I don't remember the discussion leading up to the decision, and I'm very much a film buff, but anyway the decision was for "(movie)." I'll look for the ones that are at other names, if they haven't all been found already.
kq
LDC Wrote:
>I notice that we have about 50-60 pages titled "XXX (movie)",
>and maybe a dozen titled "XXX (film)". I'd like to see these
>merged, and obviously it's less work to settle on "(movie)"
>as our standard. Are there any film buffs out there with a
>good argument why our standard should be "(film)", or why there
>might actually be a distiction?
is it just me or has anyone else noticed the sheer
amount of lists that we have? running a title search
for the word 'list' will come up with such bizarre
pages as [[List of places and things named Oxford]].
I know list can be usefull but isn't this going a bit too far?
(especially that we've got a decent search function now).
Shouldn't the lists be simply attached to the main article
without creating a new page for each and every on of
them?
regards,
[[list of people and things named WojPob]]
Let's focus on strategies to increase the number of qualified contributors.
1. Everyone personally recruit three more contributors. (Okay, at least one!)
2. Advertise for writers.
3. Create a profile of the "ideal contributor".
4. Divide up the work into roles, such as Vandalism Cop, Spellcheck Clerk, Neutrality Umpire, Cheerleading Squad, Hospitalty Crew (add more here!!).
Ed Poor
>One of the pages hit by the latest
>vandal from Shaw Cable is
>Wikipedia:Help.
>Should that be protected?
>
>phma
I don't think so - It's not a policy page and it isn't
hit by vandals all that often. Just put it on your
watch list as I have.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
Astronomer wrote:
>I think it should be good to be able to make searches
>in any on the namespaces, specially the wikipedia
>namespace. In the meantime, could someone make a
>list of all the pages on the wikipedia namespace,
>and put it somewhere visible? (Yes, I know that I
>could do it myself with a SQL query, but I haven't
>gotten into that yet).
Done - see [[Wikipedia:List of articles in Wikipedia: namespace]]
Tim (Enchanter)
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
It used to be I was trying to deny German history in favor of the Slavs
-- now I'm accused of trying to deny Frence history in favor of the
Germans. Is this an encyclopedia or a resting-place for irredentism?
Sheesh!
To be fair, DW writes some really good stuff, but doesn't seem to care
that scholarship has moved on in the past 30-50 years if it affects la
Gloire de la France. I'm beginning to think there's no room here for
experts.
Jules
I would like to see ISBNs linked to AddAll.com rather than Pricescan.com. I
think the selection of bookstores is better including used books and as
AddAll is devoted solely to books less of a distraction.
To test the two alternatives go to:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/creative_accounting
The book at the bottom of the page temporarily has two ISBN links, the top
one to AddAll, the bottom to Pricescan.
Fred Bauder
It seems to me we are trying to impove the number and quality of our articles, merely by making a policy:
1. All articles will be brilliant prose.
2. No useless stubs!
This is futile. (It reminds me of Robert Heinlein's "Friday", in which the state of California, having noted that college graduates have significantly higher income than non-grads, officially awarded every resident of California a college degree. Needless to say, the policy did not have the desired effect.)
Our problem is not "stub policy". We just don't have enough contributors.
Ed Poor
Ed, I like the first three of your ideas but really don't care for the
4th. I'll be all of those or none of those as I see fit; I think that's
part of the beauty of wikipedia: contribute where you think you're
needed; your help is welcome.
kq
Ed Wrote:
>Let's focus on strategies to increase the number of qualified
contributors.
>
>1. Everyone personally recruit three more contributors. (Okay, at
least one!)
>
>2. Advertise for writers.
>
>3. Create a profile of the "ideal contributor".
>
>4. Divide up the work into roles, such as Vandalism Cop,
Spellcheck Clerk, Neutrality Umpire, Cheerleading Squad,
Hospitalty Crew (add more here!!).
>
>Ed Poor
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia is still young; we can expect quite a lot of
embarassing stubs so far because there's so much work ahead
of us still. I'm not discouraged about it because I think it's a
realistic expectation that we /will/ have many stubs with less than
2 years of contributions logged. Personally, I'm not thinking so
much of immediate gratification: I expect stubs, and so I'm
pleasantly surprised when I run across an article that's
informative and nearly complete. I think it just takes time and
diligent effort.
This is the Great Wall of China of encyclopedias we're building
here, and I'm content to add a layer here, patch up the mortar
there, and help cart bricks over there. Personally, I expect to be
quite proud of wikipedia and my contributions to it by the time I'm
50 (I'm 27). I don't expect to be proud of wikipedia tomorrow,
except as a proof of concept and a thumbing of the nose to
copyright.
kq
Ed Wrote:
>It seems to me we are trying to impove the number and quality
of our articles, merely by making a policy:
>
>1. All articles will be brilliant prose.
>2. No useless stubs!
<snip>
>Our problem is not "stub policy". We just don't have enough
contributors.