User talk:Schneelocke/Archive1
|
|
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
- Hi, and thanks for your welcome! :) I'll check out the pages on naming conventions and article formatting / style. Thank you for the pointers! --schnee
Hi, thanks for you math contributions! You may want to check out the WikiProject Mathematics and the list of mathematical topics. I left a question for you on talk:Salamin-Brent algorithm. Cheers, AxelBoldt 02:08 26 May 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks - I will check those out. :) --schnee
Wow, you sure learned the ropes quickly around here. Do you already have experience on the German Wikipedia? Good work on Thomas Gottschalk, it's a shame that the German article is much shorter than the English one .. --Eloquence 06:49 26 May 2003 (UTC)
- Thank you. :) I have no experience with the german Wikipedia so far; I may look into it in the future, but I still have a bunch of things I want to get done on the english one first. --schnee
Hey - the isotope nested tables in the elements articles intentionally only list the most stable isotopes. There are tentative plans, however, to have separate "Isotopes of X" articles that will list all known (and perhaps predicted) isotopes. For more info please see the talk page archive of WikiProject Elements. --mav 04:16 31 May 2003 (UTC)
- OK, sure. For the record, though, I just wanted to be helpful. :) --schnee
- And the extra info you added will be very helpful as soon as we get around to having articles for each elements isotopes. You are just working ahead of the pack a bit (esp since we haven't finished converting over and de-stubbing all the elements to the WikiProject Elements format yet). --mav
- OK. I'll take a look at the WikiProject - maybe I can help out a bit, too. Other than that, I think I'm mostly a more or less random contributor to Wikipedia, in the sense that I edit / amend / create entries that just interest me, without actually dedicating myself to specific topics only. Well, that's me. :) -- schnee
Gee thanks... (i'm the guy who extended the boss article)
You might call me a newbie here, my wikipedia account is only 18 hours old now. Could you tell me how you're supposed to talk using user_talk:xyz? I mean, when you post something on my user page, how do i reply to that? by posting in your page or by posting in mine? And also: is there an other way to get the user_talk: page other that typing that in the address bar?
these might be there in the help pages but i'm too lazy... hop you don't mind. --aravindet
p.s. I accidentally overwrote, then recovered all the other messages here. hope nothing's lost.
- Not that I can see; and in any case, the document history is preserved in Wikipedia's database, so if something would be missing, I could easily recover it from an earlier version of this page and readd it. Outside of that, with regard to talk pages: the way they're usually used is that when you want to reply to something someone else said, you simply edit the talk page in question yourself and append your answer. You can use a colon (:) in front of what you type to create some left margin; this makes the page more visually appealing, and the structure of different replies etc. also becomes more clear. And BTW, yes, you can access talk pages in an easy way, too: just click on the "Discuss this page" link on any wikipedia page.
- Oh, and being a newbie is not a problem at all. I still am myself, too, I think. ^_^ -- schnee
Nice work on the Protactinium conversion! How did you make the image? Just wondering because I never got around to uploading the the source files (other than the big blank on the WikiProjects page). I think I'll work on doing that tonight. --mav
- Thanks! About the image - I mainly did that with a little bit of help from The GIMP. Using the blank one as a base, I filled in the neutron and proton numbers (Helvetica, 36pt.) and the element symbol (Helvetica, 48pt.) as well as the dots for the valance electrons, then scaled it down and added the shell picture from Francium, as well as the picture for the crystal structure. Turned out nice, didn't it? :) -- Schnee 09:36 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Yep, it looks real nice. The specks are a wee bit different than the ones I documented earlier today but no biggie -- nobody is going to notice. My specks may be a bit too big and need to be downsized... Hopefully my documentation and templates for each period will make things easier now. ---mav
- Yeah, I noticed the font sizes you gave in particular differed a bit from the ones I used, but I agree it's probably not a big deal. And yes, the specs you put up surely will help; I'm just working on the entry on Neodymium, and will certainly be able to use those for the table image. -- Schnee 10:45 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Sorry for wrongful delete, somebody seems to have restored it while I was off-line anyway, jimfbleak 18:38 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- No problem, Jim - no harm was done. :) -- Schnee 18:46 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
No biggie but I've noticed that you are using a very thin box around elements in the locater images. IMO having a thicker line makes it easier to quickly see where an element is in the perio table but I'm more concerned about consistency. So if you think the thinner line is best then I'll go along with that but the older images should be eventually updated. Just something to think about. --mav
- The thin line is due to the fact that I drew a line with a width of one pixel on the big version of the image; I'll see if two or three pixels will give better results in the scaled-down version. Outside of that, I have no preference for either. -- Schnee 09:42 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, two pixels seems to look nicer. I just tried on Calcium:
-- Schnee 09:56 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, two pixels seems to look nicer. I just tried on Calcium:
- I agree - that does look nicer than either the 1 or 3 pixel wide versions. --mav
FYI: I made a minor change to 
- it didn't have a central dot before. I don't think it is such an important change to warrent updating the images that have already been done unless either of us happen to be updating the image anyway (changing the width of the locator box, for example). --mav
- *nods* that's something I plan to do, especially since I want to convert the locator images I did on my own, anyway - won't happen until after I'm back home, though. :) -- Schnee 07:23 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
<evil thought>Wouldn't it be neat to indicate which block each element belongs to in each image? All that would have to be done is draw a box with a 1 pixel wide border around the element's block and then have the name of the block (s, p, d, or f) at the bottom in oh say 16 font (for the big image). </evil thought> Just something to chew on. :-) You are doing a great job on the elements BTW! --mav
- Thanks - that compliment sure feels good. ^_^ As far as the "border around the block" idea is concerned, I'm not sure exactly how you imagine this would look like. Do you have a sample image, maybe? -- Schnee 05:53 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Take a look at Carbon and hit reload. Here is the source file: media:C-TableImage-BIG.png. All I did was put a 1 pixel wide border snuggly around the block. If you like this I'll go ahead and make templates for all period/block combos. --mav 08:51 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Mmmm. Quite frankly, I don't like the way it looks really; it confuses me more than anything else. Maybe it's just me, but I'd prefer sticking with the older template, without the extra border. -- Schnee 13:11 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Hm. It isn't the best, I admit. I'll try something different; maybe a two pixel wide horizontal bar under (not touching) the block. I think that would be better. --mav
- Certainly worth a try, I'd say. -- Schnee 01:41, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
OK - I replaced the block boxes with a two pixel wide line on the bottom. See Carbon (hit F5 to reload the page). --mav
- Mmmm... I still think that's confusing more than anything else. :) -- Schnee 11:21, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- An opposing bar on top then? --mav
- Maybe - we could try that. I'm personally not really convinced that the period/block should be marked in a special way at all; or, rather, I can't think of a way to do it that would make the added value outweigh the confusion such a change might create. It might be worth discussing this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements, though, to see what everyone else thinks / has to say. -- Schnee 22:15, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
There is a problem with the placement of elements 71 and 103 that I've mentioned at talk:periodic table. --mav
- Thanks, I'll check in a second. -- Schnee 13:11 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hello. In reference to your editing of binomial type: I think it would be a mistake to title an article Touchard polynomial (with the singular) rather than Touchard polynomials (with the plural). Usually the singular is to be preferred. But an article about the Beattles would be titled Beattles, not Beattle, and an article about the Joint Chiefs of Staff would obviously not use the singular Chief. The Hermite polynomials article uses the plural because any particular polynomial in that sequence is an Hermite polynomial only because of its participation in the whole sequence. Similar reasons apply to Chebyshev polynomials and Legendre polynomials, etc. Michael Hardy 01:41, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- OK, noted. -- Schnee 11:19, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hi, you cast a vote in the TEMP5 debate. The Temp5 proposal was voted down by 61.3% to 38.6%. We seem to be going around in circlces on the whole issue of the main page. A new vote is now taking place to clarify what exactly we want, namely
- Do we actually want to have a new page?
- If so when (immediately, after a pause, timed to the press release, etc)?
- What do people want on the front page and what do they want excluded?
As of now, the whole issue seems surrounded by complete confusion. This way, finally and definitively, we will know what we want and when we want it. So do please express your opinions. The vote is on the same page as the previous votes. FearÉIREANN 20:30, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer. I'll check it out. -- Schnee 20:42, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hello. Have you thought of requesting sysop status? It makes it a lot easier to clean up after vandals and you can edit the main page (oooohh!! :). If you're too modest to request adminship, I can nominate you (let me know if that's the case), or you can choose to remain a "regular" user and not request it at all; the choice is yours. Anyway, thanks for cleaning up after User:Wakka. -- Notheruser 20:37, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. As far as getting sysop status is concerned - to be honest, I'd love that, and I've thought about asking about it, too, but I didn't feel that my contributions justified asking for it yet. A nomination would be greatly appreciated, though, if you think that it's deserved. ^_^ Thank you! -- Schnee 20:42, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Done! -- Notheruser 22:00, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Thank you! ^_^ -- Schnee 22:02, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
whitespace before footnotes
Why do you want references to be put on a following line than the word it's marked as a footnote for?
regards!
--Ruhrjung 19:23, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Mmm, can you give an example of what you mean? -- Schnee 19:25, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
For instance:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Finland-Swedish&diff=0&oldid=1290549
--Ruhrjung 19:38, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Those (external) references aren't on the following line; I merely added a whitespace between the word and the reference to make the page look nicer. -- Schnee 19:51, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Precisely, which makes a linebreak in the white space possible, ...and not only possible, on my screen (unless I change the used font size) it happends twice - on two consecutive lines. Ugly!
How does it look nicer on your screen?
--Ruhrjung 21:35, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Look for yourself (http://schneelocke.net/whitespacelooksbetter.png). -- Schnee 23:43, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
In which way is that superior? (And you actually have a linebreak before "[1]".)
What would you say about:
- Finland has since then been a bilingual country with a Swedish-speaking minority, speaking Finland-Swedish, living mostly in the coastal areas of southern and south-western Finland[1] (http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/images/finnswedes6.gif). The autonomous island-province of Åland (Finnish: Ahvenanmaa) is an exception, being monolingually Swedish-speaking according to international treaties. It is a matter of definition whether the Swedish spoken on Åland is to be considered Finland-Swedish or not.
![[1]](http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/images/finnswedes6.gif){kind=link}
- Swedish is mother tongue for about 265,000 persons in Mainland-Finland and 25,000 on Åland, or 5.6% of the total population according to official statistics for 2002[2] (http://www.stat.fi/tk/tp/tasku/taskue_vaesto.html). The proportion has been steadily diminishing since the 18th century when approximately 15% of the population had Swedish as mother tongue (estimation for 1815[3] (http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/english/finnswedes.html)).
--Ruhrjung 06:26, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- It is superior in the sense that it is better-looking. The linebreak you mention is caused by the browser and is not inherent in the page's text; it can't be avoided given the whitespace, and neither do I think it has to. Take a look at Current events, for example; a whitespace before a link is simply standard. -- Schnee 14:24, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The linebrake is caused by the white-space you inserted before the reference. The browser didn't put it there before you had made your change.
Aren't your intention actually to put in a non-breaking space, i.e. ?
--Ruhrjung 09:36, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Of course the linebreak's caused (well, made possible) by the whitespace, and yes, a non-breaking whitespace would prevent it. I still don't see *why*, though. -- Schnee 15:17, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Luhmann
Hi, why is the mentioning of Luhmann in Paul Würths Das falsche Buch noteworthy? As a prominent sociologst, Luhmann is noted in thousands of articles and books! -- till we *) 20:28, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
- Mostly because Das falsche Buch is a highly important work itself (in modern literature). And while Luhmann is certainly quoted, referred to etc. in a large number of works, I doubt there are many in which he appears as a character; so, I just think it's an interesting fact that, while maybe not having appeared in a conventional encyclopedia, fits Wikipedia quite nicely. YMMV, of course. -- Schnee 20:51, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
That is a point -- but maybe you could make that point more clear on the Niklas Luhmann article (last time I looked, neither Paul Würth nor Das falsche Buch were living articles, and I needed amazon.de to find out what this book is about) -- till we *) 21:22, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
- OK, I did a (minor) rewrite of that note - does it look better? Outside of that, I know neither Paul Wühr nor Das falsche Buch exist yet, but I listed them on Wikipedia:Requested articles, and may write some initial entries myself if I get around to and noone else does. -- Schnee 22:12, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Thanks! Much better so. I added a "of literature" to the work, hope that's right. Re: faction/fraction in the green party f(r)action article, see User talk:Tillwe. -- till we *) 10:43, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)
Sysop status granted
Congratulations, you have just been made a sysop! You have volunteered for boring housekeeping activities which normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops basically can't do anything: They cannot delete pages arbitarily (only obvious junk like "jklasdfl,öasdf JOSH IS GAY"), they cannot protect pages in an edit war they are involved in, they cannot ban signed in users. What they can do is delete junk as it appears, ban anonymous vandals, remove pages that have been listed on Votes for deletion for more than a week, protect pages when asked to by other members, and help keep the few protected pages there are, among them the precious Main Page, up to date.
Note that almost everything you can do can be undone, so don't be too worried about making mistakes. You will find more information at Wikipedia:Administrators, please take a look before experimenting with your new powers. Drop me a message if there are any questions or if you want to stop being a sysop (could it be?). Have fun!—Eloquence 02:45, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
- Whee, thanks! ^_^ -- Schnee 16:27, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Green party issues
Hi, I'm not sure, but after your major copying of names into the f(r)action article I guess you're interested in Green party issues -- maybe you want to have a look at the List of Green party issues I created? What do you think of this? -- till we *) 19:52, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)
You can delete junk like Development anthropology straight away if you want to. It's been deleted twice already today! Angela 00:33, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I wasn't sure about deleting the article outright since it could've been kept to (hopefully) grow into a regular article on the subject, but I'll be (slightly) bolder from now on. ;) -- Schnee 00:39, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Not that I'm trying to encourage people to go 'round deleting stuff! It's just better (IMO) if articles with no useful content show up as empty so that people know to go and write them. Angela 00:45, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- *smiles* That's what I realized when I read your note, and what I meant. Outside of obvious cases like this, I'll still follow a very conservative deletion policy (one of the few places where I actually am conservative). -- Schnee 00:50, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Just wanted to ask if you meant to edit List of NES games and put the table of contents in the header on the first table the way you did. I made all of those tables recently and personally, I thought it looked better the other way. No problems, I don't mind, but I'm wondering if you meant to set it up that way. -- TravelingDude
- I'm not sure exactly what you mean - what I mostly did was update the heading for the "0-9" section so it'd look like the headings for the other sections. Looking at the page again, though, something seems to have messed up: There's two "P" sections, and "0-9" is gone entirely. I'm sorry for that, and will fix that.
- Outside of that, maybe we can discuss the page layout on List of NES games/Talk. :) -- Schnee 00:39, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Great job standardizing the format of the English and Chinese names of those dynastic rulers! --Menchi 01:03, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Thank you. It's an arduous task, and I won't finish it today, but it definitely is something I couldn't let go unfixed. :) -- Schnee 01:06, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Do we really need three articles about a single Pokemon character? Wouldn't one article do, with appropriate redirects (or without them)? Do we need any at all? Pokemon topics are well covered on various fan sites.
- We don't need three articles on a single Pokémon, but then, we don't have three, either - each Pokémon gets just one article of its own. I think you may be talking about the species-/type-specific pages; those are not about single Pokémon, though, but rather meant to list Pokémon of, well, a certain species/type, respectively. Some may be small still, but once there's entries on all 386 Pokémon, that'll probably change. ^_~ And of course, Wiki is not paper, anyway.
- Outside of that, you can sign messages and the like with ~~~ (name) or ~~~~ (name and date). It's a nice feature that is quite useful on talk pages. :) -- Schnee 16:28, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- FWIW, it just occurred to me that you may have been talking about the various evolution lines, too (like, say, Bulbasaur / Ivysaur / Venusaur). If that's the case, it should be noted that these actually are three different and distinct Pokémon, not just different forms of a single Pokémon. They definitely deserve articles of their own, and the same holds true for the other evolution lines as well. -- Schnee 16:48, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- User:66.76.225.218 inserted "Fuck you" into U.S. presidential election, 1956. May be just a newbie experimenting, but I don't think we want profanity like that in the articles. -- Schnee 12:24, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Once? Probably not worth listing here. -- Tim Starling 12:32, Sep 5, 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, the guy makes one edit... you revert him, and so far the vandal has spent more time than the good guys, so we're on top... but then you list on problem users, and folks read it, and Tim comments, and I review it to see if it should be removed, and copy it here, and spend time writing this... and suddenly the vandal's got the upper hand! Bad vandal! :) Martin
- I'm not sure what you mean now really.. Sorry. -- Schnee 04:23, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Any reason why you're using png's for your album cover scans? They look just fine as JPEG's, and are about one-tenth of the size. --Robert Merkel 12:20, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Thinking about it, no - I'm just so used to using PNGs I didn't even think about it. Well, I'll convert them. -- Schnee 18:08, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hi Schnee, your temporary page for the list of NES games was listed on Wikipedia:Subpages to be moved, so I moved it to User:Schneelocke/List of NES games (temp). Cheers, Cyan 03:08, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cyan. :) -- Schnee 03:11, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hello Schneelocke, Could you in the future please not edit my entries, There is a specific reason that I had the Wiki entry Caribbean Stud Poker set in that format. Thank you in advance.
- (Note: the above comment was added by User:151.198.138.48) Sorry - having entries you make on Wikipedia edited by other people is something you have to expect, and neither I nor anyone else can or will give you a blanket promise to not edit something you write. If you do have a specific reason why a certain article should be in this or that format, though, you can explain why on the article's talk page (Talk:Caribbean Stud Poker, for example), and a discussion will surely ensue that will hopefully lead to a consensus. ^_~ Also, refer to the manual of style. -- Schnee 18:04, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I will ask you nicely again, Please DO NOT change my Wiki entry at Caribbean Stud Poker it is specifically formatted that way for a reason and it DOES make sense so please as a favor don't change my entry leave it alone. Thank you.
- Sorry to butt in here Schneelocke, but I wanted to point out that anon has no grounds for complaint. A series of periods is awful formatting; any change in font will throw the alignment completely off. More important, articles are not to be written in second-person voice (e.g., "if you" etc.). Schneelocke's edits have been dead-on correct. Anon should read the Wikipedia:Manual of style and cease making ridiculous "vandalism" listings. - Hephaestos 04:48, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Excuse me Hephaestos? The format is fine and put a - instead of a . is wrong because it doesn't make the text look even. At least with the ..... all of the text is aligned evenly and my claims are not ridiculous and BTW I've been very nice about this whole thing and I would appreciate if you would treat me with the same respect that i've given you.
- This user has added the same comments to User talk:DJ Clayworth. He was told earlier today not to do this. See User talk:151.198.138.48. Angela 05:08, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)
Selected articles
Before listing items in the Anniversaries section of the Main Page, please make sure that they are updated to reflect the anniversary and have a recent day link. Otherwise a reader has no idea why the page was listed. There are guidelines on this at Wikipedia:Selected Articles on the Main Page. --mav
- OK. Thanks. :) -- Schnee 09:24, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hello.
Just noticed that your voting for the logo is marked as invalid. I think it is because you use half points like: 2.3.
best regards Malene
- Hi Malene, thank you for the note! I'm not sure what you mean, though; my votes on International logo vote/Ballot aren't marked in any special way at least. If it's something else you're talking about, I'd be happy if you could let me know. Thanks. :) -- Schnee 22:28, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
VfD
Keep them (all of them). If specific articles are listed for deletion with a reason, that's fine, but just posting a huge list only means that no real discussion can be had about the individual articles. -- Schnee 20:49, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- What am I meant to do? Save them up and post one per day? I can't see why it makes a difference if someone makes an effort to list more than one thing at once. Why can't you discuss it if there is more than one? You can still discuss each article seperately. That's why I listed the reason for deletion with each one. Angela 01:38, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you changed "to date" to "until today" on the Qmail page. Is there a reference to a security hole for qmail? Can that date be noted? Also, "until today" with no note of the actual date is pretty misleading. For example: You edited it in May and I read it in October, today. -- GikWik
- Blame it on me not being a native english speaker. ;) Fixed. -- Schnee 19:40, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hi, just a quick note to say I enjoyed reading your magic cube series of articles. -- Gandalf61 16:34, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
- Thank you. ^_^ That's very nice to know. -- Schnee 16:52, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
As the edit war was over, as far as I know there was no request for protection -- why have you protected Zyklon B, please unprotect it. Lirath Q. Pynnor
- The edit war is not over as far as I can see. Give it a day or two so things can cool down; outside of that, it's probably a better idea to discuss this on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress.
Would you mind explaining what the edit war is over? Lirath Q. Pynnor
- As I said, see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. -- Schnee 16:46, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yes, and I am trying to explain that I edited the text in question, such that neither side seemed to have a problem with it. Thus, the edit war ended. Lirath Q. Pynnor
- The edit war was ended 22 minutes before you protected it. Nobody reverted my "compromise". Lirath Q. Pynnor
Nice hydra, wonder what it symbolizes? Speaking of hydras, thanks for protecting Zyklon B. --Uncle Ed 16:53, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- You're welcome. The hydra was one of the entries for the logo contest (number 65 (http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_logos_(51-75))); I also saw it one someone else's user page prior to that, and just liked it. :) -- Schnee 17:04, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hess vs Rudolf Heß
(note from Schnee: this is a follow-up to a comment I left on Raul654's talk page. -- Schnee 13:16, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC))
My thoughts on the matter were basically:
- This is the english wikipedia - I don't think it's a trivial matter that the titles should be only standard english-language characters, or else no one can directly link to Rudolf Heß without copying it first, like I did.
- Like I said before, Hess is the way it is spelled in English. (I've never seen it any other way) As precedent, I'd point out the fact that Italia (how Italians refer to Italy) is a redirect to Italy, Deutschland (as a disambig page) to Germany, etc etc. We usually put articles under the name by which they are most commonly known, which is not always the most "proper" name. Where languages are concered, we go with the standard English version.
--Raul654 02:09, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- There's a difference here, though. "Germany" or "Italy" or translations of the respective names, whereas "Rudolf Hess" is merely a spelling variation of the correct name (Heß). It may be true that it's more difficult to directly link to Rudolf Heß than to Rudolf Hess for someone who can't directly type a ß, but since one of the articles will always redirect to the other, I think that's irrelevant. And for what it's worth, there are several examples where latin-1 characters are used for article titles: take a look at, for example, Kraków, Eugène Ionesco, Josef Hiršal and others.
- Furthermore, the fact that this is the English Wikipedia does not mean anything - to quote from Wikipedia:POV, "Also be careful to avoid an English-speaking Point Of View. Although country-specific and similar POVs are often easy to spot, this can be harder to spot." As said above already, "Rudolf Heß" *is* the correct spelling, so this is what should be used for the article. -- Schnee 13:16, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- You make a good point. Here's what I propose - let's copy the above discussion to the Wikipedia:Village pump as a request for comments and see what everyone says. That way, should another issue like this come up again, the community can enfore uniformity. --Raul654 19:48, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Good idea. Let's do that. -- Schnee 21:36, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- As agreed, I have posted it to Wikipedia:Village pump --Raul654 05:59, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- OK. Let's see what everyone else says. -- Schnee 16:14, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Tim Starling has archived the discussion at the village pump, but the last edit prior to the archiving can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump&diff=2067210&oldid=2067178). I think it's fair to say that there was nearly unanimous support for keeping the article where it is, at Rudolf Hess. Unless you have an objection, I tend to consider the matter closed. --Raul654 12:41, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- PS: It's been a pleasure dealing with you.
- I personally still think that the main article should reside at Rudolf Heß, but it's no big deal, and if the majority wants to keep it the way it currently is, it's fine. -- Schnee 21:27, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Toxicity of rare earths
Most rare earth metals europium, terbium, etc. have approximately the same layout introduced by you with among others the warning that they must be regarded as highly toxic. This is not in agreement with the material safety data sheets on http://www.hazard.com/msds/index.php . The few that I checked have as warnings something like: may cause skin/lung/eye irritation (this holds for almost any pure chemical); the toxicity is not fully investigated.
Based on what I can find, I wouldn't eat rare earth compounds, but I wouldn't wear gloves when handling them. Do you have good reasons to state otherwise? Hankwang 13:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Information regarding toxicity of these was taken from other web encyclopedias of elements (those linked in the articles); I can't vouch for their correctness, of course, so if your sources indicate the information is wrong, feel free to investigage further and/or correct it. -- Schnee 18:06, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
WikiProject Numbers
You may want to participate in WikiProject Numbers. Among other questions, we are trying to find an navigation bar to link the numbers. One of the proposals is: Template:Numbers E1 -- User:Docu
- Thanks, I'll check that out. I saw the location bar you mention on some pages, BTW, but I don't like it in the slightest, and since I was the one who initially began creating location bars for the number pages, anyway, I replaced it by a table that looks nicer. ^_~ (inspired by the location bar for the Solar system). Speaking of that one, it might be a good idea to modify the table included with some of the number articles to have a left margin (0.5em or so) and to have a background colour for the table header cell. TTYL (I gotta scoot)! -- Schnee 19:09, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sure we will find a solution. I don't think the message is ideal, but I prefer it to the 3-4 different version we had before. The colors .. depend much on the skin you are using. If we could just add an id to the tables and define the table formatting elsewhere .. -- User:Docu
- Actually, the current colours (two tones of grey) blend in quite well with all three available skins (I assume you're talking about Wikipedia skins). Outside of that, I agree it would be nice if it was possible to separate contents from presentation in an easy and elegant manner, but unfortunately, that's not possible really, unless you want to stick with nothing but plain text. And, for that matter, I personally don't think there really is a need to try, either; using certain background colours etc. is a standard practice throughout all of Wikipedia, from high-profile parts like the Main Page or WikiProject Elements to obscure and isolated instances. As long as it looks good in all modern (i.e., CSS-aware) browsers, there shouldn't be a problem. -- Schnee 17:34, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hi, how come you are changing the tables on the Roman Emperor pages? (They don't look bad, but I was just curious.) Adam Bishop 19:33, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)