Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 March 21

< Wikipedia:Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< March 20 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 22 >
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.


March 21

edit

cite

edit

when using an article how to you cite it for the bibliography —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.245.227 (talk • contribs)

If you mean how to cite Wikipedia in your project see: WP:CITING Scottydude 02:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Vandalism

edit

I'm using the Voice of All script fight vandalism. But for some reason I can't rollback pages anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hmrox (talk • contribs) 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Try Twinkle Real96 03:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

College coach infobox

edit

I am currently working on updating a couple 'stubs' about some college football coaches. However, I don't know how to use and edit the 'college coach infobox'.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Heismanhoosier 04:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try Help:Infobox. Real96 04:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

updating a page

edit

The "M.C." page of your site has no definition for comedy clubs and requests "expert" advice. I am an M.C. in comedy clubs with a Masters Degree in Sociology and would like to update it, but it is heavily protected and the sites to edit it have sent me in circles. Below is my recomended definition. It is very general and would be agreed upon by most comedians: 

Comedy Clubs

The M.C. (often spelled emcee) of a comedy show is the host of the evening’s events, charged with a variety of responsibilities. These typically include making announcements, introducing the other comedians of the evening, and interacting with the crowd for such events as birthdays, anniversaries, and other parties. The M.C. position is typically the first step that a comedian takes out of open mic’s, and it is known to be a tough position. The M.C. is the first comedian onstage and must ‘pick up’ a ‘cold crowd’ in order to get the audience’s energy going, and to set a humorous tone for the evening. In clubs, they often have to memorize lists of announcements concerning everything from drink specials and upcoming bands, to film and T.V. credits of the featured and headlining comedians. They are also the lowest paid comedians on the bill.

Thanks for your time - Skip Martin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.183.10.165 (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The article M.C. is not protected. So, you can edit the page, now. Real96 04:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question (maybe a silly one, but still...)

edit

Just asking, because this thing is starting to get on my nerves. I'm working mainly on Tokyo Mew Mew-related articles, and often have to revert vandalism in them. Among the changes I usually have to revert are the name changes - that is, using the names from fansubs and fansites instead of the names from Tokyopop's translation, like it should be. This happens regularly - some people just randomly change the names in one or several articles, some of them return later and do it again after their changes have been reverted; and some even change the names in such way that the links to the characters' articles get broken, but they don't seem to care, and don't seem to pay attention to the comments in the articles, about using Tokyopop names. The problem is that there is no template message for such kind of edits. Just... what to write on their talk pages so that they would know why the names shouldn't be changed? Is there some page where some note about using the names from English translations is written (I think I've seen something like this, but I don't remember where...)? 夢の騎士Yume no Kishi - Talk 06:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "changing the names"? Do you mean that they modify the websites links point to? Or that they intentionally make sourced information incorrect? The first one would be met by the {{spam}} series of templates, and the other one would be {{verror}}. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a good idea. I forgot about userspace templates, I think I'll try to make one. Thank you. 夢の騎士Yume no Kishi - Talk 11:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of articles vs. articles in categories

edit

I think that this is kinda still up in the air. When an article "List of Foo bars" connsists of list(s) where almost all listed items have there own articles, it has been mentioned it possibly should be done instead as a category, and then including each of the articles in the category. But... I don't know about all that. Can you point me in the direction of ongoing discussions or guidelines/essays, preferably with a bias towards whatever the current consensus is? (or whether or not there is a consensus :-) Shenme 07:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit

I wanted to write an article about a guitar, specifically Epiphone's Sheraton and Sheraton II models which would include an infobox. The best pictures I could find were on Epiphone's website. These images are on the website for promotional purposes. None of the tags in the dropbox were suitable for any such image. Are promotional images found on official websites fair use? ufossuck 09:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, no. Wikipedia fair use criteria prohibit fair use claims of photographs that could be recreated under a free-license. That is, copyrighted promotional stills of the guitar are a no-go. If you were to create a free-license alternative by, say, taking a picture of the same guitar at some store, then that would be acceptable. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, there's a perfectly good free-license alternative right here. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (now at commons: Image:Epiphone Sheraton II.jpg ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Would any pictures taken by random people of guitars, their's or otherwise, which they posted on the internet be fair use? And finally would pictures used on online stores, such as musiciansfriend be fair use?

Yes, unless the photographer explicitly releases his/her work under a free license or there is verification that the photo is in the public domain. Almost all photographs found on random internet websites and online stores are not released under a free-license - they are copyrighted and replaceable. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: Yes, you'd have to claim fair use on them; No, you can't do that on Wikipedia because of WP:FUC. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair use is a clause in US copyright law that allows very restricted use of copyrighted material in certain cases. Whether something is posted on the internet has no bearing on its copyright status. - Mgm|(talk) 10:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a common misunderstanding that fair use is a kind of photograph or kind of copyright. It isn't: it's a way of doing things that would otherwise be a breach of copyright. For example, a reviewer of a book can quote a small section of the book for the purposes of a review. That doesn't make that quote into fair use so anyone else could put it on their web site, for example; it applies in just that case.
In the same way, a fair use photo in Wikipedia is a photo for which a specific reason has been described in detail, why this use is fair, despite being (otherwise) copyright theft. Great care is needed, and Wikipedia tries to avoid fair use photos whenever necessary: generally using them only when the illustration is necessary and could not be got another way.
Often an editor is so concerned to get a photo that they bend the rules, but this is not good for the encyclopedia. Wikipedia's fair use rules have been rather loosely enforced, but the signs are that we will in the end lose almost all our fair use celebrity photos, movie stills, CD and book covers etc.
It's also worth noting that almost everything gets automatic copyright, so photos you find on the web will almost certainly be copyright, whether they say so or not. Notinasnaid 10:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest finding the guitars in somebody's possession or in a store, and taking photos yourself. That's the easiest solution. Then you can release them for Wikipedia use. Corvus cornix 21:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

problem about fales mail

edit

sir i am getting fales mail regarding that you have give us the prize near about 20000000 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.95.172.103 (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your message. Do you have a question about Wikipedia? Notinasnaid 11:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Advance fee fraud, Category:Confidence tricks. --Teratornis 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

edit

I have come across a new user named Frenchhog. He/she had blanked his/her talk page, which had warnings on it. I reverted his/her talk page, and warned him not to do it unless he (or she) clearing up vandalism. Frenchhog blanked it again, and I reverted it and gave him another warning. Then he/she edited my warning to make me say I'm gay. I reverted that, and now he/she has created an attack page on me. Was I doing the right thing? Please help! --LuigiManiac | Talk 13:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to worry about the attack page thing anymore. It has been deleted. Still, was I doing the right thing before? Should I have backed off and let him vandalize? --LuigiManiac | Talk 16:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're on solid ground in this case, but I would check WP:TALK and related pages for talk page policy (which, I guess would be more applicable than vandalism policy in this instance) Adrian M. H. 19:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a little bit of info under Types of vandalism, which may help. Adrian M. H. 19:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was decided that removing warnings from one's own talk page is not vandalism. However, there are discussions quite often as to whether or not we should change this. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I guess I will make sure to say sorry to him/her if he/she ever becomes active again for starting this mess. That is kind of surprising that it isn't considered vandalism to blank pages. I personally would keep any warnings on my user talk page, unless it was placed there wrongfully. Ah well, I know now so next time hopefully I can avoid getting into another mess. Thanks again! --LuigiManiac | Talk 19:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting

edit

How do I make something redirect? Replay7 14:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#REDIRECT [[Foo]] will redirect to the article Foo. I recommend adding a redirect template immediately after that (on the same line). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to code this...

edit

I need this in a drop down menu like this. I've tried but cannot get it to work for me. -- Darkest Hour 15:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How do I a redirect for an organization's acronym?

edit

I want to do a redirect for an organizations acronym which they are more known by so it redirects automatically to the full Wiki entry for it. How do I do this? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awb9h (talk • contribs) 16:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Create the page normally, but on it all you have to put is #REDIRECT [[OrgName]] (with Orgname being the actual article name) --Maelwys 16:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Top anchor link at the bottom of this page

edit

It seems to have gone, but it is very useful. Can it/will it come back? Adrian M. H. 16:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that question - it has come back after my edit. Weird. Adrian M. H. 16:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What Back to Top link? There isn't one on my screen. Dismas|(talk) 17:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I suddenly have one now... I swear it wasn't there a minute ago. Dismas|(talk) 17:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And now it's gone again... Someone must be working on it. Dismas|(talk) 17:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least it's not just me going crazy! Adrian M. H. 17:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to code this...

edit

I need this in a drop down menu like this. I've tried but cannot get it to work for me. -- Darkest Hour 15:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You need css for dropdown menus. I have some in my monobook if you want to look. (userfunctions). Prodego talk 20:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


edit

How do I search for help? Renaissance Man 17:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Searching - Adrian M. H. 17:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia has links to articles that answer most questions a new user might have, although a new user might not know which article answers his or her question. You can search the Help desk archives and find quite a lot that way. Most questions a new user tends to ask have have been asked by new users before, although not always with the exact same wording, of course. Nonetheless, you can find a lot in the Help desk archives just by typing questions in the Google search form (with the usual techniques to expand the search when necessary, such as by removing some search words, not using quotes, and trying synonyms). Read the instructions at the top of this page for more ways to search for help. If you get stuck, ask for human help here. --Teratornis 18:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help I have "This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources." on my page

edit

So I need a little help. I have a Wikipedia page for a TV show on Directv that I love called The Fizz. I have found 8 or 10 articles about the show, from Varity, to news papers. What I don't know is how to cite the references. I'm not sure if i should quote the sites or list the links at the end of the page? Please help me,

Greg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Love4musicandgames (talk • contribs) 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

WP:REF, or look at other pages that use proper refs. The footnote style is preferred, in which you would have - for an example - the page title with a hyperlink, then the name of the website, the publish date if available, and then the retrieval date. Basically, follow the templates with as many fields as you have, but you do not need to use the templates (it is much quicker and easier without them). Adrian M. H. 18:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also Wikipedia:Citation templates, but the main thing to do would be providing the sources. If you get that template, it usually means there aren't any or they lack the detail needed for someone else to track them down. Please check the page I mentioned and see the sort of info you need to take down about a source. The most important thing is that you provide it, if you're uncomfortable with templates, someone else can do the formatting for you. - Mgm|(talk) 19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Wikipedia is very frustrating to use.

edit

If a person wants to help and then edit, someone writes over it and then all the work you put into is changed without your input. So do free work and get nothing from it, and no say so.75.82.243.165 20:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be bothered because, well, if it improves an encyclopedia then improvement is always better. Also, any edits you make to a page do not make that page your own. x42bn6 Talk 20:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a contributor's edits are genuinely good quality, constructive, and per guidelines, then they are almost certain to stay. If another contributor thinks that an edit is not suitable for whatever some reason - maybe it does not maintain the current style/language, or it is questionable and not verified, for example - then they may well remove it or modify it. That's how it goes. Adrian M. H. 21:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:WIF#Maintenance of standards, there are (or were at the time of writing) 340 former featured articles, so that more than 20% of all articles that have ever been featured are no longer featured. Unless the standards for featured articles have risen, the presence of former featured articles suggests that those post-FA edits were not as good as the earlier edits, and the good quality of those earlier edits did not insure their survival.
This is not a criticism of Wikipedia; obviously, Wikipedia does a lot of things right, because millions of people use it every day (in particular, I routinely use the software and computing articles as valuable references in my job, and when I see a way to improve one, I do). I'm just pointing out to 75.82.243.165 that not only does it take a lot of hard work to do the right things on Wikipedia, but even if you manage to do all the right things, your work may still get clobbered by other editors whose work is less good. Wikipedia has lots of articles edited by lots of people. Different parts of Wikipedia may be at different levels of compliance with Wikipedia policies. Some topics are more controversial than others. Maybe in some topic areas, "constructive" edits are not necessarily the most popular.
A word of advice to 75.82.243.165: when you express a non-specific complaint, responses tend to be equally non-specific, and may not apply to your specific situation. While it is true that in general, Wikipedia tends to improve as more people edit it, the improvement is not necessarily monotone increasing nor uniform everywhere. Special:Contributions/75.82.243.165 does not show the edits you allude to; perhaps you edited under another IP address. If you tell us the article(s) in question and show us the diffs, experienced editors can review the edits, determine whether the following editors should have done what they did, and either explain the likely reasons or tell you how to find out.
Depending on which parts of Wikipedia one edits, and what one does, Wikipedia might be a rewarding experience, or a nightmare. Because of Wikipedia's remarkably high profile, it is, for many people, the first wiki they try editing on; Wikipedia may be the first wiki they become aware of. However, Wikipedia does not attempt to be everything for everyone. It is actually a very specialized wiki with policies that probably only a tiny minority of people could really be happy with. Who do we know in real life who maintains anything resembling a neutral point of view? That is not a natural way to think, it's an acquired skill, and it takes time and effort to acquire. If everyone habitually maintained NPOV, as in actually thinking that way, society would be completely different. For example, politics and religion as we currently know them are typically about as far from NPOV as anything can be.
So, once again I trot out my advice for disgruntled Wikipedia editors: try some other wikis in addition to Wikipedia. Lots of wikis specialize in particular types of subject matter (games, sports, music, politics, causes, etc.), cater to particular points of view, don't mind original work, and so on. Several wikis originated in response to Wikipedia rejecting classes of content (such as videogame walkthroughs). A person with cognitive biases (which is to say, a normal person) will probably find it more enjoyable to edit on a wiki run by people with similar cognitive biases.
Of course I still recommend editing on Wikipedia to anyone; it's a great intellectual exercise. But a certain scaling down of expectations is necessary here. Wikipedia is a zoo. (Picture what would happen if true believers in all the different religions were forced to worship together in one big room, rather than isolated from each other in their respective churches, temples, and mosques: "diversity + proximity = war".) The fact that anyone can edit almost anything means almost anything can happen. Don't view your edits as an achievement, but as an experiment. You're not editing so much to create something with lasting value, as to see how other people react to what you write. You are painting on a graffiti wall. Your masterpiece might end up buried under 50 layers of other people's paint. Wait long enough, and that's almost guaranteed to happen. If Wikipedia should last 100 years, how much of today's content would survive that long unchanged? --Teratornis 17:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Maps

edit

Dear Sir,

I would like a map of two Cities or Villages which ever term for the location would be proper and they are: Szynwald in the Woj. of Krakow but was in the Woj. of Tarnow and a map of Zdzary in the woj.Zamosc but once was the woj of Tarnow. Any questions, please ask and I will answer.

Thank You

Jerome Kowalski <e-mail address removed>

You would be better off asking this at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, as the Help Desk is for Wikipedia-related questions only. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 21:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected wikilink for you. x42bn6 Talk 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See: User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia#Map. --Teratornis 17:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which cite template or formate to use

edit

If I want to make a footnote to reference the following link, which 'cite' template should I use? or what format should I put it in? File:DEA Marijuana May 2006.pdf

Thanks,

ChristopherMannMcKay 21:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer not to use templates, but simply structure my refs according to the relevant (or most relevant) template. Off the top of my head, I would suggest following the journal template as a guide, but your information will be dictated by what you have available (for example, a website ref will often lack a publish date). Adrian M. H. 21:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revise that slightly: I did not notice that your ref is actually an image - I assumed from the suffix that it was a PDF document. I'm not sure that you would even use an image as a ref, though I guess it would depend on the context. How/why do you want to refer to it? Adrian M. H. 21:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an image, It is PDF, but it won't show entirely unless you click the link. You should refer to the PDF on its original location. Never upload source documents to Wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 09:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, the file (which I didn't upload) says it is from the DEA web site, so should I just make a cite tag and list the publisher as the DEA? Thanks -ChristopherMannMcKay 14:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something strange

edit

There something weird about the Wilhelm Volk article. It includes info about another person, but when I go to edit it, it doesn't show the second biography. Clarityfiend 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! How weird is that?? I have no idea how or why that has happened. Adrian M. H. 21:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism at Template:Nonfiction-writer-stub: [1] Nasty vandalism. Reverted, by the way. And purged template to force refresh over all articles. x42bn6 Talk 21:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just came to the same conclusion. I removed the stub notice and previewed it on a hunch, and it fixed it. I have left the stub notice in place though, just in case it screws up someone else's stub sorting. Adrian M. H. 21:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about Oliver August? He seems to be a notable person who doesn't have an entry. Should someone add the article? Clarityfiend 21:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? If he's worthy of inclusion, go for it! Adrian M. H. 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't stick it in the template. x42bn6 Talk 22:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Clarityfiend 22:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely enough, the person who put the article in the stub edited the article in good faith. I feel bad about the warning now.  :-/ x42bn6 Talk 00:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posting in Wikipedia

edit

I need help. I am not stupid but I have dyslexia and I have trouble understanding some collections of information - even if they are simply presented. I want to post articles. I do not want anyone else altering my articles directly. Some will be copyrighted. I DO, however, want errors to be pointed out publically, near to my articles, so I can correct what I write or dispute the critism. I mean text errors such as spelling errors, errors of clarity, fact and so on. Is this possible?

I am a psychotherapist, natural therapist and teacher. My subjects of principal interest are Natural Childbirth (my PhD research topic - completed, I graduate at SCU Australia in September '07), trauma management, especially suicide prevention and berievement, often among marginalised prople and those close to them. I want to include links and references and, when possible, to incourage constructive comment and discussion.

Your help and advice would be appreciated.

Leigh Dick-Read —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LeighOx (talk • contribs) 23:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, this may not be a complete answer, but - any article you post in Wikipedia will, in fact, be altered by others, this is the way that Wikipedia works. You can expect your article posted here to be entirely rewritten by others over time. Perhaps another website would be more appropriate for you, there must be other places where you can get your writing evaluated by others without them changing it. Maybe someone else here can think of some. --Xyzzyplugh 23:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipedia will not accept copyright material, sorry. I hope you do find a more suitable place. Notinasnaid 23:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do accept copyrighted material as long as the owner is willing to release it under a free license which this person clearly isn't. You could try Citizendium. - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD debate categories

edit

When nominating an article for AfD, one is supposed to choose which category to put the deletion discussion page in. There is a list of possible categories, which are Media and music, Organisation corporation or product, Biographical, Society topics, Web or internet, Games or sports, Science and technology, Fiction and the arts, and Places and transportation. I can't find a single page anywhere on Wikipedia which explains further what should go in each category, there's nothing but a name for them. Is there such a page anywhere? Half the time I AfD something, I have no idea which category to put it in. --Xyzzyplugh 23:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go here. Real96 23:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, that's where I got the list of category names from, that is linked to from the main AfD page. That page gives no explanation of what belongs in each AfD deletion category. --Xyzzyplugh 23:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know the same thing, as this is an issue in other instances when an article does not really fit in existing categories. There seems to be no descriptive advice regarding categorisation for AfD, GA, etc. Adrian M. H. 16:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2007_March_21&oldid=1146583710"