User talk:Timwi/Archive/Jun 03

Thanks for Help

Thanks for the help in updating the list of people pages. It is great help! -- Amillar 23:24 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Glad to have helped! :) -- Timwi 14:08 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Welcome from maveric149

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Thank you. I've already read all those pages. :) -- Timwi 14:08 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Welcome from olivier

HI! and welcome to Wikipedia! Could you have a look at my question in Talk:Var (département). Thanks, olivier 04:10 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Move talk page

Please explain this:

I have taken Talk:Zoe and moved it to User talk:Zoe/From Talk:Zoe - Zoe

Have a look at Wikipedia:Orphan_talk_pages. Sometimes when a page gets moved, its "Talk:" page doesn't get moved with it for several reasons. The Talk:Zoe was one of them. Since it clearly contained text addressed at a user named 'Zoe', rather than discussion about an article, I assumed it was really supposed to belong to User talk:Zoe, so I moved it there. -- Timwi 03:02 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

New York Times 9/11 articles

Your pages on New York Times 9/11 articles have been listed on votes for deletion. Just letting you know. -- goatasaur

(Doh, Goatasaur beat me to it) -- Hi, a number of the pages you have created are being listed on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, particularly the collections of links to NY Times articles about September 11. Please keep in mind that articles should be more than just mere collections of external links. Please also consult m:What_to_do_with_entries_related_to_September_11_casualties. Thanks! -- Wapcaplet 17:23 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

as the person to originally list this for deletion, my apologies that it's taken so long for me to show the courtesy to let you know. jimfbleak 17:29 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ah, it's okay. It was fun, anyway. It wasn't too much work; I wrote a script to do it. No harm done. -- Timwi 18:20 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, there is a Sep11 wiki that those should be put on... if you want to add them there I don't see why people would complain, but they don't belong in this Wikipedia. goatasaur

Doing so now... (script is running) :-) -- Timwi 16:56 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Village Pump archive

In the future, when you archive the Village pump, please don't delete everything. Only delete the threads which are no longer active. -- Tim Starling 00:37 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

How do I best tell what threads are no longer active? I briefly looked at the threads and thought only the bottom two were still active, so I archived everything but the bottom two. -- Timwi 18:51 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Wait 24 hours at least. Time zone differences mean that conversations will often stop for 12-16 hours then start again. There's no accepted rule though. I usually remove about half the page, which means about 2-3 days depending on traffic. -- Tim Starling 04:38 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi - I noticed you made Symphony No. 6 redirect to Symphony No. 6 (Mahler). This really isn't appropriate, because there are many pieces called "Symphony No. 6". I just mention this in case you decide to redirect Symphony No. 7 to Symphony No. 7 (Mahler), or Violin Concerto to Violin Concerto (Beethoven) as well - also not good ideas :) --Camembert

Actually, I was going to create all those redirections, but I just got distracted. I don't see why not? For as long as we have only one article about a Symphony No. 7, it should redirect to the one we've got. That's certainly more useful than an empty page that would make a casual viewer think we have no Symphony No. 7 article at all. When someone creates a new article about a Symphony No. 7 by someone else, then Symphony No. 7 should be replaced with a disambiguation page. (Of course, alternatively to the redirection, you could create a Symphony No. 7 disambiguation page with just one link on it now, but that's not any more useful than a redirect.) -- Timwi 18:24 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

P.S. Of course a page (like Symphony No. 6 is now) containing links to not-yet-existing pages would also work. But I couldn't create such a page because I have no clue about music and what pieces by whom exist. -- Timwi 18:27 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I really think that a redirect like pointing Symphony No. 7 to Symphony No. 7 (Mahler) is worse than useless - it gives the impression that there's only one "Symphony No. 7", and that it's written by Mahler, when in fact there are hundreds of pieces with that name. The fact that we don't have articles about them yet doesn't really matter - we will eventually. And imagine somebody writing in, say, Antonin Dvorak, about "Dvorak's Symphony No. 7" - that link is going to go to a completely irrelevant page. I don't see what purpose such a redirect page would serve apart from to confuse people - if you do a search for "Symphony No. 7", you'll get returned with Symphony No. 7 (Mahler) anyway. --Camembert

(Actually, we do have another article on a seventh symphony: Symphony No. 7 (Beethoven). Just for the record --Camembert)

All right ... all points taken -- Timwi 22:08 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

WikiMoney

See Wikipedia talk:WikiMoney. -- John Owens 21:34 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oh, sorry... I should have looked at the Talk page. I didn't realise there was a vote going on. However, ψ is clearly winning :) I like it! (not just the symbol, but the entire concept) -- Timwi 22:30 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

EMBJAODN

Just thought you might appreciate the background of that EMBJAODN addition, take a look on the Talk:Earth page (the world economy page was recently ripped out of Earth), almost halfway down, starting with an undated comment by FOo, and ending at Tarquin's comment from March 5 2003. I'm not saying it should go back in the world economy article, it was more fitting while that was still part of the Earth article, just showing you why it was there. -- John Owens 21:10 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

:-) Thank you for pointing this out to me. -- Timwi 21:28 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Conventions

Hello. Please note some capitalization conventions: words in article titles do not generally begin with capital letters unless there is a reason for it, except that the first letter of the title is always capital. If an article is titled "black box", and you write a lower-case initial "b" in "box", the software will capitalize it. If you link to black box with a lower-case "b", you still get the article titled "Black box" with a capital "b" (so don't link to Black box with a capital "B" unless the sentence in which you put the link makes capitalization appropriate. That is why I moved "European Union Member States" to "European Union member states", in which only the proper nouns are capitalized. Michael Hardy 21:24 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction. The reason I capitalised "EU Member States" was because I modelled it off United Nations Member States, which you seem to have moved too. -- Timwi 00:13 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

acronym capitalisation

Regarding old wives' tale. RADAR is an acronym, so it should be capitalised, don't you agree? CGS 10:35 27 Jun 2003 (UTC).

The Naming Convention states that even acronyms should be treated as words when it is generally perceived as a word. How many people do you think know what radar is short for? Similarly, scuba or laser. -- Timwi 19:20 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

RAdio Detection And Ranging. Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Aparatus. Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Sonar is SOund Navigation And Ranging. Also, modem stands for MOdulator/DEModulator. But then again, I'm not your average Wikipedian. :) Anyway, Timwi is right, they're not capitalized because they have entered the lexicon as words in their own right, not merely as acronyms. --Dante Alighieri 19:26 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You say Schroedinger, I say Schrödinger

It may be too late to mention this, but the SpellBot can do things like find all instances of Schroedinger and change them to Schrödinger. In fact I did add that. The spellbot can run over all wikipedia articles and change that name (and other names or words). -- Ram-Man

Ah, I didn't know that. But I still prefer to do it myself, for two reasons: 1) I've written this script and I like to see it run and work ;-), and 2) I like to get the contributions listed ;-) -- Timwi 00:41 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No problem. It is just that doing such things doesn't cause any additional work (practically) for me. I just add the words to my spelling list and if finds the errors. I do have to do it interactively for most words because there might be false positives. Anyway have fun with your contributions ;-) -- RM

Thanks. Yeah, I also watch out for false positives. ... By the way, does your script do the same as mine? Take a look at the diffs for some of my changes; would your script change [[Schrodinger|Schrödinger]] into simply [[Schrödinger]]? Also, while it's at it, my script also changes things like [[ball|balls]] into [[ball]]s even when Schrödinger is in a completely different spot in the article. -- Timwi 00:49 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)