I brought up the Bábís article and it, like several others, contains numerous
scanos, some of which I cannot figure out (foreign names). Here is an example:
Of these risings the first ([December 1848]?—[July 1849]?) took place in
Mázandarán?, at the ruined shrine of [Shaykh TabarsI]?, near Bflrfur6sh?,
where the BábIs, led by Mullâ Muhammad ‘All of Bârfurfish and Mullfi Husayn
of Bushrawayh (“ the first who believed “), defied the shah’s troops for
seven months before they were finally subdued and put to death.
I think that there should be a warning against inserting text with illegible
scanos in it. Where do they come from? Does anyone have a hardcopy of the
1911 encyclopedia so that he can fix them?
phma
The following message (which I'm about to delete) was uploaded by one of our
garbage uploaders:
km rbw `' 'h.db js.yb' wm'fy fh.r' m' `qbw lyl
All I recognize is the last word, which means "night". I'm keeping a copy. If
you would like to translate it, please let me know.
phma
On Monday 24 June 2002 12:01 pm, Jeroen wrote:
> The major point with naming cities and the like is that there's not one
> standard in the world, not even in the English-speaking world. Americans
> tend to name all cities as (city, state) (in the US) and as (city, country)
> for those outside the US. This is far from common outside the US, where
> things as San Francisco, CA seem weird. In Europe (as far as I can judge),
> the extra information (state, province, whatever) is only used when really
> necessary, which it is in two cases: (1) disambiguation - there are two
> cities with the same (or almost the same name) in the country (2) the
> national public cannot be expected to know where the town is located. Other
> countries will have their own policies, usually depending on the size of
> the country.
OK, fair enough -- redirects from [[city]] to the the most famous [[city,
state]] (USA) or [[city, nation]] (other) is probably in order (so that those
that know these redirects exist don't have to use pipes -- [[Oslo,
Norway|Oslo]]).
Many cities, such as the mentioned Oslo in Norway, are by far the most widely
known city by that name (even for most Americans). And I also know that in
Europe this city is mostly known simply as just "Oslo" (in the same way as
Los Angeles is simply known as just "Los Angeles" in the US). What is needed,
is a way to naturally disambiguate to a reasonable level (following the
previously mentioned [[city, state]]/[[city, nation]] setup), preserve easy
linking and be consistent within nations. Consistency/disambiguation and ease
of linking do conflict, however, but redirects can solve this problem for the
most famous (and therefore most likely to be linked) city names.
Proposal:
In cases where there is a famous city and a not so famous city with
the same name, redirect priority over the use of the [[city]] format page
should be given to the more famous city when there is an obvious choice. For
example: there are at least several cities named Moscow in the world but the
wikipedia page [[Moscow]] should <i>not</i> be a disambiguation page, but be
redirected to [[Moscow, Russia]] (the most famous Moscow by far) and at the
bottom of that article should be a few links to other not nearly as well
known Moscow's (for those VERY few individuals who actually expect to link to
an article about Moscow, Idaho by creating a link to [[Moscow]]).
There will be exceptions when there are two cities of roughly equal fame,
such as [[Memphis, Tennessee]] and [[Memphis, Egypt]] where there is a true
ambiguity as to which city should have redirect priority over the use of the
[[Memphis]] page. In this case, [[Memphis]] would have to be turned into a
disambiguation page with [[Memphis, Tennessee]] and [[Memphis, Egypt]] listed
(of course, as with the creation of all disambiguation pages, the person
making one is bound by honor to fix all the misdirected links to it so that
they point directly to the correct city's article -- another good reason to
use redirects in most cases and NOT to create disambiguation pages for
everything).
<hint> It would be nice to have redirects show up under a heading of:
"Pages that are REDIRECTs to this article" (or something similar) in "pages
that link here". </hint>
--maveric149
On Monday 24 June 2002 12:01 pm, Jeroen wrote:
> So, at this point, I'd say: what is the problem? The only thing to take
> care of is that for each article named according to convention A, there's a
> redirect with convention name B.
I don't see anything wrong with creating cross-convention redirects for the
proposed [[city, nation]] convention for most (at least) non-US nations and
the [[city, state]] convention for US ones. However, this shouldn't be any
kind of requirement or policy -- just encouraged.
One of the main reasons we have naming conventions is so that when a person
makes a naming convention compliment article, that person can be reasonably
sure that other contributors making similarly convention compliment free
links to that term will link to it without having to depend on redirects. But
then, there is no reason not to have known shortcuts for even easier linking
to often linked articles (such as the [[United States]] redirect for example
-- see my other post, "part 2 -- REDIRECT priority").
I don't think that making [[San Francisco, United States of America]] a
redirect to [[San Francisco, California]] would be particularly useful
though... But then there is no pressing reason <i>not</i> to have one that I
can think of.
Potential minor issues:
There are at least three Melbourne's in the United States -- so the person
making [[Melbourne, United States of America]] into a redirect would have to
be careful to direct it to the most famous Melbourne in the States
(Melbourne, Florida) -- giving the most famous city redirect priority (see my
other post, "part 2 -- REDIRECT priority"). Also, no one Auburn in the US can
be said to be the unambiguous "Auburn in the US", but the creation of a
disambiguation page titled [[Auburn, United States of America]] might be
redundant overkill because most entries at a disambiguation page named
[[Auburn]] would be US cities anyway.
--maveric149
On Monday 24 June 2002 12:01 pm, Robert wrote:
> Is there any reason the "upload files" page doesn't say explicitly
>
> "You may upload files here for the sole purpose of using them in the
> Wikipedia, an open content online encyclopedia. Uploading files
> for any other purpose is not permitted. The files will be deleted,
> and persistent abusers of this facility will have their IP banned."
>
> or something to that effect? If you go straight to the page, there's
> nothing to explicitly say "This is only for the Wikipedia".
I second the implied vote to have this notice placed on the upload page.
--maveric149
> I'm trying to upload examples of phonemes for the SAMPA page as
> OGG files, but when I test what I've uploaded, my browser
> (Mozilla 1.0) displays the contents of the file as text.
This has to be supported on both the server side and the client.
I suspect our Apache setup doesn't currently know what an OGG file
is, so it's defaulting to serving it as "text/plain" or
"application/octet-stream". I installed Apache on the new server,
so I'll make sure it serves them properly as "application/x-ogg".
I'll also add ".ogg" as one of the extenstions upload won't generate
a warning about. Currently there's no simple way to include the
link, but I'll think about that as well. OGG is clearly the way to
go for including multimedia content here.
0
>I already agree with you. The page is *still* 2nd on Google search for
>"upload files". The page should:
>*be explicitly banned in both robots.txt and <meta robots>
>*include the above warning
>*if there is no user login cookie, show no form but direct the user to the
>account creation page
>*if the user has not reached trusted hand status, show no form.
>
>Please do this at once.
or sooner, if possible. ;-) It's making us look bad.
kq0
Is there any reason the "upload files" page doesn't say explicitly
"You may upload files here for the sole purpose of using them in the
Wikipedia, an open content online encyclopedia. Uploading files
for any other purpose is not permitted. The files will be deleted,
and persistent abusers of this facility will have their IP banned."
or something to that effect? If you go straight to the page, there's
nothing to explicitly say "This is only for the Wikipedia".
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel rgmerk(a)mira.net
Go You Big Red Fire Engine
-- Unknown Audience Member at Adam Hills standup gig
------------------------------------------------------------