"Oldak Quill" wrote
>Information is always enriched by being part of Wikipedia
> because it links to information and articles on unrelated fields.
> Conversely, Wikipedia is always enriched by having more information
> (within certain constraints).
I don't think that's right. Some apparently informative additions to Wikipedia are rightly regarded as adding nothing of value.
Reopening the whole deletionist/inclusionist thing, in the massively crude way that has happened in this thread, seems to me most regrettable.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
> From: "Oldak Quill" <oldakquill(a)gmail.com>
>> but under the current system dense references
>> do interfere with readability.
> On your ugliness point, can't one edit one's CSS to remove
> reference display?
Remember the Dilbert in which someone complains about MS-DOS and
someone says "Well, why don't you just edit your copy of command.com?"
At 11:52 AM 1/3/2007, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>If they don't assert notability (something like "X readers", "Y
>million hits a day", "recieved Z award" - it doesn't matter what the
>X, Y and Z are, even "has 3 readers every week" is an assertion of
>notability), then speedy them. If they do assert notability, but you
>think they aren't notable anyway, then PROD them.
>
>All websites are easy to source - you have the website itself. You're
>not going to make a featured article from only a primary source, but
>it's enough to save an article from deletion.
The next obvious reference to add is the source of the notability
claim. Who says they have 3 readers? Who gave them an award? Who
wrote an article about the site?
Chris
Thoughts on setting up a wikimeet-l for sending out announcements for
upcoming meetings?
For those of us who are interested in going to meetups in multiple
places, trying to catch meetings via watchlists is a losing battle.
Seems to usually be the case that by the time I hear about a meetup
its too late to adjust my travel to attend.
On 1/3/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> James F. managed to pick the one pub in London that was closed for
> repairs. So we stuck an oblique sign on the window (which may still be
> there for all I know) and adjourned to the Chandos (?) near Leicester
> Square.
>
> Attendees: James Forrester, me, Phoebe (User:Brassratgirl), Austin
> Hair, User:Psychonaut, User:Morwen, Chris McKenna (User:Thryduulf),
> Chris Sherlock (User:Ta bu shi da yu) and his wife (they're doing
> Europe for their honeymoon) and Psychonaut's pet ferret. We got lots
> of photos on James' [[Casio Exilim]] EX-S600 camera, which I found the
> "get usable photos in really dim light" setting on. I did my best to
> be loud, drunk and embarrassing, except I am not susceptible to
> embarrassment. We had a marvellous time. Excellent stuff.
>
> Next week: what day depends on your schedule, Jimbo. Monday or Tuesday
> evening, and where are you staying? Not sure which pub either. Chandos
> has nice beer but was bloody impossible to find a seat in ... might
> see if the Montagu Pyke is open this time.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> Switches and lights? Magnets and compass needles...
Magnets and compass needles?
What exactly can you do with those that you can't do with chipped
flint and Smilodon sinews?
> From: "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
> Is it just me, or are you always almost finished on features by the
> time someone thinks to suggest them?
This one has been a long-standing request, in fact...I find that I
frequently look at a bug now, and remember, when I was a little junior
committer...thinking, "good god, that'll be impossible." Of course,
now I call it trivial and implement it and end up realising it WAS
impossible, and something's gone horribly pear-shaped...
> From: "Andrew Gray" <shimgray(a)gmail.com>
> Are you planning any way of having this be selective? I'm wondering
> about the effect of "correcting" direct quotations, or the titles of
> works cited as references...
Yes; it won't touch stuff outside <date></date> tags. This is
primarily for the concerns you cited, and also a secondary requirement
I self-mandated, which will keep the performance cost down. The idea
is that this is, in fact, an extension.
Rob Church
Howdy y'all
Right now an article I'm working on getting FA-status for is at a point of
complying with ambiguous and contradictory MoS provisions. A user who
objects to an article undergoing an FA-candidacy does so on the grounds that
dates in citations stating when internet sources are accessed by an article
contributor should be wikilinked.
The two completing MOS provisions are:
1.) That dates consisting of a day and month should be wikilinked to
interface with user preferences.
(per:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers…
)
2.) That things should only be linked if they're relevant to the context (of
the article).
(per:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to…
)
I think it's ridiculous to link source-access dates as it's just too much
(linking, that is), it adds no understanding to the article, and I don't
think it's relevant to the context of the article. While I understand the
need to deal with user preferences (which doesn't really add or subtract
information or make it easier to convey or comprehend by transforming 17
August to August 17) Do we really expect a user to sit back and say "Let's
see what happened on the day so-and-so accessed this source he's citing?"
I would appreciate it greatly if you could help resolve this issue and
give your comments on which guideline should win out on the talk pages of
the MoS articles I cited above, or here via e-mail.
While I'm at it, I extend my best wishes to all of you for a happy "Feast of
the Circumcision of Our Lord"...the only reason we celebrate the new year on
January 1st, and hoping that 2007 is better than 2006.
Regards,
Christopher D. Thieme
(User: ExplorerCDT)
On 02/01/07, wikien-l-request(a)wikipedia.org
<wikien-l-request(a)wikipedia.org> wrote:
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 16:03:56 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Matt R <matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Opinions sought: linking source-access dates
> per MoS?
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <22706.71300.qm(a)web25011.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> We have two competing MOS provisions because square-bracketing dates achieves
> two unrelated effects: creating a link to the article on that date, and
> formatting it according to user preferences. It's really time we separated the
> syntax for this (assuming we can find a suitable solution and amenable
> developers). See:
I'm working on something that might achieve this, pending performance
issues and testing; the whole sob saga is being documented on my
otherwise hideously-empty blog (http://blog.anubite.co.uk) -- I'm
hoping to have it all done to fully-testable standards by the end of
the week.
Rob Church
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:04:54 -0500
From: "Rory Stolzenberg" <rory096(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Opinions sought: linking source-access dates
per MoS?
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
<10011a3a0701011804p1d129e95pdf50af7eab570d12(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 1/1/07, Rory Stolzenberg" <rory096(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ... Full dates are an exception to WP:CONTEXT.
>
And just where does WP:CONTEXT or any other guideline say that? From my
reading it doesn't. Exceptions to rules or guidelines can't solely exist in
the lacunae of convention and consensus, they need to be explicitly
written. Until it's written as a de jure exception to WP:CONTEXT, I'd very
much inclined to disagree with the above statement.
Regards,
Christopher D. Thieme
(User:ExplorerCDT)
P.S. Is it just me or does Wikipedia need a policy house-cleaning to fix up
these contradictions and ambiguities? ~cdt