Wikinfo:Village pump

From Wikinfo

Wikinfo:Village pump/Archive 1, Wikinfo:Village pump/Archive 2, Wikinfo:Village pump/Archive 3, Wikinfo:Village pump/Archive 4, Wikinfo:Village pump/Archive 5, Wikinfo:Village pump/Archive 6, Wikinfo:Village pump/Archive 7, Wikinfo:Village pump/Archive 8, Wikinfo:Village pump/Archive 9, Wikinfo:Village pump/Archive 10

Naming conventions

I can't find any. What brings this up is that Wikipedia has recently renamed Roman Catholic Church as Catholic Church & Eastern Orthodox Church as Orthodox Church. We can leave it to them to fight it out among themselves as to whether this is in accordance with their naming conventions, but what about ours? As I say, I can't find any, but it strikes me as in accordance with SPOV to use the name the subject prefers. Of course this may not work because of ambiguities: eg in this case the Oriental Orthodox Church may also prefer to call itself "the Orthodox Church". Peter jackson 16:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I know, pretty liberal. There's also the issue of forks here that Wikipedia doesn't have, and all those links could as well be filled with diverse points of view on thus church. --Anime addict 21:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking it all comes down to preferences, if you put it under a title, or you change the title considering Wikipedia's is wrong, unless someone challenges it and offers reasoning why it should be renamed, it's most likely going to remain under that name. --Anime addict 21:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Try writing a naming convention. Principles should include ease of finding the information; using names in general use; preference of the subject, ease of naming alternative articles, etc. Fred Bauder 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

AA, I thought only admins could move things here.

Well yes (but now you have those rights too I think), but you can always change it before you import it, as in fill a different red link than the one Wikipedia has an article on ;-) --Anime addict 00:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, and when moving or putting different names, try to remember to add {{wiki|old name}}, otherwise it won't link properly to the Wikipedia article. --Anime addict 00:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your idea about different articles is interesting. Would you have the CC article giving the Church's own position, thus being the "main" article in our sense, & the RCC article giving the Protestant view? Peter jackson 10:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The RCC article should be written from a sympathetic view, but that view may not actually be the view of the church itself, which would be very difficult to tease out, short of being written by the church itself. I doubt there could be one page on the Roman Catholic Church from the "protestant" point of view. Our problem though, is not to provide now for all possibilities, but to craft a solution which accommodates all existing articles, but which is flexible enough, that with modification, to probably include all potential articles with appropriate titles. Fred Bauder 20:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

New article :D

Brazilian universities entrance exams

I decided to submit it to here rather than discussing it in wikipedia's talk page as the wikipedia's entry about this subject was kind of abandoned. Editordeartigos 02:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, keep em coming... Fred Bauder 02:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why interwiki language points at wikipedia and not wikinfo itself? Multilanguages are only possible if the wiki has subdomains like en.wikinfo, pt.wikinfo, de.wikinfo and so on? Editordeartigos 02:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could set up a family of Wikinfos, but it would be futile. For now, it's one big wiki. How it will eventually sort out is up in the air. We've had a bit of friction about not being definite, but for now whoever first writes an article with a particular title gets to write the article in the language of their choice. We point at language Wikipedias because our readers may find those articles useful. Fred Bauder 03:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

vestibular Translated by myself. I think that I'll add some sources to it Editordeartigos 16:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not a word in English, so it's easy to handle. Suppose it is a word in Spanish, the article in Spanish might be titled vestibular (Espaňol). They should be linked to each other internally at the top of each page. Fred Bauder 18:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Linked and added sources :) Editordeartigos 20:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Credits

As I understand it, one of the conditions of reproducing something under free distribution licences is crediting the original author(s). The usual wiki procedure is just to link to the wiki source, where the history will give full info for those who can be bothered.

But what about deletion? If we import a Wikipedia article that's subsequently deleted, or if Fred imports one after it's already been deleted, then the history in Wikipedia has also been deleted. How do we satisfy the requirements of the licence? Peter jackson 10:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I know, every user that contributed to that article released it under public domain. If Wikipedia has deleted its article, it's its problem, not Wikinfo's, because we here put a live link to where the article was. Besides, there's Deletionpedia and it never had problems like that before. --Anime addict 12:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems they really have a problem with this, and that they take it as their problem, I found something interesting on Wikipedia on this matter, it looks like moontalk to me, but maybe you can trackback the reasons to answer your question better. --Anime addict 17:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not Wikipedia's problem, because the rights are vested in the original authors, not in Wikipedia. They therefore can't be removed by Wikipedia's unilateral decision to delete. Peter jackson 17:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but aren't the sites that leave a live link to where the article was, whether Wikipedia takes it on itself to keep the article or to delete it, doing it in good faith and Wikipedia takes all the random links and violates its copyright agreement by virtually taking the copyright material and the benefices that come from those outside links as its own? Even as it is, the history page is virtually hard and unknown to access and unsavvy people to Wikis will miss it, this is just them going a little further in going over the users' copyrights they claim to protect. --Anime addict 17:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem, a regular Gordian Knot, incredibly complicated and impossible to deal with, but the common sense solution is to simply link back. Fred Bauder 18:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you import a live article & link back, it can't reasonably be considered your resposibility to keep checking back to see whether it's still there. But if you disinter something, isn't it your responsibility to comply with the licensing conditions in some way? I'm not up on the technicalities, so I don't know how you'd do it. Peter jackson 10:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's what Wikia has done: Template:Wikipedia-deleted Fred Bauder 14:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's going a little overboard, but meh... --Anime addict 14:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What am I supposed to make of this red link? Peter jackson 15:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Here you go. --Anime addict 16:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble adding it; getting error messages. Fred Bauder 18:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to satisfy the licensing conditions. You have to name the contributors to the original article. You can omit those who made very minor changes, or whose changes were reverted, but finding out who they were is likely to be a lot more trouble than just listing everyone. Peter jackson 10:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Database error

I get a database error at Special:NewPages. Also, certain special pages, such as the ones that list broken redirects, double redirects, long pages, etc. do not seem to be updating. Maximillion Pegasus 21:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

IRC

Hi, we recently created an IRC channel on freenode. it is at irc://irc.freenode.net/wikinfo . Feel free to join us there. If you do not have an IRC client, you can use http://webchat.freenode.net/ and join #wikinfo. (I recommend the IRC client ChatZilla) Kind regards, Maximillion Pegasus 23:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing and signing in

Perhaps there should be a note to the effect that to edit pages one has to sign in.

It might also be useful to have a 'sticky note page' - queries and comments to be added 'when in a hurry' or who are unlikely to come back to WI in the near future etc (and patrolling for 'them eejits' or transfer to appropriate articles). Jackiespeel 17:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages

If 'Religion and politics' is deleted from Wikipedia, could it (and related pages) be transferred here.

Given some of the overview/umbrella pages allowed (eg certain TV/book series), it is slightly illogical that more serious topics are not likewise allowed. Jackiespeel 23:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)