Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 June 26

Help desk
< June 25	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

June 26

No images on Wikipedia?

Hello, I recently installed Vista, everything was going fine for a few days and suddently, out of the blue, IE can not load any page on Wikipedia. So i shut down IE, reload and scince then no images will appear on Wiki. Any Suggestions? KoalaMeatPie 00:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a clue. It's worth asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing to see if anyone knows about bugs in Vista. Shalom ^Hello 04:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps images are disabled in IE? (Assuming you're using IE 7 because you said that you installed Vista:) Go to Tools → Internet Options. Then click on the "Advanced" tab. About half way down or so should be a "Show pictures" checkbox. Make sure that it is checked, and press OK twice. If this doesn't solve the problem, try clearing your cache (Ctrl-F5 in IE). If that still doesn't help, feel free to ask again (possibly with more information) here or on my talk page. —METS501 (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Create a page

How do i create a page

Read WP:FIRST. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 02:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

how to create a page

Type the name of the page you wish to create into the search box in the sidebar at the left of your screen. If it is to be in the article namespace, it doesn't need a prefix. But if it is in another namespace, like the user namespace, it needs to be preceded by the name of the namespace followed by a colon. For example to create a page called "How to create a page" in the Wikipedia namespace, type (without the quotes) "Wikipedia:How to create a page".

If the page doesn't already exist, Wikipedia will give you the option of creating the page. Read the screen carefully, and follow the directions.

Another way to create a page is to click on a red link. For example, if your name is in red at the top of your screen, click on it, and start editing in the edit box provided. (You may have to scroll down a little to see the edit box).

I hope this helps, and if you have any further questions, please feel free to ask away.

The Transhumanist    02:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It was Norton 360 on Steroids. I asked their help desk after reading the article on here saying it had compatibility issues with IE 7. Half the pages wouldn't load at all and cut off my internet. KoalaMeatPie 20:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

HELP!

Gruntilda

I need help with this page. And no I don't want it deleted. Angry Sun 01:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As such? KoalaMeatPie 01:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That annoying Character box is all I really need fixed now... Angry Sun 01:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. You did it again. Eh, you'll learn. - History tab, Select Version, "Undo" if you mess up to badly. KoalaMeatPie 01:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of the Assessment Drive?

Why do articles need to be assessed?

Wouldn't the effort be better spent directly upon improving the articles rather than assessing them?

Just curious.

The Transhumanist    02:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the best answer to that question would be a matter of expanding. It helps sort articles in terms of the amount of work that still need to be done on them. Just my opinion. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 02:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment is valuable as an outside party can take a look at an article and identify problematic parts, which helps those who are involved in the article clean it up. Everyone gets a little too close to their work sometimes, so it helps to have an extra set of eyes point out the obvious flaws we may overlook. -- Kesh 03:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It also gives me a good thing to look at when I go to a relevant category to work out what article to work on next. I hate looking at articles which are better than what I can improve when I am trying to find something to work on (not that that happens very often).Garrie 05:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

People are more likely to work on things if they have a specific rating of how much they've done and how much is left to do in a category; assessment helps that, I think. Plus it helps decide which articles are ready for a CD selection or the like. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 12:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Some people might be able to recognize more problems than they know how to fix, or they can recognize problems faster than they can fix them. They can still help by listing the problems they recognize in a way that allows the (fewer) people who know how to fix the problems to avoid having to look for them. Pointing out problems makes them more obvious, possibly attracting the attention of someone who knows how to fix them, who might have overlooked an unmarked problem. There is also the matter of efficiency. Someone who fixes many instances of the same type of problem by working from a list can get faster at it than someone who fixes one type of problem at a time in the course of random article browsing. To fix a given type of problem, you may have to read a guideline page, look up some appropriate template, play with it until you understand it, and so on. Once you know how to fix that problem, you might as well fix as many instances of it as you can, to get a good return on the overhead effort of learning how to fix it. Plus, some people like to know how Wikipedia is doing. The MediaWiki software can automatically tell us we have 6,915,560 articles and 48,313,678 registered users, but what do those numbers mean? We can see how large Wikipedia is getting, but is it getting better? Is Wikipedia getting closer to its goal of providing a free encyclopedia of the highest quality? Wikipedia's user interface has some influence on the kinds of editing people do. For example, if we decide the article count isn't growing fast enough (which seems highly unlikely), we might be able to increase the new article creation by making it easier and more obvious. On the other hand, if we decide the volume is increasing faster than the quality, we might think of ways to encourage more users to improve the quality of existing articles rather than start so many new ones. For example, we put up the barrier of requiring users to create accounts before they can start new articles. That probably had the effect of slowing the new article creation rate below whatever it would be now if unregistered users could still create new articles. We could raise the hurdle farther in a variety of ways, such as by adding a waiting period to new accounts before they can create new articles, or by requiring them to have a minimum number of edits, etc. I'm not sure how to create additional positive incentives to improve existing articles. I guess we could hand out more barnstars or something. --Teratornis 21:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Filmography Listing

I was wondering if you could tell me how to make a filmography on an actor's article? Thank you

InsanityOnline 04:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: learn from how others have done it. Try Matt Damon, a well-known American actor. There's an infobox on the right and a Wikitable in the article text. Either presentation is effective. Use the WP:SANDBOX to tinker with these templates until you can make them do what you want. Shalom ^Hello 06:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Click "Edit this page", then copy the source code onto the sandbox, and edit the sandbox. Shalom ^Hello 06:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Passwords

How do I find my passwod if I cannot remember it?

If you listed your email address when you created your account, click "E-mail new password" on the login screen, then check your email.

If you did not list your email address, there is no way to recover your password. You will need to start over from a new account (but you can copy your old userpage etc.). Shalom ^Hello 06:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Following this edit to one of my user sub-pages, I thought I should put {{olddraft}} on it. That template allows me to specify the "target article" for the draft, but not the target talk page. It automatically pointed to Talk:GarrieIrons/Westfields in Australia/talk, which I turned into a redirect to my own talk page. Does all this sound about right - that is, is the redirect from the Talk namespace to my own user talk namespace break any rules?

If you think it does, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks, Garrie 05:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, that's a little weird, but don't worry about it. If a similar situation were happening in the main article space, I would bother to retarget the double redirect, but since it's in your userspace, double redirects or misplaced redirects are not harmful. Shalom ^Hello 06:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

register

I want to register my name, my question is on how to creat so that i may belong to the wikipedia organization? 58.69.31.121 07:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)×

Click here and go to town. --Haemo 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to create a new article...

I want to create a new article but I dont how to use php .. please guide me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.227.106.122 (talk • contribs).

Replied on user's talk page. +spebi ~ 07:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Embeded Images

How do you put an image on an article? user talk: Naj da man

Replied on user's talk page. +spebi ~ 08:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

vandalism by ip 82.17.83.54

this guy has vandalised 2/3 pages so far. i've removed the vandalism. i've no idea how to report him. can someone do it, or show me how? thanks Geeness 10:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• WP:AIV —Dark•Shikari^[T] 12:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:VANDAL. There's also a complete list of warning templates on Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Usual_warnings. I'd suggest leaving him a level three vandalism warning on his talk page, for now. --saxsux 20:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

sociology

what are the roles of boys and girls in a society?

The help desk is for questions about wikipedia. You want the reference desk, but they won't help you with your homework either -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 12:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, you could ofcourse also read the article about Gender role or Sex differences. - Face 13:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

How do I make a page in a different language while linking it to an English page?

(Question moved from Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 June 23#How do I make a page in a different language while linking it to an English page?--VectorPotential^Talk 11:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

The page Law of the United States is only in 5 other languages, and I wanted to make one in Slovak. How do I create the page and make it show up under the same title but in the Slovak section? Any help would be appreciated, thanks! Metaalla 11:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just go to the Slovak Wikipedia, type the Slovak translation of the title "Law of the United States" into the search box on the left, click go, and then click edit - then just start writing! When you're done, you can easily add interwiki links to versions of the same article in other languages. Just go to the bottom of any existing article on the topic in another language (for example the English version), click edit, add an interwiki link to your new Slovak version, and copy and paste the other interwiki links into your new Slovak article. --Kwekubo 11:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: there is no "Slovak section". The Slovak Wikipedia is a separate encyclopedia (and the same goes for the various other languages). --Tugbug 23:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Automatic e-mail

How to get automatic e-mail on subjects or topics of interest?

I'm not sure what you mean exactly but I don't think we have anything like that. ssepp^(talk) 20:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

For the closest things I know of, go here: User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia#New and scroll down a screen or two to the "News:" entry. There you can get news about Wikipedia itself in various formats. If you want e-mail on some other subjects, you could try Google Search. For example, say you are interested in Astronomy and you want e-mail about it. Let's ask the Great Google: Google:Astronomy e-mail. That finds a bunch of links about Astronomy mailing lists, e-mail newsletters, etc. --Teratornis 21:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

George Moore, American Radio presenter

I am quite disturbed, no, no I am PISSED, that someone took it upon themselves to delete the information on American radio 'presenter' George Moore. It did not take a LOT of digging to meticulously enter that information on Mr. Moore, because I am HE!

Would someone explain to me the correct way of inputting, and KEEPING this information available to Wiki-pedia readers. Yes, I DID check the 'relevence' percentage of my information, and it was 17 % . Now, that isn't exactly OVERWHELMING to anyone, but at least that many people MIGHT want to know something about me. So, could that deleted info be re-entered by the mensa who originally deleted, or....? do I have to re-enter it on the condition that it is LEFT THE HELL ALONE??

75.42.98.26 13:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

George Moore -American Radio presenter

The article was deleted at the following date and time with the following reason:

"23:34, 8 May 2007 Stephen (Talk | contribs) deleted "George Moore (American Radio Presenter)" (Expired prod, concern was: NN, no refs)"

I suggest you read over Wikipedia's notability guidelines as well as the guidelines for conflicts of interest and autobiographies. Dismas|^(talk) 13:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, almost forgot, WP:CIVIL may be of use as well. Dismas|^(talk)

What do you mean by the relevance percentage? I only know of it in a search result where I think it shows how well an articles matches a search entry, it has nothing to do with how useful or notable an article is. ssepp^(talk) 21:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You should look at Wikipedia:Notability (people). ssepp^(talk) 21:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

While civility is a good idea in general, we do have an ergonomic shortcoming on Wikipedia in that this is often the very first wiki many new users attempt to edit on. Many if not most new users have prior experience with other user-editable Web sites such as Google Groups, MySpace, countless blogs and Internet forum sites, etc. On most of those sites, generally one's edits stay put. For example, post a new message to Google Groups and it will probably remain online until Google goes broke, even if you beg and plead to have it deleted. After years of experience with sites like that, a typical user may have no concept of anything else. On Wikipedia, in contrast, 48,313,678 registered users can potentially mess with your work, along with any number of unregistered users. The user interface of Wikipedia doesn't do enough to warn new users such as the current questioner just how drastically Wikipedia departs from other editable sites they have used before. On Wikipedia, it is evidently very easy for a new user to figure out how to create a new article, but not nearly so easy for a new user to become aware that Wikipedia deletes several pages per minute for violating the various policies and guidelines. For example, I created my first article very early in my editing career; it was easy to get the idea to do that, and easy to figure out how. In contrast, I only gradually became aware of the scale of deletion going on here after months of actively editing. This whole deletion business just doesn't seem to be something new users are likely to grasp as early as they need to. The fact that every day we have several users asking Why was my page deleted? on the Help desk suggests something is ergonomically quite wrong with that. (Further, we can suspect the users who find their way to the Help desk are but a fraction of those we shock.) Perhaps the Main Page should not only show the current article count, but also the current deletion count. Perhaps when a new user goes to create a first new article, they should have to demonstrate some level of understanding to an actual human of how Wikipedia works. Or perhaps for that first article they should have to first propose the article and get it provisionally approved. The current method of just letting novices spend hours editing any article they think should go on Wikiepidia, only to have it deleted leads to unpleasant outcomes often enough to suggest we can find a way to make Wikipedia friendlier to new users. Before we let people wander into the minefield, we should first require them to acknowledge they understand it is a minefield. Another problem is that we just delete articles, generally without offering any advice on how to find another wiki which might accept our rejects. I don't begrudge the questioner for blowing off a bit of steam after basically getting suckered by a site that doesn't do enough to distance itself from the multitude of other more familiar user-editable sites. With thousands of pages getting deleted every day here, it's a wonder we don't have more users screaming at us. One also wonders how many users we unwittingly transform into vandals by unnecessarily angering them. --Teratornis 03:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit counter

Just wondering, is there a template in which you can put your username so that it automaticaly generates the total number of edits you have made? Or is there a userbox which does this? E.g. "This user has made 2473 edits". - Face 13:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

We discourage excessive interest in edit counts because of editcountitis and because the query to get the count is a strain on the database. RJFJR 13:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And yet at the same time, edit count is the only convenient statistic we have for estimating an editor's experience level, which correlates roughly with an editor's understanding of Wikipedia policies and so on. So while we have reasons to deplore our excessive emphasis on edit count, we go right along excessively emphasizing it. For more about edit count see: User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia#Edi. --Teratornis 14:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanations/links! - Face 16:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the userboxes, there used to be separate ones to display the increments in edit count as determined by the edit counters, e.g. 1,000+, 2,000+, etc. However now there's one template in use. --BrokenSphere 17:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Company entry

I was told to create an entry for our company, so people looking for information we offer can find it on Wikipedia, but I don't see a link to do so. I've looked thru the FAQs, but don't see anything there either. Do I just create a page with the information? Our site is free with a lot of great info., so I want those loooking to be able to find it. Thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by JennC72 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a message board or classified ad system. If your company is notable, someone would have created an encyclopedia article about it. -- _(¿ʇɐɥʍ) ʍɐuıɐʞ 14:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

CD

IS IT AVAILEBLE SOME TRAINING CD FOR SABRE (UPDATED LATLEY)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.234.210 (talk • contribs)

First, do not type in all caps. It means you are screaming at everyone. Second, this is a reference desk for Wikipedia, not Sabre. -- _(¿ʇɐɥʍ) ʍɐuıɐʞ 16:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

New messages error

Help! I can't get rid of the "You have new messages (last change)." tag! I've clicked both links and it's still there... This isn't a caching problem, cos it's on every new page - 82.16.7.63 16:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It probably is a caching problem, but with Wikipedia itself rather than with you. See bugzilla:9213: it's a known problem, but it's not entirely clear what's causing it. There's also Category:Wikipedians who are terribly frustrated about Bug ID 9213; you're not the only person who's annoyed about this. (It's likely to go away eventually of its own accord; I'm not sure what causes it to do this either.) --ais523 16:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

i need to know terminologies

study of birds study of coins study of insects study of solar system study of heart study of plants study of weather study of rays/rotation study of animals study of heredity

Ornithology, numismatics, entomology, wait...do your own homework. Or try the Reference desk. This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. tiZom_(2¢) 16:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Try using Google; the answer is almost always in the first few hits, e.g. "study of birds". Let us know what you find. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Categories

On two pages (American University Museum and Jack Rasmussen) they are not being listed in the category page for which they have been designated. How do I fix that?

Ks9887a 17:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

They look fine to me, both are in Category:American University, which I assume is what you were talking about. The server was probably just being slow and not updating the categories properly. If you still can't see them, try purging your cache, that generally fixes most software and browser errors. --tjstrf talk 17:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

new page

can you please tell me how to find the button to click to create a new page. i have searched and read thoroughly.

thanks,

brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianrouch (talk • contribs)

Enter the name of the article in the search box and click 'go'. If the page doesn't exist and you are allowed to create it, a link will show up allowing you to create it. -- _(¿ʇɐɥʍ) ʍɐuıɐʞ 17:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

See Help:Starting a new page. The Sunshine Man 17:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Be aware that Wikipedia deletes several new articles per minute on average. Before you sink lots of time into editing a new article, be sure you understand Wikipedia policies and it won't simply end up getting deleted. If you want to run your new article idea by us first, we can advise you on how to write it so it is more likely to "stick." --Teratornis 21:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Forging Signatures

I was just wondering what the penalty was on Wikipedia for forging signatures of other users (e.g.: User X gets all the HTML code from the signature of User Y, places it on a talk page, and signs it with ~~~~~, producing the date, in order to pretend to gain support on a consensus from an administrator, for example). Please do not get me wrong. I did not, and do not have any intentions to do so, forge other users' signatures. I just saw an IP address do this, and I was wondering what the penalty (if one exists) was. Also, please be kind enough to respond on my talk page. Thank you. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 17:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You should leave them a friendly yet firm comment on their talk page and remove the incorrect comment from the page, explaining this in the edits summary, if they continue then warn them again and if they do it again you can take it to AIV. All the best. The Sunshine Man 17:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course you probably want to make sure the IP in question isn't actually the person whose name they're signing. --VectorPotential^Talk 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And the real source remains recorded in the history regardless of how it is signed. RJFJR 04:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I have a question concerning citations tags on a page that I gave major contributions. I know the information to give sufficient answers, but for the life of me, I can not figure out how to edit the page to correct the citations. I have read the procedures on this subject many, many times, but it hasn’t helped me at all. I would appreciate any help. The page in question is "The Diamonds". min7th 18:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Replace each instance of {{fact}} with a citation template (follow the link for a list), wrapped in <ref> tags, so for example,

Replace

{{fact}}

with

<ref>{{cite web|author = someone |url = http://www.something.com|accessdate=2007-06-26}}</ref>

Is that what you're trying to accomplish? tiZom_(2¢) 18:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. Thanks anyway.min7th 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying there are errors with the citations that you want to correct? If that is the case, in the list of references, there is a small number at the start of each. If you click it, it will take you to the point in the article where that reference is used. That linked number will appear in brackets, i.e. ^[[[1]]]. You want to click "edit this page", then go the that point in the article. You'll see ref tags and the cite web template. Cite web templates have the various fields separated for easy editing. Using the link provided by the previous responder may be of help to you in making changes. Let me know if that's not what you are trying to do and/or you need further assistance. LaraLove^T/_C 19:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. It did sound as if I wanted to correct errors of the citations. It all sounded very clear as I was writing it. OK, let’s start over. The page in question has citations tags on certain facts. I wanted to give source for the facts and eliminate the citation tags. I have a feeling the first answer to my question was close, but the process of doing so was leading me to other areas of not knowing what I’m doing. I thank you both for your efforts, but I think I’ll just forget the whole thing. By the way, the source to use is listed on the page as “The Official Website Original Diamonds”, under External Links. This is an authorized site.min7th 20:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary

I have noticed that many people manage to put in a link in the Summary describing the edit they have made.

How exactly do you do it ?

--Tovojolo 18:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The same way you'd put it in an article, by typing "[[Desired Wikipedia article link]]" in the edit summary box. (Category links need to be prefixed with ":Category:", not just "Category:", of course, otherwise they won't show up.) --tjstrf talk 19:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

See: Help:Edit summary#Rendering of wikitext; URLs. --Teratornis 02:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

article

Where do i go to make an article

You will need to register an account, at which point you should read Help:Starting a new page and follow the directions there. (Page creation by unregistered users is disabled due to spam issues.)

If you do not wish to make an account, you could make a request for article creation at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. --tjstrf talk 20:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Page History?

Sorry if this is a FAQ, but is it possible to access the page history and former revisions of a deleted article?

Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 20:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Only editors with administrative access can do it. Friday (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not entirely correct. See WP:OVERSIGHT. --Ybbor^Talk 20:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Page/hit counter for wiki-pages

is there a way to setup a hit counter on wiki-pages?

See the previous answers to this frequent question. --Teratornis 21:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Color or colour?

I've noticed in many articles that both the UK and US spellings of words like color/colour, center/centre, and so on... get reverted back and forth as "spelling errors". Is there a preferred English to use on Wikipedia? Or does it just depend on the topic and the individual editor's preference? Just curious, I've seen some rather heated and quite amusing edit wars on this.CindyBo^talk 23:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The official designation in the manual of style is: whichever is more appropriate for the subject. For instance, Doctor Who would more appropriately use UK English, while Stargate SG-1 would use US English. In articles where nationality is not relevant (eg. Horse), then either one is appropriate so long as the spelling choice is consistant. However, it should not be corrected whole-cloth, as you describe. Edit wars over this are quite silly, and editors involved should be reminded to leave it be. -- Kesh 23:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Talking about silly edit wars, Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars documents one over whether it should be orange (color) or orange (colour). I'm just glad I'm French...Circeus 23:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And I'm just glad you're not arguing for Orange (couleur). Confusing Manifestation 01:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's makes sense.CindyBo^talk 00:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Once upon a time I opined that the national variety of English should be localizable in the user's preferences, with only things such as organization titles showing a fixed variety of English (e.g., "Defence Ministry", etc.). It doesn't make sense to fight over something that really should be a user preference setting. Everyone should be able to read Wikipedia in the language/spelling/dialect of his/her choice. I'm surprised to hear that France avoided this problem - have no former French colonies evolved linguistically away from the mother country? One would expect any widely-spoken language to diversify. --Teratornis 02:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That has its own issues. It may be a large database hit to substitute the text on the fly; it doesn't account for misspelled words; and someone's bound to be upset if the default language setting is wrong. The current method is crude, but works well enough until people get too nationalistic. -- Kesh 02:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I may be delusional, but I like to imagine Great powers such as the United States and the United Kingdom have sufficient resources to present their own national varieties of Wikipedia to their subjects, sooner or later. (I think the importance of Wikipedia as a national resource will come to be widely understood. Imagine where we might be in another five years. Perhaps by then a large fraction of people in a given country will be relying on Wikipedia to tell them what's what, and that's bound to attract attention from influential people in that country who will want to insure their citizens are getting the best service possible.) After all, we have a whole bunch of separate language Wikipedias already. A language primarily spoken in only one country amounts to a de facto national Wikipedia. If a country like Thailand can have its own Wikipedia, why not also countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom? Any localization scheme is bound to have problems, but will they be worse than the problems created by the current system which doesn't even attempt to conform to the user's understanding of English? I wouldn't suggest a fully automated system anyway, as manual tagging of words to be spelled variably would seem necessary, to avoid localizing words that should not be localized, such as in titles of organizations and so on. Determining how best to localize the national variety of English would require some serious thought. --Teratornis 04:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting way off-topic for the help desk, but I think fracturing Wikipedia as described would lead to further problems. Might be a topic to bring up on the village pump for discussion, though. -- Kesh 04:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I the case of articles in which either is appropriate, in addition to being consistent throughout the article, as mentioned above, it is recommended that the spelling used by the original editor be kept. LaraLove^T/_C 03:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)