Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 February 4

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.

February 4

data collection tools

I have some ideas about factors that influence article accuracy, vandalism, and community formation around wikipedia articles/topics. I was wondering how i might gain access to data collection tools that might give me information such as: rate of edits as a fx of time for an individual page, page views as a fx of time for a page, most viewed/edited pages at any given time, bot activity, etc. I know most of the relevant data is right there in the history but I don't know how best to harvest it. Do these sorts of research tools already exist for wikipedia, or is this something that needs to be written? --Shaggorama (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone reading the Help desk just now knows exactly where to find what you need (although I've been wrong before), but you can start hunting here: WP:EIW#Research, WP:EIW#Query, and WP:EIW#Statistic. Lots of people have done lots of studies and data mining on Wikipedia's database. Maybe you can find someone who has built the tools you want, or something close enough to customize. --Teratornis (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To start with: http://www.wikirage.com/ and http://stats.grok.se/ --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks gadget, those're exactly the kidns of things I was looking for! Where'd you find em? --96.231.171.72 (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also a list of Special pages which might have some links that would be of interest. (perhaps even Statistics) — Ched (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I foregot my password

i foregot my password how do i get it back i do remember my username though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.218.8 (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have registered an email address for you account, then go to Special:Userlogin and request a new password. If you haven't, you'll have to create a new account. Algebraist 01:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

thanky0u I will tri that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.218.8 (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you need to create a new account, make sure you supply an email address so you can regain any forgotten passwords in the future. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-expanding Template Parameters

A more specific question than many, but definately under the heading of "how to use WikiPedia"

Parameters do not get expanded when they are inside nowiki tags or XML-style extension tags.

Is there any sensible way to work around this? For example:

{{Template:Query|Q=rep_StockStatus}}

where the template code is:

<include nopre noesc src="https://my.domain.com/FetchData?q={{{Q}}}" />

which should expand to:

<include nopre noesc src="https://my.domain.com/FetchData?q=rep_StockStatus" />

but does not, the PHP code doesn't get parsed data, it sees https://my.domain.com/FetchData?q={{{Q}}}, which is pretty useless. Kenpem (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would bring it up at the WP:Village Pump, it's more of a technical issue with the parser rather than anything we here can answer. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 01:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You didn't explain what you are trying to do. Where do you want to use such a template, and what effect are you trying for? Describe the goal, not the step. It stands to reason that if the MediaWiki designers blocked a certain type of parameter expansion, there probably won't be a precise way to circumvent their block. That means you may have to fall back to a completely different approach to whatever you are trying to do. Since you didn't say what you are trying to do, only the specific path you chose to do it, it's hard for anyone to say what a good workaround might be. --Teratornis (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Special:Version shows mw:Extension:Include is not installed on Wikipedia (and for good reason). How is this under the heading of "how to use Wikipedia"? Do you want it for another wiki using the MediaWiki software. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright question

Resolved

I have a question about File:Runescape moderators.png. It shows the icons used in the MMORPG RuneScape to identify moderators. The uploader (Zachera) specified a CC-BY 3.0 licence. My question: can this image be speedied -- it uses copyrighted works and doesn't declare fair use and places said works under a free licence -- and if so, which tag? The only fair-use related tags seem to be for images that claim fair use and don't have a rationale or for images that are completely missing licence information, neither of which apply here. Xenon54 (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Use CSD F11. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 01:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Gone. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox UK place}} slightly borked problem

Resolved

See Eorodale. Why is the Postcode District borked? The anchor has an extra pipe, but wikipedia is not even turning it into a red link. Confused. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Because postcode_area and postcode_district are linked and both need to be present. postcode_area just links whatever is in postcode_district to the article HS postcode area. To cut a long story short, just enter HS2 in postcode_district and it'll work. Nanonic (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

how to delete the page that I created?

Hi, how to delete the page that I created? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.166.99 (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Db-g7}} may be appropriate but I cannot say for sure without knowing which page is it. This is the only edit registered to your IP address. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to a page on Wikipedia? If not, then the Reference Desk might be more appropriate. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 22:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Solving An Editing Dispute

I recently came across a dispute between two sides pushing two different edits. This dispute has been going on off-and-on for over a year, and certain editors involved in it are making it hostile, as well as making it suicide for a new person to join in. I am interested in that matter being disputed, but hesitant to actually get involved directly for that very reason. So, I was wondering, is there some place where this dispute can be posted and someone on staff or something can just flat-out say what should be done, without any extra discussion? Accusations and flames are flying around, and a lot of people are saying things about the matter I recognize as false just to spite people from the opposing side. General consensus and the Wikipedia guidelines point to a certain answer in the dispute, but just editing the article will prove pointless without something or someone that says that is the right edit. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is consistent edit warring over the content, submit a request for page protection to stop the edit warring. Instead of, or in addition to, that, if the editors are actively creating a hostile environment for others, I would go with an alert at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (possibly the Incidents subpage). Admins will be able to take a look and see if anything there merits sanctions on the users involved. If that doesn't resolve anything, you may want to consider asking the disputants to engage in mediation, without yourself taking sides. Some other pages you might want to try are Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. But only do one of these several suggestions at a time -- don't do them all at once! =) Powers ^T 03:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're new to this type of situation at Wikipedia, sometimes Dispute Resolution is a valuable read. It covers many of the items that LtPowers mentions. While it may not relate to this particular dispute (given the length of time), sometimes A third opinion can help diffuse a situation before it gets escalated beyond control. — Ched (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC) (fix link)05:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that won't work. In the past, people have tried stuff like that, from what I've read, and the ones who do end up suffering. I just want someone they can't argue with to speak up and say "This is how the article should be", so that the article can be fixed and anyone who tries to mess with it will get into trouble. That should stop all the fighting. But is there no place like that? WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that no one person has the authority to say "this is how the article should be." It is supposed to take a consensus of users to settle an edit war. By the way, which article is the problem at? Can't really help out in an editing dispute without knowing the explicit details...Someguy1221 (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to say. I am still new here, and during the time this dispute has been going on, a certain user inparticular has made it a habit of attacking people who join in or bring up the dispute again. My biggest fear is this user getting involved and making some outrageous accusation that will get me banned, like so many others. I will post the answer to your question on your talk page, but please do not post on that article or any of those disputes. Any discussion is destroyed the minute that user shows up, it seems. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Outrageous accusations do not get people banned. Bad behavior does. If you have something more than generalities, and want administrators to look into possible behavioral troubles, you may want to start a thread at WP:ANI. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Imagine saying to a physician: "A person is not feeling well. What should that person do to feel better?" Such a question is ill-posed, and a physician could not do much with it, because there are thousands of (known) ways to not feel well, each requiring its own particular treatment. Asking vague questions on the Help desk is something like that. Please read How to Ask Questions the Smart Way. Disputes on Wikipedia can be as diverse as Wikipedia's subject matter, and with 6,918,483 articles, that's a lot of diversity. However, there is one general rule that almost always applies on Wikipedia: in any sort of dispute here, the side which reads the largest number of friendly manuals usually wins. That is, the more you know about how Wikipedia works (and it's almost all in writing), the more likely you are to "win" when someone crosses you. As a corollary, if you are new to Wikipedia, you should probably just stay out of any ongoing disputes for a while, because you probably don't know enough about Wikipedia yet to avoid undermining your position by making some Wikipedia-specific procedural error, even if your position is factually sound. On Wikipedia there is no deadline. You can spend a few months making small edits to noncontroversial articles and reading the manuals. Later, when you have a firmer grasp on what is going on, you can think about working on some controversial articles. If you plan to argue with people who care strongly about something, and have a deeply entrenched position, you should learn how to argue (or refresh your memory if you already learned), by reading the following articles and links therefrom:

• Critical thinking
• List of fallacies
• List of cognitive biases

Most people are unfamiliar with the fallacies they use routinely when they think, and therefore when they argue. Most people are also unaware of their cognitive biases, or even that such things exist. By learning how to recognize these stereotypical flaws in thinking (both your own, and other people's), you can amuse yourself endlessly by dissecting and refuting other people's arguments (and possibly end up being universally hated, but it's worth it). It's easy to identify these flaws in other people's thinking, but much harder to get other people to recognize their flawed logic when you point it out. That's because most people think primarily with emotion, and then use semi-logical thought to rationalize what they initially believed for emotional reasons. However, we have to keep trying to use logical discourse, because it's the only type of thinking almost all people can learn to have in common. We will never all share the same emotional biases, but we can all learn to construct and evaluate arguments with the same logical rules. --Teratornis (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

None of this really helps...I'm not looking to join in an ongoing dispute; I'm looking for an answer to an ongoing dispute. It's been over a year, and there has to be some rule or method or person on Wikipedia that can dictate which side is right and what should be in the article. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You assert there "has to be" but there isn't, aside from what's been mentioned to you already. If that's not sufficient, then I advise you to just leave it be. Powers ^T 13:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

How can there not be? You're honestly trying to tell me this site doesn't have anyone who can decide whether or not an edit is right? That there is no solution? Even though the guidelines, websites, and the general consensus of the discussion support the change, if I edit the articles-which would take a LOT of time and effort,-that user and their friends will just revert the edits, turn it into an edit war, and accuse me of being a sockpuppet. But it's been wrong for a year now, and I don't want to leave the articles as they are, even if some don't think it's a big deal. But I don't want to get banned or harrassed or caught up in an edit war. Telling me to just not get involved won't solve the issue, and if no one is able to get involved because these guys make them afraid and insist on trying to own the articles, then the articles will never be improved. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

there is no solution other than the ones already pointed out to you. you're hesitant to make the edits yourself - you request that no one else make or propose them - and you reject the avenues of dispute resolution available on wikipedia - so "don't get involved" is about all that's left to advise you. if you reject that as well ... okay: get involved! and if you encounter hostility make use of the available avenues of dispute resolution that have already been pointed out to you. Sssoul (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not requesting no one else make the edits, but the result will be the same. The big issue here is the user I mentioned. For example, I mentioned there was a discussion on the matter. This discussion was opened fairly recently. The discussion was going well, and that's where it came to light that the guidelines and consensus supported the edit. However, the very minute that user learned the discussion was going on by someone posting on the talk page of one of the articles requesting neuteral opinions, all heck broke loose. User interrupted all discussions by claiming, like they seemingly have many times in the past, that the person who started the discussion was a sockpuppet. All the evidence brought up was very thin, and much of it was proven false. But because this person has friends who are admins, getting them banned anyway was not a problem. Especially once they used their tactic of harassing the accused endlessly, until they finally got fed up and responded. Once they got this person banned, they then took it upon themselves to call and end to all discussion. This happens every single time someone tries to support this edit, and it's happened about nineteen times in the past year. This user is attempting to own the articles, and their hostility is making it so hardly anyone wants to get involved. The fact that they have several admin friends also means that there's no point in any kind of discussion or mediation-the minute this user becomes aware the issue is being brought up again, someone will immediately be accused and banned. You can say it's not true all you want, but all those banned people stand as proof. Heck, the whole talk page for one of the articles shows how this person operates. If there was some way to, like, anonymously report them, that would be ideal, but it's impossible. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'm 100% confident WhiteKnightLeo is the latest sockpuppet of 67.163.193.239 / SyberiaWinx. Erigu (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Did I or did I not call it? I'm not going to post in this area anymore, since this person will just quote my responses and make snide comments to try and get me riled up to make their accusations look valid. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

error in article !!!

richard nixon after he died was flown to california in sam 27000 , NOT sam 26000 as indicated in the article regarding the death and funeral of richard nixon. I am an air force one history buff. thanks you guys are a great for research Kevin Brooks <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.179.216 (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? – ukexpat (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sociophysics

This is a comment and not a question. A request is being made for a well researched article on 'Sociophysics'(SP) : the mention of SP under Econophysics does not constitute an article . Paypal payment is a process I cannot pursue as my country is not listed on the scroll. I hope things are clearer now.---ijaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autistic49 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• What has paypal got to do with it? You don't need to pay to contribute or to request an article. Payment might improve the chances of someone writing an article quickly, but so do BARNSTARs - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The commenter (not questioner, it seems) refers to the earlier instance of the #Sociophysics question on the Help desk above. The commenter should read Help:Talk page, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and Wikipedia:Tutorial (Talk pages) to see how to converse on Wikipedia with our idiosyncratic way of doing things. It's unfortunate that the Help desk requires more knowledge of wikitext editing than most people have, just to ask a question about how to edit on Wikipedia, but we're stuck with this bootstrapping problem because of the technology we use. --Teratornis (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

from draft to publishing

Hallo, I am new at the english wiki-pages. I finished a draft, and I don't know how to "publish" the articel. Can anybody help me? Thanks and best regards--Fishtownjam (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The draft has to be moved to the mainspace, but you can only do that if your account is autoconfirmed - 10 edits and at least 4 days old. However at the moment the draft looks like a copy and paste from http://www.chill-on.com/index.php (and other pages on the site) and therefore a copyright violation and would be speedily deleted as Wikipedia cannot accept copyright material (unless it is specifically released by the copyright owner as described in WP:IOWN). In fact it should probably be deleted as a copyvio from you userspace too. – ukexpat (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sociophysics

I want to communicate directly with the two gentlemen who responded to what I posted yesterday but I cannot , inspite of my efforts. Could either of them help; should they be suitably inclined? This indeed is a question!! --ijaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autistic49 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Your question is still on this page. Each editor has a talk page (usually linked in their signature) where you can leave them personal messages. The links for the people who have responded to you are User talk:Orangemike, User talk:Teratornis and me (I know nothing about the subject, so I can't help) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The only additional information I can provide (see my previous replies) is these entries from WP:EIW#NewA:

• New articles proposed by non-registered editors:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard-Introduction – a series of qualifying questions leading to a page where the proposed new article can be posted
  • Wikipedia:Articles for creation – for both those proposing articles and those reviewing proposed articles
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation
  • User:Henrik/afc-helper (user script) – enables one-click declines for proposed new articles

However, since you have an account, in theory you would not use WP:AFC. Note that creating new articles on Wikipedia and defending them against deletionists can be a lot of work. I myself have no interest in writing about Sociophysics, because I know almost nothing about the subject and I would have to spend a lot of time researching it before I could write an article which would survive here. (It's easier for me to contribute to topics I know something about, or have a personal interest in learning.) However, there might be other Wikipedians with an interest in the topic who could help, and I gave you clues about how to find them in my previous reply. Be aware that on Wikipedia it's easier to find simple tasks you can do to help the project, than to have some idea already in mind and then try to find someone else who can help you with it. Most people who have spent hundreds of hours reading the friendly manuals and honing their Wikipedia-editing skills are already fully engaged on the tasks they want to do. Only a few skilled editors go far out of their way to help new users, and as you can imagine most of those people tend to be busy. The world always has a surplus of needs, and a shortage of people who can fill needs. Perhaps that is one of the precepts of sociophysics. Basically on the Help desk we merely point you to the instructions that tell you how to do what you want to do. We are less inclined to do all the work for you, unless your request is simple (starting new articles on esoteric subjects is not simple). Wikipedia is a do it yourself system, which means the results you get out are proportional to the effort you put in. Also, I am sorry that this Help desk is so difficult for Wikipedia newcomers to use. Unfortunately this kind of wikitext-based discussion is optimized for people who already know a lot about editing on Wikipedia. It's not a good ergonomic fit for most people who have little editing experience on Wikipedia, which is kind of self-contradictory, but the only way to make things better is if someone figures out how and does the hard work. Software does not get better by itself. Wikipedia is an excellent editing environment for people who spend a lot of time learning about it, but it takes a major life commitment to master. --Teratornis (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

script that compares the edits of 2 editors

where's that script that compares the edits of 2 editors to look for common interests etc.? Tks Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalk? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

RADIO Question

what is RADIO swill I have too get another radio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.53.75 (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your question is unclear. In any event this Help Desk is for questions about using Wikipedia. The Reference Desk folks may be able to help you if you phrase your question more clearly. – ukexpat (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sir Rabindranath Tagore

I worked as an RAF man in Bally, on the Barrakpore Road, in 1974. A large and beautiful white building stood on the east side of the road, west bank of the Hooghly, just a mile or so towards the city. I also worked in this building, and was told that it had been owned by Sir Rabindranath Tagore. I should like to insert this as a comment on the appropriate page about Tagore and to ask if anyonecan confirm this for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bs306hy (talk • contribs) 14:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless the building is notable in his life story, it seems like a bit of trivia not suitable for the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with an image copyright issue

This is something I should have known a very long time ago. But would someone mind talking me through the most correct and efficient way to deal with the following image: Newey.jpg on Glen Newey. Including not biting the newbie, not wasting other editors' time etc. etc. Thanks very much. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've marked it as deletable (no copyright information) using Twinkle. Algebraist 15:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. So, if I see nothing at all about copyright on the image page, then I tag for deletion. Not having Twinkle, what template do I apply? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

TW puts {{di-no license|date=current date goes here}} on the image page, {{deletable image-caption|1=date seven days in the future goes here}} in the caption on all articles using the image, and {{subst:Di-no license-notice|name of file here, without :File: prefix}} on the uploader's talk page. It's best if messages are left in all three places, so I recommend getting TW if you're going to this a lot. Algebraist 16:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know TW's useful, but there can be firewall issues. I take it I can apply those templates without it though, and it will just be more tedious. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't the Wikipedia article appear when I google the subject?

I recently contributed an article on Stonecroft Ministries. However, when I google the subject "Stonecroft Ministries," the Wikipedia article does not show up in the list of results. Why? What can I do to correct this issue?

16:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)16:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Share the gospel (talk)

It does. If you surrounded your search term with inverted commas, it appears on the second page of the results (at least, it does for me). Please note that getting an article onto Google results is not the aim of Wikipedia..._Gb^T/c 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The article has now been speedily deleted as overly promotional. – ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to cleanly expand a {{reflist}}?

I would like to be able to generate a convenient listing of references from an article in wiki markup. With some templates you can apply a "subst", but it produces an "ugly" markup for this template (still uses css). There are two issues I'd like to address:

• The reflist should produce clean wiki markup (not css interspersed with wiki markup).
• I need to be able to grab a reference list from an existing article without saving to that page.

Can anyone offer any advice? ←Spidern→ 18:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt this is easily possible. The most likely people to know for sure are the regulars at WP:VPT. Algebraist 19:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

{{reflist}} is just a wrapper for <references /> that applies formatting. The footnotes system uses the Cite.php extension to the MediaWiki software <references /> is the extension tag that causes the software to generate the list of references. <references /> will be as clean as it gets, but it might not get you what you want. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

printing Wikipedia articles

When printing articles from Wikipedia random pages do not print-e.g. Philo did not print page 10 of 11. If I return to the printer and request page 10 alone, it still doesn't print-only the header and footer appear.66.167.14.252 (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What software are you using to print the articles? Algebraist 18:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

::Damn! I swear I looked through that stuff for an hour, but then again, I can lose my car keys on the coffee table ... lol. Thanks Algebraist, I appreciate that. It's exactly what I was looking for. (now about those keys ...) ;) — Ched (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

MoS person

Back a couple months ago when I was getting started here, I remembered reading something about lists and tables should be written in paragraph or prose form if possible. I've been back through a bunch of the MoS as best I can, but can't find this particular item. I suppose that it could be something that's been revised, but I believe it's more that I can't find it. The guideline basically was saying that if you have a list of items or comparisons - it is better to write this up in a paragraph rather than an bulleted or numbered list. Does anyone have any idea what I digging for here? And could you point me to the page/section? Thanks. — Ched (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists has 'Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs.' Algebraist 19:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn! I swear I looked through that stuff for an hour, but then again, I can lose my car keys on the coffee table ... lol. Thanks Algebraist, I appreciate that. It's exactly what I was looking for. (now about those keys ...) ;) — Ched (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why look through things when your browser has a perfectly good find feature? Algebraist 21:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ctrl-F search requires finding the relevant page first. The questioner may want to put the {{Help desk searches}} template on his User page for reference. It contains a link for searching the Wikipedia: namespace (where most of the Wikipedia-specific manuals are) with {{Google custom}}, which we can also do here:

• Search Wikipedia's Wikipedia: namespace for: list table paragraph prose form

The third search result is: Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Paragraphs:

• Some paragraphs are really tables or lists in disguise. They should be rewritten as prose or converted to unmasked form. Wikipedia:When to use tables and Wikipedia:Embedded list offer guidance on the proper use of these elements.

It's also possible to install Desktop search software which lets you search, among other things, all the Web pages you have viewed. In theory, that could sometimes be a more effective way to search for something you have seen before, because you will be searching within a smaller targeted set of Web pages. However, sometimes you cannot find what you saw before because it could have changed in the meantime. --Teratornis (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And of course get to know the Editor's index. --Teratornis (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. Yep, Ctrl+F is almost always open (Firefox). Page history is usually only good for me if it's in the last day or two (given the number of pages I view in a day). The actual item I had read before was the link Algebraist pointed me to. I retained the idea, but didn't remember the wording (it was over 2 months ago when I started). Sometimes my eyes just kind of glass over I guess, must be the age ... lol. I like (and added) that desktop search thing though. Yep, ran into the EIW page about a month into my editing. Thanks again to you both - very helpful, and it's appreciated. Have a good one. ;) — Ched (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would caution against getting carried away with prose-ifying lists. If an article is obviously of poor quality, it may have inappropriate lists, but if an article has been around for a while and a lot of experienced editors have edited it, you might want to discuss what you want to change on the Talk page first. The higher an article's quality, the more cautious you should be about making drastic changes to it. Yes, we have a be bold guideline, but having all the courage in the world won't stop another editor from reverting your edits if they don't like them. --Teratornis (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved a Page, new redirect not redirecting

I moved John Ball Park to John Ball Zoological Garden after asking if there was any complaints on the move, not hearing any complaints for almost a year (I forgot about the move after I got permission to do it.) But the page is at the new spot, fixed the one double redirect I knew about, but the new redirect at the old article is not redirecting. Is there something I did wrong or does the page move have to be approved? BeckyAnne(talk) 19:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's odd. Purging and null-editing didn't fix it, but a dummy edit did. Algebraist 20:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the same problem as WP:VPT#Redirects not working, which no-one seems to understand yet. Algebraist 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How do I change the name of my account?

Hi,

The name of my company starts with a lowercase 'i' and the second letter is an uppercase 'D'. When I created my wikipedia account, I didn't realize it was case sensitive. How can I correct this?

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idirect (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Three things:
  • 1, we do not allow companies or representatives to edit Wikipedia. See WP:COI.
  • 2, Wikipedia will always capitalise the first letter of your username. This is technical and cannot be changed (except in your signature, in preferences at the very top right).
  • 3, you may as well start a new account - this one has only two edits.  GARDEN  21:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

See [1] for your former request, and Wikipedia:Username policy#Inappropriate usernames. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To just clarify something that Garden said, it is generally strongly advised that people do not edit articles that they have a conflict of interest with, such as companies that they work for. Also, accounts should be directly attributable to an individual, not a group of individuals or a corporation, so generally usernames that suggest such a "role account" are not allowed. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Creating a new entry

I'd like to create a completely new page. I don't see anything on Wikipedia on how to do it. Shouldn't this be at the very beginning of any tutorial? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.179.217 (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You will need to first register an account, which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles. Once you have registered, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. Algebraist 21:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Creating new articles on Wikipedia, and getting them to stick, is one of the more difficult editing tasks. Putting this at the beginning of a tutorial would be like putting Piano Concerto No. 3 (Rachmaninoff) in a first piano lesson. --Teratornis (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact the last page of the tutorial, Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wrap-up and more info), links to Wikipedia:Starting an article. Even so, there are many potential pitfalls awaiting the new user who creates a new article. What do you want to write about? --Teratornis (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You might also like to read Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles/Creating a New Article. Nanonic (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wind Mill - Electrical Power Generation

I want to know the complete details about how the electrical power is generated from the turbine of the Wind mill, and how the power is used for charging Batteries ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.127.201 (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried the Science section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. Algebraist 21:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a subject I happen to know a little about. Read wind power and wind turbine, and then everything linked from the {{Wind power}} navigation template. However, since you ask about how to charge batteries, it sounds as if your interest is with small-scale wind power. Most of Wikipedia's wind power coverage deals with grid-scale applications, since this aspect of wind power is larger in every way, and in particular there is more source material we can use to write articles here. See commons:User:Teratornis/Gallery for some wind power photos I have uploaded from various free sources, especially the cutaway diagram of a standard three-bladed, upwind rotor, horizontal axis wind turbine:

• File:EERE illust large turbine.gif

Future advances in battery technology may lead to their wider use for Grid energy storage, in which case your question will also apply to grid-scale wind power. In fact such advances in battery technology may be necessary if humans are to avoid falling victim to the dire scenarios possible from both global warming and peak oil. That is, there are enormous risks in our current heavy dependence on fossil fuels in general and petroleum in particular, but replacing the large scale of fossil fuel consumption with renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power will require some way(s) to overcome their intermittent nature (and their lack of portability). Which is to say, if we don't come up with some sort of battery or ultracapacitor technology that can compete with fossil fuels in terms of cost and energy density, we may be in for a very rough time. --Teratornis (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Quoting lyrics

I am having trouble inserting lyrics into an article. I can prepare the lyrics with the right formatting in, say, Notepad; but when I copy/paste them into the wikipedia box in edit mode the formatting is wrong. Also, I don't get the uniform indentation in the left margin for quoting a body of text. If I use the wikipedia tool "insert block of text," I can paste the lyrics into wikipedia's edit mode box, but ALL formatting is taken out. Can anyone help me? Thank you.Hammerdrill (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We have special formatting - for example: '''Bold text''', ''Italic text'', <sup>Superscript text</sup>, <sub>Subscript text</sub>, <small>Small Text</small>

That makes: Bold text, Italic text, ^{Superscript text}, _{Subscript text}, Small Text Dendodge Talk^Contribs 22:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

First be sure you are allowed to insert the lyrics. See: Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry. For an example of how to format lyrics, if you are allowed to post them here, see And did those feet in ancient time. --Teratornis (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Transcluding Articles

Is it possible to transclude an article in the main namespace? {{ArticleName}} doesn't work, and neither does {{Article:ArticleName}}. Just asking out of curiosity... Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genius101 (talk • contribs) 4 Feb 2009

Hi there. Try just using {{:ArticleName}} ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I should have thought of that! And sorry for forgetting to close the nowiki tag. Also, thanks for the response on my talk page. Genius101^Guestbook 22:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You may also like to read the old discussions at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#transcluding prose and Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#Transclusion within the article namespace to see why this usage of transclusion is discouraged. Nanonic (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Are the references at the bottom of wikipedia articles in APA format?

Nascargeek21 (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There appear to be an unreasonable number of things called APA, and I don't know which you're talking about, but I'm fairly sure the answer's no. Wikipedia uses an eclectic mix of citation formats; see Wikipedia:Citing sources for the official guidelines. Algebraist 23:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think what you're after might be this: Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia#APA_style. Bencherlite^Talk 23:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)