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.
Tom Cruise starred in the 2005 adaptation of The War of the Worlds. [link is to book]
Tom Cruise starred in the 2005 adaptation of The War of the Worlds. [link is to film]
I've seen it done both ways on Wikipedia; I'm not sure which is correct. And also, if there is one, could you please include a link to a project page, so I can use it for edit summaries?
Thanks, C Teng[talk]00:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on context. With the quote in your post, "of The War of the Worlds" refers to the book, so the book should be linked on that term. But the quote mentions Tom Cruise who is connected with the 2005 film and not the book, so it would seem better to make a formulation where the film is referred, for example:
Tom Cruise starred in the 2005 film War of the Worlds, adapted from the book of the same name. (this ignores "The" in front of the book title).
It's also possible to link both without repeating the title, for example with your original formulation:
When I place an image on a page, and save, I can click on the image, and it will take me to the image description page. How do I change that? In this case, I am not using a caption. Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just add |link= as a parameter. For example . If you want to use thumb or frame formats, however, you have to use an imagemap. See below for an example--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can use {{top icon}}, a metatemplate for creating little icons on the top-right of a page. Except for certain uses that are already created, it is meant to be used on user pages and user talk pages only. --Mysdaaotalk15:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will like to know if HINDI language can be used for wikipedia publications.HINDI is avery rich language.Nobel laureate like Ravindra Nath Tagor have written in this language and have enhanced its enrichment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.80.151.154 (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put <span style="font-family:courier;color:green"> at the beginning of the text you want to style (in this case, before the top section). It is not wise to close it because new sections will go below it. Btilm04:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this section on the Friendly talk page, I want people to provide their opinion and vote on this matter. Where do I make the general announcement on Wikipedia so that people will get involved? Btilm04:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I download an article as a PDF file, the infobox is always centered at the top of the article. Is there a way to change this so that the infobox is to the right of the lead? --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could use PDF creator software on your computer, which will enable you to create a PDF by clicking the print option in your browser (or in any other software for that matter) - the program will appear in the list of installed printers. An example would be the imaginatively titled PDF Creator, at http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/. I believe the Village Pump would be the correct place to propose changes to the server's PDF rendering software. Regards, AJCham09:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - where can I go to ask for other, more experienced users' opinions on whether a particular article is suitable for speedy deletion? For various reasons to do with the page's history, I don't want to just stick a speedy tag on it and see what happens. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A further thought (can't you tell I've had my coffee?) - I assume that either it has had a Speedy Deletion tag placed on it before - or that a deletion would be controversial? I would consider taking it to Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, and let the community decide. Also, would it be possible to rescue the article - find reliable sources, etc? Again, without knowing which article it is, it is hard to give reasoned advice. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's Team touchdown. I have begun discussing it on the talk page there, but I don't think anyone except me and the creator are reading that page. It has twice been speedily deleted under A7, but was recreated with the claim that the team had been covered in the national press for competing at a national level. Taking this as a claim of importance, I removed the speedy tag, asked the creator to cite this claim, and said I would prod if no evidence was forthcoming. Meanwhile I looked for sources to establish notability myself: it's not an easy term to Google, but I could find none. (Searching the archive of the newspaper that purportedly covered the team brought no hits)
A day later the page had begun to attract a lot of vandalism (the team purportedly competes against opponents "Milff" and "L33t Poodlez", and there's some other obviously absurd claims about players), but also the addition of some external links apparently intended as verification (though none looks, to me, to satisfy notability criteria); I stubified the article, reverted reinstatements of what looked (to me) like vandalism twice, and added a prod tag. This has since been removed again; the editor who removed the prod tag has commented on the talk page to the effect that he thinks the team is important and that the page shouldn't be deleted.
So... where do I go from here? The removal of the prod tag would suggest AfD, but as it stands the page actually contains no plausible claim of significance and thus perhaps meets speedy criteria. I'm also not sure whether to regard the removal as being in good faith, since the editor who did it has clearly vandalised other pages and the article itself - but I am worried that by wholesale reverting his changes, which can be construed as attempts to assert notability, I'll get myself into a 3RR mess.
Had a quick query hopefully for merging. If youve placed a merge tag on a page but have not recieved any feedback or discussion regarding the merge (support or opposition), how long is it appropriate to wait until being bold and doing the merge? Is it better to hold off and wait until anyone comments? Hope this is the right place thanks Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't received any feedback, it might be an idea to look at the article's history, and drop a note to the main contributors letting them know about the proposal. Say that you will wait for a week (and place a note on the article's talk page as well) and that if there are no objections raised, you will do the merge. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might also get additional opinions by leaving a note at the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. This is especially encouraged if the page targeted to be merged is sparsely watched/edited. GlassCobra17:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Last month I had uploaded a file. Then I uploaded a better version with a different name. But the older file is still in Wiki as an orphan and it is completely useless. I'd like to learn how to delete it. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the orphan file is a true duplicate, add {{db-f1|ImageName}} to the unused file, replacing ImageName with the name of the other file that is being used. This will request a speedy deletion under criteria F1, "Unused duplicates or lower-quality/resolution copies of another Wikipedia file having the same file format".
Hi, yesterday I may a mistake writing a new Email-address for my login and a new password. The Email address I entered was (removed). Could you switch to my older address ? because the new one doesn't exist for me. Maybe have I to wait 24 hours until this is done automatically ?
If you log in to your account, and select "preferences" from the menu at the top of the page, you can make this change yourself. No one else at Wikipedia has access to your account, so it would be impossible for anyone besides you to do so. --Jayron3215:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK but I am not logged and I may not. So I'll wait 24 hours hoping that the changes will be aborted by not responding the Email sent to axrl19. Thanks
OK, I'll have to wait 10 days (because the new Email addres does not belong to me (in the same time I changed the password that I don't remember). So I hope that after the 10 days the old Email address will automatically return and I will ask the password again.
I was referring to the "E-mail new password" button at Special:UserLogin. If you changed the password in your preferences then the old password will no longer work. If you changed the email stored in your preferences then it will not change back by itself. If you have forgotten your password and cannot receive mails at the address in your preferences then you have permanently lost access to the account. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought: do you have any facility to create the email account you specified (the one that you've been saying doesn't exist for you now)? If you can do that I would have thought you can regain access. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all in order ! now. I found which was the false email I wrote (...@gmail.com) and create it in www.gmail.com. I received the new password in this manner. (Now I reseted the old address and use a new password). Sorry for all this trouble... --CUSENZA Mario (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are allowed to copy and paste a page if you are the only contributor to the page, as is currently the case for User:Nroth82/Maritz. This is a common procedure for drafts created by a single editor in their userspace. However, Maritz, sales and marketing services company has been deleted as promotional. If others have contributed to a page then it must be moved instead to preserve the page history and satisfy the GFDL license by allowing readers to find the other contributors in the history. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see how to submit using the wizard, etc. however myself and two colleagues put together an article on Perinatal Grief Scale and I am wondering the following
my user name comes up before the article title.
Will Wiki editors finalize my submission to be an article without my name?
Or how would you search for this without my name?
Is there a period of time before it would go into the general search engine?
It appears you put the article into your user-space, which is a good place for drafts. If you want it moved to article-space, any autoconfirmed user can do that. Or you can use the following code to do it once you're ready:
Also note that the licensing terms under which we operate mean that you generally are claiming sole authorship. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it. --Orange Mike | Talk19:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am an old Scholar from Addey and Stanhope School which has a Wikipedia page.
I added two references in the old scholars section on two brothers (Duff's) (one whom, Stanley, had an OBE for services relating to the UK National Health System (re the 'Beveridge report).
Both entries were accepted but now seem to have disappeared (leaving lesser entries still there).
Can you explain as to whether suich entries are subject to secondary review and deltion. I spent some time obtaining the facts about these two brothers both of whom held important posts in the public sector and insurance.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.30.206 (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that you're talking about this edit, in which the two that you'd added were removed, along with one other. The editor who removed them did not leave an edit summary explaining his actions, I'll go leave him a note on his talk page, referring him here and asking for an explanation. GlassCobra19:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I left him a message; however, the user's last significant edits were in June, so I'm not sure if we'll receive any kind of timely response. If he hasn't responded in a day or two, I'd be happy to restore the names for you myself, as they appear perfectly suitable to be included in the article. GlassCobra19:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sir,
I want to ask, how can I arrange any list on Wikipedia article in an alphabetic order. I have searched on the site but cant find any method for this, Thanks. Managerarc (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created a user page for a new topic, and feel I am almost ready to move it to Wikipedia proper. I can't figure out how to move my article, which is currently at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bento00/Mary_Tuthill_Lindheim, to the "live" Wikipedia. I read the "Moving a page" help page but still couldn't find enough information about moving it. Must I request a move, or can I move it myself (and how is this done? I have already confirmed my email address.
To explain a bit further, as far as the Wikipedia is concerned, there are 170,000 different unique characters (see Unicode). The fact that two of these characters are rendered exactly the same way is a bit of a problem, but from Wikipedia's point of view %CF%8C and %C3%B3 are different characters, even if they use exactly the same shape when rendered using Wikipedia's font. --Jayron3220:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the enlightment guys... so I guess we should create redirections on every name with this kind of characters to avoid confussion... --Againme (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, since English does not natively use accents anyways, and most English keyboards do not make rendering accents 'easy', nearly all (99%) users will be typing the unaccented name anyways. It probably isn't worth it to create a redirect from an obscure character set which will likely never be typed in anyways. --Jayron3221:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see there are at least 20 references to Guampedia, Guam's Online Encyclopedia, in Wikipedia. While the main address is the same, the internal links have changed. How can I go about changing them in Wikipedia? I see it listed in the references but when I try to edit I only see this:
Hi. I have taken the liberty of making the template you posted display. The text of the references are in the body of the article. The template, {{reflist|2}}, makes the references display there when in read mode. What you need to do is click "edit this page" at the top of the article and scroll to the link that need to be changed. Probably the most efficient way to do this, would be to have two screens open: one in edit mode, and one in read mode. Find the URL (the address of the link) from the read mode document, then go to other and click ctrl+F to access your browser's find function. Paste the address and you will find the link to change in the article in seconds. Rinse and repeat until done. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chelation information--article sites "Quackwatch" as a source
"Quackwatch" is a highly polarized organization mainly supported by a belief system rather than scientific knowledge. Your Chelation article suggests that heavy metal chelation is dangerous and unscientific when used for autism. However, several organizations dedicated to scientific research in autism support the use of heavy metal detox and chelation such as Defeat Autism Now and Autism Research Institute. This chelation article is slim on information and fat on opinion. Wikipedia should not be an opinion piece and I feel that the chelation article is just that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.37.122 (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made an article on a specific person. When I type their name into Google, that person's personal web page is the first hit. When I type their name and Wikipedia into the search bar I get other people's Wikipedia articles who have a similar name first. In fact, I can;t even find my article at all using Google. I think those other authors must have done something to their Wikipedia article to make it show up before mine. How do I get my page to show up when I search for it?
Mabsal (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't get deleted, it won't be too long. When I make a new article, it comes in the search engine a few minutes after. ZooFari23:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My article went live about a month ago. It's still standing. I wonder if it is because there are actually three articles on Wikipedia about three different men with the same name. The one who shows up in Google is the guy whose page shows up in Wikipedia when you type the name in. You have to click the disambiguation link on that guy's page to get to the article I wrote and the other guy's article. Does that make sense? Mabsal (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our purpose here is to provide information, not to improve your Googlehits. We do not care who shows up where on a Google search, and we will not cooperate with efforts at SEO for your articles, nor provide SEO advice. (And of course, we have no control over Google, any more than they do over Wikipedia.) --Orange Mike | Talk23:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is already flagged for deletion. I believe with the correct refs it will stand but will discuss it over there. Please also make sure you do not have more than an encyclopedic interest in this and can stay neutral. Wikipedia isn't for advertising so a top google hit is not necessarily the goal. Cptnono (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just wondering why one of three shows up in either a search engine or on Wikipedia itself. I often type a search term and then Wikipedia if I am trying to get to a Wikipedia article so that is my only concern. I tried to write the article in NPV. Wikipedia was linking to the wrong guy (an actor) in a Chicken Soup article, which is why I started the page. This is my first page and I was just wondering how pages show up on search engines. I don't think it is an odd question. Cptnono, I will try to go to a conversation on the page, but I am not sure I know how that works. Mabsal (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orangemike, are you saying what I did there with the hatbar (?) is not proper procedure? I tried to imitate the Jupiter example. Mabsal (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The hatnote is appropriate. Orangemike's point was that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not engage in a contest for Google page rankings. – ukexpat (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mabsal, considering that you were the one to upload all the pictures used on the article to Wikimedia Commons, and are the author of the article, I highly doubt that this was an innocent creation on your part. Furthermore, the article reads like a badly disguised puff piece. I would strongly recommend that you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and refrain from editing the article any further. GlassCobra01:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to know why some worked and some didn't. I will use the advice of PrimeHunter from now on when I want a Wikipedia article. I won't edit this article any further.146.86.72.228 (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to follow-up on this. It looks like the subject does meet the notability guidelines. This doesn't mean that clean up isn't needed but the article is good enough to not be deleted in my opinion. I was looking for assistance on the disambiguation question. It appears that Dan Clark may be better known since he is on TV but I do not think that makes him the primary topic. Since there are two other Dan Clark's + multiple see alsos (please see Dan Clark (disambiguation), the current Dan Clark article might need to be renamed with a modifier (date of birth?). Thoughts?
Also, should Dan Clark (motivational speaker) be renamed with date of birth since his writing appears to make pay a substantial role in his notability?
. If you want to use thumb or frame formats, however, you have to use an imagemap. See below for an example
Resolved