I think I have a reasonable method of cleaning up many of
the leftover pages in the main namespace that should be moved
to wikipedia: or meta (most of which have already been moved,
but still exist). But before I do this I want to give the
group some warning and ask if anyone has concerns.
I think it's important to actually delete these for
several reasons. One, they distort our statistics; they
make it appear as though we have more real articles than
we do. They show up in searches. They also make the
utilities of the new software like orphan pages less useful.
Second, their existence is confusing to new users and might
encourage the creation of more such articles in the wrong
namespace. Finally, having the articles in the right
namespace should make it easier to update and consolidate
them, as many of them are badly out of date.
I'm looking at things like "Wikipedia commentary/*", most
of which have been moved to meta but still hang around,
and things like "Wikipedia Announcements", "Wikipedia FAQ",
But before I go about removing these and fixing links to
them, I want to hear if anyone has reasons to keep some of
them in the primary namespace, or other concerns.
>> I'm beginning to think we should have a convenient article renaming
>> function that will preserve editing histories (and, optionally,
>> automatically create a redirect page). What think you?
>That sounds like a feature that should be on every Wikipedian's
>wishlist! I know it's on mine...
It's easy enough to do the redirect, but what could really use
software assistance is fixing all the links to a renamed page.
Such as function would, however, make changes to lots of pages,
so it would likely cause lots of damage if it had bugs, and it
would be too tempting for users to use casually, making huge hits
on the database.
Doing them by hand also gives me the oppoetunity to take a quick
glance at lots of related pages to make fixes, so I don't miss
the automagical feature too much (UseMod actually had that feature).
It's been discussed several times at wikipedia but I am still
clueless on what actually has to be stated in order to include
GFDLed third-party texts.
I would like to build into wikipedia some of the information given
at http://kstars.sourceforge.net/handbook/astroinfo.html which is
part of Kstars GFDLed handbook and explains various
astronomical concepts. The author, Jason Harris, didn't reply
to my inquiry about including it in wikipedia but that is - as
far as I understand the GFDL correct - not neccessary...
Hmm. How shall I proceed?
WORK: ETH Zurich, LFO E21, CH-8092 Zurich, +41 1 632 3304
HOME: Anna Heer-Str. 2, CH-8057 Zurich, +41 1 350 5986
This mail sent through IMP 3.0 at http://email.ethz.ch/horde/imp
>after some exam time-out, here is an HTML version of the template
>currently known as "Cologne Blue".
>Comments are of course welcome!
I strongly disapprove of explicitly setting the font size for body text
- this is something which people individually configure in their
browsers to their own preference, and there can be no good reason for
I also dislike overriding the viewer's default choice of font face and
link underlining, though I feel less strongly about this. All this for
the main body text only - I've no objection to explicit settings for the
This version of the site would be effectively unusable with the quickbar
turned off (no edit link, for a start). That's a big minus in my
Where will links to other namespaces appear?
Would you put something to that effect on the page? I'd prefer not to
speak for you. :-)
>I think you did the right thing. I don't see how anyone could
object. It's that
>the policy is poorly written on this particular point.
"Julie Hofmann Kemp" <juleskemp(a)yahoo.com> writes:
> Speaking of which, I really do wonder where it lives and if it's loony
> enough to seek out those of us nearby.
California, it would appear.
(The IP address is a cable supplier in Burlington, CA)
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)
>So I think there is a danger of some of his stuff slipping through
>the cracks until someone with particular expertise can repair it.
>Hopefully that's a short-term concern, but it does worry me.
Seconded. I'm not knowledgeable enough to respond to his content,
though I do make the occasional grammar edit. But mostly I just stay
out of it, b/c I don't want my edits to be confused for endorsement.
I'd like clarification on the deletion policy. I just deleted a
number of pages which contained nothing but "describe the new page
here." That seemed reasonable to me, but on revisiting
[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia policy on permanent deletion of pages]] I see it
says "Do not delete anything that might in the future become an
encyclopedia topic. Hence, just because someone has written a
completely worthless article about John Doe, that doesn't mean we
should permanently delete the topic, [[John Doe]], from the database."
The articles showed absolutely no attempt, even a biased or
misinformed one, to write an article. I did keep the one that had a
talk page. But perhaps I've acted in haste.
Does the above include pages which say nothing more than "describe the
new page here"? Should we leave those or not?