I'm currently deleting entries with no content and no links to them and
I found a rather 'interesting' stub.
Title - Millions of worthless entries'
Content - What is the Wikipedia
lol
It's gone...
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
You can take the dragon out of Alfandra, but you can never take Alfandra
out of the dragon (or the Kitty)...
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Love and huggles to all!
I thought the "delete this page" option was only available to sysops,
and that sysop status was granted only after people hung around long
enough to be determined not to be a troll or vandal? Is that still
the case?
kq
>BTW, the 'delete this page' option is very handy in the stub and orphan
>list... but I really doubt that it belongs in the 'long articles'
>listing. It's rather dangerous! I doubt that the people who wrote
>treatises on various things would like to see them casually deleted by a
>passer-by or a troll...
>
>--
>
>Karen AKA Kajikit
0
LDC wrote:
<snip>
>at a premium. But I don't think it will be too much of a problem
>to still allow anyone to use it when (1) it should no longer be
>indexed by robots and (2) it will be a lot easier to clean up.
>
>The only objection I can see is from regular "good" uploaders
>who will have to go through an extra step to get there. I don't
>want to get too crazy with user options either.
Do you mean people who aren't logged in? I though uploads were
already limited to people logged in, which seems reasonable enough--to
me anyway. Have their been any (valid) complaints?
kq0
Well, it's been an interesting week. Many thanks to everyone who
tested the new code and found lots of things for me to fix. I ended
up having to de-freeze the code and make some real changes, so I'd
like to get another few days of testing before going live.
The new server is at http://130.94.122.197/
Please test it well. It's also set up so that every access is timed
and logged, so we'll be able to get some timing figures to use for
tuning and profiling.
0
On Saturday 06 July 2002 05:57 am, you wrote:
> Sean Barrett wrote:
> >I take back nine-tenths of my earlier comment; you've done a fine job of
> >incorporating the subpages. I have deleted all of them except
> >Government and Geography, and I'll delete them Real Soon Now.
>
> Aren't we supposed to redirect these instead of deleting them,
> in case search engines have indexed them?
>
> BTW, you missed [[/History]], probably because it isn't an orphan.
> But it's been incorporated just like all of the others.
> I made it a redirect for now.
>
>
> -- Toby Bartels
Yes they are supposed to be redirected to whereever the content was moved to
-- that is made very clear on our policy of permanent deletion of pages. I
just did a Google search on Svalbard and did see all the / pages for that
article, clicked on Svalbard/Communications and got a blank page stating
"Describe the new page here." -- which isn't good.
Being careful not to break links is one of the central concepts of good
webpage design -- please redirect in the future. Redirects are harmless and
as soon as the move feature is fixed, will be easier to make than manually
moving material to new page names and deleting the old page titles (although
in this case, the subpages should have been simply redirected to [[Svalbard]]
since their content was moved and integrated there).
--maveric149
Something just occurred to me: what about if, when we migrate to the new software, we have the "upload files" link be an option that is by default off. That way the upload link will fall off the search engine results since robots won't find the link since they won't be logged in. Then by the time new users make enough edits to decide to stay, finding how to upload pics to help illustrate a point will be a minor bonus.
We could of course explain on a page how to upload files--log in and turn that link option on--but removing that page from Google etc. may help stem the tide of junk uploads.
KQ
0
I just did a stub on [[Adams State College]] and while I was still editing
someone jumped in and inserted a '''Adams State College''' in the first
line. (so that was saved before my edit could be)
First, I don't like the practice of repeating the title that way. Although
that could be standard, would hardly matter.
Second, very seldom do I get anything right the first time and before I'm
done someone is jumping in. Might be nice to let the ink cool, before
jumping in on new articles.
Fred Bauder
Mysteriously, wikipedia-l itself wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>><What links here> no longer indicates what links through redirects.
>>I think that this is a significant loss of function.
>I need to be convinced that this is the right thing to do.
>The redirect pages themselves /are/ listed, and you can likewise
>see a list of what links to them. If the function automagically
>skipped over redirects to list two-level links mixed with one-
>level links, the list would be a bad picture of the real state
>of the database. Maybe it could list them separately (i.e.,
>just do a second lookup for every link page found that is a
>redirect). That's not a bad idea.
Indeed, that's exactly what the old version currently does.
But your new new system is even better.
>>The watchlist no longer watches User: pages or Wikipedia: pages.
>>It's bad enough that User talk: and Wikipedia talk: weren't
>>watched; now it's worse.
>I don't know what you're talking about here. You can add any page
>from any namespace to your watchlist, and it will work just fine.
>In addition, if you watch an encyclopedia page, it will automatically
>add the corresponding talk page to the watch.
I've figured out what's going on.
In the old version, if I watched any page of the form, say, [[*:Wesley]],
then this put [[Wesley]], [[Talk:Wesley]], and [[User:Wesley]]
(but not [[User talk:Wesley]], even if that's the page I watched)
in my watchlist, all as part of watching for [[Wesley]].
In the new system, OTOH, [[Wesley]] and [[Talk:Wesely]] are one thing,
while [[User:Wesley]] and [[User talk:Wesley]] are completely different.
When you converted the database to your new system,
you kept [[Wesley]] on my watchlist, but not [[User:Wesley]].
The only error, then, is in the conversion process.
All the [[User:]] and [[Wikipedia:]] articles were dropped from my watchlist
(because they were never there in the first place, only the [[:]] versions).
>That's a reasonable thing. Please add it as a feature request to
>Sourceforge so it won't get lost.
Yeah, I didn't see how to do this Sourceforge stuff right away,
which is why I posted all of my comments to the mailing list.
Don't worry, I get it now; what you haven't implemented already
will be there shortly.
>It was previously the exact red color of followed links, and I
>made it a darker red so it wouldn't conflict. If your followed
>links are purple, that's a personal browser setting. Most
>browsers use red.
Really? I've never seen this. All of my graphical browsers
use purple (by default, that is -- they're all adjustable).
Anyway, if the colours used to conflict and don't know,
then I'll gladly live with *similar* colours to keep others from seeing
*identical* colours. Maybe even modernise my browsers' settings ^_^.
-- Toby Bartels
toby(a)math.ucr.edu
PS: Any idea why I stopped receiving this mailing list around July 2?
I've been reading it in the archives since then.
Does this happen by chance sometimes and I just need to resubscribe?