Wikipedia:Village pump/April 2004 archive 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Summarised sections[edit]

Recommendations for good UK broadband ISP?[edit]

I'm currently looking around for a reliable and not-too-expensive UK broadband ISP, and thought I'd ask fellow Wikipedians what they would recommend. Support for Linux would be advantageous but not wholly essential (I'm running a dual boot Red Hat 9 / Win 98 environment). Anyone got any suggestions? -- ChrisO 23:16, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(this should probably be on Reference Desk) Don't get cable (well, don't get NTL). They give you an ethernet based modem (good, surely, aber nein) but it needs a (windows only) dialup program to make it work, and it inhibits any other network ports under NT/XP so you can't use your PC as a router. I'm guessing their linux support is consequently zero. For DSL, BT seems fine, as does Pipex. Let's face it, whoever sells you the DSL is only partly important - it's still BT's copperloop, BT's DSLAM, BT's SS7/ATM backbone. I'm a firm believer in an external firewall/router for anyone techie enough to set one up. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:38, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
At risk of encouraging wikipedia to turn into a general chat-site: ADSL Guide should be your first stop. As for "Linux support", unless you go with a cable provider (only really worth it if you're going to get other services in the same package, e.g. cable TV) this shouldn't be an issue. Either get a modem that acts as a stand-alone router (connected via ethernet) or source your own USB modem with good Linux support, such as the latest incarnation of the Speedtouch. Personally, I've used Zen (bit odd with the billing) and now freedom2surf (not nearly as dodgy as the name makes them sound; no problems so far).
As for how this can be turned into something that "will benefit Wikipedia as a project": maybe you could write some articles, like ADSL Guide and Speedtouch; and I wonder how much info we have on ADSL in general... And, of course, you having a decent Internet connection will allow you to make lots and lots of good contributions to the site, I 'm sure! :-D - IMSoP 23:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) (via edit conflict; and yes, I've heard nothing but bad experiences with NTL in any form)

Edit toolbar should fully work in Mozilla now[edit]

If you're using Mozilla or one of its derivatives (Netscape 6+, Firefox, Galeon, Kmeleon ..), you may want to try the option "Show edit toolbar" in your user preferences. While it previously would only show an infobox for Mozilla, you can now also use it in the way it is intended: select text, click one of the toolbar buttons, and it is formatted accordingly. If you do not select text, you will still get an example text.--Eloquence* 09:24, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC) (signed using toolbar)

Haven't tried it but congrats, anyway and thanks for your work. Pfortuny 13:54, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Ooh, it really does work this time, too! (Once I'd force-reloaded to get an ancient version out of my cache...) Excellent!


The one thought that occurred to me seeing the old and new ones in quick succession like that, is that perhaps the example-in-a-box (like the old version had) could be used when nothing is selected, rather than inserting stuff like Italic text and Link title directly. We might end up with fewer bits of nonsense lying around - especially since undo seems to have no effect after using the toolbar. Please consider this a suggestion rather than a criticism, though, and I've no idea whether it's even possible - I wouldn't know where to begin to get it doing what it does do. (ooh, that's funky, it trims the trailing space when you select a word!)
In short, well done and thanks indeed for your hard work! --IMSoP 14:21, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm on Netscape 7.02 and it still doesn't do anything for me. Is there some preference that I need to set other than displaying the toolbar? Or something in the browser or plug-in that's needed? Elf | Talk 22:16, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, I had to do a hard-refresh because I'd once tried the old version (Ctrl-R should do it I think); the blue box that the examples appear in should disappear. Other than that, I can only say that it works for me under both Mozilla 1.7b and Firefox 0.8. - IMSoP 22:27, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Gdansk vs. Danzig[edit]

Hey, I haven't been following the Gdansk vs. Danzig debate all that closely, so I don't know if there is still any debate over what to call the current city, but I did some research that might be of some interest to the community. I looked at all the Sun Media newspapers that I am able to search electronically for instances of both words...so this isn't a definitive survey, it just shows what has been printed in a few Canadian newspapers, going back to 1989 at the earliest.

(To save space, I've moved it to User:Adam Bishop/Gdansk vs. Danzig) Adam Bishop 18:14, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I certainly haven't been following the Gdansk vs. Danzig debate either, but while browsing the Recent Changes the other day, I saw the funniest Gdansk vs. Danzig edit EVAR! Stormie 02:27, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
Think we should tell Glenn his name is being disputed by the Poles? -- Jmabel 04:47, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Where to answer user talk page questions[edit]

I sometimes ask another user a question on his/her talk page. Some of the users respond on their talk page underneath my question, some on my talk page with a new heading. Is there a guideline where to answer, or is it up to the user? I thought it is easier if the entire conversation is on one page. -- chris 73 | Talk 11:54, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is because of an awkwardness of the software, but it's not easy to see how to improve it: when someone adds a comment to your talk page, you see a special "You have new messages" link at the top of every page loaded; whereas to track somebody else's talk page, you'd have to add it to your watchlist - which means that you will see every comment posted to that user, and every change to their user page, as well, until you unwatch it. Obviously, for a user who gets a lot of messages, this can be somewhat less than helpful; but the alternative, as you say, is that the conversation gets split into two incoherent halves.
What's more, with different people following different conventions, you don't know whether to assume they'll watch your talk page just because they added to it, so you more or less have to reply at theirs. That said, it might be possible to come up with a compromise: add a not to your talk page saying that if somebody is responding, they should make a trivial edit (so it triggers the notification) - or maybe list their name or something - and then reply on their own User_talk: page. That way the conversation stays together, but you know when it's been updated... - IMSoP 12:21, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
A good way to follow conversations on talk pages other than your own is to use the "My contributions" list. If there have been any edits to the talk page in question, your edit is no longer marked as "top". Explaining your preferred comment procedure on your talk page is a good idea.--Eloquence* 13:53, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
I answer on my talk page and then leave a note "I answered on my talk page" on theirs. It takes two edits instead of one but the conversation is in one place and their notification message gets triggered. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I alternate between the two. Originally, I mostly replied on the other person's talk page, these days I more often reply on my talk page. Replying on the other talk page is IMHO more courteous, and ensures that they will get the message as quickly as possible. Replying on your own talk page takes is easier for you because it requires less clicks. It keeps the discussion in one place and thus makes it easier to follow for others watching the discussion. So it depends on how lazy you are, what tone you want to set, and whether or not you want other people to be able to read the conversation at a glance. -- Tim Starling 15:13, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)


If you want to be sure the other person will get your message, you should reply on their talk page, or at least tell them on their talk page that you have replied elsewhere. You can't assume that people will have your talk page on their watchlist, so there's a chance they will never see your reply there. Angela.
Would it be an option to copy (not cut) the entire question and paste it onto the other talk page, and then write your answer underneath? If everybody did this, then both parties would have a complete copy of the conversation on their talk page. Of course, for longer conversations you copy only the part that is missing since the last exchange. -- chris 73 | Talk 15:58, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, there's nothing stopping you doing that on your own page. It's up to the other user whether they also want a whole copy of it on their talk page though. Angela. 16:07, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
OK, I'll complete the half-conversations only on my page then, and still answer on the other persons page. Thanks. -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 16:28, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


is it ok to have quiz pages ?[edit]

I believe that quiz pages would enhance the browsing experience of readers. By quiz pages, I mean a page with 10 or 20 questions related to an article. For example, a quiz in astronomy would include questions like these:

  • Who walked first on the moon ? response
  • Who found the first evidence that the universe is expanding ?response
  • How old is the universe ? response

The difficulty of the quiz would depend on the corresponding article. Also, a list of quiz would allow quick access to all the quiz. There would not be any counting of good responses, and results would not be stored (i.e. this is not a competition).

I have not yet seen such pages on wikipedia. My concern is that this is not a typical content for a encyclopedia, so I would like to have feedback on whether this is accepted, and whether some guidelines should be followed (e.g. is the word 'quiz' ok ?). If OK, I would be happy to start ! Pcarbonn 05:15, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't like the idea, as it doesn't seem "encyclopedic" to me, but that's just me. RickK 05:17, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Quiz pages as a means for instruction -- take it to Wikibooks. As a sort of rhetorical thing to introduce a subject, I still don't think it's that appropriate. There's a certain tone one tries to achieve in an encyclopedia article - such questions don't help it fit that tone. Dysprosia 05:26, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I agree that this would be more useful for Wikibooks. For Wikipedia, what we should strive for is making these same key facts easily accessible in the articles -- by using infoboxes, summarizing long sections and linking to important related articles.--Eloquence* 06:02, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
Yep, I agree that it's not something one should find in an encyclopedia. But a "general knowledge quiz" wikibook, graded by subject and difficulty, would be a great idea. Only last month someone asked me to set a pub quiz, and of course I set one that was too hard, and had no pop-music or sport questions (and so didn't go down very well). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:22, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
World Book, at least in their CD-ROM version, has like questions, but more than pure trivia, more higher-level in their scope. They place them at the bottom of the article. They're usually grade 3-5 average skill level. I agree that this would be best kept to Wikibooks; I'll create a Wikibook now, it will be a general book to be used as a teaching supplement for any Wikipedia article. -- user:zanimum
I'd like to announce the creation of the Wikibooks entitled, Teacher's Guide of Questions and Lesson Plans, to Wikipedia Encyclopedia. To contain all of the subpages with questions like that. Visit [[1]] for the new resource. -- user:zanimum
Just because one particular encyclopedia has accepted a particular type of material doesn't mean we should. As I've said before (but now buried deep in the archives or lost completely), one of my pleasures when under 10 years old was reading the Waverley Press Book of Knowledge, which was regarded as an encyclopedia and was written for adults (as well as for children). It contained several beautifully illustrated children's stories, original works I think written for the encyclopedia. I don't know exactly why they were there! They were imbedded in the text between more conventional encyclopedia articles, and I didn't even notice any particular correlation to the material adjacent to them. AFAIK other encyclopedias didn't adopt this practice, and we don't need to either (and I don't think there's any chance we will). Agree the Wikibook is a good idea. Andrewa 17:35, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I believe it is a great idea to provide ways to access Wikipedia from Wikibooks for the class room, and all your suggestions are good ways to do that. I'm also sympathetic to your concerns that articles should have an 'encyclopedic tone', and that quiz are not in line with that tone. I'm still convinced that there is also a need for the general public to access the encyclopedia in a more 'fun' way, i.e. via quiz, and wikibooks would not be a solution to that because wikibooks is for the classroom. Could I suggest the following as a possible solution agreeable to all ?

There would be 2 ways to browse wikipedia: article to article to article; or quiz to article to article. That is, the list of quiz would be accessible only from the left-hand menu of the (main) page. The policy would be that no quiz can be included in article (so no browsing from article to quiz to article). This way, the general public could choose the tone at the start of their browsing session, and the ones that want an encyclopedic tone are not embarrassed with quiz. Those that like quiz would choose it in the left menu. What do you think ?Pcarbonn 05:12, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

While your quizzes would likely be useful to someone, the important thing to keep in mind is that there are many useful page additions that could be made, and that the singular goal of Wikipedia is to provide a simple interface to a straight encyclopedia with no frills. This is already a very difficult goal, and what you propose would require not only software changes by our already overburdened developers but also a task force of contributors devoted to quizzes.
Also, such quiz questions are unlikely to apply to all topics; like general Wikipedia content, many quiz questions would be missing or of poor quality, or unevenly distributed in different areas.
In conclusion, I think this is a can of worms we don't want to open; create it, even correlate it with articles if you like, but keep it off the Wikipedia proper. I think anything else would contradict Jimbo's focused vision, which gives Wikipedia its edge over projects like E2.
Derrick Coetzee 07:02, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I understand your goal and constraints, and I agree with your view. Thanks for clarifying them.

I can also see a potential problem: there is no reference truth on the question "which item should be in a quiz ?", so that the dynamics of creating a quiz is quite different from the dynamics of creating an article. The quality of content could suffer from that, as you suggest. So let's drop the idea. Pcarbonn 11:01, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I really like this idea. I actually just finished creating a draft of a small multiple choice quiz for "Theories of Humour" article (because I thought I would be funny) before I decided to check if quizzes had already been proposed. I too was worried that a quiz might interfere with the general "tone", but the way I imagined it was to have a very unobtrusive link at the bottom of the article that would link to a quiz in Wikiversity. Something like "Take 'Theories of Humour' quiz at Wikiversity".
I think it would work and I think users would love it. Wikipedia has proved a lot to the world, about the world, and considering this broad spirit or "tone" of Wikipedia, I think quizzes will further show our rejoice for free knowledge. User:christopherblubb
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump/April_2004_archive_1&oldid=1145852793"