| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 18 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 20 > |
| 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. |
May 19
editWhat are these strange brackets and codes?
editIn the article on Lee Israel there are numbers near the raised foot-note citation numbers. But they’re not foot-notes. I looked on the editing page of the article [1] and I found that these numbers are put there using brackets like this { { } } and between the brackets there is: rp|16 (the number varies). The result is this: : 16 . It might be a secret code. I’m asking only to be informed. Thanks.Rutabagasubu (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Rutabagasubu - those are the page number or numbers in the cited reference where the information can be found - for further information please see Template:Rp - Arjayay (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much.Rutabagasubu (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
CoderStudio
editHello.
I have wrote an article in list of compilers, in C compilers, named:CoderStudio, but I can not link a page for this article. Could you write a page with the following info ?
CoderStudio package includes Tools for Windows 32 bit programming. A plain C compiler 32 bit, (pcc32), a Linker 32 bit, (Link32) and a Resource compiler 32 bit, (rc32). There is also under costruction an IDE that I am writting in plain C using the above Tools. You can download the above Tools from: http://manoscoder.gr/coderstudio/index.php
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manosza (talk • contribs) 14:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Unfortunately CoderStudio does not appear to be notable and as such it is not suitable for inclusiong into Wikipedia. Ruslik_Zero 20:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Do nonregistered users have just as much right to dispute resolution-related mechanisms as registered users?
editI recently asked a question on the dispute resolution noticeboard. It was dismissed because it hadn't been discussed recently enough. Fair enough. However, in dismissing my request, the editor in question "advised" me "to register an account if [I] want to engage in dispute resolution." I would like to know whether this is an accurate reflection of Wikipedia policy. In other words, is it true that nonregistered users are not just as entitled to dispute resolution as registered users? (I searched the FAQs here but couldn't find anything.) Thank you. 39.9.139.80 (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- IP User, yes, all policies and guidelines, including ones on Dispute Resolution, apply to both registered and unregistered users. Participation in fora such as the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and Requests for Comment is facilitated, however, if all users are registered. Among other benefits, registered users can receive notifications that a reply has been made to you in such a forum. This makes it easier for everyone involved in the discussion to ensure that everyone else is updated. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Any editor acting in good faith can give other editors practical advice or helpful suggestions, even if the suggested behavior is not required by policy. As Eggishorn points out, there are many benefits (and no negatives in my opinion) to registering an account, and improved communication among editors is one of those benefits. But it is not required by policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- What they said. We long-term users tend to be evangelists for creating an account, but you are still entitled to dispute resolution if you don’t have one, that has never been a rule and I would hope never will be. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Any editor acting in good faith can give other editors practical advice or helpful suggestions, even if the suggested behavior is not required by policy. As Eggishorn points out, there are many benefits (and no negatives in my opinion) to registering an account, and improved communication among editors is one of those benefits. But it is not required by policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
WMF Incubator link
editIs there a way to provide an internal-style link to https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Incubator:Main_Page? I mean, one can link to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page with [[:Commons:Main Page]], for example. Is there a prefix for the Incubator that's comparable to the :Commons: prefix as I've used it here? Context: lots of disambiguation pages have inappropriate external links, so I've been browsing through a list of search results for disambiguation pages with the code http. I've found more than one link to https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Incubator:Main_Page that is being used properly (e.g. at Incubator), so I'd like to reformat it so it doesn't show up in my list of search results. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- meta:Interwiki map shows that the prefix for https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/$1 is
Incubator:. https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Incubator:Main_Page has "Incubator:" in the page name (it's a namespace there) so this works: Incubator:Incubator:Main Page. In this case you can also just write Incubator: since https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/ redirects to the main page of the wiki. It's the same for Commons:. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)- Thank you. I've seen that map page before, and I was thinking about it, but I hadn't the slightest clue what it was called or where to find it. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)