You Wrote:
> I've been getting errors like the following on an occasional
> basis for the last week or so. Might it be that we're not yet
> out of the woods on the server load issue?
> *Warning*: open(/tmp/sess_d951b98b197c77c47e75c3217ffce7cd, O_RDWR)
> failed: Too many open files in system (23) in
> */usr/local/apache/htdocs/w/wiki.phtml* on line *7*
> *Warning*: Failed opening 'Setup.php' for inclusion
> (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php') in
> */usr/local/apache/htdocs/w/wiki.phtml* on line *12*
I suspect this is caused not by too much load overall, but by
people accessing several of the foreign wikis at once. The
APC cache software warns about the problem, since it keeps an
open file for each PHP source file, and each wiki uses 20-30
files. I'll kick up that number and restart the server.
Last week I've tried to remove the "in memoriam" parts of the 9/11 pages
by putting them on meta. This move was reverted (twice, I countered) by
The Cunctator. However, I have not heard any _good_ arguments from him
(or anybody else) for keeping them.
The arguments were:
* "I take it pretty personally" - Cunctator seemed to agree himself that
this isn't a very good reason
* "these are among the most popular pages on the site" - that is not a
good reason. We are an encyclopedia, and no matter how many visitors we
get for a page, if it's not an encyclopedia article, it must go. We
could probably put some pornographic images here or music downloads -
that would bring visitors - but they're not encyclopedia material.
Brion suggested that these could stay, provided a way was found to make
them useful. I think that is impossible. "In memoriams" are by
definition NPOV and do not provide any information useful for an
encyclopedia.
Some have mentioned the pages should go to some special wiki - that's
fine with me, but I *very strongly* feel they should leave Wikipedia
now. The meta is the best place for them now. I've already brought this
up some months ago, and I agreed then to wait until after September 11,
2002. It is now September 25, and time to move on with these pages -
there has been plenty of time to think of other/better solutions. As
I've said before, I don't think we should give 911 any special treatment
anymore - there's no reason for that.
Jeronimo
You Wrote:
>Wikipedia is now indexed by OneLook.com. I've asked
>Doug to change the credit from my name to "the
>Wikipedia project".
>
>Stephen G.
I see that he excluded subpages but included parenthetical titles. That should be an incentive to desubpage the remainging entries.
Also, he included redirects (e.g. [[Film Noir]]). Should we ask that those be excluded, or is it that pressing an issue?
Cheers,
kq
On Wednesday 25 September 2002 09:32 pm, you wrote:
> I'm with Axel. I think a project with the goal of
> world-wide biographies could be interesting, but
> Wikipedia is not such a project.
>
> Stephen
I hate to post "me toos", but I also agree with Axel.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Wednesday 25 September 2002 09:32 pm, I wrote:
> Who the hell did this? I'm on record for wanting these pages moved but it
> the ultimate of rude behavior to delete a tribute page created by someone
> who lost a family member or friend in 9/11. Now when come back all they see
> is a blank page since talk links are non-obvious. Shouldn't we consider the
> feelings of the people who created these pages?
Maybe I should check things before I write; It looks like redirects
automatically point a visitor from the "article" page to the talk page.
Therefore nobody will be greeted by a blank page.
Opps, sorry...
Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Wednesday 25 September 2002 05:44 pm, The Cunctator wrote:
> About the only page that is expressly not NPOV and can't be reasonably
> reconfigured as such is [[September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/In
> Memoriam]].
>
> All tribute/comments for individual casualties have been moved to the
> Talk page for the individual, which while perhaps not perfect, is
> certainly within the scope of Talk (opinion which relates to and informs
> the entry).
Who the hell did this? I'm on record for wanting these pages moved but it the
ultimate of rude behavior to delete a tribute page created by someone who
lost a family member or friend in 9/11. Now when come back all they see is a
blank page since talk links are non-obvious. Shouldn't we consider the
feelings of the people who created these pages?
> Two: what to do? The best solution, as far as I can see it, is to
> have http://sep11.wikipedia.org/ set up with some version of the In
> Memoriam page as the homepage, and an automatic redirect from the
> www.wikipedia.org/ url to that.
Moving would be a good idea along with having URL redirects, but I think a
9/11 project would be way too focused. Why not set-up
http://tribute.wikipedia.org/ instead? Then that would be the place for all
mannor of tribute pages.
> About the only other pages sep11.wikipedia.org needs to contain
> (non-NPOV) are the tributes (note: not the biographical entries).
> Everything else should transparently link back to wikipedia.
I'm still /very/ uncomfortable with having wiki redirects going from
Wikipedia which aims to be NPOV to an inherently POV project (which includes
Metapedia). This is just way too seemless and it could be a way for people to
get around our NPOV policy if the transition is so transparent.
I strongly suggest that if we are going to have inter-wiki redirects and page
moves, then this would be a feature only available to sysops. That way the
work can get done but we don't have to worry much about people abusing the
inter-wiki redirects.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
At 09:34 AM 9/25/02 +0100, you wrote:
>At 04:44 23/09/02 -0500, Tesla Coil wrote:
>
>>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."
>
>...which is quite clearly untrue, at least when referring
>in formal terms to historical figures. The Dictionary of
>National Biography, for example, lists peers by their family
>name, as in: CAVENDISH, Spencer Compton, Marquis of Hartington
>and 8th Duke of Devonshire.
>
>There is an alternative proposal which may be more to Tesla
>Coil's liking at [[Wikipedia:History standards]], which is
>to use the full name, ordinal and title. I don't think this
>should take precedence over to "common names" rule in cases
>like [[Duke of Wellington]] or [[Bertrand Russell]], and it
>does tend to make entry titles rather long, but it is the
>best way to clearly identify a specific titled individual.
>Thus we would have [[Spencer Cavendish, 8th Duke of
>Devonshire]] for the chap named above, no matter what it
>says in [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)]].
>This seems the best way forward to me (for UK peerages, at
>least), but while I'm willing to be bold in updating pages,
>I don't want to be too bold in updating conventions. I've
>only been in this thing for four days, after all.
>
>
>Rob
This seems correct, but as it is unlikely the odd person wandering into
this area is going to automatically conform to this reasonable, but obscure
convention, I suggest simply retitling pages and entries correctly would be
better than trying to point the convention out. Although a footnote, so to
speak, might be entered in [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and
titles)]]. I doubt that very many of the people in question deserve much of
an entry or mention and those that do are generally known by their common
names, although, for example, Elizabeth Windsor, is almost unrecognizable
by her common name.
Fred
Giskart wrote:
> [cut]
>In your proposals thou have not used the most logical solution (of al
>least a part of the solution), Intlwiki-l
Yes, you and Larry both mentioned that. I forgot about it. It's of course a good idea to use it since it exists already. :-)
kq
> Level-three headers (===) are well established as the standard
> header on Wikipedia. If you hate this so much, better to simply
> redefine it to pump out ideologically correct H2 tags instead of
> H3 rather than to prescribe the change of thousands of pages and
> demand a change in markup behavior.
I don't think it's "well established" at all. I always use
== for my first subheads, and many others do as well. There's
a nice simple correspondence between ==/H2, ===/H3, etc. H1
is reserved for the article title. If we shifted === to
produce H2 as you suggest, then what whould == produce?
I have heard complaints that people think H2 is rendered too
large; that can be fixed with stylesheet changes, and I'm
certainly open to doing that. But let's settle on a standard
for reasons other than mere inertia.
The user hfastedge has on his page an ad for some kind of service he's
offering.
I deleted it, with an explanation that even the people providing the server
don't get to
run ads on the Wikipedia. In response, I found the following on my talk page:
"OK. feel free to comment on my talk page, or on the ideas for wikipedia i
have on my user page. But please don't change my advertisment again. Just
because wikipedia is open source does not mean that money shouldnt be made
off it. To think so demonstrates a terribly FLAWED chain of reasoning.
"Your changing of that section is understandable, but doing it again will
send me off. If you cannot comprehend that at SOME POINT money has to be
made, then I suggest you discontinue talk with me on this matter, or you
approach me with the intent of curiosity, and an open mind. Try the service
out if you are more curious, as I said, you'll get a free customized
feature of your request, and you will be able to request more customized
features from the pool of users. User:hfastedge"
He's wrong, imho, but I'd like some comments, so it doesn't look like a
private argument
between the two of us. Conversely, if I've misunderstood and ads on user
pages are cool,
I want to know that.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr(a)redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org