Virgil/Talk

< Virgil

HomePage | Recent changes | View source | Discuss this page | Page history | Log in |

Printable version | Disclaimers | Privacy policy

Why don't you just import the Nupedia article on Virgil to this page?  :-)


I thought I would do this myself, but then I found that Nupedia's page formatting is not very 'Cut and paste friendly'. Can Nupedia have a feature (I think others have requested this) for 'Printer-Friendly Version' which simply prints the article without table-formatting as plain text?


It's already pretty printer-friendly. Anyway, what problems would that solve? Anyone can easily cut and paste it, either from the HTML source or from the web page.


The very idea of cut-and-paste should raise the hair on the neck of any computer nerd. The obvious solution is to put a like to the Nupedia article prominently here (perhaps in the first introductory sentence), and then let Wikipedians add any additional comments they want in more free-form way. --Lee Daniel Crocker


We shouldn't assume that the average Wikipedian is a computer nerd; and why should cut-and-paste raise the hair on their neck anyway? It's a simple and easy way to move the content from there to here. It is open content, so there should be no objection to doing this. Anyway, I've already done it. It took about two minutes to convert unfriendly characters.

Also, Lee, I disagree with your apparent attitude toward the use of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should have content here, on the website, not links pointing elsewhere. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a links collection. It's also not a discussion forum first and foremost, but, again, an encyclopedia. An open content encyclopedia, meaning that we can (and should!) make use of public domain and open content stuff. --LS

Very interesting, Larry. For me, in Netscape on Linux, the cut and paste was very unhappy. There were lots of spaces before each line, which would have required me to painstakingly edit each line. Chalk one up for IE, I guess.  :-) Jimbo Wales



Aargh...should we really be using BCE instead of BC? The latter is fair and accurate - the calendar is dated from Christ, whatever religion you are - better known and a full symbol shorter (two if you use periods). Sigh. The other's probably going to end up convention, but I couldn't let that happen without a whine. -- JG


You can do want on Wikipedia... You simply risk someone changing it back.  :-) (I promise I won't, in this case.) In that respect, Wikipedia is not unlike Zombo.com. --LS


I'm sure there was some long debate about it (BCE versus BC) when Nupedia adopted it. Nupedia loves a good debate.  :-)


You is not kiddin'. --LS


I believe that at least the Medieval History section explicitly says that they aren't insisting on AD *or* CE.