On Thursday 26 September 2002 06:21 pm, you wrote:
> What is "almost no one", one, two, ten, a hundred people ?
>
> Should we get rid of any articles which get less than X hits a year
> as they're "interesting/useful to almost no one" ?
>
> Imran
Like everything else, each new submission is unique and its relevance to what
we do here has to be weighed individually. So no you can't draw a distinct
line, you can only have general guidelines in this regard. Therefore we can
have the minor players of the human story, but they must be players and not
just some guy who works and McDonald's, watches basketball on the weekends
and is related to some other ordinary guy.
We are building an encyclopedia, not a genealogical database. The above
example is the type of entry that could go into a
http://tribute.wikipedia.org website along with the 9/11 pages.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
I'll send you flowers too.
kq
You Wrote:
>--- Brion VIBBER <brion(a)pobox.com> wrote:
>> If I go do that right now, will everyone SHUT THE
>> FARDELS UP? :)
>
>Yes, and I will send you flowers. Now go. GO!
>
>Stephen G.
On Thursday 26 September 2002 06:21 pm, you wrote:
> Yes, that may be. I do still think it's worth the effort, though. :-)
> ... If I spoke Spanish any better, I would be an ambassador to the Spanish
> wikipedia.
>
> kq
Speaking of which, is anybody speaking with the Seville Encyclopedia Libre
about them upgrading to Phase III and us pointing our interlanguage links to
their articles?
I wouldn't trust my Spanish skills to such an important thing -- especially
given the fact that they forked over a previous misunderstanding to begin
with. Anybody fluent in Spanish on this mailing list?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Please, I ask you, if you want to delete a page, show some simple courtesy,
as set out in the guidelines.
1) List page on Votes for deletion.
2) Wait.
Several of you have stopped doing this on a regular basis.
Most of the time the deletion decisions themselves are unassailable.
However:
* 15:01 Sep 26, 2002 Jheijmans deleted "Organizational structure of
Jehovah's Witnesses" (created today, but then cleared because not needed)
The JW pages are in the process of being edited. The deletion of this page
was entirely inappropriate.
* 14:56 Sep 26, 2002 Jheijmans deleted "Talk:Knocking her dead one on the
nose each and every double trey" (talk of removed page)
* 14:56 Sep 26, 2002 Jheijmans deleted "Talk:Gamefoolz" (talk of removed
page)
Both Talks were of real interest, from a meta perspective. They should have
been moved to meta, or moved to the Wikipedia:Historical Wikipedia pages
space. Or at least so the argument goes. An argument/move which I was unable
to make, since they were deleted summarily.
I have trouble with the idea that people who are incapable of respecting the
uncomplicated and clear deletion policy, after having been reminded of the
basic procedures, should be allowed to delete pages.
Of course, if there were soft deletes, this wouldn't be an issue.
Pursuant to KQ's suggestions, I've started a page on the English wikipedia:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Embassy
This is indended to serve a few purposes:
* Summarize current cross-language issues (software conversion,
interface localization, interlanguage linking, ...?)
* Link to the equivalent embassy page on the other language wikis
(please make them!)
* Link to the Intlwiki-L list, reminding that it's available
* List 'Wikipedia Ambassadors': polyglots who can keep an eye on
discussions across the various wikis and lists they frequent and act as
go-betweens and representatives when big decisions are being made.
On this last, I'm assuming that in general there is at least one person
on each language wiki who's already participating in at least one
other-language wiki and can keep an eye on the local embassy without too
much trouble. The embassy can thus serve as a communications post for
people who need to deal with that specific wiki; drop a message there
and somebody hopefully can decode and reply to it, or else find the
specific ambassador you need and contact them directly.
I look forward to expanding this system, and hope it turns out useful!
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Jimmy wrote:
>I think this is a sensible suggestion, although like you, I wonder if
>many people have "enough zeal" to do this regularly.
>
>I like most of your other suggestions, too, although I wonder if we
>would keep them up after a period of good intentions.
>
>It seems likely to me that the software will stabilize in major
>respects on the current codebase. Policy almost never changes in any
>major ways.
Yes, that may be. I do still think it's worth the effort, though. :-) ... If I spoke Spanish any better, I would be an ambassador to the Spanish wikipedia.
kq
>
>
>Both Talks were of real interest, from a meta perspective. They should have
>been moved to meta, or moved to the Wikipedia:Historical Wikipedia pages
>space. Or at least so the argument goes. An argument/move which I was unable
>to make, since they were deleted summarily.
>
I don't see that if the talks were of any use why they weren't moved to
meta along with their articles. Somebody apparently found that
necessary, I was just cleaning up.
>I have trouble with the idea that people who are incapable of respecting the
>uncomplicated and clear deletion policy, after having been reminded of the
>basic procedures, should be allowed to delete pages.
>
And I don't really like people keeping a list of "Bias Talk". But that's
personal.
For example, we have Edward Stanley, the 14th Earl of Derby
and Edward Stanley, the 15th Earl of Derby.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) might suggest
these should be [[Edward, 14th Earl of Derby]] and [[Edward,
15th Earl of Derby]].
Or, it should be [[Earl of Derby]] and [[Edward, 15th Earl
of Derby]]. The 14th Earl of Derby was Prime Minister, and
arguably moreso *The* [[Earl of Derby]] than the 15th Earl
of Derby.
I must say I dislike this, because there are plenty of minor
conflicts of fact to sort out in research of a given century
without having to chase down every Lord Halifax to ascertain
whether they are *The* [[Lord Halifax]] for all centuries.
Appeals for "consistency" may have been blown away in debate
on city names, but I've more important things to do than play
favorites between this Lord Halifax and that Lord Halifax.
In no case is it [[Edward Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby]] and
[[Edward Stanley, 15th Earl of Derby]]. "English-speakers do
not put family names as part of the title."
Meanwhile, [[Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby]] redirects
to [[Thomas Stanley]]...
> I thought I heard someone mention that a page move to an
> existing redirect was possible?
"Move" is only allowed when either the destination page doesn't
exist at all, or else it does exist, and contains nothing but
a redirect to the source page and has no history. So if you
move a page somewhere, you can usually move it back without
having to delete the old name. But you can't move a page on top
of a redirect to something else, and you can't move a page onto
a name with any history.