Help desk
< April 5	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 7 >

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.

April 6

User Groups

Why is it that Stewards are given full authority to control about every function on Wikipedia, yet no users/staff have the flag? Will there ever be any more of them? It seems like a waste to hold a blank group due to sentiment, and doesnt seem like the sort of thing Founder Wales would let happen. If they arent needed at all, can't Founder Wales terminate the group and give that power to the Beaurocrats? -The Iceman (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users with the steward flag are seen on Meta-Wiki. As for the local group here, it's not doing any harm being empty, and it really would be a waste of developers' time to have them recode everything simply to remove an empty user group. ^Avicenna_sis @ 09:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refering 2 references

Hello. I have a copy of Chevron's 2008 Annual Shareholders' Report. I plan to refer to it numerous times while editing the article. How do I do the process of citing the same reference throughout an article? In the article, mine is reference #15, and I'd like to connect it to the paragraph concerning my recent edit about Chevron's withdraw of investment in Dynergy Inc.--LastLived 00:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this is your ref?

<ref>Chevron Corporation ''2008 Annual  Shareholders' Report.''</ref>

If so, you will want to give it a name such as:

<ref name="Shareholders">Chevron Corporation ''2008 Annual  Shareholders' Report.''</ref>

Then, each time you want to cite the same source, use this:

<ref name="Shareholders" />

That should help. :) –Turian (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edif conflict) If you want the text in the reference to be identical each time it is used and not contain differences such as page numbers then see Wikipedia:Footnotes#Reference name (naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once). PrimeHunter (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as a suggestion how about referencing this link [1] followed by the page number.--intraining ^{Jack In} 00:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies! I'll stick with my physical copy--LastLived 00:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to cite the same report, but different page numbers, consider using shortened footnotes - see CITESHORT. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Table Coloring

how do you go about coloring the word boxes on graphs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faroran (talk • contribs) 02:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a little more specific? Are you referring to tables on Wikipedia? If so, Help:Tables may have the answer you need. TN X Man 02:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by "graphs". Did you mean tables? If so, see help:Table#Color; scope of parameters. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have colored text and cell backgrounds in a table at User:Faroran after posting here, so I guess your question is resolved. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

joining a Discussion and the quadruple tilde

(1) How do I join a discussion? (2) What do you mean by placing a quadruple tilde at the end of a post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertMFriedman (talk • contribs) 02:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can join any discussion by posting on the appropriate page, much as you have done here. The quadruple tilde is the method of signing your posts to discussions. You'll notice that your question was automatically signed by Sinebot, an automatic program that fills in signatures for people who forgot. So a ~~~~ produces my signature, thusly: TN X Man 02:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, you could take a minute off and go through our guideline on why and how you should place your signatures. Thanks. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 03:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as an added note, for joining a discussion, you need to click on the 'edit' or 'discussion' button given at either the top of every page, or at the start of each section where you might wish to join discussions. Try going through the following three links to get a quick idea of what is the concept of 'talk' and 'discussions' on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Discussion page, Help:Introduction to talk pages, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Write back for any further help. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 03:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic IP

Is there any way to, by using the linked RIR tools, to determine if an IP address is a dynamic or not? A p3rson ✉ 03:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A p3rson, it's clear that you're trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia. I'm assuming good faith here. Given that, in what way would knowing the dynamic nature of IP addresses add to your contributions on Wikipedia? In any case, if you wished to find out about the dynamic nature of other users' ip addresses, that's not possible. Only checkuser have this right. If you're interested, go through IP address#Static vs dynamic IP addresses. Thanks. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 03:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --White Trillium (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Is checkuser a highly-advanced status, in other words, something a normal wikipedian anti-vandal couldn't get? A p3rson ‽ 00:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prior WIkipedia Entries

Will someone please answer why prior Wikipedia entries are not able to be used as a verifiable source?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentkelton (talk • contribs) 03:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can not be used as a source because anyone can change 99.8025% of it. This is why Wikipedia has to have external sources. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS. We are supposed to use secondary sources rather than primary or tertiary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. However, every Wikipedia article is supposed to cite its own secondary sources, so you could cite those if you wrote another article that contained some of the same material. See WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPLIT, and WP:MERGE - generally we should not have two articles that are substantial duplicates of one another. --Teratornis (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, it's circular reasoning. For example, let's say that someone changes the Pope's article to say that he has a pet monkey. Then that person creates a list of people who own monkeys and uses the Pope's article as a source, then we'd be saying that it's true because we said so. What is needed is a verifiable source outside of Wikipedia to confirm it. And if you have that in the first article, then there's no reason not to use that same source in the second article. Dismas|^(talk) 09:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agentkelton, you should read the ubiquitous Wikipedia:General disclaimer to understand why we consider Wikipedia an unreliable source. At the same time, do go through Category:Wikipedia as a media source to see all the pages that list sites, books, newspapers, media organisations that have cited Wikipedia as a source in the past. Maybe that helps... ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 05:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you please take a minute off and read our guideline on why (and how) you should be signing off correctly after leaving statements on discussion forums in Wikipedia... Thanks ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 12:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filters "Hidden from public view"

Why are certain edit filters "hidden from public view"? My best guess falls under the idea that, if exposed, circumvention would be easier, but that argument falls apart when it comes to things like "Common Vandalism" (285), "Common Vandal Phrases" (260), and "Replacing a page with obscenities" (12). Sure, really smart vandals could read the filter and carefully slide around it, but the edit filters, by my understanding, are there to catch the casual vandal, along with prevention of extended vandalism attacks from a wide range of IPs.

Also, what's the reasoning behind edit filters targeted at individual users? Riffraffselbow (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that it's security through obscurity, but that's not something which is likely to change soon by the looks of things. Edit filters targeted as specific editors are there to help mitigate the damage done by long-term abusers (you'd be amazed how persistent some people are). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Line Spacing

When text includes formulae with subscripts and superscripts the lines are too close together (see the article on chondrodite). How can I set a larger line spacing?
Strickja (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you pointing out which article you are referring to. Though when asking editors to see an article for an example, it's polite to link the article name to make it easier for them to see what you're talking about. I've done that for you here. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 09:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Line spacing can be overridden by using raw HTML to mark up the whole paragraph in question and using CSS styling, but that should only be done if it's unavoidable. In the case of the chondrodite article, a better solution would be to move all of the inline formulae into a bulleted list or else to remove them entirely, as the exact formulae of all minerals in the humite group is probably unnecessary detail for the article prose. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Line spacing can be browser dependent. Chondrodite looks OK in my Firefox 3.6.2 but I agree that a bulleted list would be better for these formulae. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia style sheets have rules to adjust the line height for improved readability with superscript and subscript text. Internet Explorer has problems with the line-height CSS property. This issue appears to be resolved in IE8. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement of images

How do I up-date/replace images that have been uploaded to a page with better quality ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallyannewilliamson (talk • contribs) 10:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, upload a new one, of course. Then add it to the page. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can find instructions at Help:Upload. But I'd like to clear up something before any more confusion creeps in. When you upload an image, you aren't uploading it to the specific article that you'll be using it in. Files are uploaded to Wikipedia in a general sense. Then code is placed in the article which displays that image. For instance, this image of Pope Benedict XVI is used in the Pope Benedict XVI article but it's also used in several other articles such as Head of state and Dominus Iesus to name just two. Dismas|^(talk) 10:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can upload images to the English Wikipedia in two days when your account becomes autoconfirmed. If the license allows it then you can upload images to Wikimedia Commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org right away and use the images in the English Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do this move request correctly?

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on a page User_talk:Salimfadhley/Frank_Key which I wanted to move into the mainspace in order to invite colaborations with other editors who are interested in this topic. According to the page moving documentation, simply adding the move template to the discussion page should be enough to add the page to main page move discussion, however this appears not to have been the case. Did I do it correctly? What exactly is going wrong here? --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Normally it would be added within an hour. But it seems that RM bot, the bot that updates Wikipedia:Requested moves, has stopped for some reason yesterday and has not yet resumed. It'll be added when the bot starts running again. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to use the RM process for moves which should be uncontroversial, such as promoting pages from userspace. Personally, rather than going through RM I'd just have moved the page myself. That said, the move request is now open, so might as well allow it to finish. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I'm not sure that I have the power. My account is not sufficiently authenticated to be able to move pages. I'm not sure why that is, since I've been a Wikipedia user for a very long time. I understood that most users get the power to move pages after being a member in good-standing for more than 90 days. Might I have slipped through a loop-hole in the authentication system? --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's 10 edits and 4 days. Since you have made 679 edits in nearly six years, you certainly ought to have the 'move' tab. I don't know why you haven't. --ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved it - it was clearly ready for mainspace and therefore non-controversial. It's pointless cluttering up WP:RM with easy ones. It's now at Frank Key and the redirect from userspace has been tagged for speedy deletion. – ukexpat (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, issue is now closed! --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use Part 2

Now that I've uploaded a file, I've received a notice stating the picture is too big to be reasonably used. What size should the screenshot be to comply with the{{reduce}} notice? 2D Backfire Master ^{nautical refuse} 12:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is a case-by-case issue, so nothing meaningful can be said without links to the image and the article in which it is used. I would think that if a screenshot consists of text, the issue would be the amount and nature of the text, and the number of pixels in the image would be irrelevant. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot in question is this. It is virtually irreplaceable; what's wrong with it? 2D Backfire Master ^{nautical refuse} 13:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Half the current size should be okay. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct procedure to show that this image is being used properly (legally)

I'm working on a number of articles about the UK DIY-press movement in the 80's. These were the days of early DTP and roughly photocopied zines. Some of the editors and writers of these long out of print books have given me copies of the old books for the purposes of archival. Hence' I've produced scans like this: [2]

The advert is for a long out of print book written by a notable UK writer & musician. The artist who made the advert was a different person than the author of the book. The publisher (Malice Aforethought Press) went bankrupt in the mid '90s. The person whose name appears on the advert Mr. Byrne is a friend who originally supplied me with one of the few remaining copies of the book so that I could scan & archive the content.

I have been keeping an archive of these images on my own Flickr account for the last few years with the support of the original authors + publishers. They are happy for me to re-license these images under a CC-BY license.

So, can I just upload these images to Commons? --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please communicate the consent of the copyright owners to "permissions" by following the process set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Account Retrieval

Hello My name is Vanja Sorokin, I created a wikipedia page for my self awhile ago but my account was hacked, i was wondering how i can get my account back or deleted, will it be deleted automatically after a period of inactivity? the username is Vanja_sorokin, also here is a link to thae article can that page be deleted as there is nothing on it to begin with but it has my name heres the link to the page, any help is greatly appreciated, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vanja_sorokin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.143.172 (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it will not. Not a single user is deleted from Wikipedia. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think the account was hacked? Special:Contributions/Vanja sorokin shows no edits since the day you created your user page. Many users forget their password. If you don't know the password and no longer have access to the email address stored by the account then you cannot retrieve the account. A new password has been sent to the registered address but I don't know whether it will reach you. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the emailed password reset did not reach you - Since the account has no edits, you can go to Wikipedia:CHU/U and they will be able to help you recover your old username. ^Avicenna_sis @ 09:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting text

I have been unable to find out how I might go about highlighting text. I wish to edit some tables by making certain coloured highlights - eg. highlighting certain names in a yellow colour. How would I do this? Your assistance in this matter would be much appreciated. --Mrodowicz (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know how, but I doubt if it will be necessary. Where is the WikiTable? Is it a template? Kayau Voting IS evil 14:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New ref-system

Hi! I don't be sure did I understand the new references system, so can someone check that this article is now correct?-Henswick (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is a source listed, I've declined the prod nomination. If you have other questions as you expand the article, please let me know. TN X Man 14:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henswick's reference is acceptable, although more complete bibliographic details about the web site would be better. It could be written according to any style guide between the <ref> and </ref> tags.

This prod nomination by User:NuclearWarfare was incorrect in that the movies named in the filmography are themselves references, even though they are not marked with the <ref> element. What is important is that references be present; the manner of marking them up is a matter of style, not substance. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I am not sure that a list of movies really counts as a reference. But I will refer such articles to AfD in the future rather than tagging it with the prod template. NW (Talk) 20:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting files

I uploaded a new file, but now I realized that you don't need to make an entirely new file to update an old one. Plus, the new file looks terrible. How do I nominate my own files for deletion? 2D Backfire Master ^{nautical refuse} 14:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just add {{db-g7}} to the top of the page. If you can do it right now, I can delete them for you. TN X Man 14:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I stop the text from moving in the edit box?

When I open the edit box to edit a page, the text starts moving down the page, one line moves every time I type a character. This makes it very difficult to edit, and only started happening in the last 2 weeks. How do I keep the text in the edit box fixed, like it used to be? Saltwood (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a problem with your browser (or your external editor, if you are using one). I don't think it's anything to do with Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These two help-desk threads, and the Village Pump threads linked in the latter one, contain some information. For what it's worth, this problem started (intermittently) for me when I switched from Windows 6 to Windows 7. Deor (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation

Dear Sir/Madam The purpose of this question is about the situation in upcoming election in Sudan, Is it possible for a Sudanese who he/she staying uproad to vote during the election thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.139.129.86 (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our roughly three million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. TN X Man 15:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template mis-sorting categories

Please help {{Cathead Education by country}} is sorting Category:Education in Georgia (country) into the disambiguation category Category:Georgia. Can anyone fix this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

when will my article be searchable

i uploaded an article last night and wonder when it will show up on the search index? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadlinedd (talk • contribs) 16:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Within a couple of days, maybe one. See Help:Searching#Delay in updating the search index. You should also manually add a link to Jonathan Jackson. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to Jonathan Jackson (activist) - no need for "businessman" in the disambiguation. – ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accessdate working/not working?

Resolved

– --Beloved Freak 20:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on Body piercing and can't figure out what I'm doing wrong with the refs, but some of my accessdate sections are not rendering. Here's some examples:

Extended content

Not working: {{cite news |title=World's Most Pierced Woman Adds to Her Collection |date=23 February 2009 |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |accessdate=15 December 2009 }}
"World's Most Pierced Woman Adds to Her Collection". The Daily Telegraph. 23 February 2009.

Working: {{cite news |title=3,000 Piercings as 9/11 Tributes |date=7 September 2004 |work=[[Daily Times (Pakistan)|Daily Times]] |url=http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_7-9-2004_pg9_4 |accessdate=6 December 2009 }}
"3,000 Piercings as 9/11 Tributes". Daily Times. 7 September 2004. Retrieved 6 December 2009.

Not working: {{cite journal |first=Levin |last= Liran |title=Alveolar Bone Loss and Gingival Recession Due to Lip and Tongue Piercing |journal=N Y State Dent J |volume=73 |issue=4 |pages=48–50 | date=June 2007 |pmid=17891882 |doi= |url= |accessdate=}}
Liran, Levin (June 2007). "Alveolar Bone Loss and Gingival Recession Due to Lip and Tongue Piercing". N Y State Dent J. 73 (4): 48–50. PMID 17891882.

Working: {{cite journal |last = Yehuda | first = Zadik |coauthors= Sandler Vadim |no-tracking=true |title=Periodontal Attachment Loss Due to Applying Force by Tongue Piercing |journal=J Calif Dent Assoc |volume=35 |issue=8 |pages=550–553 | date=August 2007 |pmid=17941300 |doi= |url=http://www.cda.org/page/Library/cda_member/pubs/journal/jour0807/zadik.pdf |format=PDF|accessdate=16 July 2008 }}
Yehuda, Zadik (August 2007). "Periodontal Attachment Loss Due to Applying Force by Tongue Piercing" (PDF). J Calif Dent Assoc. 35 (8): 550–553. PMID 17941300. Retrieved 16 July 2008. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Usually, I find these are PEBKAC issues, so I trust it's my fault. But I can't see it. Help? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it because there's no url filled in? Maybe cite news needs a url filled in to show the accessdate? edit: because the accessdate is for the url anyway right? In case of broken links further down the line?--Beloved Freak 18:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That could be it! It worked in these examples, anyway. Thanks. :) I'll try it out in the article and see if it gets them all. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worked perfectly. Thank you for sharing your genius. :D Fortunately the journal articles were still accessible online, though they've been in the article for a while. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good - glad to be of service! --Beloved Freak 20:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Script to display revision number

Every version of every page has a unique revision number. Several times in the past I've felt it would be handy to display (or have the option to display) this version number in page histories, the revision number of each version in diffs, etc. I suppose I could go into more detail why this would be useful if someone is curious, but the crux of my question is: Does anyone know of a script that does this? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked, but anything useful listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts? – ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have mentioned I already looked. I didn't see anything in the descriptions that lead me to think they would do it. I suppose I could load some of the more promising ones and see if they do it and just don't brag about it... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Table alignment

How can I center the numbers in the two last columns in my table? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add

|style='text-align:center'

at the front of each cell to be centred, like this:

|-
| Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
| The Beatles
| 1967
|style='text-align:center'| 1
|style='text-align:center'| 19

I don't know a way in Mediawiki to centre the whole column in one go (you can in HTML, but I don't think Mediawiki will take not of it). --ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

Can disambiguation pages be put in categories? Immunize (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Category:Disambiguation; is that what you mean? If you mean to add a ~~category~~ (oops, I meant) disambiguation page to one or more of the categories already containing the articles linked from the disambiguation page, I'm having trouble thinking of an example where that would be productive. Do you have a specific example in mind? --Teratornis (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Acute leukemia (disambiguation) into the category:Acute leukemia. Immunize (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've run across some, usually with Category:Surnames (e.g. Aida (disambiguation)). I suspect it's frowned upon, but haven't found a policy against it yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might ask on Wikipedia talk:Categorization or Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation; if it hasn't been discussed before, maybe someone will discuss it now. Maybe you have found an edge case of disambiguation pages where all topics are related. Many if not most disambiguation pages contain links to unrelated articles that coincidentally have a word in common, and thus would not all naturally fit into the same category. However, Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts says:

Disambiguation pages are not articles – they are navigation aids!

which some people might interpret to mean they do not belong in content categories like articles do. I personally don't have an opinion either way. However, before you spend any time editing something, it's nice to have a consensus guideline to support what you are doing; otherwise someone might revert your work. --Teratornis (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I question weather Acute leukemia really should classify as a disambiguation page, as all of the links to articles it provides are about the same disease (acute leukemia). Immunize (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But different articles. If you think the articles should be merged, that's a different matter. But, ALL and AML, for example, are not the same thing.--Beloved Freak 21:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking source for listed data

Hello,

I read with great interest the WIki article on Restless Legs Syndrome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restless_legs_syndrome

At the upper right of this page is a graph with the legend "Sleep pattern of a Restless Legs Syndrome patient (red) vs. a healthy sleep pattern (blue)." Can anyone help me find the source for this graph? I would imagine that it's a German medical article, but I can't find it.

Many thanks,

Ludwighamlet (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the commons page here, this is a self-created image ("Selbsterstellte Grafik") by Commons user Markus Mueller. Unfortunately, it looks like he hasn't been active at commons or de.wiki since 2007 and Oct 2009, respectively. Still, you could try to email him: [3] and ask about it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam -

Thanks for the help! Although I am a registered user, I am unable to find an email address for Mr. Mueller or to figure out how to send email to him. Any suggestions?

Many thanks.

Ludwighamlet (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The registered email address of users is not publicly available for privacy reasons. If you are logged in at the German Wikipedia then the link Floquenbeam gave to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:E-Mail/Markus_Mueller can be used to send an email to the user via the German Wikipedia. If you have unified login then you should be able to log in at the German Wikipedia with your normal username and password, or you may already be logged in when you click a link to the German Wikipedia. Otherwise you can also create an account there. If you have no idea what an email form in German says then it is similar to Special:EmailUser/Ludwighamlet. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing answers on Helpme, can not find editor's comments

After submitting my article I was told to go to go to wikipedia&h32:articles for creation/gustavus Sidenberg. I have no idea where this is or how to find it.

So I went to helpme. Here I was told that to find the answer to my question I would to place the "templet" in my talk page. I have no idea what this means or how anyone goes about placing any templet anywhere.

There seems to be nothing new in my "my talk" or in 'My contributions."

The result is someone has put feedback on my article, but I have no idea where to find the comments. I am supposed to supply edits within 24 hours, but can not find any place that permits me to edit.

Look folks, all I wanted to do was to was place a simple three paragraph on Wikipedia. I thought it would help someone. What I have encountered is hours of grief floating an endless sea of computer double talk.

Is there no simple way I can communicate with who ever looked at my submission and find out what they think? I am very frustrated.Please help. Elkmilok (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to refer to User talk:Elkmilok#Your submission at Articles for creation which links to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gustavus Sidenberg. Are you unable to follow that link? --Teratornis (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creating new articles from scratch on Wikipedia is often difficult for people who don't have a lot of Wikipedia editing experience. That's because Wikipedia is unlike anything most people have used before, and therefore it is common for a new Wikipedia editor to assume incorrectly about what is appropriate for Wikipedia. I did this when I was new here; most everybody else here did too. It was only by some miracle that the first article I created on Wikipedia happened to survive, since I had little clue about Wikipedia's rules at the time. (Even with more experience, I've still accumulated 706 deleted edits - that is, 706 of my contributions to Wikipedia, which I thought might help somebody, were to pages that have since been deleted.) The main difference between Wikipedia and everything else is that here we do not share our knowledge so much as we share our sources. Wikipedia is not so much a compedium of knowledge as it is an aggregation and superior organization of knowledge reliably published elsewhere. That's probably the most critical thing for a new user to understand about Wikipedia, and difficult to grasp as well, because in ordinary discourse people rarely limit themselves to what they can source. --Teratornis (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi, Elkmilok, yes it can sometimes be hectic navigating around here for new editors. You can talk to the person who declined your request at their talk page; click on this blue link: User talk:Avs5221. You can ask for help on your own talk page (i.e. User talk:Elkmilok) by typing {{helpme}} (including the squiggly brackets) and your question on your talk page (someone will come along in a few minutes). Or you can go to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gustavus Sidenberg, address the concerns that Avs5221 raised, and then resubmit it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2009 I ....

Downloaded the "List of Musical Types" and made appropriate credits notes the GNU conventions at that time. I have made additions and adjustments to this list. How ought I resubmit the PDF version of this work for consideration. It does have just over 1300 listings across 47 pages. I view this an intermediate step to broadening this information both for the community ... and myself.

Peter Kelley St Paul, MN USA 71.220.53.125 (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you saying that you exported a load of articles as a PDF and have been editing that, and want to submit all your edits in one go as a PDF?

If that's the case, I don't think you can. In general the articles will have been edited in Wikipedia in the meantime, so if there were a way to update all the articles from a PDF, that would just blow away everybody else's changes to them.

You'll just need to edit the articles one by one like everybody else.

Or if I've misunderstood, and you mean something else, please clarify. --ColinFine (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, you could go through our search link on various lists related to musical types that exist currently on Wikipedia. Feel free to edit them if you wish. Let me bullet out a few links that would help you.

You could create an article list called List of musical types (click on the red link and start right away).
However, you should read WP:Your first article for understanding how to create your first article.
Try using the WP:Article wizard for a guided process.
Do also read our notability guidelines for the standards that need to be met in case you wish to create new articles.
Specific information on what qualifies as 'lists' can be found on WP:Lists.
And to understand why you should not include documents you have yourself created, do please read our article on self published sources.
Finally, You may wish to create an account if you do not already have one. Creating an account provides a number of benefits; in particular, your contributions are attributed to your username. See Help:Logging in for help with logging in to an existing account.

Did all this frighten you away? Don't worry, just start off and there'll be people to guide you along even if you make mistakes. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 05:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In need of a template fixer...

Folks, I am looking for a more expert template fixer than I to turn Template:Table of Canon SLR into a properly formatted navbox template. Any volunteers, please? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you want to leave a request at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests? It might get a faster response. Best. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it (but I'll try) - it's pretty busy over there and Jez who is the main responder has his hands full. I think the Help Desk is patrolled by more editors - but thanks for the suggestion. – ukexpat (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laserpacific

Hello:

I need to modify our page for Laser Pacific (or Laserpacific as described in your page). My group recently purchased the company from Kodak and would like to update our page.

I can be reached at <redacted>

Best regards,

Robert Nio CIO Laser Pacific —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.99.100.23 (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that would be a WP:COI. –Turian (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you want them to be permanently removed from the page history, please email this address.

Please take a look at WP:COI - your best option is to leave a message on the article's talk page suggesting, with references to reliable sources the changes that you think should be made to the article. – ukexpat (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click on this link to leave a message on the talk page of LaserPacific. Also, you may wish to create an account if you do not already have one. Creating an account provides a number of benefits; in particular, your contributions are attributed to your username. See Help:Logging in for help with logging in to an existing account. Feel free to write back for help. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Done

Hi, what is the correct thing to do with a talkpage of a redirected article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Yettaw Housekeeping? Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. If the article was redirected to a brand new article, move the talk page too. If the article was redirected to an existing article, as part of a merge, AND if there is content on the talk page worth preserving, then I would leave a note on the target article's talk page saying something like "On (XXXX date), the article YYYY was redirected to this article. The discussion page of that article is located at Talk:YYYY" or some such. If the talk page has nothing substantive to preserve, then just redirect it too. --Jayron32 21:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was an existing article and perhaps editors at that article would like to reference any discussion for additions, so I have left them a note as you suggested. after a few weeks I will look back and redirect the talkpage also. Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's sensible. You could also make an archive later of the discussions that have taken place till date at the John Yettaw talk page, and include a link within the talk page of the destination article for later discussions. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail as a source

To obtain data, I sent an e-mail and received a response. How can I cite that in an article? --William Saturn (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unpublished emails are not allowed as sources. Sources must have been published by a reliable source and be verifiable for others. There once was Template:Cite email but it was against policy and was deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 19#Template:Cite email. If you cannot find a reliable published source then you have to leave out the data. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from a reliable source. It's a number value for the area of a certain feature, which I cannot find anywhere. --William Saturn (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the person who sent you the email needs to be reliable, but it needs to have been published in a reliable source. How do I, as a reader, know that you haven't just made it up? (I'm not suggesting you have, but I would need to be able to verify that myself).--Beloved Freak 00:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe it is better to just leave the surface area value blank? --William Saturn (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have not stated what article this is about, it is hard to say how the article should be worded. If I didn't have a reliable, verifiable value for the surface area of something, I would just not mention surface area. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who have you obtained the information from? You don't have to say exactly who, but what kind of person? How do they know? Have they independently measured the surface area of whatever it is, or have they themselves read it or published it somewhere? Is it Cibolo Creek? I don't really know what to suggest.--Beloved Freak 00:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is correct, and I obtained the data from the San Antonio River Authority. --William Saturn (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume, then, that the info is not available on their website or any published documents? Maybe you could try Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or Wikipedia talk:Verifiability? I don't know, but someone there might have some ideas.--Beloved Freak 00:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The figure I wanted to find was the surface area of the Cibolo Creek watershed. The answer given was 545,532.984922 acres. --William Saturn (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You can't quote emails you've received, even if the same is from a most reliable source. You could perhaps send the email to a reliable source and hope it gets printed... You could then include the details. I know, it's an elongated process, but that's how it is :) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 April 6

Contents