Folks,
Would someone help me here? What is the current policy regarding linking
dates such as Birth and Death in biography articles?
Thanks,
Marc Riddell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-07-06/Featur…
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?
Steve
Hi all,
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
example:
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 ==
<references/>
(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,
was cloudy.
== References and notes ==
<reference id="smith">David Smith. ''History of Wednesdays.'' History
Magazine, 2019.</reference>
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 ...
--Thomas Larsen
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
consensus?
WereSpielChequers
>
> 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
> semi-protection.
> 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.
'nuff said:
http://magnusmanske.de/MetaWatchlist/
Cheers,
Magnus
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?
-Steven
In a message dated 4/16/2009 9:49:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
> He obviously is claiming that things which we say are true, aren't. Even
> in
> the non-article case, where he objects to the factual content of
> proclamations
> by us instead of articles by us, this is something we should pay attention
> to.>>
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.
Will
**************
Great deals on Dell’s most popular laptops – Starting at
$479
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220029082x1201385915/aol?redir=htt…)