn referral service and if you see another pointless link to a porn site in the future then feel free to delete it. However, there are soft porn sites that can add to the value of certain articles. For example, in our surprisingly good article nude celebrities on the Internet there is a link to "The Case Files of the Fake Detective" which is a website that analyzes more than 300 faked nude photos of celebrities. It has side-by-side images of the fake, the original of the clothed celebrity, and the original of the nude model. But at one time there was a link to the Lair of Lux Lucre which only has the fakes. I removed the pointless Lux link. --mav
I am all in favor of focusing on and/or beefing up biographical articles on historically significant figures, but I see no justification for imposing arbitrary rules regarding biographies of adult entertainers/celebrities, nor do I see any justification for imposing arbitrary rules regarding links to adult content. Specifically, Playboy Playmates and Penthouse Pets are an important part of popular culture, and if we eliminate articles about them, or links to Web sites dedicated to them, we might as well eliminate articles about popular musicians such as Britney Spears along with links to their fan sites. Indeed, we might as well eliminate the Wikipedia article on fashion design altogether. -- NetEsq 18:21 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)
The main issue here is relevance of links and whether or not they add value to the article. I argue that linking to pure smut is not relevant and adds nothing to the article. So a link to Playboy.com from within our Playboy article would be appropriate as would a link to an official website of a subject in question so long as there is some encyclopedic value in it. If you think that linking to XXX porn is encyclopedic, then link away. Just don't be shocked when somebody else disagrees. --mav
<< The main issue here is relevance of links and whether or not they add value to the article. >>
Personally, I steer clear of biographical articles that might feature adult content. However, using your opinion as carte blanche authority for deleting links to pornographic Web sites, an anonymous contributor has deleted the official Web site of Aria Giovanni from the Aria Giovanni article. To wit, the comments of the anonymous contributor state: "This is not a porn referral service." With this in mind, would you care to reconsider your position on this issue and/or clarify your opinion as to whether the official Web site of a famous international model is relevant to an article about that model and/or whether that Web site should be deleted from an encyclopedic article about said model? -- NetEsq 20:47 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)
What's to clarify? If it's an official site site of a famous model, well then it is an official site. If there isn't anything encyclopedic there then a non-clickable link would be appropriate. External links are for more information, not gateways to smut. The URL of the official website is information that should be included in the article, but it doesn't have to be clickable. --mav

<<What's to clarify?>>

The original query was:

Seriously, though, is there any reason as to why the Asia Giovanni article should not be taken out? This website is not a referring service for porn, is it?

And your response was:

We are not a porn referral service and if you see another pointless link to a porn site in the future then feel free to delete it.

And using your opinion as carte blanche, an anonymous contributor deleted the official Web site of Aria Giovanni from the Aria Giovanni article.

<<If there isn't anything encyclopedic there then a non-clickable link would be appropriate.>>

And should we edit the link to Playboy from the Playboy article to make it non-clickable? In other words, exactly where are the boundaries of your "no linking to smut" criteria? Have you really thought this through? -- NetEsq 21:13 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

Boy, you seem to like to argue over non-important things. I don't. However, I would keep Playboy.com clickable becuase both the magazine and the website are far more than pure smut. There is sports info, corporate info, an about page telling the reader about Playboy ect. That doesn't compare to a mere smut portal. Again, this is about link relevance; if there ain't info on the other end, then there is no reason to link to it no matter what it is. And there is no reason to have a clear set of guidelines on this, human judgement is all that is needed. If you think that making a direct link to the website makes the article a better article, then by all means link away. But if somebody else doesn't think that the link serves an encyclopedic purpose then they should delink to the link. Thus is the wiki way. And yes, I have thought this through.
If you don't mind, I have more important things to do. --mav
<< Boy, you seem to like to argue over non-important things. I don't. >>

I suppose it's all a matter of perspective, but it's very clear that you do like to argue; you just don't like to be proven wrong. To wit, you stated that you did not want to argue, then you went on to state your own contrary opinion. What did you hope to prove?

I consider censorship to be a very important issue, and I think that your patronizing dismissal of this issue (along with me and my opinions) speaks volumes to your lack of consideration and judgment. You offered an opinion; now it's time to defend it. Alternatively, you can admit that you are wrong. What will not pass for defending your opinion is dismissing me as a troll while offering your own opinion as though it were Biblical canon, which is *exactly* what you just did.

<< I would keep Playboy.com clickable becuase both the magazine and the website are far more than pure smut. >>

In other words, "I don't look at the pictures; I just read the articles." Well, you'll be saddened to know that the model whose Web site you seek to censor was hired by Wikipedia's sponsor Bomis for a fashion shoot that was used to promote the "Win a Ferrari" contest, and none other than Jimbo Wales himself uploaded a publicity photo of Aria Giovanni to Wikipedia. Should we now create a "no linking to smut except when it's used to promote Wikipedia" criteria? Or, alternatively, should we simply link to whatever Web sites are relevant to Wikipedia articles and lose the judgmental label of "smut" altogether? -- NetEsq 22:11 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

"We are not a porn referral service" -- we're not? Aw crap. I want my money back!

I will let everybody else decide just who is patronizing here (which you stated as fact BTW). People are free to add or remove links as they see fit so long as those actions furhter our number one policy; that we are an encyclopedia. But, since you are obviously dancing around the central issue of relevance, I see no point in continuing this discussion. --mav

I'm with NetEsq on this one. If a person is worthy of an article and they happen to have their own website, then a single, relevant link to their website isn't objectionable. If that person happens to be a porn star, then you should recognize that the linked site will probably be pornographic. If your reason for deleting it is at all arguable-- and somebody else really thinks it should be there-- then let it be (and don't encourage others to mess with it). Dachshund
As I already said, if you think it is relevant and helps to make a better article then link away. However, anybody else can disagree. --mav
My point being that too much disagreement can be detrimental to the site. In order to keep Wiki working, it's better to settle on a policy that everybody can abide by, rather than leaving it open as a source of contention. There is obviously a deep rift between people who just don't want certain links in the Wikipedia because they're "smut" (and NPOV is not the only issue here), and others who think that a relevant link even to a porn site is acceptable given certain specific conditions. It would be far more productive to work this out than to leave it hanging. Where's Larry when you need him? Dachshund

I wasn't trying to either state or make a policy in this regard and I don't think it would be a good idea to do so. Everybody should be able to link or delink based on their own ideas on what is of encyclopedic relevance. Perhaps this thread began because I oftentimes don't qualify my opinions and some people are not able to tell an opinion from a statement of fact unless there is an obvious qualification. If you would like to have a hand in policy, then please join the Wikipedia mailing list. This thread should be moved elsewhere. --mav

Almost all improper web sites have a warning page (at worst R-rated) and require another click before you get to the good stuff. Ortolan88
Again, sigh, "good stuff" is not the issue. Whether or not a link has encyclopedic relevance is the issue. If a link doesn't add value to an article then it isn't needed. --mav
It is disingenuous to pretend that at least part of the question here is not whether a link from the Wikipedia will, in and of itself, cause offense to an unsuspecting clicker. The existence of warning pages means that, otherwise legitimate links are not, in and of themselves, likely to cause offense without further voluntary action on the part of the reader. That's good, and it supports your point of view, mav, and undermines the underlying objection to these links by those who disagree with you. Ortolan88
OK that did go over my head. I thought you were arguing for links here to outside porn because those sites have disclaimers. But I still think encyclopedic relevance is the main issue here with "offense to an unsuspecting clicker" being a related issue. Both of these must be weighed against the value of having the link. Again, there is little reason not to have information such as the URL of a related website, but we don't have to make that link active if it doesn't really add to the article. --mav
In other words, "It's okay to light up. Just don't inhale!" -- NetEsq 04:27 Sep 28, 2002 (UTC)

--

I appear to have sparked off something bigger than Ben Hur. I just reentered this area and read the above entries.

I'll just settle for one or two points. I agree that if a 'soft' webpage or website can illustrate a point involving some adult industry identity like Hugh Hefner then it is OK to include it. Nor do I have too much of a problem about such pages to begin with - Hefner has left a mark on periodical culture.

But I must maintain that the idea of writing ad inifinitum about( or even worse, promoting) nude models from Playboy, Penthouse, Score and other such magazines on the grounds that they are "an important part of popular culture" and giving them more attention than Walter Burley Griffin or Aage Niels Bohr is bizarre.

Arno

hi, been playing over the new phpwiki site and found their sidebar very useful...http://phpwiki.sourceforge.net/demo/en/RecentChanges?days=3 any one know where i could find the same for moz 1.2a for wikipedia? thanks

oh, and for evangelistic purposes .ideas. I'm sending pages to friends that I know have an interest in the material and inviting them to edit/update the materials...If we 'all did that' I think we'd get a lot of page churning, especially if we target those academic types. --Denny

It may be the browser I'm using, but I don't see a sidebar on that page. Unless you call their logo at the side of the page a 'sidebar', but then Wikipedia has it too, just somewhat more extensive. Andre Engels
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_archive_2004-09-26&oldid=320715"