On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Imagine the whole
encyclopaedia is evenly fleshed out, so that every town of 100,000
people in Namibia has an article as good as a town of 100,000 in the
US. Now is your local library in the top 10,000,000 articles?
I
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Imagine the whole
encyclopaedia is evenly fleshed out, so that every town of 100,000
people in Namibia has an article as good as a town of 100,000 in
2009/8/9 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
So all the biographies of women could be tagged woman? That would
work, but only if the woman tag wasn't applied to other things as
well. Maybe you would have to have woman + biography? Even then,
it might not be exact. And then you would have
2009/8/9 Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:47 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem being discussed in this thread would be solved by the
feature (much-desired by Commons) of turning categories into tags - so
that e.g. [[Category:Left-handed dead Jewish
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Andrew Grayandrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
2009/8/9 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
So all the biographies of women could be tagged woman? That would
work, but only if the woman tag wasn't applied to other things as
well. Maybe you would have to have
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/8/9 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
So all the biographies of women could be tagged woman? That would
work, but only if the woman tag wasn't applied to other things as
well. Maybe you would have to have woman + biography? Even then,
it might not be exact.
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
snip
Nice example there of where en-wiki's classification systems are better.
Some people would, of course, create a K-theory navbox template.
Does de-wiki have those navboxes?
More comprehensibly
2009/8/9 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
If anyone could hazard a guess at how many of the 725,635 biographies
we have where there might be a dispute over gender, that would be good
(note that for some reason that figure, from the WikiProject
Biography statistics, includes music
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:53 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/9 Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:47 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem being discussed in this thread would be solved by the
feature (much-desired by Commons) of turning
Carcharoth wrote:
Tags and categories are different. Ideally, you would have both, or a
clear of idea of what would be primary tags (what we call
categories) and what are descriptive tags.
I asked about flickr tags years ago, but never understood the replies I
got, see:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Is there a summary of what's changed?
Well, it's completely new, so check out the manual link on the page,
and the original requirements, which have been met or exceeded:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Magnus
Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?
sigh
I've been trying for 10 minutes to get it to locate articles in a
category tree but missing a specific WikiProject tag, but either it's
not working, or I'm
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Magnus
Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
It's explained on the manual page - just append |2 to the category
you want to use with a different depth (in this example, 2).
blush
Would you believe I completely missed that link to the manual? :-/
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Magnus
Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Is there a summary of what's changed?
Well, it's completely new, so check out the manual link on the page,
and the original
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Magnus
Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Is there a summary of what's changed?
Well, it's
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Magnus
Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Is there a summary of what's changed?
Well, it's
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Magnus
Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Magnus
Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:54 PM,
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
But still? A local library? I find it useful to look at things in
context with other similar institutions. So, I try and think of famous
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Trying to hammer every peg into one of just two holes is bound to
cause problems.
Then there's the issue of people who are inter-sexed (born with mixed
or absent gender-specific organs, example being [[Jim Sinclair]]),
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
http://www.dailylit.com/tags/wikipedia-tours
Thank you for that link. I had thought to do something like that
myself. I have been saved the time now.
___
WikiEN-l mailing
2009/8/9 wjhon...@aol.com:
About Women on Wikipedia, I think famous is probably problematic, like
list of short women, is too much based on a judgement call.
And a list of all women on wikipedia would be too enormous.
However I would think no one would object to something like Women by
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:47 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/9 wjhon...@aol.com:
About Women on Wikipedia, I think famous is probably problematic, like
list of short women, is too much based on a judgement call.
And a list of all women on wikipedia would be too enormous.
2009/8/9 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
Tags and categories are different. Ideally, you would have both, or a
clear of idea of what would be primary tags (what we call
categories) and what are descriptive tags.
Oh yeah. But in practice, most of our ridiculously specific
sub-sub-cats
Just because a vanishingly small minority of people can't be
classified as male or female, that is a reason to not bother doing
such classifications? If that was a valid argument, many of these
information forms that people fill in wouldn't ask for your gender.
Those forms usually
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:47 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem being discussed in this thread would be solved by the
feature (much-desired by Commons) of turning categories into tags - so
that e.g. [[Category:Left-handed dead Jewish lesbian presidents of the
United States]]
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/30 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
sob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_births_by_year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_deaths_by_year
That is ridiculous category use.
Hey, someone thought it was useful ...
Once upon a time I
Bryan Derksen wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/30 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
sob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_births_by_year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_deaths_by_year
That is ridiculous category use.
Hey, someone thought it
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/30 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
sob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_births_by_year
Carcharoth wrote:
I think what some people want is more a way to take a category such as
Famous animals and its subcategories, and run a dynamic query that
returns a list of all the members of those categories sorted by dates
of birth and death. A dynamic version of a list. I know I'd love it
About Women on Wikipedia, I think famous is probably problematic, like
list of short women, is too much based on a judgement call.
And a list of all women on wikipedia would be too enormous.
However I would think no one would object to something like Women by
Nationality and then have a sub-cat
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
About Women on Wikipedia, I think famous is probably problematic, like
list of short women, is too much based on a judgement call.
Heck, in a few cases the Women classification might prove to be based
on a judgement call. The panoply of transgender classifications and
Trying to hammer every peg into one of just two holes is bound to
cause problems.
Then there's the issue of people who are inter-sexed (born with mixed
or absent gender-specific organs, example being [[Jim Sinclair]]),
genderfuck (intentionally ignoring gender-specific cultural
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
But still? A local library? I find it useful to look at things in
context with other similar institutions. So, I try and think of famous
libraries. The British Library, the Bodleian Library, the Library of
Congress,
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
But still? A local library? I find it useful to look at things in
context with other similar institutions. So, I try and think of famous
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Samuel Kleinmeta...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
As the number of editors interested in a topic area grows -- something
that happens as WP includes more and more locally-notable entries, for
instance -- the capacity to maintain quality in that area grows as
well.
On 25/07/2009, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
My point is that despite media publicity about deletionists and
people on the fringes of Wikipedia getting annoyed at not being
considered article-worthy ... we still include a wider range of stuff
than (I think) any general encyclopedia
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Dan
Dascalescuddascalescu+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Aside from that, let's have a bit of common sense: does anyone
sincerely think that if Martin Niemoeller were alive, he'd object to
the image of that monument being on Wikipedia? Does anyone think that
any of
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Anthonywikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote:
My own take on the deletionist/inclusionist divide (which,
admittedly, has little if anything to do with Wikipedia's
inclusion policies as currently
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote:
My own take on the deletionist/inclusionist divide (which,
admittedly, has little if anything to do with Wikipedia's
inclusion policies as currently prescribed) is to ask: would
anyone, anywhere in the world (other than the
geni wrote:
Not that I am in the slightest manner interested in any
type of pet being added to wikipedia, but is this decision
transitive?
That is, are (presidential/head of state) pets of any nation
notable on the English language wikipedia,
Not sure if he actually had any famous pets,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Jussi-Ville
Heiskanencimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
More seriously - relatively speaking - I think we actually
do have quite a few emperors and the like favorite rides
as articles of their own. Granted horse are not generally
considered pets.
Deletionists,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Jussi-Ville
Heiskanencimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
More seriously - relatively speaking - I think we actually
do have quite a few emperors and the like favorite rides
as
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Famous_animals
This one, on the other hand, is interesting (takes all sorts):
2009/7/30 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
sob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_births_by_year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_deaths_by_year
That is ridiculous category use.
Hey, someone thought it was useful ...
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 06:23, elipo...@gmail.com wrote:
Would he, his heirs, or his estate object if the photo of the poem was
modified to be used in a fast-food ad or for a hate group?
What does this have to do with the poem being engraved verbatim in a
public monument?
And while en.wiki
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Dan Dascalescu
ddascalescu+wikipe...@gmail.com ddascalescu%2bwikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 06:23, elipo...@gmail.com wrote:
Would he, his heirs, or his estate object if the photo of the poem was
modified to be used in a fast-food ad or
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Dan Dascalescu
ddascalescu+wikipe...@gmail.com ddascalescu%2bwikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 06:23, elipo...@gmail.com wrote:
This is similar to the whole fair use brouhaha at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Madeleine_close2.jpg#Licence
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Sarah Ewartsarahew...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Dan Dascalescu
ddascalescu+wikipe...@gmail.com ddascalescu%2bwikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 06:23, elipo...@gmail.com wrote:
This is similar to the whole fair use
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Sarah Ewart wrote:
This is similar to the whole fair use brouhaha at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Madeleine_close2.jpg#Licence (the
photo of Madeleine McCann, a child who's been missing for 2 years) -
as if Madeleine's family wouldn't wholeheartedly agree to that
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Dan Dascalescu wrote:
While deletionist folks are at removing the poem from Wikipedia, why
don't you delete it from Wikiquote as well? Here's the page, for your
convenience:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller
Have fun improving Wikipedia.
In this case
Charles wrote:
The argument worth having is that reliable sources are a necessary
condition for the inclusion of a topic, rather than a sufficient
condition. (This is quite obvious, I believe, but one can go blue in the
face saying it with no effect.) No way is the presidential pooch going
No, it just pushed my personal wtf button
Here's something that pushed my WTF button:
Why was a photograph of a public monument of Martin Niemoeller's poem
First they came, removed from Wikipedia?
Here is a small version of the photograph:
http://www.oicu2.com/afc/Martin_Niemoeller.jpg
And
2009/7/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
My point is that despite media publicity about deletionists and
people on the fringes of Wikipedia getting annoyed at not being
considered article-worthy ... we still include a wider range of stuff
than (I think) any general encyclopedia ever before
: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
Sent: Jul 26, 2009 03:52
No, it just pushed my personal wtf button
Here's something that pushed my WTF button:
Why was a photograph of a public monument of Martin Niemoeller's poem
First they came, removed
Point them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_%28dog%29
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:21 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
Point them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_%28dog%29
:-)
I don't think anyone could !vote delete for such a cute little dog!
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On Saturday, 25 July 2009 8:21 pm, David Gerard wrote:
Point them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_%28dog%29
The current introduction raised my eyebrows.
Bo Obama (born October 9, 2008) is the Obama family dog. Barack Obama
is the head of the household and President of the United States.
fl wrote:
On Saturday, 25 July 2009 8:21 pm, David Gerard wrote:
Point them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_%28dog%29
The current introduction raised my eyebrows.
Bo Obama (born October 9, 2008) is the Obama family dog. Barack Obama
is the head of the household and President of the
Seriously?? Are you arguing this kind of article shouldn't be in Wikipedia?
Sheesh.
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 8:21 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Point them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_%28dog%29
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
2009/7/25 The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 8:21 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Point them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_%28dog%29
Seriously?? Are you arguing this kind of article shouldn't be in Wikipedia?
Sheesh.
No, it just pushed my personal wtf
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, David Gerard wrote:
My point is that despite media publicity about deletionists and
people on the fringes of Wikipedia getting annoyed at not being
considered article-worthy ... we still include a wider range of stuff
than (I think) any general encyclopedia ever before us,
61 matches
Mail list logo
