Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 December 29

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.

December 29

Translating a template

Hello. I need help translating the spanish template: es:Plantilla:Ficha de país into Lojban. The template's code is rather complicated and I can't understand it. I have already created the template's page in the Lojban wiki: in here. I supose the template works by providing the information of the respective fields given in the country's article to the page of the template in order to produce the desired look. I already wrote the translations of the fields required by the template so I don't need any help with that :). The problem is that once I've copied the code of the spanish template to the page of the lojban one, it doesn't seem to work the same way: The template appears to the left instead of the right of the page, and it's borders don't display correctly. The template won't allow text to be shown to it's side. --Homo logos (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If your question had something to do with the English Wikipedia, you might get more help here. I'll take a shot. Your description of the problem makes it sound like the template is trying to use a CSS style class which is present on the Spanish Wikipedia but not on the Lojban Wikipedia (possibly: class="infobox geography"). On the English Wikipedia, the style classes are in the MediaWiki:Common.css file, which has several entries beginning with:

/* Styles for geography infoboxes, e.g. countries, country subdivisions, cities, etc. */
.infobox.geography {
    text-align: left;
    border-collapse: collapse;
    line-height: 1.2em; 
    font-size: 90%;
}

I'm guessing you will need to add the same style classes to whatever the MediaWiki:Common.css file is on the Lojban Wikipedia. I see only a deleted page entry for jbo:MediaWiki:Common.css. If the filename is supposed to be the same in Lojban, that would be a problem right there. Generally pages in the MediaWiki: namespace are editable only by administrators on a given wiki, so you will need to be a Lojban administrator or find one to help you. --Teratornis (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Need clarification on process to obtain necessary copyright for image use

With the help of Google Alerts I happened across an image in a blog (it's the first one here) that I'd like to use here. In the comments, she gave permission to use the image, but I'd imagine for hard-nosed free image advocates she will also need to state some kind of copyright regarding the image to have it used here. What would be the most painless way to do this?

Also, I'm guessing, since I would be uploading it and she won't be there may be some other kind of additional documentation required? -- Scarpy (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The safest method is for the copyright owner to follow the process set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want painless, first get heavily sedated, and then try searching Flickr for images licensed under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, which you can then upload to Commons using the Flinfo tool. For example:

• Search Flickr for images with the keywords: Neuróticos Anónimos under these licenses: cc-by; cc-by-sa

One of the searches finds (only) this photo which is suitable for uploading to Commons if it isn't already there:

• http://flickr.com/photos/santi_llobet/2410837814/

The photos I have uploaded to Commons from Flickr are here:

• commons:User:Teratornis/Gallery#Images from Flickr

and my tortured notes about learning how to do this:

• User:Teratornis/Notes#Flickr

--Teratornis (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

But, since the image is already found, and since it is Scarpy who will be uploading it, and not the blog owner/photographer, commons:OTRS really needs to be followed. The problem is that she needs to explicitly release it under a WP-compatible free license, not just authorize reuse on WP. -Seidenstud (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Teratornis - Thank you for the ideas. I probably won't use them this time around, but I suddenly want to search for free images for all of the articles I've written.

Seidenstud - Will it be sufficient for her (the owner/photographer) to do it in a comment on the blog, or will it be necessary for an email with full headers and all the other jazz? I'm worried that the steeper the learning curve gets the less likely it is we'll be able to complete the process. I'm thinking: (1) ask the owner/photographer to post a completed version of this in the entry's comments, (2) upload the image with the OTRS pending template, (3) email OTRS with a link to the comments granting permissions ... and go from there? -- Scarpy (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know if posting it to the blog would be sufficient. I am not sure, but I would assume that an email has to be received, as that does seem to be the standard verification mechanism of the OTRS (system). While I am wary of steepening the learning curve too much, it does seem that if she would be willing to fill out the consent form and post it, she would probably be willing to fill it out and email it back to you. You can then forward it yourself to OTRS. A little diplomacy might be helpful too. You may want to point out that, if the process is completed, when someone clicks on the image on WP, they'd see a link to her blog under "source." Blog owners often like publicity.... -Seidenstud (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Another option is to persuade the blogger to post her photos to Flickr and license them as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. I don't know how hard this is, but it can't be very hard because Flickr has millions of photos uploaded by, apparently, lots of ordinary humans. If you persuade your blogger to upload all her photos to a photostream on Flickr, then you potentially have another source of many useful photos (and for her trouble, she will have the ability to organize and tag her photos online). However, the current problem can be difficult, since it requires persuading someone to learn how to do something she hadn't already seen a reason to do. It's a lot simpler just to browse around on Commons to see what photos are already there, ready to use, and to browse around on Flickr to see what photos are already available to upload to Commons without having to ask anyone to jump through more hoops. Given that there are probably millions of free photos floating around, it's often easier to start with some photos and find Wikipedia articles to put them in, rather than pick an arbitrary article and try to find a photo for it. Check out the {{Commonscat}} template if you haven't already. If you write articles about geographic locations (cities, counties, etc.), often a corresponding category already exists on Commons. If the category doesn't contain anything usable now, it may in the future as people upload more stuff to Commons. Look on the other language Wikipedias for photos that should be on Commons but nobody has moved them to Commons yet. As you try various searches on Commons, you will probably keep coming across more and more photos that relate to articles you are interested in, and you can add them to more categories that you are familiar with. There are lots of interesting photo resources available, but it can be awkward to find freely-licensed photos by other people, since computers are not as good at searching images as they are at searching text. --Teratornis (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've also been looking at Panoramio but I haven't found a way to search for just the free photos yet. The only obvious search is by location, and then the vast majority of photos that come up seem to be copyrighted. Evidently users on Panoramio have the option to upload under a Creative Commons license suitable for reuse on Commons, but I don't know how to search for the users who do that. It's pretty clear that most of these online photo sites aren't set up to facilitate what we are doing on Wikipedia. A notable exception is Geograph British Isles which consists entirely of geotagged photos, freely licensed for reuse, and each photo even has a page with the code you need to upload it to Commons. That is, the builders of that site were Wikimedia-aware. Astounding. Too bad it only covers the U.K. --Teratornis (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sortable tables

There is a table, with a header, in this section of an article, which is meant to be sortable. What am I doing wrong? --Geronimo20 (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Examples on Help:Sorting don't work either. - Erik Baas (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that right? And, if so, where does one go from here. Is there a place where persons who can code this stuff can be engaged? --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You did a colspan on the first row to set the title— this messes up the sort. Instead, use the little known wikimarkup |+ to set the title. I should have done the other table to match, but you should have the idea. Also: see {{FixBunching}} to get fix your misplaced edit links. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It still does not work in Firefox 3.0.5, but it's okay in Opera 9.63 ! Is it a bug ? - Erik Baas (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It was AdBlock, preventing the buttons (GIF files !) to be shown. Sorry... - Erik Baas (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Something funny on my page

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There has happened something strange on 2008/9 MTN Domestic Championship. I have undated it and now where the result are suppose to be, the following text come up: {{ #if: Eagles win by 6 wickets | Eagles win by 6 wickets - Could somebody please have a look and let me know, thanks -- jonathanburger (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone broke {{Limited Overs Matches}}. Fixed. Algebraist 12:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks jonathanburger 14:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandals at my userpage and Wikipedia reflection script

Hi!

A couple of days ago while I checked what kind of connexions Google gives to people who seek for me, I noticed a red article with the name "sex encyclopedia." The link there is: User:Tellervo (Sexuality Encyclopedia).Besides my userpage, it included copied pages from from Wikipedia: Pornography, and also a long list of articles related to Human sexuality. Behind this page is some Tomas Vacillando.

I have been naive in putting my real name on my userpage. I have already removed it. What I wish is, that this site will be deleted somehow. Any advices? Wikipedia as well certainly feels this "reflect script" is criminal encroachment on Wikipedia's rights. I have to give you my name, so you can proceed. Put Marianne Uhrendorf in Google. Tellervo (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There are many sites that are mirror sites of Wikipedia content. This too, is probably one of them. If the site is non-compliant with the GFDL requirements (which are mentioned in the linked page), then you can follow the steps given and notify them. If you want your name removed, I think contacting this site and telling them about it will probably work. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 13:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

For the future, you can set your user pages to not be indexed by using {{NOINDEX}}. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are overly optimistic. I notified them, and kindly asked them to remove the spam they have written. No response. They are real criminals and enjoy the havoc they create. They gloat and brag about how many warnings Wikipedia has sent them. What is the next step to do? Tellervo (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's a regular mirror site, there's nothing to do here. If you believe they are remote loading, it should be reported at meta:Live mirrors. --Onorem♠Dil 13:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems the problem has been solved. I just googled for your name, and (at least on the first page) there are no more bad links. (Searching for your name and "sex" gives a couple of links that are either just coincidental or in Finnish, but seem harmless, too.) — Sebastian 01:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Sebastian, the problem site is on page 4, when you google my name. So the problem is not solved yet. But thank you for trying to solve it! The problem page is a remote loading page, so I have to report it at meta. But that does not solve the annoying problem of having that stuff coming up, when people google my name. I am a psychotherapist, and many persons find their way to my practice through the internet. So it is very important that the stuff there is representative. Tellervo (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, in my experience, when a google search reflects content that is no longer there, or has been altered (as should be the case with your user page, if the site in question is a live mirror) it will fix itself. It can just take a few days or maybe a week (depending on how important the site in question is) for the Google crawlers to revisit the page, and update Google's cache. -Seidenstud (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving 'Help talk' pages

Resolved

I just created Help talk:Template/Archive 01 as an archive of Help talk:Template, but it doesn't appear in the latter's {{Archives}} template, nor include a link back to the parent page. What's up? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the documentation for {{Archives}} under Additional notes, you will see the following: The auto-generated archive list requires subpages to use the common naming convention. That is, "./Archive 1", "./Archive 2", and so on. The letter "A" must be capitalized, there must be a single space between the word "Archive" and the number, and there must be no leading zeros. If archive subpages do not conform to this convention, they can be renamed to conform, or a manual list can be maintained. (emphasis mine).

So, I think you need to move the archive page to Help talk:Template/Archive 1, for {{Archives}} to work properly. – ukexpat (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Doh! Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Photoshopped images?

Folks, I have been unable to find an answer to this question elswhere, so here it is: what is WP policy, if any, with respect to images that have been composited or otherwise significantly manipulated in Photoshop or a similar application? In the course of new page patrol I came across this one: File:Samuel thirumeni.JPG which looks to me (though I am no expert) to be the result of a cut and paste job in Photoshop (the hands and face look as though they have been heavily digitally manipulated. Thoughts please? Thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Gut feeling (v. quick answer) is that the end result would constitute a derivative work, and in consequence unless it could be shown that the person creating the image had the consent of the original copyright proprietor, they would not be able to release the image to Wikipedia under the ol' GFDL. _Gb^T/c 19:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Need help - minor fix needed

I tried updating a header of the Alexei Cherepanov article, but the subsequent headers of the article disappear when I update Death. I tried undoing the page and trying again this time through the main edit panel, to no availability. Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears you were missing the closing </ref> tag. I've added it in for you and the article should display properly. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 19:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:GAR not updating/purging

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jennifer Brunner/1 should have appeared at WP:GAR about 48 hours ago. I still do not see it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have purged the page's cache. It is appearing now. Note that the most common method of purging (changing the url end to ?action=purge) may not always work for changes to categories. For that, make a null edit to the page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

poor excuse for an article

i just found this article. Glan Letheren. Seems like someone dont hasnt a clue about wikipedia, trying to redirect to their website. LOL! 79.75.249.246 (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The article had been partially blanked. I have reverted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Could someone direct me to...

Resolved

 – arimareiji (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't know where to go. Where would I solicit advice on how to determine whether a "position" ("Lead coordinator") within a project entitles the person to assert consensus for editing policy within the project? The person branded a proposed guideline about which there had been debate as "Failed," but they themselves were a primary partisan in the debate about it. It disturbed me, because my reading was that the "other side" had made a heavy preponderance of unrefuted arguments for it. arimareiji (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

They have no more rights than any other individual editor - see WP:OWN. Raise the issue, with links to the debate and any discussion held else, where, on WP:ANI. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, while many people do turn to ANI for all sorts of issues, that is usually not the right place for most issues - see the big note "Are you in the right place?" on top of that place. In particular, it appears that your situation is regarding an ethnic conflict, for which we have Ethnic conflict resolution projects— Sebastian 22:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's a question about whether XYZ site can ever be used as a citable source; the specific project is non-controversial. Sorry to be so oblique, I just wanted to get advice without drawing anyone from that area here to start arguing. (Keep brush fires small, say I.) I wound up WP:BRDing and reverted the REJECTED subst (which had no real explanation for it that I could find). arimareiji (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Precisely! Finding agreement on and collection reliable sources is a core part of the work of these conflict resolution projects. See e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Links to reliable sources discussions and WP:SLR#QS. — Sebastian 01:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Asking a question on the Help desk seems unlikely to influence the behavior of editors who aren't reading the Help desk. Did you explain your actions to the editor who did not explain his or her previous actions? Wikipedia functions only as well as our ability to explain what we are doing to other users who might not otherwise understand or agree with our actions. If you don't understand what someone else did, ask that person to clarify. If your question is really about what constitutes a reliable source then it's hard for us to answer if you limit us to shooting blindly. The point of ignore all rules is that Wikipedia doesn't (yet) have a sufficiently complete set of rules to reduce every decision to a deterministic algorithm. There are exceptions to every rule, and if you don't give us the details of your situation, we can't tell whether you are dealing with an exception. --Teratornis (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but my asking the question wasn't intended to influence anyone's behavior except my own. I wanted to get a gutcheck from someone else, because I felt fairly sure that was the right thing to do but wanted to be more sure. Nor was I trying to get people into the debate about what is a reliable source; in fact the exact opposite. I was trying to prevent opening the debate in multiple forums, because in my experience multiple forums = oxygen for flame wars. arimareiji (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've answered around 3000 questions on the Help desk. I'm giving you a gutcheck on how to ask questions here. I don't know everything there is to know about Wikipedia, but I've learned a few things. The proper frame of mind to bring to the Help desk, and to Wikipedia in general, is to listen to all the advice you get, even if (or perhaps especially when) it's not exactly the advice you were trying to get. Read How To Ask Questions The Smart Way, which explains in blunter terms than I typically use how the open-source world of free help operates, and what constitutes a well-posed question.

The primary fuel for flame wars is the unpersuasive argument and the inability (by both sides) to evaluate arguments logically rather than emotionally. See Critical thinking, List of fallacies, and List of cognitive biases for some insight into how to argue productively, and how to better evaluate the arguments of others. If a disagreement exists on Wikipedia, that is if two groups of editors have sharply different views about some issue that relates to editing on Wikipedia, then the disagreement will either manifest itself in a discussion, or in a revert war. The disagreement exists before any discussion about it; the discussion does not, as you seem to think, create the disagreement. Poorly-phrased arguments may stir up unproductive emotions around the disagreement, but they did not create the disagreement. Wikipedia relies heavily on discussion to build consensus, because experience has shown discussion to be far more productive than having groups of editors working against each other without articulating their disagreements. Doing things surreptitiously and hoping nobody will notice can sometimes be an effective strategy in the real world, because much of the real world labors under extreme information poverty. An information-poor environment creates more opportunities to profit from dishonesty (or less than complete honesty), because it's hard for others to check on everything we do. Thus everyone has learned through real-life experience to prevaricate routinely - there are lots of issues we try very hard to avoid having to confront ("don't go there"). In contrast, Wikipedia's design deliberately maximizes transparency and openness (because...Wikipedia is an open source project), with multiple tools to let people track changes to specific pages and by specific editors. Wikipedia purposely makes it impossible to avoid confrontation. This is the key to Wikipedia's ability to not suck. In much the same way, modern science also avoids sucking by maintaining open discussion within its community. This prevents the scientific community from fragmenting along regional, ethnic, or religious lines as is the common pattern in nonscientific contexts.

If you want to weaken your position on Wikipedia, whatever it may be, let the opponent discover after the fact that you purposely kept the opponent in the dark. As another example, consider the disdain that so many smart people have for Microsoft, whereas few if any open source projects inspire the same derision. The difference has a lot to do with Microsoft's closed, proprietary nature, by which Microsoft implicitly says don't worry your pretty little head over it. Microsoft irritates people by doing all sorts of things to the customer without including the customer in any discussion beforehand, or clearly documenting the decisions afterward. Open source projects in general, and Wikipedia in particular, are different. In an open source project, anyone can, with sufficient effort and persuasive skill, engage in the decision process and have a lot of influence. --Teratornis (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, thank you for all of the input - but all I was trying to find out was whether there's a hierarchy for closing out proposals. My intent was not to recruit assistance for my POV or start a discussion - only to ask for non-prejudiced advice.

My gutcheck is that you're right; asking advice unless I'm also trying to get people involved is indeed a poor idea in the future. Apparently ulterior motives are so common that people (with the best of intentions) expect them and try to figure them out. I waited to get advice before editing, and in the gap between one person tried to guess from my edit history and offered advice on an unrelated subject. Since, you've offered advice on a couple of new unrelated subjects. I don't mind spending my own time, but if I did this in the future I'd evidently be spending other people's time. arimareiji (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Permanent Press doesn't work

Do a search for "permanent press" -- the link doesn't work

I know that, strictly speaking, this is NOT a question about USING Wikipedia, but I couldn't find a link for reporting problems —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.81.198 (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

When I type in permanent press and click go (Help:Go button), I get taken to the article fine, which is verified by the fact that making that phrase into a link earlier in this sentence, works (it's blue). When I click on search, I also find the article. It it possible that you have limited the search function to areas other than the article namespace? To see what your searches are limited to, go to a search results page and look at what is checked under "Search in namespaces:" at the bottom of the page. BTW this is a fine question for the Help desk; it is about "using Wikipedia". When we say that we are trying to avoid general knowledge questions about things not directly related to the site itself.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Gotta go, someone help please

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Mary Ellen Cook (ballerina). Someone added that article. Check the other Mary Ellen article... It links to a porn star's article that has been moved to the wrong article name. I have to go, NOW! but I wanted to alert someone... Dismas|^(talk) 22:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Page move vandalism (and a bit of other crap) fixed, redirects deleted, user indef blocked. Thanks for letting us know. _Gb^T/c 22:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Done by a vandal-only account, now blocked. Some other recent moves still need to be reverted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Have I missed some? _Gb^T/c 22:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all! I appreciate it! Dismas|^(talk) 03:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Need help recovering info

I have a question about a technical glitch I encountered which caused me to lose some work. I was working on the entry on John L. Stevens, and had added some new background material, footnotes and links, but when I posted it I lost all the footnotes, external links, etc. So I had to revert back several posts (and lose my work) to preserve the footnotes, etc. I'm not sure what happened exactly, but I'd like to recover the work I did, without having to go back and write the text again, insert the footnotes, etc. Do you have any good ideas on how I might accomplish that? Thank you from an active user.MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything ever done to a page is stored in the page history (history of John L. Stevens). To view what changes each edit made and to recover the material each edit added you can click the link that says "diff" which will take you too a two columed window with what the page was like before and after, the changes will be highlighted.

Here is what your revert did ([1]) so look at the changes and then copy-paste what was removed. For for more detail see Help:History.

Thanks for your work on that article! Icewedge (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to help me with it. MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Icewedge has fixed the problem.[2] If the end of the page is not displayed then the cause is usually a <ref> which is not closed correctly with </ref>. Then the software thinks the following text belongs to the ref. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)