I couldn't help but notice:
* Five articles were promoted to featured status this week
* Four articles were delisted this week.
* Twelve lists were promoted to featured status this week
* Eight lists were delisted this week
What a lot of churn. So the overall rate was merely +1 FA, +4 FL (and
also 3 topics and three images).
Is it always this bad?
The current <ref>...</ref>...<references/> system produces nice
references, but it is flawed--all the text contained in a given
reference appears in the text that the reference is linked from. For
It was a sunny day on Wednesday<ref>David Smith. ''History of Wednesdays.''
History Magazine, 2019.</ref>. The next day, Thursday, was cloudy.
== References and notes ==
(That's a very simple example, too. References start to become a lot
larger once they start to include other information and/or are
produced via a template.)
Once way I could conceive of correcting the problem is to have a
reference tag that provides only a _link_ to the note via a label and
another type of reference tag that actually _defines_ and _displays_
the note. For example:
It was a sunny day on Wednesday<ref id="smith"/>. The next day, Thursday,
== References and notes ==
<reference id="smith">David Smith. ''History of Wednesdays.'' History
This makes the raw wikitext easier to read, since the text of the
actual reference is in the _references_ section instead of in the
page's primary content.
I think this could work ...
Actually there are circumstances when admins can and should edit fully
protected articles per: WP:FULL.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FULL>
Does anyone really object to the idea of admins responding to a request for
admin help by editing a fully protected page in accordance with talkpage
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:47:18 -0400
> From: wjhonson(a)aol.com
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How wikipedia could link into File Protection.
> To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <8CBD991B3A1AD8C-1414-581B(a)webmail-mh03.sysops.aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> When full protection is used, then it should stay until it is changed to
> We should not have a type of protection that allows admins to make
> *content* changes willy-nilly.
> When an article is in full protection, admins should not be making content
> changes, except perhaps to revert changes that were the problematic ones in
> the first place.
> <<Jay's original email refers to using this when there has been an edit
> war - in other words when full protection *is* used currently.>>
Trying to overcome my aversion towards Java, I've written a little app
that can aggregate watchlists for a user across WikiMedia projects.
It occurs to me that when people donate money to something, it is to
some degree with an expectation that the recipient entity grows to
eventually gain a certain kind of financial self-sufficiency. Is this
not also the case with Wikimedia and many charitable donations to it?
In a message dated 4/16/2009 9:49:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> He obviously is claiming that things which we say are true, aren't. Even
> the non-article case, where he objects to the factual content of
> by us instead of articles by us, this is something we should pay attention
Proclamations by Jimmy, not by anyone else.
I don't see anything to tell me that Larry was complaining about anything
or anyone except something Jimmy said.
Great deals on Dell’s most popular laptops – Starting at