Wikipedia:Village pump/April 2003 archive

GNU Free Documentation License Project Management Standard I'm looking for volunteers to develop a GNU Free Documentation License Project Management Standard (just like the PMBOK, but possibly better). Mkoval

---

What efforts do you know of which may be currently being made to allow anybody and everybody with a basic web design program to easily create and share their own sites which could allow Wiki features of being able to edit a page, discuss a page, browse all recent contributions, etc. (preferably with the option in one's web/file browser/writer to just begin typing on any page one is browsing)? (I use a mac, but I'm also interested if this would be possible for others as well.) -Brett

There are many different types of wiki software you can use. If you can administer your own web server, you should be able to set them up. I recommend UseModWiki (http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl), which is one of the easiest wikis to set up. -- Stephen Gilbert

---

Is this the best place to ask for help with translation? I've got a few snippets of French from a 1911 EB entry that I'd like to get a proper translation for... Is there a central/standard place I can go to ask native speakers of a given language for help with small translations like this?

For my current question, see Talk:Michel de l'Hôpital.

I don't think we have a specific place to request translations, although we probably should. For your particular problem, I suggest asking Anthere, Brion VIBBER or Tarquin. -- Stephen Gilbert 12:55 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

---

Feelgood factor: the page was a single paragraph split from jumper this morning. Look at it now... /w/wiki.phtml?title=Jumper_(computing)&diff=0&oldid=816672 -- Tarquin 10:32 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

But I created Jumper (computing) before there was any mention of them on the jumper page :) Maybe it should be renamed to Jumper (electronics)[?].

Since both are just as relevant, it is probably easiest to use a "first served" appraoch, and create redirects as required. -- Egil 11:21 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

Concerning the above discussion about headlines: the Wikipedia:Manual of style also says that there should be no empty line between the headline and the following paragraph ("Note that with the == brackets used, no space under the headline is needed. The space should be removed."). I have seen many cases where an additional line was added, probably because the wiki text looks more organized and the headlines are easier to indentify (at least me thinks so). The above discussed United Airlines flight 93 contains a mixture at the moment ("Internal links" has an additional empty line, "External links" has not). Now my actual question :-)

Isn't it possible to remove empty lines after a headline automatically? I see two advantages: the headlines are IMHO easier to identify with the additional empty line, and we get a consistent layout for free. Are there any disadvantages I am not aware of? The only thing I see is that the code has to written and that it costs a bit CPU time (which should be neglectable). Is this the right place to discuss this, or should I better post it to one of the wikipedia mailing lists? -- mkrohn 11:39 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

It would be good if the wikipedia namespace would be included:

• in the titles search when Wikipedia's internal full-text search facility is temporarily disabled
• in /wiki/Special:Allpages (or is there a way to list all pages in the wikipedia namespace?)

Even when Wikipedia's internal full-text search facility is on, a title search option would be useful (faster if here are many hits in the full text).

Patrick 17:10 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

I have been trying to change the title of existing articles "comparative" and "superlative" to "grammatical comparative" and "grammatical superlative" by wikifying them to that effect as I feel that the names are too ambiguous. Is there a quicker way than changing all links the new versions? Can I have some ideas on this from the experts?Dieter Simon

What other meanings of "comparative" and "superlative" are there? what other pages will want those titles? -- Tarquin 21:14 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

I thought it would look more relevant to the subject of grammar than a referenc to a thing itself that is judged by comparison or is relative to other things as being better or the best. I do see your point though. ==Dieter Simon 22:18 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

I propose to use Xvid with Ogg/Vorbis sound as the standard video format for Wikipedia. Any advice ?

http://www.xvid.org/

Ericd 21:43 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

Changing GNU FDL to version 1.2

This reminds me. A while back I suggested we change Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License to be version 1.2 rather than 1.1 (and appropriately modify wikipedia:copyrights, of course. Nobody commented on this, negatively or positively, so I'm going to be bold and just do it if I don't get any responses this time round. Consider yourselves warned! :) Martin

What would the consequences of that be? Would it no longer be possible to distribute pages edited after the change under version 1.1 of the GFDL? --Brion 23:30 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

Suppose we make the change on May 1.

• It would be possible to distribute versions prior to May 1 under version 1.1 or version 1.2 or any later version. This is because when you grant a license under the GFDL you can't take it back again.
• It would be possible to distribute versions after May 1 under version 1.2 or any later version, but not under version 1.1.

The changes are minor fixes and clarifications - closing a few loopholes here and there.

Consequences: if Fred's Document has been released under the GFDL and he specified version 1.1 and he didn't specify "or any later version" (which is the standard) then we can't add it to wikipedia. However, we couldn't add it before either, because it would invalidate our own "or any later version" text. For material that says it is licensed under the GFDL without specifying a version, the license says "If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation." - so we can happilly use it under version 1.2 or later. Martin

Number pages It's great to see these... but how far are you guys planning on going? You do know that there is no smallest unintersting number, right? ;-) -- Tarquin 09:50 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, see Talk:Sixteen. I put a note at twenty suggesting we do increments of ten from there on (up to one hundred, presumably). Since interesting numbers appear all over the place, one idea is to collect (and redirect as necessary) all numbers from 20 to 29 in the twenty article, 30-39 in the thirty[?], and so on. Which means that "twenty" really means "twenty-something", although I would suggest still calling it "twenty". This should be extended so that over hundred it would be by the hundreds, then by the thousands etc. -- Egil 06:01 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Susan Mason

---

Maybe the answer to my question is explained somewhere, but I haven't found it. Here's my situation...I want to create a wiki-style music almanac for the punk scene in my town. It would allow local musicians to post their band's history and their upcoming and past shows, etc. Such information wouldn't really fit into the wikipedia scheme, therefore I want to make a separate almanac. I have a web host to place such an environment. But how do I create the environment. I assume I have to install software. Where do I get the software? How do I install it? I have plenty of experience using windows, but very limited experience using unix. But I could get help from a friend if the directions were user-friendly. Thanks, Kingturtle 01:52 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

I recommend you check out Wiki:WikiFarms for some sites that provide wiki and wiki-like hosting. If you've got the machine and the time to spend on setting up your own wiki server, I personally recommend UseModWiki, which runs in Perl and can be run on Windows as well as Unix. It's easy to set up and the syntax will be familiar, as Wikipedia used to run on UseMod. It's also possible to set up your own wiki using our software, but it's quite finicky and requires more additional stuff (mysql, php with certain configuration options; a lot of Wikipedia-specific text hardcoded into the interface you'd have to get rid of, etc). --Brion 03:06 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, Kingturtle. I answer this exact question higher up on this very page! :) I recommend UseModWiki as well. Your web host must provide cgi for you. -- Stephen Gilbert

Thanks. Although reading through all different wiki options is quite overwhelming. Which software would be most like the wikipedia software? And what exactly would be entailed in the setup? Truth is, I really don't know squat when it comes to installing and running such things. But I am willing to learn. Kingturtle 07:00 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

---

Is there a way to force the TeX interpreter to make nice large images instead of small ones? A page I recently created is an aesthetic mess due to the inconsistency. Cyan 06:07 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

You can set how TeX is shown on your prefs page (you're wanting "Always render PNG" under "Rendering math"). --Camembert

Ah, I understand now. -- Cyan

I've found that you can force an individual <math> formula to be a PNG (for people with default preferences) by putting \, at the end. --Zundark 11:33 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

Of course it's an aesthetic mess. I tried to tell you people,<math> is ugly (/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-January/002088). -- Tim Starling 06:02 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

a point raised in that email: "As for other improvements: perhaps you could find some way to convert most formulas to ASCII art and use that for the ALT text." -- an important aspect of ALT text is that is accessible to those who cannot see the images. I don't think ASCII art would satisfy that requirement. -- Tarquin 17:24 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

That idea of mine is long since dead and buried -- it's technically impossible anyway since ALT text cannot be multi-line. Why are you digging it up? This is why I gave up on that discussion: so much unconstructive argument. -- Tim Starling 01:04 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry. -- Tarquin 09:16 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

---