Wikipedia:Village pump/May 2003 archive 2

Is there no end to the ability of I Explorer to screw up images on wiki? Because it found the images on the pages too big (which other browsers didn't), I cropped a series of images on Dublin. In safari, the new page with the cropped image shows up. Ditto with Netscape. Ditto with opera. And with camino. But as usual IE does things differently and still shows the upcropped images extra large on the page. Why isn't IE 5.2 for a Mac able to instantly update the page like everyone else? Is it just images or does it not update text too? Will it eventually update? Why the hell does anyone else that damned browser? I gave up in frustration months ago but thought it necessary to check the page using it just to make sure it was not screwing it up. And surprise, surprise, it was and is still doing it.

JT, I find that I have problems with modifying images in IE. I have to do a Refresh, and then the latest version of the image usually (but not always) shows up okay. Sometimes an F4 works. -- Zoe

Thanks, Zoe. I really am amazed how both Netscape and IE seem to have so many bugs! Normally as the two most used browsers I would have expected them to be the best, but of all the browsers I have used since August when I came on line with a new computer they are by far the worst, with safari the best, which is why I generally use it. ÉÍREman

Yup. 'Refresh' did it. How utterly bizarre IE is!!!!! Thanks, Zoe!

BTW - Netscape doesn't recognise the <small></small> command, which means captions written in small lettering and laid out as such goes haywire in netscape because it treats all lettering as the same size. Is there anyway to counteract this? ÉÍREman 21:56 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

2. An alternative code is <font size=-1></font> .

In Netscape 4.79, it works though. Which version are you using? --Menchi 23:14 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Menchi. I have just checked and apparently it is 7.02 on an eMac. As I mentioned to Zoe above, I am amazed to find of the 6 browsers I have used since I got the new eMac, IE and Netscape are by far the worst, safari easily the best. But aware of Netscape and IE's tendency to muck up wiki images, I occasionally go on to check how a page I laid out looks. (And invariably groan at what one or other has done to the page!) ÉÍREman 00:45 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Netsape 6.x was based on an alpha version of Mozilla, so yes it was very buggy. Netscape 7 was based I think on Mozilla 1.0. I'm using Mozilla 1.2.1 now and the <small> tag displays fine. I'm not sure how Netscape 7 is so bad as I've not used it, but it is a rebranded rehash of Mozilla, and Mozilla works just fine apart from having a very computer-programmerish gui.

Netscape 6.1 (not that I ever use it!) also doesn't do <small>, either. -- Arwel 01:06 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

How odd that a browser would reduce its capacity in its new versions. Or is it a operating system thing? I use Windows 98. --Menchi 01:14 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

---

I wonder if that brief loss of service was our new server coming on line. That would be nice. -- Tim Starling 12:47 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Nope, just the old one breaking again. :D The new server is physically in place and running; Lee has been setting up software, and sometime Real Soon Now we should have it running the web front end and leaving our old server to do just the database. --Brion

When will the clock run on time? :-)

When Benito Mussolini takes charge of Wikipedia? ;-) -- John Owens

Grrr... :) I've set the clock again, and am trying to set up NTP right now. --Brion 18:52 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Brion, you know you're our local hero. our efforts are appreciated. :) -- April

Thanks for the kind words. :) --Brion

---

The below note was left on User Talk:Infrogmation:

I have also been blocked, apparently because I'm on the same IP address as "Michael/Weezer." He probably used AOL, as I am right now, so blocking his IP might block a lot of other people as well. RL Barrett 22:38 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Are we having a problem with blocking vandals on AOL without blocking other users? What is the proper procedure here? -- Infrogmation 22:54 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

We don't have an official policy on meta:bans and blocks yet. However, I'd say that if a hard-banned user edits from a range of IPs then any IP block should be temporary (IE, a number of hours) and we should chiefly rely on detection and reverting to keep Wikipedia accurate, unbiased, and otherwise healthy. Martin

If you unblock an IP, consider addding it to Wikipedia:IP probation watchlist, so there's a record of your actions. Martin

---

Question: Why the distinction between (say) "[[as of 2003]]" and "as of [[2003]]"? They both link to the same page.

...no, hang on a second, I think I've got it. Pages that link to "[[as of 2003]]" are grouped together on 2003's WhatLinksHere page, so they're easier to locate and update. Is that it?

--Paul A 01:26 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

Exactly. See Talk:As of 2003 (formerly talk:as of 2002) --Brion 01:30 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

---

Why is wikipedia so unbearably slow right now? Kingturtle 09:36 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

It is always slow because we are so damn popular. I sure hope the new server is set-up soon. --mav

---

Automated conversion

What are "Automated conversion"? See 'em all around, but dunno what they're. --Menchi 11:56 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

They date from when we switch from UseModWiki script to our "Phase II Wikipedia" script, around Feb 2002. -- Tarquin 15:51 May 7, 2003 (UTC) (this might want FAQing)

What do they do? --Menchi 18:15 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

Back in the dawn of time, Wikipedia was run using the UseModWiki wiki software. When we got to ten or twenty thousand pages this got to be a bit much for usemod to handle, and various new and exciting features were demanded that UseMod didn't support. Magnus Manske wrote a custom wiki program for Wikipedia (that version is now called "phase II", our current software is a rewrite of that, hence "phase III"). The pages had to be extracted from UseMod's files and imported into the database for the new software. The conversion script that did that marked the page creations as being done by "Automated conversion", as the conversion process was, well, automated. ;) Some time later I tweaked up the script to import prior saved revisions from the last archive of the UseMod-based wikipedia, so some older articles will also show revisions by real humans prior to the automated conversion. --Brion 18:26 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

---

I've just edited closed source, replacing "he" with "they". This got me thinking. Does wiki have a policy on gender? "He" is old fahsioned and I think should be avoided in original writing. Some strange feminists think we should write "she" (I've seen this in some weird software manuals) - I think this is equally stupid. I changed to "they", which is common usage for a neutral gender case in the UK, but I understand that this is not universal? Thoughts? CGS

An option is s/he and his/her, both are dictionary entries. --Menchi 20:45 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I think that makes one's writing look like a multiple choice test though. CGS

If you really want to go nuts (and drive other people in with you), then use sie and hir. --mav

See/edit also: gender-specific pronoun, gender-neutral pronoun, singular they, non-sexist language, and Spivak pronoun. Martin