from_name: Pieter Suurmond

subject: [Wikitech-l] Goodbye to HTML

body:
Dear Wiki-developers/maintainers,

Wouldn't it be the best to ban HTML altogether?
It has so may disadvantages. Instead, let's complete
the Wiki-syntax for all our formatting-needs...

Another thing: what is against a "half paragraph-break" ??
It just a way to subdivide a paragraph. It has been an accepted
style in many Dutch texts for decades, why not allow this?
I'm not saying it _has_ to be done by "
", on the contrary:
we should invent a proper Wiki-markup for a single line-break!

Kind regards / sorry for bothering you (I've strong opinions
about this),
Pieter Suurmond

Andre Engels wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, tarquin wrote:
>
> > What do we use HTML for? From what I've seen:
> > * tables  -- well, most people agree that HTML tables are ugly. we just
> > haven't yet come up with a good enough alternative.
> > * erroneous use of
 -- if you need a new paragraph, make one. If you
> > feel you need a "half paragraph-break", then rethink your writing style.
> > * LI, UL, OL -- people who haven't read the documentation. I suppose we
> > can keep
 as a synonym for *
> > * aligning images right or left with complex DIV or TABLE constructs --
> > as above -- we need better syntax.
> >
> > any other uses I've missed?
>
> Yes
>
> * Special characters, such as é, ä, š etcetera. - I would
>   be much in favor of keeping them.
> *  and . There isn't wiki for them yet, but it could be defined
> * Special typefaces like <type>
> * font sizes
> * People using HTML for things like boldface and headers. Unnecessary, I'd
>   say, but it happens a lot.
> * I myself have used
 at least once. (see [[Gall-Peters
>   projection]])
> * ... and undoubtedly there's still a number I forgot.
>
> Andre Engels
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Gareth Owen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Reasoning

body:
tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> writes:

>
 is deprecated

How might a poet

Wiki-format her haiku

So they look groovy?

--
Gareth Owen
"The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity"
                  --  W. B. Yeats forsees the standard of debate on wikipedia-l


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Reasoning

body:
You want wiki(pedia) to generate valid HTML pages ?

Then there is only one answer: forbid authors to
write HTML in their articles.
Or at least don't call it 'html', it confuses
everybody (even people on this list), instead,
incorporate those tags into the Wiki-syntax and
define them as Wiki-markup-codes: document them
and ban all other HTML-markup-codes.

Pieter Suurmond


from_name: tarquin

body:
Gareth Owen wrote:

>tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> writes:
>
>
>
>>
 is deprecated
>>
>>
>
>How might a poet

>Wiki-format her haiku

>So they look groovy?
>
>

: Indenting colon
: and also line break
: two birds with one stone

>
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] <br>

body:
tarquin wrote:
>
> Pieter Suurmond wrote:
>
> >Or at least don't call it 'html', it confuses
> >everybody (even people on this list), instead,
> >incorporate those tags into the Wiki-syntax and
> >define them as Wiki-markup-codes: document them
> >and ban all other HTML-markup-codes.
> >
> >
> >
> Yup -- stop treating then as HTML to be passed "as is" to the browser --
> treat them as wiki tags that must be parsed.
> s must be closed
>
 is deprecated
> etc
>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Agree! :-)
However... s don't necessarily have to be closed, it just depends
on how one defines them. They should, indeed, be regarded as 'wiki-tags',
not as 'passable html-tags'.
If
 is deprecated, what would be the way to generate single line-breaks?
I like them: they provide a way to sub-structure a paragraph, and it does
almost cost nohing: no special character, no special tag...
Why not allow single line-break?

Thanks,
Pieter


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] Goodbye to HTML

body:
On Die, 2003-01-21 at 18:04, tarquin wrote:

> * erroneous use of
 -- if you need a new paragraph, make one. If you
> feel you need a "half paragraph-break", then rethink your writing style.

That's incorrect - there are valid uses for
: text in tables, image
captions, certain link layouts, lists where the
 formatting would be
distracting .. even the Main Page uses
 repeatedly. I agree that it
is often misunderstood, but there are plenty of legitimate uses.

Regards,

Erik
--
FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de


subject: [Wikitech-l] <brrrrrr>

body:
Let's not call them "
" any longer, it reminds too much to html.
But very sure we will still need single line-breaks here and there.
Kind regards,
Pieter

Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> On Die, 2003-01-21 at 18:04, tarquin wrote:
>
> > * erroneous use of
 -- if you need a new paragraph, make one. If you
> > feel you need a "half paragraph-break", then rethink your writing style.
>
> That's incorrect - there are valid uses for
: text in tables, image
> captions, certain link layouts, lists where the
 formatting would be
> distracting .. even the Main Page uses
 repeatedly. I agree that it
> is often misunderstood, but there are plenty of legitimate uses.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
> --
> FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
> Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


subject: [Wikitech-l] Goodbye to HTML

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>[[Image:Foo.jpg showtext]] -> show the text of the image as caption
>
>
>
It would be a good idea to store the caption of the image on the image
page. (or maybe say the first line of the image page is magically the
caption)

A system like that would also allow us to apply a CSS class to the
caption text automatically, so all image captions would have the same
font & style

>
>
>


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Goodbye to HTML

body:
Just thinking:

Sometimes, there's an image which is not very wide. You don't want it to
occupy a whole line, because that would create a huge white space. So,
you'll align the image left or right from the article. (I prefer right,
so the text of the article will align left).

Now that image has a caption. The caption would be wider than the image,
which looks ugly, so you want to wrap it. Also, the caption should be
centered with the image.
What I do is

[[image:xyz.jpg]]

Some longer caption, which is wider than the image itself

Someone explain to me how to do that in wiki syntax, with the *same*
result, without the code looking more ugly?
(you are free to invent a wiki table syntax for that puropse!)

Magnus


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikitech-l] Goodbye to HTML

body:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Magnus Manske wrote:

> Just thinking:
>
> Sometimes, there's an image which is not very wide. You don't want it to
> occupy a whole line, because that would create a huge white space. So,
> you'll align the image left or right from the article. (I prefer right,
> so the text of the article will align left).
>
> Now that image has a caption. The caption would be wider than the image,
> which looks ugly, so you want to wrap it. Also, the caption should be
> centered with the image.
> What I do is
>
>

>

>
> [[image:xyz.jpg]]

> Some longer caption, which is wider than the image itself
>
>

>

>
> Someone explain to me how to do that in wiki syntax, with the *same*
> result, without the code looking more ugly?
> (you are free to invent a wiki table syntax for that puropse!)

Although also using HTML in this case, I still use a slightly different
syntax. What I do is:

[[image:xyz.jpg]]

''Some longer caption, which is wider
than the image itself''

And yes, I know it is bad HTML to not close the tr's and td's, but I guess
I'm lazy...

Andre Engels


subject: [Wikitech-l] Goodbye to HTML (not closing == correct HTML !)

body:
No, you are not lazy at all Andre (as I see how much work
you spend daily on maintaining the Dutch wikipedia :-).
And furthermore, not closing tr-, th- and td-tags is
VALID HTML 4 !
Indeed, in older HTML-versions this was not correct,
but in HTML 4.01 you do NOT need to close these tags any longer.
Read: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.5

Kind regards,
Pieter

Andre Engels wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Magnus Manske wrote:
>
> > Just thinking:
> >
> > Sometimes, there's an image which is not very wide. You don't want it to
> > occupy a whole line, because that would create a huge white space. So,
> > you'll align the image left or right from the article. (I prefer right,
> > so the text of the article will align left).
> >
> > Now that image has a caption. The caption would be wider than the image,
> > which looks ugly, so you want to wrap it. Also, the caption should be
> > centered with the image.
> > What I do is
> >
> >

> >

> >
> > [[image:xyz.jpg]]

> > Some longer caption, which is wider than the image itself
> >
> >

> >

> >
> > Someone explain to me how to do that in wiki syntax, with the *same*
> > result, without the code looking more ugly?
> > (you are free to invent a wiki table syntax for that puropse!)
>
> Although also using HTML in this case, I still use a slightly different
> syntax. What I do is:
>
>

>
[[image:xyz.jpg]]
>

> ''Some longer caption, which is wider
than the image itself''
>

>
> And yes, I know it is bad HTML to not close the tr's and td's, but I guess
> I'm lazy...
>
> Andre Engels
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


subject: [Wikitech-l] Goodbye to HTML

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>
>Yes, that was my original idea, but you have to make this optional,
>otherwise many layouts would be broken in the transition. Note that many
>of our image pages contain comments like "found this somewhere", because
>people treat the image description line on the upload page like the
>summary line on the edit page.
>
>
We can fix those :-)
We could also say that if the first line of the image page is "No
caption", then no caption is to be displayed, even if a [[Image: ...
showtext]] requests it

>
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Goodbye to HTML

body:
Andre Engels wrote:

>Although also using HTML in this case, I still use a slightly different
>syntax. What I do is:
>
>

>
[[image:xyz.jpg]]
>

>''Some longer caption, which is wider
than the image itself''
>

>
>
OK, here's an idea: Let's keep the
s valid, but expand the wiki
syntax for some often reoccurring cases!

I'm going to use HTML-style here, but we can do | or \ or {} or whatever:

<layout image right>
[[image:xyz.jpg]]

''Some longer caption, which is wider
than the image itself''
</layout>

Which would translate
<layout image right>  =>

</layout>  =>
    (or

)

We could also define that within <layout>, all blank lines are converted
into
s.

Similar for the "current events" on the Main Page:
<layout box center>
...stuff...
</layout>

All this would _not_ eliminate
 tags from wikipedia, but for
every-day stuff, it would do. Things like the PSE or the nucleotide
decay table would stay HTML.

Comments?

Magnus


subject: [Wikitech-l] Goodbye to HTML

body:
On Mit, 2003-01-22 at 16:03, Magnus Manske wrote:

> <layout image right>  =>

> </layout>  =>
    (or

)

A table containing an image should be as wide as the image itself. That
way, you do not need any arbitrary breaks in the text. That's one reason
I think this kind of layout should be supported by our [[Image]] syntax.

[[Image:Foo.jpg width=400]] -> generate 400 pixel wide version and show
that one, image links to original size version

[[Image:Foo.jpg showtext]] -> show the text of the image as caption

[[Image:Foo.jpg right]] -> embed in right-aligned table which uses the
image width as width

For other tables, we should develop a table syntax, as is already being
discussed on Meta. I do support the eventual goal of getting away from
HTML, but only if we can do everything we're doing now. Note that we'll
have to do *lots* of replacing and rewriting if we ever disable HTML.

Regards,

Erik

--

FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de


list: wikien-l

from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: we're slashdotted

body:
I noticed the following comment on /., & I think it's fair to say
all of us can guess who the poster & the Wikipedian in this piece
are.

(I'm not that surprised: there are an awful lot of kooks on /.
as it is.)

Geoff

==========================================================

Accurate meaning...? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wed 22 Jan 11:51AM (#5135984)
How do you decide what accurate is?

There was a subject I wrote about in a number of articles, which some
arrogant American woman who had no idea what she was talking about thought
was incorrect, and altered all of what I wrote. All others agreed with her,
although I know she is wrong.

I eventually rewrote the said area in a very indirect and obtuse way which
they seemed to not take issue with in their ignorance of the subject.

How do you decide what is fact? With sheer force of editing numbers? This
ends up with a bias.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Byebye HTML

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> For other tables, we should develop a table syntax, as is already being
> discussed on Meta. I do support the eventual goal of getting away from
> HTML, but only if we can do everything we're doing now. Note that we'll
> have to do *lots* of replacing and rewriting if we ever disable HTML.
>
> Regards,
> Erik

So the sooner the better (ban HTML).
Pieter


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Goodbye to HTML

body:
On mer, 2003-01-22 at 07:48, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Note that many
> of our image pages contain comments like "found this somewhere", because
> people treat the image description line on the upload page like the
> summary line on the edit page.

As indeed they should, that being the intent of its creation. The
copying of the upload note into the image description page on creation
was done just to get _something_ in them.

A single-line input is unfriendly for long descriptions, and captions
are a whole nother matter. Perhaps the upload form needs to be made a
little more flexible?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20030122/6818bac6/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Byebye HTML

body:
On Mit, 2003-01-22 at 16:24, Pieter Suurmond wrote:

> So the sooner the better (ban HTML).

First we have to replace it. Care to contribute some code? The image
page handling desperately needs rewriting.

Regards,

Erik
--
FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de


subject: [Wikitech-l] Goodbye to HTML

body:
On Mit, 2003-01-22 at 16:42, tarquin wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> >[[Image:Foo.jpg showtext]] -> show the text of the image as caption
> >
> >
> >
> It would be a good idea to store the caption of the image on the image
> page. (or maybe say the first line of the image page is magically the
> caption)

Yes, that was my original idea, but you have to make this optional,
otherwise many layouts would be broken in the transition. Note that many
of our image pages contain comments like "found this somewhere", because
people treat the image description line on the upload page like the
summary line on the edit page.

Regards,

Erik
--
FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de


subject: [WikiEN-l] we're slashdotted -- "solid kick"

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

>
>We're still afloat so far. :)  I gotta go sleep now, and won't be free
>to check in on the site until after 11 am (1900 UTC). So if the site
>breaks completely in the mean time, please give a shout to jwales and
>jasonr at bomis.com and ask them to give the server a solid kick or two.
>
>

Kick! kick!
the laaaaaaaaag is getting pretty bad out here

>
>
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Goodbye to HTML

body:
tarquin wrote:

> We could also say that if the first line of the image page is "No
> caption", then no caption is to be displayed, even if a [[Image: ...
> showtext]] requests it

I'd like to have a longer description on some figures, especially some
of my self-drawn diagrams, which are far from self-explaining... :-)

So, how about defining the caption as "everything until the first
horizontal line (----)"? We could have multiple lines on the description
page, horizontal line, then the source and other information that
doesn't really belong into the caption. "----" as the first line of the
description would inhibit a caption automatically.

Magnus


subject: [Wikitech-l] Goodbye to HTML

body:
On Mit, 2003-01-22 at 17:10, Magnus Manske wrote:
> tarquin wrote:
>
> > We could also say that if the first line of the image page is "No
> > caption", then no caption is to be displayed, even if a [[Image: ...
> > showtext]] requests it
>
> I'd like to have a longer description on some figures, especially some
> of my self-drawn diagrams, which are far from self-explaining... :-)
>
> So, how about defining the caption as "everything until the first
> horizontal line (----)"? We could have multiple lines on the description
> page, horizontal line, then the source and other information that
> doesn't really belong into the caption. "----" as the first line of the
> description would inhibit a caption automatically.

The "----" separation makes sense (a bit hackish), but I don't see the
need for any forced inhibition if we make the captions optional
(showtext) anyway.

I'd also like to repeat that an image page should ''always'' show the
image it refers to, in its 1:1 dimensions.

Regards,

Erik
--
FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de


from_name: Jonathan Walther

subject: mod_wiki written in C (Re: [Wikitech-l] wiki mirrors ?)

body:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 11:35:43AM +0100, buraq wrote:
>Hello,
>
>just read about Wikipedia and the Wiktionary this morning in
>www.heise.de for the first time and I'm impressed ! Good work.
>
>getting on-topic again, I could not find any information on setting up
>mirrors (the How to become a Wikipedia hacker page is a bit incomplete
>:) Is there any best-practice way to do it, which avoids transferring
>SQL Dumps of the whole database every day ?
>
>Do MySQL or PostgreSQL  have +working+ replication, transmitting just
>the changes/additions, has anybody ever used them to replicate Wikipedia ?

PostgreSQL does have working replication.  It is scheduled to be
implemented in mod_wiki.  I've just started cutting code; things have
matured to a point that I am now using a clone of Donald Knuths "CWEB"
literate programming tools to write this.  This should hopefully make it
easier for other people to pick up the source code and make their
changes to it, since it will be extensively documented.

I have also set up a Savannah project for mod_wiki, and once I have some
minimal wiki functionality, I will do the first checkin, and we will be
off to the races.

Jonathan

--
                     Geek House Productions, Ltd.

  Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
  QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
  General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone:   604-435-1205
Email:   djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC  V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20030122/82bfe5c0/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] XHTML (was Re: <br>)

body:
On mer, 2003-01-22 at 14:50, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> XHTML is not completely compatible with HTML, so making XHTML default
> may not be very friendly to some browsers.

Got any examples of trouble spots? Are they things we do?

> Does anybody have experience with XHTML websites ?
> Are all browsers happy about that ?

My old website is in XHTML 1.0 transitional: http://moisty.org/  Try it
in some browsers and let me know what breaks.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20030122/019b3547/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] wiki mirrors ?

body:
On mer, 2003-01-22 at 02:35, buraq wrote:
> just read about Wikipedia and the Wiktionary this morning in
> www.heise.de for the first time and I'm impressed ! Good work.

Wilkommen aus Wikipedia!

> getting on-topic again, I could not find any information on setting up
> mirrors (the How to become a Wikipedia hacker page is a bit incomplete
> :) Is there any best-practice way to do it, which avoids transferring
> SQL Dumps of the whole database every day ?
>
> Do MySQL or PostgreSQL  have +working+ replication, transmitting just
> the changes/additions, has anybody ever used them to replicate Wikipedia ?

MySQL replication _supposedly_ works... I'm considering setting it up on
our own server so that slow read-only operations (like the SQL dumps)
can be done on the local mirror without the main database locking and
grinding to a complete halt for forty minutes. I haven't yet looked into
the setup details in earnest though.

Allowing remote servers to sync that way should be possible. Can we
leave out certain tables? Eg, the user table, which contains sensitive
information -- password hashes and e-mail addresses -- that we'd rather
not have zipping about the net willy-nilly.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20030122/23a5965f/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

subject: [Wikitech-l] <br>

body:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 03:09:57PM +0100, Pieter Suurmond wrote:
> Agree! :-)
> However... <td>s don't necessarily have to be closed, it just depends
> on how one defines them.

I know how to fix table markup issue and it is exactly the opposite way.

We should completely forbid </td>, </th> and </tr>.
They are just noise and table is completely unambiguous without them.

This is also completely correct in HTML, but we may automatically
generate closing tags if we want to generate XHTML.

This reduces weight of table markup by almost half.

(Most tables on Polish Wikipedia are already written this way)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Markup must stay compatible [was: Byebye HTML]

body:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 04:39:01PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Mit, 2003-01-22 at 16:24, Pieter Suurmond wrote:
>
> > So the sooner the better (ban HTML).
>
> First we have to replace it. Care to contribute some code? The image
> page handling desperately needs rewriting.

Breakng existing markup is extremely counter-productive.
Please don't do that. It would be very wrong if articles
broke just because someone doesn't like HTML.


subject: [Wikitech-l] generate closing tags, also in regular HTML

body:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 03:09:57PM +0100, Pieter Suurmond wrote:
> > Agree! :-)
> > However... <td>s don't necessarily have to be closed, it just depends
> > on how one defines them.
>
> I know how to fix table markup issue and it is exactly the opposite way.
>
> We should completely forbid </td>, </th> and </tr>.
> They are just noise and table is completely unambiguous without them.

Yes, it is maybe possible to forbid </td>, </th> and </tr> in Wiki-source.
But please DO generate them when you generate HTML out of it: although
HTML4.01 does not require end-tags, many browsers still can't do
without them. As it says on
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AHow_does_one_edit_a_page :

  If your table doesn't look right, make sure that all <tr> and <td> tags
  are closed with corresponding </tr> and </td> tags. Do not indent lines,
  and do not include empty lines within a table. Otherwise, you will get
  spurious space above the table or even a browser crash.

Wiki-server should be able to take care of this, I presume....
(I am an experienced CGI/C/C++ programmer but am not too familiar with
 python, perl, php, SQL-quering. etc... I don't know what you system-
 administrators all use to keep the wiki-servers up and running.....)

Kind regards (and anyhow, thanks for Wikipedia, I really love it!),
Pieter Suurmond

> This is also completely correct in HTML, but we may automatically
> generate closing tags if we want to generate XHTML.
>
> This reduces weight of table markup by almost half.
>
> (Most tables on Polish Wikipedia are already written this way)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


body:
On Mit, 2003-01-22 at 18:18, Pieter Suurmond wrote:
> Wiki-server should be able to take care of this, I presume....
> (I am an experienced CGI/C/C++ programmer but am not too familiar with
>  python, perl, php, SQL-quering. etc... I don't know what you system-
>  administrators all use to keep the wiki-servers up and running.....)

Pieter,

if you know C/C++, PHP should be a breeze to get into. We could really
use experienced developers. Why not give it a try? You can find some
useful info in the growing (still underdeveloped)
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_become_a_Wikipedia_hacker
on meta.

BTW, do we want to build a public tasklist on meta where anyone can pick
projects to work on? The SourceForge facilities are seriously underused,
and it seems to me like a wiki is best for that kind of stuff.

Regards,

Erik - always pimpin' for new developers
--
FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de


subject: [Wikitech-l] Goodbye to HTML

body:
> It would be a good idea to store the caption of the image on the image
> page. (or maybe say the first line of the image page is magically the
> caption)

But what if the same image is used on several pages? It is rare, but it does
happen, and one might want different captions in those cases.

Andre Engels


subject: [Wikitech-l] (wiki got me hooked now :-)

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> On Mit, 2003-01-22 at 18:18, Pieter Suurmond wrote:
> > Wiki-server should be able to take care of this, I presume....
> > (I am an experienced CGI/C/C++ programmer but am not too familiar with
> >  python, perl, php, SQL-quering. etc... I don't know what you system-
> >  administrators all use to keep the wiki-servers up and running.....)
>
> Pieter,
>
> if you know C/C++, PHP should be a breeze to get into. We could really
> use experienced developers. Why not give it a try? You can find some
> useful info in the growing (still underdeveloped)
> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_become_a_Wikipedia_hacker
> on meta.
>
> BTW, do we want to build a public tasklist on meta where anyone can pick
> projects to work on? The SourceForge facilities are seriously underused,
> and it seems to me like a wiki is best for that kind of stuff.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik - always pimpin' for new developers
> --
> FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
> Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de

Thanks for your reply Erik. Sounds stimuling, exciting... :-)
I am going to have a look at ''How_to_become_a_Wikipedia_hacker''.
As a matter of fact, I think *specifying* wiki-syntax is more
important than *implementing* it. I regard myself not as a
''hacker'' any longer :-)... and I would like to rename that
page to ''How_to_become_a_Wikipedia_developer''.

I also dislike the METAwiki-concept a bit. When a systems fails to
describe itself in its' own terms (a recursive definition thus)
it is not good: all METAwiki-people should come down to regular
wiki in my opinion. I am afraid some people will soon start a
metameta..... (Or am I just a bit 'paranoid'). Let's stop forking,
let's unite!

I've got other weird ideas: Write a complete standalone Wiki-server
in pure C. (not depending on any mySQL, PHP, Apache-webserver, etc.).
Once a proper definition of Wiki-syntax and semantcs cristalizes,
this could be done (I could do it).
I already started to describe wikisyntax with use of (metasyntax)
ISO-EBNF on one of the Dutch pages...
Well, I'll keep in touch, going to read that 'hackers-page' now...
Thanks,
Pieter Suurmond


subject: [Wikitech-l] antimeta

body:
Wouldn't it be nice if those PHP-scripts
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PHP_script
is talking about became edittable via the normal,
regular Wikipedia-interface itself!?
(Writable by 'staff' only, of course, but at least
 readable to any visitor.)

Is this Wikipedia itself running on some kind of
CVS-like system?
(Then many people could use regular CVS-software
 to easily edit pages, and also have their copies
 ('backups at home') synchronised automatically.)

Can I somewhere download a (huge) weekly or monthly
tarball of the complete Wilipedia-contents?
How much would it actually be? 500MB or 40GB ?

Sorry for bothering,
Pieter Suurmond


from_name: Kurt Jansson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] EFF Pioneer Award

body:
I just nominated Jimmy (as a representant for our little project) for
the EFF Pioneer Award. Maybe others like to do the same.
http://www.eff.org/awards/pioneer.html

Jimmy Wales
Phone: (+1)-727-527-9776
Email: jwales at bomis.com

Or pick Mav, Brion, KQ, Magnus, Cunc, Axel, ...

I guess they can't give the price to the project as a whole. :-(

Kurt


subject: [Wikitech-l] antimeta

body:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Pieter Suurmond wrote:

> Wouldn't it be nice if those PHP-scripts
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PHP_script
> is talking about became edittable via the normal,
> regular Wikipedia-interface itself!?
> (Writable by 'staff' only, of course, but at least
>  readable to any visitor.)

See
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/wikipedia/phpwiki/newcodebase/

Andre Engels


from_name: Zoe

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: we're slashdotted

body:
I always knew 172 was out to prove he was better than anybody else.
Zoe
 Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:I noticed the following comment on /., & I think it's fair to say
all of us can guess who the poster & the Wikipedian in this piece
are.

(I'm not that surprised: there are an awful lot of kooks on /.
as it is.)

Geoff

==========================================================

Accurate meaning...? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wed 22 Jan 11:51AM (#5135984)
How do you decide what accurate is?

There was a subject I wrote about in a number of articles, which some
arrogant American woman who had no idea what she was talking about thought
was incorrect, and altered all of what I wrote. All others agreed with her,
although I know she is wrong.

I eventually rewrote the said area in a very indirect and obtuse way which
they seemed to not take issue with in their ignorance of the subject.

How do you decide what is fact? With sheer force of editing numbers? This
ends up with a bias.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030122/3705a05c/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: <br>

body:
Richard Grevers wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:36:07 +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski
> <taw=Rn4VEauK+AKRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 03:09:57PM +0100, Pieter Suurmond wrote:
> >> Agree! :-)
> >> However... <td>s don't necessarily have to be closed, it just depends on
> >> how one defines them.
> >
> > I know how to fix table markup issue and it is exactly the opposite way.
> >
> > We should completely forbid </td>, </th> and </tr>.
> > They are just noise and table is completely unambiguous without them.
> Except Netscape 4 which will then refuse to display the page at all if
> there is any nesting of tables!

And therefore, the html-output generated by the wikiserver should include
terminating -td, -th, and tr-tags automatically.
I think Tomasz Wegrzanowski was talking about wiki-source here and
not about wiki-html-output. These are 2 different things (input and output).
Kind regards,
Pieter

> --
> Richard Grevers
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Imran Ghory

subject: [Wikipedia-l] EFF Pioneer Award

body:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Kurt Jansson wrote:

> I just nominated Jimmy (as a representant for our little project) for
> the EFF Pioneer Award. Maybe others like to do the same.
> http://www.eff.org/awards/pioneer.html
>
> Jimmy Wales
> Phone: (+1)-727-527-9776
> Email: jwales at bomis.com
>
> Or pick Mav, Brion, KQ, Magnus, Cunc, Axel, ...
>
> I guess they can't give the price to the project as a whole. :-(

IIRC. They can, the EFF award is open to any individual or _organization_.

Imran
--
http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran


subject: [Wikitech-l] table suggestion

body:
Hi, here my table-suggestion (in ISO-EBNF):
Wiki-text is compressed as follows (terminating tags are not rejected
but they just dissappear from wiki-source).

 input-rules:
               ""|"", blabla, "	"|"	", = "", blabla;
               ""|"", blabla, "	"|"	", = "", blabla;
               "
"|"
", blabla, "
"|"
", = "
", blabla;

At request, the server expands it again as follows:

 output-rules:
               "", blabla = "", blabla, "";
               "", blabla = "", blabla, "";
               "
", blabla = "
", blabla, "
";

But please let's use symbols that are different from these html-lookalikes.
I'm quite new here so I don't know which symbols can be used to replace
"", "", "
", and also "
" (and
 ???).

Just thinking out loud.., kind regards,
Pieter Suurmond


from_name: M Carling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Things that bother me

body:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Sheldon Rampton wrote:

> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> >O.k., then we're likely so far apart in political opinions that we'll
> >have a hard time agreeing on very much.  If 90% of a population is
> >white, and votes in fair and open democratic elections to impose
> >rights violations ("separate but equal" or worse) on the 10% that is
> >black, you'd consider that a morally appropriate outcome?  I don't
> >think so, but that's what I mean when I say that majority rule is
> >morally repugnant.
>
> I agree, that would be morally repugnant, but no serious proponent of
> majority rule advocates that sort of thing. The standard formulation
> is that the "majority rules, but the minority has rights." The
> question of how to define the boundary between majority rulership and
> minority rights has always been difficult to define, but that
> fundamental problem doesn't get any better if you resort to the only
> viable alternative to majority rule, which is one-man dictatorship or
> rule by a minority elite.

The alternative is the so-called "Rule of law" i.e. that we are ruled by
laws not men.  This is the underlying idea behind a Republic, and the
purpose of a written constitution.  It limits what one group (typically a
plurality or majority) can use the government to do to other groups.

It seem as if Sheldon Rampton and Jimmy Wales may be talking past each
other because the former is using the term "majority rule" figuratively to
mean constitutional democracy while the latter is using the term
literally.  Perhaps if you can agree on terminology, you can then agree on
the issue.

M Carling


from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [Wikitech-l] Goodbye to HTML

body:
tarquin wrote:

>What do we use HTML for?

I doubt that anybody can come up with a complete list from memory;
I'm often suprised to see a new use of HTML when I come across it.

We should go through each HTML tag that we currently pass through,
one by one, and decide how to make it a wiki markup.
(Possibly wiki markup that looks just like an HTML tag --
I still think that this is perfectly reasonable
for rarely used markup like <br> and <i> --
but it still needs to be parsed as wiki markup,
not just passed through unparsed.)
Then we need to search for all appearances in the text
(a case insensitive search for "<%s>", "<%s ", and "<%s\n" in C notation)
and translate every instance into the new syntax (if necessary) --
or agree that we will not support the effect being done
(quite possible for some uses of <font>, for example).

Actually, we should probably search for uses in the first step,
so that we can make all necessary decisions right up front;
but we'll still need to search again just before changing the code.
To avoid unnecessarily extended discussions over and over again,
we make all of the decisions on, say, [[meta:HTML_to_wiki]]
(there may well already exist a meta page along these lines),
and direct people there if they ask about it on <wikitech-l>.

-- Toby


subject: [Wikitech-l] thanks

body:
Thanks for pointing out where exactly to find it in the sources Brion
(and for pointing out http://cvs.sourceforge.net, Andre).
Oh, and sorry for the excessive comma's in my previous e-mail.
Greetings,
Pieter

Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Pieter Suurmond wrote:
> > Richard Grevers wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:36:07 +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski
> > > > We should completely forbid </td>, </th> and </tr>.
> > > > They are just noise and table is completely unambiguous without them.
> > > Except Netscape 4 which will then refuse to display the page at all if
> > > there is any nesting of tables!
> >
> > And therefore, the html-output generated by the wikiserver should include
> > terminating -td, -th, and tr-tags automatically.
>
> Our current parser *tries* to do this (insert end tags where they're
> missing), but it doesn't do a very good job of it.
>
> Anyone who'd like to rewrite it is more than welcome to do so! Please take
> a look at removeHTMLtags() in OutputPage.html. Once you've finished
> wiping the tears from your eyes, write up something better. :)  If you can
> integrate it with the rest of the markup parsing, so much the better.
>
> > I think Tomasz Wegrzanowski was talking about wiki-source here and
> > not about wiki-html-output. These are 2 different things (input and output).
>
> As long as we allow use of the HTML tags*, we should take them both with
> and without end tags. We should ideally produce valid XHTML from *any*
> given input. If the input is broken, we may not produce what the author
> intended, but we *must* produce something that will pass a validating
> parser.
>
> *(And if we some day decide not to allow them, we should provide
> equivalent functionality and, if possible, automatically convert
> articles to use the newer system at the time the change is made. If
> automatic conversion is not possible, we should make a conscious effort to
> fix anything that's broken.)
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Things that bother me

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>O.k., then we're likely so far apart in political opinions that we'll
>have a hard time agreeing on very much.  If 90% of a population is
>white, and votes in fair and open democratic elections to impose
>rights violations ("separate but equal" or worse) on the 10% that is
>black, you'd consider that a morally appropriate outcome?  I don't
>think so, but that's what I mean when I say that majority rule is
>morally repugnant.

I agree, that would be morally repugnant, but no serious proponent of
majority rule advocates that sort of thing. The standard formulation
is that the "majority rules, but the minority has rights." The
question of how to define the boundary between majority rulership and
minority rights has always been difficult to define, but that
fundamental problem doesn't get any better if you resort to the only
viable alternative to majority rule, which is one-man dictatorship or
rule by a minority elite.

I'm a little reluctant even to post this comment, because I don't
think we want to launch into an open-ended debate here about
political worldviews. Suffice it to say that the areas on which I
think we all agree are:

(1) Violation of the rights of a minority is morally repugnant, even
if it takes place under a system of majority rule; and

(2) Wikipedia's current informal system of self-governance has worked
pretty well thus far.
--
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------


from_name: Tony Wilson

subject: [WikiEN-l] we're slashdotted

body:
Standing by with bucket in hand. No sign of fire yet. So far, so good!

Tony Wilson
(Tannin)
list at redhill.net.au


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: we're slashdotted

body:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 08:19:25PM -0800, Zoe wrote:
>   I always knew 172 was out to prove he was better than anybody else.

I was assuming the comment was from Lir/VeraCruz.

Jonathan

--
                     Geek House Productions, Ltd.

  Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
  QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
  General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone:   604-435-1205
Email:   djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC  V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030122/1985ea74/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: <br>

body:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 12:45:57PM -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
> As long as we allow use of the HTML tags*, we should take them both with
> and without end tags. We should ideally produce valid XHTML from *any*
> given input. If the input is broken, we may not produce what the author
> intended, but we *must* produce something that will pass a validating
> parser.
>
> *(And if we some day decide not to allow them, we should provide
> equivalent functionality and, if possible, automatically convert
> articles to use the newer system at the time the change is made. If
> automatic conversion is not possible, we should make a conscious effort to
> fix anything that's broken.)

XHTML is not completely compatible with HTML, so making XHTML default
may not be very friendly to some browsers.

Does anybody have experience with XHTML websites ?
Are all browsers happy about that ?


body:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 06:48:03PM +0100, Pieter Suurmond wrote:
> I also dislike the METAwiki-concept a bit. When a systems fails to
> describe itself in its' own terms (a recursive definition thus)
> it is not good: all METAwiki-people should come down to regular
> wiki in my opinion. I am afraid some people will soon start a
> metameta..... (Or am I just a bit 'paranoid'). Let's stop forking,
> let's unite!
>
> I've got other weird ideas: Write a complete standalone Wiki-server
> in pure C. (not depending on any mySQL, PHP, Apache-webserver, etc.).
> Once a proper definition of Wiki-syntax and semantcs cristalizes,
> this could be done (I could do it).
> I already started to describe wikisyntax with use of (metasyntax)
> ISO-EBNF on one of the Dutch pages...
> Well, I'll keep in touch, going to read that 'hackers-page' now...

All in pure C without even using SQL and HTTP server ?
You want to make it slow, not portable, insecure, leak memory,
be hard to maintain and extend and to segfault at random or what ?

It doesn't seem like a good idea to me.


from_name: Pieter Suurmond

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Integrating WikiWare, PHP, mySQL and Apache == too
 weird

body:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 06:48:03PM +0100, Pieter Suurmond wrote:
> > I also dislike the METAwiki-concept a bit. When a systems fails to
> > describe itself in its' own terms (a recursive definition thus)
> > it is not good: all METAwiki-people should come down to regular
> > wiki in my opinion. I am afraid some people will soon start a
> > metameta..... (Or am I just a bit 'paranoid'). Let's stop forking,
> > let's unite!
> >
> > I've got other weird ideas: Write a complete standalone Wiki-server
> > in pure C. (not depending on any mySQL, PHP, Apache-webserver, etc.).
> > Once a proper definition of Wiki-syntax and semantcs cristalizes,
> > this could be done (I could do it).
> > I already started to describe wikisyntax with use of (metasyntax)
> > ISO-EBNF on one of the Dutch pages...
> > Well, I'll keep in touch, going to read that 'hackers-page' now...
>
> All in pure C without even using SQL and HTTP server ?

Yes, I like Wiki that much, I'm considering the effort.

> You want to make it slow, not portable, insecure, leak memory,

No, secure, leak-free, indeed hard to maintain and extend (I dislike
maintainance anyway :-) but with possibly more efficient execution.
I think C and C++ are the most portable languages of all, they are
standardised and documented very well, etc. . . I'm just imagining
myself a mini wiki-machine with as less as  possible dependancies...
More the design-once/update-never-approach, which is maybe
not appropriate here, all right. Thanks for your opninion, Pieter. :-)

> be hard to maintain and extend and to segfault at random or what ?
>
> It doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Things that bother me

body:
Sheldon Rampton wrote:

> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>> O.k., then we're likely so far apart in political opinions that we'll
>> have a hard time agreeing on very much.  If 90% of a population is
>> white, and votes in fair and open democratic elections to impose
>> rights violations ("separate but equal" or worse) on the 10% that is
>> black, you'd consider that a morally appropriate outcome?  I don't
>> think so, but that's what I mean when I say that majority rule is
>> morally repugnant.
>
> I agree, that would be morally repugnant, but no serious proponent of
> majority rule advocates that sort of thing.

That sounds naive.  It's not the idea of majority rule that is
repugnant, but it's application.  Unfortunately, people like simple
answers, even simplistic ones.  They equate democracy with simple
majority rule, and don't want to consider anything more complex.  The
"serious proponents" that you mention are a minority.  This is de
Tocqueville's tyranny of the majority.

> The standard formulation is that the "majority rules, but the minority
> has rights." The question of how to define the boundary between
> majority rulership and minority rights has always been difficult to
> define, but that fundamental problem doesn't get any better if you
> resort to the only viable alternative to majority rule, which is
> one-man dictatorship or rule by a minority elite.

The one-man dictatorship is often more reliable and predictable than a
minority ?lite.

Eclecticology


from_name: james duffy

subject: [WikiEN-l] solving the problem of royal nomenclature

body:
Hi Wilkiens,

We have a major problem over how to refer to members of a royal family other
than monarchs. Different people are using any number of references,
structures and names. Do we use (i) surnames or (ii) titles? What happens if
a ''personal'' surname is different to a Royal House name? (eg, is the
former Austrian Crown Prince Otto Von Hapsburg, Otto von Hapsburg, Otto von
Habsburg, or Otto Habsburg-Lothringen? Which is the Royal House name? Which
is a surname?) Furthermore, putting in a 'common name' (as presumed by a
page writer) is problematic; for example, there is NO such person as
'Charles Windsor', nor 'Anne Windsor' because Windsor is a Royal House name,
not their surname; their surnames actually are different. I have spent some
time checking out the whole issue, including speaking to the Buckingham
Palace press office to get accurate information re-British royals. I put my
suggestion on the history standards page and so far it has met with general
consensus approval, subject to minor modifications, which I have made. I
call it the THREE GENERATION RULE.

(1) FIRST GENERATION ROYALS
'Children & siblings of A monarch'' (not just the present monarch!) should
be referred to by TITLE where they have one, or 'PRINCE/PRINCESS OF
[country]' where they have no formal title, for example;
**Charles, Prince of Wales
**Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark
**Philip (or spanish version), Prince of the Asturias (or Crown Prince of
Spain)
**Willem Alexander, Crown Prince of the Netherlands
**Andrew, Duke of York
**Anne, Princess Royal
**Victoria, Princess Royal (daughter of Queen Victoria and mother of Kaiser
Wilhelm II)
**Margaret, Princess of the United Kingdom (daughter of George VI, sister of
Elizabeth II)
**Beatrice, Princess of the United Kingdom (daughter of Queen Victoria,
sister of Edward VII)

REASON: such royals are widely known and so recognised almost exclusively by
name or title. Using standard names (which some reference books do) won't
work on WIki because the vast majority of its users won't have a clue what
their standard name is, particularly as their actual surname is frequently
different to the Royal Family name. It has already caused problems for some
people I know, who decided to go elsewhere for information.

(2) SECOND GENERATION ROYALS
Those descended from a monarch should be referred to by title if they have
one, by Royal House name (eg, Windsor,  etc) IN THE ARTICLE TITLE if they
don't, unless they have a CLEAR AND IDENTIFIABLE SURNAME, for example:
**Princess Beatrice of York
**Princess Eugenie of York
**Eloise Sophie Beatrix Laurence, Countess of Orange-Nassau
**Zara Phillips
**Princess Anne's children have no title, an almost unique situation. They
are universally known by their father's surname of Phillips, so a degree of
flexibility is required here, but as I say they do SEEM unique.

REASON: such royals are less well known but again are known largely by
name/title. Using a surname would be confusing as many would have different,
largely known surnames. If we use, say, 'Beatrice of the United Kingdom'
that could be mixed up with an earlier one of the same name. But we can't
say 'Princess of York', as that isn't correct, even though she IS a princess
and OF York. Leaving out princess causes another problem; many in the middle
ages called themselves, for example, 'John of Gaunt', 'Philip of Chester,
'Maud of Lille' etc.  And just using a surname is out because contrary to
what some on Wiki think, Windsor isn't her surname and few would recognise
her actual double-barrelled surname. The view expressed to me was that you
need to clarify her status as a princess and use York to define her. The
general view was in such cases, 'Princess Beatrice of York' is
name-specific, person-specific and the most correct title, clarifying
exactly who she is. And it is workable in all occasions I can think of.
(Sons and daughters of royal dukes and earls use their parent's title as
part of their own. For example, 'Prince William of Wales', 'Prince Richard
of Gloucester', etc.) For example,

**Princess Beatrice of Edinburgh (grand-daughter of Queen Victoria)
**Princess Victoria of Connaught (grandaughter of Queen Victoria)

Such figures are unlikely to feature in Wiki, but if they do, it is worth
having a standard structure by which they can be dealt with.

(3) Other Minor Royals.
The Royal House name should be used, for example:
The Earl of Ulster referred to by Royal House (in this case, Windsor)
Where a ''minor royal'' is unambiguously identified by a clear surname, that
could be used. For example
**Viscount Linley as David Linley.
By using a Royal House name, we would be using the name most people would
associate with a monarchy. In Britain, that would be Windsor,
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in Belgium.

REASON: Such royals are hardly known, and rarely by title. But as they may
have a different and almost totally unknown surname, using the Royal House
name may be the most straight-forward way

Having used title or accurate reference in the ARTICLE TITLE, we may then
add in a surname (if we have it, and its not as simple as people think) IN
THE OPENING LINE. I've added two definitions onto Wiki that can also be
linked in for clarity. ROYAL HOUSE means Royal Family name. So, on a
reference to a member of the British Royal Family, after the name in the
text, you can simply add ''of the [[Royal House]] of [[Windsor]]'' and
someone who isn't sure can check to see what a Royal House is. I've also
added definitions for the two British Royal Family names; [[Windsor (Royal
House)]] (the Royal House/Royal Family name, which is also the surname of
some but but no means all of the family), and [[Mountbatten-Windsor]], the
actual surname of Charles, Anne, Edward and Andrew and all their children,
according to Buckingham Palace.

So an entry would go,

CHARLES, PRINCE OF WALES

Charles Philip Arthur George [[Mountbatten-Windsor]], of the [[Royal House]]
of [[Windsor]] . . . etc etc

So far, there has been general consensus on the idea, subject to minor
queries and ideas which I am incorporating. Indeed a number of people have
begun renaming articles to conform with this structure. (I've added in the
correct surnames to articles on Queen Elizabeth's children).

Has anyone any observations or suggestions? I know both Deb and Mav seem
reasonably satisfied with the idea. Others have made minor suggestions for
adaptions but seem happy with the overall idea. As I said, the current
haphazard system isn't working, while just using what people THINK are
correct surnames is producing references that most people won't understand
and which in many cases are factually incorrect. In the case of royalty, it
is easier to be specific using unambiguous titles than surnames, not least
when many royals don't actually have them, again contrary to what some think
when they take a dubious stab at making them up, as is the case with
[[Charles Windsor]]; whomever he is, it most certainly isn't Prince Charles,
whose surname is Mountbatten-Windsor according to the Palace.

JT.

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: we're slashdotted

in_reply_to: <20030123074322.GA804@reactor-core.org>; from krooger@debian.org on Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 11:43:22PM -0800

body:
Jonathan Walther wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 08:19:25PM -0800, Zoe wrote:
> >   I always knew 172 was out to prove he was better than anybody else.
>
> I was assuming the comment was from Lir/VeraCruz.

I thought Helga.

Well, at least we all agree it wasn't '24'.

--Jimbo


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: EFF Pioneer Award

body:
On Thursday 23 January 2003 04:00 am, wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org wrote:
> I just nominated Jimmy (as a representant for our little project) for
> the EFF Pioneer Award. Maybe others like to do the same.
> http://www.eff.org/awards/pioneer.html
>
> Jimmy Wales
> Phone: (+1)-727-527-9776
> Email: jwales at bomis.com
>
> Or pick Mav, Brion, KQ, Magnus, Cunc, Axel, ...
>
> I guess they can't give the price to the project as a whole. :-(
>
> Kurt

Please everybody nominate Jimbo instead of me. The way I see it, he is our
Linus Torvalds and should get the credit for the project in the same way as
Torvalds gets credit for the Linux kernel (*cough* sometimes getting credit
for the whole operating system).

Torvalds started the Linux kernel and makes sure things keep running more or
less smoothly and on target even though most of the actual coding work is
really done by hundreds of other people. Torvalds himself readily admits
this. I see many similarities with Jimbo/Wikipedia.

I'm just a highly motivated foot soldier, Jimbo is the General.

-- mav

WikiKarma
Added many events to [[January 23]] and greeted many new users


subject: [WikiEN-l] Anonymous quote in article

body:
This seems better suited to a /Talk page?

Erik Moeller wrote:

> Hi,
>
> there's a problem with the article [[Madeline Amy Sweeney]], about a victim
> of the Sep 11 attacks. This started out as an anonymous contribution:
>
> "Amy was a wonderful person to wrok with. She inspired me to enjoy my life,
> work hard and have fun with my job as an American Airlines Flight Attendant,
> because it was the best of the best."
>
> It was expanded, and the quote was removed. Oliver Perreira and Tom
> Parmenter have insisted on keeping that quote in the article. The latest variant used
> by Oliver is this:
>
> --
> The Wikipedia article on Madeline Amy Sweeney was started on November 28,
> 2001, with the following anonymous sentiment:- "Amy was a wonderful person to
> wrok with. She inspired me to enjoy my life, work hard and have fun with my
> job as an American Airlines Flight Attendant, because it was the best of the
> best."
> --
>
> A new contributor named Arno also wants to keep the quote in, with the
> remark "SPECIAL NOTE". Because he is encouraged by Tom and Oliver, he is now ready
> to start an "edit war".
>
> My position is that, however touching this may be, there are several reasons
> not to have the quote in the article:
>
> * We have a precedent here. On [[Wilson Flagg]] we have kept the comment on
> the Talk page and linked to it, with the link name "Tributes and Comments".
> * The anonymous quote is unverifiable. I could easily come along and add
> another, similar quote to the article under an anonymous IP. Should that then,
> too, be included because of its sentimental value? Or does the first quote get
> priority because it was "the quote that started this article"? In that case,
> can I come along and add new articles about Sep 11 victims with fake
> anonymous quotes that are destined to remain in them forever?
> * Any self-reference of the type "The Wikipedia article .." is
> non-encyclopedic to the extreme and should be avoided whenever possible.
>
> In conclusion, I think it is obvious that we should keep the anonymous
> comment on the Talk page, and not in the article. It would set an extremely bad
> precedent if we allowed these kind of unverifiable comments in articles. I'd
> like to hear more opinions on, preferably on the Talk page of the article
> [[Madeline Amy Sweeney]].
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
>
> --
> +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
> NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr f?r 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: EFF Pioneer Award

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Torvalds started the Linux kernel and makes sure things keep running more or
> less smoothly and on target even though most of the actual coding work is
> really done by hundreds of other people. Torvalds himself readily admits
> this. I see many similarities with Jimbo/Wikipedia.

This is not unintentional on my part.  Like Linus, "I'm basically a
very lazy person who likes to take credit for things other people
actually do."  (Also, like Linus, I'm only joking there.  The irony
is, one reason Linus gets credit for everything is that he readily
admits that other people did most of it.)

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Things that bother me

body:
M Carling wrote:
> It seem as if Sheldon Rampton and Jimmy Wales may be talking past each
> other because the former is using the term "majority rule" figuratively to
> mean constitutional democracy while the latter is using the term
> literally.  Perhaps if you can agree on terminology, you can then agree on
> the issue.

I think that's right.  It seems, based on his followup, that we
probably don't disagree all that much.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] www.wikipedia.org

body:
Chuck Smith wrote:
> I know a lot of people who thought the Esperanto
> Wikipedia was the only language that existed in the
> project and I'd imagine that we're not alone in this.

Perhaps the solution to this little detail is that the Esperanto
homepage needs to be internationalized in some way?

Can you give us more detail of exactly what you are proposing?

Do you propose removing the "tree" and "Selected articles" from
www.wikipedia.org?  Where should we put them?

Do you propose having the intro text, 2 sentences, in a whole bunch of
languages?

Do you propose browser-detection?  (Problematic for a number of
reasons that many people have mentioned, but certainly a live
possibility.)

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Anonymous quote in article

body:
On ?a?, 2003-01-23 at 01:20, Erik Moeller wrote:
> there's a problem with the article [[Madeline Amy Sweeney]], about a victim
> of the Sep 11 attacks. This started out as an anonymous contribution:

I thought we were moving all these to the separate wiki at
http://sep11.wikipedia.org/ ?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030123/499bc739/attachment.pgp


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

body:
James,

There being no MAJOR objections to your proposal to alleviate this royal pain in the neck, I add my endorsement: if you will do the work of straightening it all out yourself, then by the principle of "he who works hardest should be the leader" I say your solution ought to be respected.

Besides, it makes sense!

Uncle Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: james duffy [mailto:jtdirl at hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 8:30 PM
To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] solving the problem of royal nomenclature

Hi Wilkiens,

We have a major problem over how to refer to members
of a royal family other than monarchs. Different people
are using any number of references, structures and names.

[snip details of solution]

I know both Deb and Mav seem
reasonably satisfied with the idea. Others have made
minor suggestions for adaptions but seem happy with
the overall idea.


from_name: Richard Grevers

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: <br>

body:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:36:07 +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski
<taw=Rn4VEauK+AKRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f at public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 03:09:57PM +0100, Pieter Suurmond wrote:
>> Agree! :-)
>> However... <td>s don't necessarily have to be closed, it just depends on
>> how one defines them.
>
> I know how to fix table markup issue and it is exactly the opposite way.
>
> We should completely forbid </td>, </th> and </tr>.
> They are just noise and table is completely unambiguous without them.
Except Netscape 4 which will then refuse to display the page at all if
there is any nesting of tables!

--
Richard Grevers


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Profiling

body:
Since my plans for a nice, calm evening of backup & language setup were
spoiled by slashdot, I've gotten a little tired of the performance
guessing game. I've started adding some profiling code to actually show
where the bottlenecks are; some preliminary stuff is put into CVS and
running on meta.wikipedia.org.

Set $wgProfiling = true; in LocalSettings.php to enable profiling.
Functions to be profiled (or sections of functions) should be wrapped in
wfProfileIn( "functionnamegoeshere-nospacesplease" ) and wfProfileOut()
calls (before all return points!). The output goes into the debug log
file. An example:

20030123172827  0000.587        /wiki/Meta.wikipedia.org_technical_issues
        at 0000.043 in 0000.001 ( 0.1%) -  main-misc-setup
        at 0000.043 in 0000.002 ( 0.4%) - * Article::getContent
        at 0000.046 in 0000.000 ( 0.1%) - *** OutputPage::removeHTMLtags
        at 0000.047 in 0000.000 ( 0.1%) - *** OutputPage:replaceVariables
        at 0000.048 in 0000.003 ( 0.5%) - *** OutputPage::doBlockLevels
        at 0000.051 in 0000.016 ( 2.7%) - *** OutputPage::replaceExternalLinks
        at 0000.067 in 0000.050 ( 8.5%) - *** OutputPage::replaceInternalLinks
        at 0000.046 in 0000.071 (12.1%) - ** OutputPage::doWikiPass2
        at 0000.046 in 0000.071 (12.1%) - * OutputPage::addWikiText
        at 0000.043 in 0000.074 (12.6%) -  Article::view
        at 0000.117 in 0000.000 ( 0.0%) - * OutputPage::output-headers
        at 0000.117 in 0000.000 ( 0.0%) - ** Skin::initPage
        at 0000.118 in 0000.005 ( 0.8%) - ** Skin::doBeforeContent
        at 0000.117 in 0000.006 ( 1.0%) - * OutputPage::output-middle
        at 0000.123 in 0000.448 (76.3%) - * OutputPage::output-bodytext
        at 0000.578 in 0000.009 ( 1.5%) - *** Skin::quickBar
        at 0000.571 in 0000.016 ( 2.8%) - ** Skin::doAfterContent
        at 0000.571 in 0000.016 ( 2.8%) - * OutputPage::output-after
        at 0000.117 in 0000.470 (80.0%) -  OutputPage::output

Note that subcalls appear above their callers, just to make things more
interesting. ;)

Most of our time seems is often spent in OutputPage::output; the precise
section where the time gets spent seems to vary, and I suspect it
depends on output buffering. It may make sense to move the profile
summing bit to before the output actually starts to make it easier to
see what the rendering is really doing.

In rendering land, the winner is OutputPage::replaceInternalLinks(). The
more links in the page, the longer (and longer) this takes. Through the
link cache, it makes a database query for every individual linked page
to check if it exists. More detail should be checked for this to see how
much of that time is spent in db queries; but I suspect that pre-filling
the link cache from the links and brokenlinks tables should speed this
up.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20030123/4b7caff1/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Anonymous quote in article

body:
Oliver Pereira wrote:
> In general, I think that discussing all sides of a debate on a Talk page,
> and attempting to come up with a compromise, is precisely how to *avoid*
> edit wars. Just my point of view, of course. :)

I agree, and that's very well stated Oliver.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Anonymous quote in article

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

>On ?a?, 2003-01-23 at 01:20, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>>there's a problem with the article [[Madeline Amy Sweeney]], about a victim
>>of the Sep 11 attacks. This started out as an anonymous contribution:
>>
>I thought we were moving all these to the separate wiki at
>http://sep11.wikipedia.org/ ?
>
>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
Unless an individual had done something to merit encyclopedic entry
before Sept. 11, I agree with Magnus and Brion that these obituaries
should be moved.

Ec

>


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Anonymous quote in article

body:
Hi,

there's a problem with the article [[Madeline Amy Sweeney]], about a victim
of the Sep 11 attacks. This started out as an anonymous contribution:

"Amy was a wonderful person to wrok with. She inspired me to enjoy my life,
work hard and have fun with my job as an American Airlines Flight Attendant,
because it was the best of the best."

It was expanded, and the quote was removed. Oliver Perreira and Tom
Parmenter have insisted on keeping that quote in the article. The latest variant used
by Oliver is this:

--
The Wikipedia article on Madeline Amy Sweeney was started on November 28,
2001, with the following anonymous sentiment:- "Amy was a wonderful person to
wrok with. She inspired me to enjoy my life, work hard and have fun with my
job as an American Airlines Flight Attendant, because it was the best of the
best."
--

A new contributor named Arno also wants to keep the quote in, with the
remark "SPECIAL NOTE". Because he is encouraged by Tom and Oliver, he is now ready
to start an "edit war".

My position is that, however touching this may be, there are several reasons
not to have the quote in the article:

* We have a precedent here. On [[Wilson Flagg]] we have kept the comment on
the Talk page and linked to it, with the link name "Tributes and Comments".
* The anonymous quote is unverifiable. I could easily come along and add
another, similar quote to the article under an anonymous IP. Should that then,
too, be included because of its sentimental value? Or does the first quote get
priority because it was "the quote that started this article"? In that case,
can I come along and add new articles about Sep 11 victims with fake
anonymous quotes that are destined to remain in them forever?
* Any self-reference of the type "The Wikipedia article .." is
non-encyclopedic to the extreme and should be avoided whenever possible.

In conclusion, I think it is obvious that we should keep the anonymous
comment on the Talk page, and not in the article. It would set an extremely bad
precedent if we allowed these kind of unverifiable comments in articles. I'd
like to hear more opinions on, preferably on the Talk page of the article
[[Madeline Amy Sweeney]].

Regards,

Erik

--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr f?r 1 ct/ Min. surfen!


subject: [Wikitech-l] Very serious bug

body:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> PHP scripts seems to be messing with \ characters a lot.
> It shouldn't even touch them.
>
> You can see example of completely broken rendering in:
>
> http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wywo%C5%82ania_systemowe_Uniksa

Simpler test case: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox

This is caused by the use of preg_replace() in the handling of pre,
nowiki, and math tags in addWikiText() (OutputPage.php). I added a hack to
escape $ characters a while ago, but apparently there's more. preg_quote()
would, you would think, handle this, but it seems to put in too much, and
you get slashes on your linebreaks.

Ugh.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Tom Parmenter

subject: [WikiEN-l] Anonymous quote in article

body:
I haven't insisted on it having the anonymous quote, nor have I
engaged in any edit wars.  I have maintained, on the talk pages only,
that there's little or no harm in a sentimental quotation in an
article that is largely sentimental.  I decided to drop out of the
discussion out of fear that any further contributions from me might
take on the appearance of trolling.

I did notice in some of the news stories about this lady, who really
did some amazing things as she was heading toward certain death, also
included anonymous quotations.  In poking around, it seems to me that
the article needs beefing up as regards her genuine actions, and
really belongs in the Wikipedia, while other 9-11 victims are more
doubtful as encyclopedia subject.

Better to spend time on improving the article, and, say, working on an
article, nonexistent at the moment, on the role of stewards and
stewardesses on airliners.  In the early days, they were required to
be nurses, then the job became "waitress in the sky" as the song by
The Replacements put it, then, post 9-11, the security role was thrust
upon them, in large part because of the instinctive, responsible
actions of people like Madeline Amy Sweeney.

Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88

|From: Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de>
|X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
|X-Authenticated-Sender: #0003262782 at gmx.net
|X-Authenticated-IP: [193.175.135.118]
|X-Flags: 0001
|Sender: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
|Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
|Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:20:58 +0100 (MET)
|
|Hi,
|
|there's a problem with the article [[Madeline Amy Sweeney]], about a victim
|of the Sep 11 attacks. This started out as an anonymous contribution:
|
|"Amy was a wonderful person to wrok with. She inspired me to enjoy my life,
|work hard and have fun with my job as an American Airlines Flight Attendant,
|because it was the best of the best."
|
|It was expanded, and the quote was removed. Oliver Perreira and Tom
|Parmenter have insisted on keeping that quote in the article. The latest variant used
|by Oliver is this:
|
|--
|The Wikipedia article on Madeline Amy Sweeney was started on November 28,
|2001, with the following anonymous sentiment:- "Amy was a wonderful person to
|wrok with. She inspired me to enjoy my life, work hard and have fun with my
|job as an American Airlines Flight Attendant, because it was the best of the
|best."
|--
|
|A new contributor named Arno also wants to keep the quote in, with the
|remark "SPECIAL NOTE". Because he is encouraged by Tom and Oliver, he is now ready
|to start an "edit war".
|
|My position is that, however touching this may be, there are several reasons
|not to have the quote in the article:
|
|* We have a precedent here. On [[Wilson Flagg]] we have kept the comment on
|the Talk page and linked to it, with the link name "Tributes and Comments".
|* The anonymous quote is unverifiable. I could easily come along and add
|another, similar quote to the article under an anonymous IP. Should that then,
|too, be included because of its sentimental value? Or does the first quote get
|priority because it was "the quote that started this article"? In that case,
|can I come along and add new articles about Sep 11 victims with fake
|anonymous quotes that are destined to remain in them forever?
|* Any self-reference of the type "The Wikipedia article .." is
|non-encyclopedic to the extreme and should be avoided whenever possible.
|
|In conclusion, I think it is obvious that we should keep the anonymous
|comment on the Talk page, and not in the article. It would set an extremely bad
|precedent if we allowed these kind of unverifiable comments in articles. I'd
|like to hear more opinions on, preferably on the Talk page of the article
|[[Madeline Amy Sweeney]].
|
|Regards,
|
|Erik
|
|--
|+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
|NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr f?r 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
|
|_______________________________________________
|WikiEN-l mailing list
|WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
|http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: we're slashdotted

body:
His comments were about me.  It's 172 I've been having problems with lately, not Lir.
Zoe
 Jonathan Walther <krooger at debian.org> wrote:On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 08:19:25PM -0800, Zoe wrote:
> I always knew 172 was out to prove he was better than anybody else.

I was assuming the comment was from Lir/VeraCruz.

Jonathan

--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.

Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030123/066cd46b/attachment.htm


from_name: wiki pedista

subject: [Wikitech-l] tag for alphabetical order.

body:
I was thinking about a printed wikipedia.
Enciclopedias usually are printed in alphabetical
order. As there is no absolute order in wikipedia, we
have named the articles with the best possible
article, but not the one that would be correctly files
if ordered. For example, the biographies are listed
with the proper name first, while
in a printed work we would look for it by last name...
detailed articles about history, economy, etc. of
countries would be all printed together, and far away
from the country itself, and so on.

Would it be possible to add a tag for each article
that says where should it be placed in an
alphabetically ordered list? For example, in Bill
Clinton the tag would
be something like <alpha>Clinton, Bill</alpha> or
something like that.

What do you think?

AstroNomer

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com


from_name: Zoe

subject: [WikiEN-l] Help?

body:
Several attempts to send this to wikipedia-l at nupedia.com have failed as nonexistent.  Has the mailing address been changed without my being told?
Anyway, I'm having problems with Wikipedia.  The last three times I've tried to log in, it's asked for my password, even though I have "remember me" checked.  Why is this happening?
Zoe

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030123/a4d90cc5/attachment.htm


body:
james duffy wrote:

> We have a major problem over how to refer to members of a royal family
> other than monarchs. Different people are using any number of
> references, structures and names. Do we use (i) surnames or (ii)
> titles? What happens if a ''personal'' surname is different to a Royal
> House name? (eg, is the former Austrian Crown Prince Otto Von
> Hapsburg, Otto von Hapsburg, Otto von Habsburg, or Otto
> Habsburg-Lothringen? Which is the Royal House name? Which is a
> surname?) Furthermore, putting in a 'common name' (as presumed by a
> page writer) is problematic; for example, there is NO such person as
> 'Charles Windsor', nor 'Anne Windsor' because Windsor is a Royal House
> name, not their surname; their surnames actually are different. I have
> spent some time checking out the whole issue, including speaking to
> the Buckingham Palace press office to get accurate information
> re-British royals. I put my suggestion on the history standards page
> and so far it has met with general consensus approval, subject to
> minor modifications, which I have made. I call it the THREE GENERATION
> RULE.

I welcome your enthusiasm to do the work of sorting out this mess.  I
know that I have tried to puzzle some of these out in connection with
the [[People on stamps]] articles, only to become thoroughly confused
when I saw the inconsistent treatment that has prevailed on Wikipedia.
 If I undertook to track down the proper form in each of these
circumstances, I would accomplish very little indeed.  I'm often left
with my own best guess.  I basically support this initiative, but will
no doubt have things to say about some of the details.

> (1) FIRST GENERATION ROYALS
> 'Children & siblings of A monarch'' (not just the present monarch!)
> should be referred to by TITLE where they have one, or
> 'PRINCE/PRINCESS OF [country]' where they have no formal title, for
> example;
> **Charles, Prince of Wales
> **Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark
> **Philip (or spanish version), Prince of the Asturias (or Crown Prince
> of Spain)
> **Willem Alexander, Crown Prince of the Netherlands
> **Andrew, Duke of York
> **Anne, Princess Royal
> **Victoria, Princess Royal (daughter of Queen Victoria and mother of
> Kaiser Wilhelm II)
> **Margaret, Princess of the United Kingdom (daughter of George VI,
> sister of Elizabeth II)
> **Beatrice, Princess of the United Kingdom (daughter of Queen
> Victoria, sister of Edward VII)
>
> REASON: such royals are widely known and so recognised almost
> exclusively by name or title. Using standard names (which some
> reference books do) won't work on WIki because the vast majority of
> its users won't have a clue what their standard name is, particularly
> as their actual surname is frequently different to the Royal Family name.

1. We should also try to catch some spouses of a monarch here.
2. The entry for these  is not simply [[Title]] but [[Given name, Title]]
3. Some attention should be paid to precedence, with a person being
listed under his or her highest ranking title.  That can change over his
lifetime.  Charles was not Prince of Wales until 1958.
4. "Crown Prince[ss]" strikes me as a reasonably generic term, that
could be used for any heir apparent to the throne in the absence of an
overriding term.  Is it necessarily a title?  "Prince of the Asturias"
is unlikely to be a known search term for people outside of Spain. There
may also be an issue about when "Princess" should be written with a
capital "P";  this would distinguish between a title and a description.
5. Do we use the terms "infante" or "infanta" for appropriate Spanish
royals?
6. Since this rule would not apply only to current royal families, there
should be an article for each title in this first group where all the
holders of that title are listed.  The pupose of this would be to
pre-emptively disambiguate the title holders.  Obviously, doing this may
not be practical when only a description is appended.
7. I hope that there is something simpler than "(daughter of George VI,
sister of Elizabeth II)" to use as a disambiguator.

> (2) SECOND GENERATION ROYALS
> Those descended from a monarch should be referred to by title if they
> have one, by Royal House name (eg, Windsor,  etc) IN THE ARTICLE TITLE
> if they don't, unless they have a CLEAR AND IDENTIFIABLE SURNAME, for
> example:
> **Princess Beatrice of York
> **Princess Eugenie of York
> **Eloise Sophie Beatrix Laurence, Countess of Orange-Nassau
> **Zara Phillips
> **Princess Anne's children have no title, an almost unique situation.
> They are universally known by their father's surname of Phillips, so a
> degree of flexibility is required here, but as I say they do SEEM unique.
>
> REASON: such royals are less well known but again are known largely by
> name/title. Using a surname would be confusing as many would have
> different, largely known surnames. If we use, say, 'Beatrice of the
> United Kingdom' that could be mixed up with an earlier one of the same
> name. But we can't say 'Princess of York', as that isn't correct, even
> though she IS a princess and OF York. Leaving out princess causes
> another problem; many in the middle ages called themselves, for
> example, 'John of Gaunt', 'Philip of Chester, 'Maud of Lille' etc.
> And just using a surname is out because contrary to what some on Wiki
> think, Windsor isn't her surname and few would recognise her actual
> double-barrelled surname. The view expressed to me was that you need
> to clarify her status as a princess and use York to define her. The
> general view was in such cases, 'Princess Beatrice of York' is
> name-specific, person-specific and the most correct title, clarifying
> exactly who she is. And it is workable in all occasions I can think
> of. (Sons and daughters of royal dukes and earls use their parent's
> title as part of their own. For example, 'Prince William of Wales',
> 'Prince Richard of Gloucester', etc.) For example,
>
> **Princess Beatrice of Edinburgh (grand-daughter of Queen Victoria)
> **Princess Victoria of Connaught (grandaughter of Queen Victoria)
>
> Such figures are unlikely to feature in Wiki, but if they do, it is
> worth having a standard structure by which they can be dealt with.

Fine!  I look at "Princess" in this context as necessarily descriptive
without suggesting that the person holds that title. The titular
reference following the given name would be to the father's title, again
without any suggestion that she holds that title in her own right.  I
would assume from your wording above for Eloise that she actually has
the title, "Countess of Orange-Nassau"

> (3) Other Minor Royals.
> The Royal House name should be used, for example:
> The Earl of Ulster referred to by Royal House (in this case, Windsor)
> Where a ''minor royal'' is unambiguously identified by a clear
> surname, that could be used. For example
> **Viscount Linley as David Linley.
> By using a Royal House name, we would be using the name most people
> would associate with a monarchy. In Britain, that would be Windsor,
> Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in Belgium.
>
> REASON: Such royals are hardly known, and rarely by title. But as they
> may have a different and almost totally unknown surname, using the
> Royal House name may be the most straight-forward way
>
> Having used title or accurate reference in the ARTICLE TITLE, we may
> then add in a surname (if we have it, and its not as simple as people
> think) IN THE OPENING LINE. I've added two definitions onto Wiki that
> can also be linked in for clarity. ROYAL HOUSE means Royal Family
> name. So, on a reference to a member of the British Royal Family,
> after the name in the text, you can simply add ''of the [[Royal
> House]] of [[Windsor]]'' and someone who isn't sure can check to see
> what a Royal House is. I've also added definitions for the two British
> Royal Family names; [[Windsor (Royal House)]] (the Royal House/Royal
> Family name, which is also the surname of some but but no means all of
> the family), and [[Mountbatten-Windsor]], the actual surname of
> Charles, Anne, Edward and Andrew and all their children, according to
> Buckingham Palace.

This seems inconsistent with what you said above regarding the Phillips
surname for Anne's children.

> So an entry would go,
>
> CHARLES, PRINCE OF WALES
>
> Charles Philip Arthur George [[Mountbatten-Windsor]], of the [[Royal
> House]] of [[Windsor]] . . . etc etc
>
The link to [[Windsor]] would be to a disambiguation page, because it is
also used for a couple of cities.

Redirects should also be created from other names that might reasonably
be used.  You'll get an idea of what these are when people mistakenly
use them.

Eclecticology


subject: [WikiEN-l] Anonymous quote in article

in_reply_to:
<3E302E0F.2030002@telus.net> (message from Ray Saintonge on Thu,
	23 Jan 2003 10:01:51 -0800)

body:
|From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
|X-Accept-Language: en-us
|Sender: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
|Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
|Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:01:51 -0800
|
|Brion Vibber wrote:
|
|>On ??a??, 2003-01-23 at 01:20, Erik Moeller wrote:
|>
|>>there's a problem with the article [[Madeline Amy Sweeney]], about a victim
|>>of the Sep 11 attacks. This started out as an anonymous contribution:
|>>
|>I thought we were moving all these to the separate wiki at
|>http://sep11.wikipedia.org/ ?
|>
|>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
|>
|Unless an individual had done something to merit encyclopedic entry
|before Sept. 11, I agree with Magnus and Brion that these obituaries
|should be moved.
|
|Ec

[[Madeline Amy Sweeney]] called Air Traffic Control and relayed
important information about the attacks to the ground while they were
going on.  Easily as important as [[Mohammed Atta]].  Her article
needs more information, not banishment.

Tom P.
O88

|
|>
|
|
|
|_______________________________________________
|WikiEN-l mailing list
|WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
|http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|


from_name: Jocelyn Giraud

subject: [Wikitech-l] Goodbye to HTML

body:
Andre Engels a ?crit :

> Although also using HTML in this case, I still use a slightly different
> syntax. What I do is:
>
>

>
[[image:xyz.jpg]]
>

> ''Some longer caption, which is wider
than the image itself''
>

About banning HTML and using wiki-like syntax, there is an interesting
feature in [ http://phpwiki.sf.net/ phpwiki ] that allow wiki-like
tables.

the feature look like :

|            | My column | Other column
| first line | value     | value
| other line | value     | ''value''

every line starting with a | is part of a table (I don't thing starting
a line with a pipe is something very used for anything that is not that
kind of stuff...)

if you write :

|            | My column  | Other column
| first line |v big value | value
| other line              | ''value''

You'll have "big value" in a  with a colspan=2 ( v mean that you
want to extend the cell to the bottom)

|vv mean  etc.

|>  mean rowspan=2 |>> mean rowspan=3
etc.

I do really like this idea (I use phpwiki at home and at work, and that
of tables is very usefull...)

The only thing that phpwiki's table don't have is "align='right'" on the
whole table (
), but I'm sure it can be done with a
good idea (like "|[table: align=right]|" before the first line, or any
other idea...

The probleme is that it can be slow to render and need a lot of RAM (may
be).
_________________________________________________________________
"This e-mail is intended for the exclusive use of the individual or
entity named above and may constitute information that is priviledged or
confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure . Dissemination ,
distribution , forwarding or copying of this e-mail by anyone other than the
intended recipient is prohibited . If you have received this e-mail in error
, please notify us and completly delete or destroy any and all electronic or
other copies of the original message"
_________________________________________________________________


subject: [WikiEN-l] We were interviewed by Wired

body:
Folks,

Jimbo and I were phone-interviewed about Wikipedia today (separately) by a lady from Wired magazine. I hope to see a nice article coming out soon!

Uncle Ed


subject: [WikiEN-l] We were interviewed by Wired

body:
|content-class: urn:content-classes:message
|X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
|X-MS-Has-Attach:
|X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
|Thread-Topic: [WikiEN-l] we're slashdotted
|Thread-Index: AcLCD4JG7YxorV7YR8G4XgafP8r4xgA/ngXA
|From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
|X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2003 18:35:27.0411 (UTC) FILETIME=[331A3830:01C2C30E]
|X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www.wikipedia.org id h0NIVf526017
|Sender: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
|Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
|Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:35:27 -0500
|
|Folks,
|
|Jimbo and I were phone-interviewed about Wikipedia today (separately) by a lady from Wired magazine. I hope to see a nice article coming out soon!
|
|Uncle Ed

I was in Wired once:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.04/es_lists.html?pg=4

Tom Parmenter


subject: [WikiEN-l] We were interviewed by Wired

body:
"Desperado, you've got to let somebody love you..."

----

I was in Wired once:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.04/es_lists.html?pg=4

Tom Parmenter


subject: [WikiEN-l] We were interviewed by Wired

body:
It would be cooler if I could get away from Wikipedia long enough to
organize a web site, post my archives, and turn myself into a
blogger.

Tom
O

|From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
|Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:00:30 -0500
|
|"Desperado, you've got to let somebody love you..."
|
|----
|
|I was in Wired once:
|
|http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.04/es_lists.html?pg=4
|
|Tom Parmenter
|_______________________________________________
|WikiEN-l mailing list
|WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
|http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|


from_name: Chuck Smith

subject: [Wikipedia-l] www.wikipedia.org


subject: [Wikipedia-l] www.wikipedia.org

body:
> >From what I remember from past "unofficial poll"
> (http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_to_do_with_www.wikipedia.org),
> most people did not think that having
> www.wikipedia.org as a multi-language portal would be
> stupid.

That's right, and as someone who advocates voting, I will tolerate a portal
if it is supported by the majority opinion. However,

1) Having the webserver automatically redirect the user to a Wikipedia in
his language, based on the browser settings, is a much more transparent and
obvious way of handling things. That's what, for example, Google and Debian do,
both highly successful projects.

2) Even if we use a portal, we need to first make sure that old links, e.g.

  http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry

stay valid, or we will get huge problems with existing web and Usenet
references, search indices etc.

3) If we use a portal, it should at least offer some additional features,
such as a multi-language search and multi-language Recent Changes. This is not
possible with the current software because all Wikipedias are separate.

Regards,

Erik

--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr f?r 1 ct/ Min. surfen!


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Re: <br>

body:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:50:08 +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski
<taw=Rn4VEauK+AKRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f at public.gmane.org> wrote:

> XHTML is not completely compatible with HTML, so making XHTML default
> may not be very friendly to some browsers.
>
> Does anybody have experience with XHTML websites ?
> Are all browsers happy about that ?
>
It all depends on the MIME type you serve it with.
See
http://www.tntluoma.com/opera/beyond30/2002/10/confessions_of_a_browser_sniffer.html#000079
for one description of the trouble you can end up in. THis was also
discussed extensively on css-d.

--
Richard Grevers


from_name: Oliver Pereira

subject: [WikiEN-l] Anonymous quote in article

body:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> This seems better suited to a /Talk page?

I agree. But since Erik Moeller has made misleading claims about me on
this mailing list, could I please be allowed to correct them? Most people
here won't bother to look at the Talk page in question, and I don't want
them thinking that I am responsible for an edit war.

Firstly, I have never insisted on keeping the quote in the article. I have
made only one edit to the article itself, and that was before the quote
was removed. I simply reverted the quote to its original state, as someone
had added some vandalism about "having you-know-what" with Ms. Sweeney. My
subsequent comments at the Village pump and on the article's Talk page
actually agreed that the quote should be removed, albeit a little
ambivalently (containing a "maybe" and an "I suppose" respectively).

It was only *after* Arno had put the quote back into the article that I
proposed - in the Talk page, not in the article itself - my compromise
wording, which simply makes a verifiable statement (albeit an arguably
unencyclopaedic one) about the history of the article.

Neither I nor Tom Parmenter have made any edits to the article in question
since the quote was removed, and neither of us can be held responsible for
the subsequent edit war between Arno and Eloquence.

Sorry to clog up the mailing list with this, but I felt that a public
defence had to be made against a public complaint. Further comments, if
necessary, to the Talk page...

Oliver

> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > there's a problem with the article [[Madeline Amy Sweeney]], about a victim
> > of the Sep 11 attacks. This started out as an anonymous contribution:
> >
> > "Amy was a wonderful person to wrok with. She inspired me to enjoy my life,
> > work hard and have fun with my job as an American Airlines Flight Attendant,
> > because it was the best of the best."
> >
> > It was expanded, and the quote was removed. Oliver Perreira and Tom
> > Parmenter have insisted on keeping that quote in the article. The latest variant used
> > by Oliver is this:
> >
> > --
> > The Wikipedia article on Madeline Amy Sweeney was started on November 28,
> > 2001, with the following anonymous sentiment:- "Amy was a wonderful person to
> > wrok with. She inspired me to enjoy my life, work hard and have fun with my
> > job as an American Airlines Flight Attendant, because it was the best of the
> > best."
> > --
> >
> > A new contributor named Arno also wants to keep the quote in, with the
> > remark "SPECIAL NOTE". Because he is encouraged by Tom and Oliver, he is now ready
> > to start an "edit war".
> >
> > My position is that, however touching this may be, there are several reasons
> > not to have the quote in the article:
> >
> > * We have a precedent here. On [[Wilson Flagg]] we have kept the comment on
> > the Talk page and linked to it, with the link name "Tributes and Comments".
> > * The anonymous quote is unverifiable. I could easily come along and add
> > another, similar quote to the article under an anonymous IP. Should that then,
> > too, be included because of its sentimental value? Or does the first quote get
> > priority because it was "the quote that started this article"? In that case,
> > can I come along and add new articles about Sep 11 victims with fake
> > anonymous quotes that are destined to remain in them forever?
> > * Any self-reference of the type "The Wikipedia article .." is
> > non-encyclopedic to the extreme and should be avoided whenever possible.
> >
> > In conclusion, I think it is obvious that we should keep the anonymous
> > comment on the Talk page, and not in the article. It would set an extremely bad
> > precedent if we allowed these kind of unverifiable comments in articles. I'd
> > like to hear more opinions on, preferably on the Talk page of the article
> > [[Madeline Amy Sweeney]].
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Erik
> >
> > --
> > +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
> > NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr f?r 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> > http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

+-------------------------------------------+
| Oliver Pereira                            |
| Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science |
| University of Southampton                 |
| omp199 at ecs.soton.ac.uk                    |
+-------------------------------------------+