Help desk
< March 20	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 22 >

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.

March 21

Delmer Daves Filmography

The 1961 feature film ' Susan Slade ' written for the screen and directed by Delmer Daves is missing from the Wikipedia list of films. The movie starred Troy Donaghue & Connie Stevens and was a sucessful follow up to Parrish. Refer google - " Susan Slade " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.98.198 (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add your request to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watching talk page only?

Resolved

– User:Gary King created the script, see Wikipedia:Hide Pages in Watchlist. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to watchlist an article or page without watchlisting its talk page (or vice versa)? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. Why do you want to do so? There might be some kind of workaround for your specific purpose. Algebraist 01:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are two cases. I want to watch Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) without having to watch its talk page (which is a mess), and I want to watch Texas without watching its talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could use javascript to make those specific pages not show up on your watchlist. Algebraist 01:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proficient in the script, is there an existing way to do this? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, and I don't know javascript either so it could take me hours. It's a simple task, though, so someone who does know JS should be able to do it easily. The best place I know of to find coders on Wikipedia is WP:VPT. Algebraist 01:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know someone who could help. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've written it and it works when I test it locally, but not when I convert it into a Wikipedia script. I'll work on it more tomorrow. Gary King (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to know the script's status, see User_talk:Gary_King#Javascript_help_needed for the discussion, and User:Gary King/hide pages in watchlist.js for the actual script. Watch the script if you want to be updated on it; I will be writing a page in the Wikipedia namespace for the documentation soon. I will not be checking this thread anymore. Gary King (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, everything regarding this goes at Wikipedia:Hide Pages in Watchlist now. Gary King (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question re Creative Commons

Resolved

– ukexpat (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across Webmercials, which amongst other issues, contains at least one line copied from here. The source is licensed under Creative Commons attribution-no derivatives. Does using text in a WP article violate the license (since we are building upon the original, and may, at a later stage, modify it)? Creative Commons seems to say that no-derivs makes the source non-free, and therefore unusable (?). I've read through WP:COPY, but I'm a little rusty. --Kateshort forbob 00:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That license isn't free enough to copy here. I don't know if a single line is copyrightable, but it might as well be rewritten, since the whole article needs rewriting in any case. Algebraist 01:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Algebraist. I thought that was the case, but wanted to make sure. And I've just noticed that Webmercial redirects to Internet marketing, which seems like it might be a good idea for this one too. --Kateshort forbob 02:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

I believe (though I'm not 100% on it) that there was something similar to Editor Review, except that you could answer the questions that would be asked to an admin-to be. Anyone? Thx! —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 02:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you were thinking of admin coaching? That's where an admin kinda/sorta walks you through the RFA process and offers advice for prospective candidates. TN X Man 05:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about something like that, but maybe Guide to requests for adminship would be helpful? Or Admin coaching? Hope this helps. Chamal ^talk 05:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check an EL please

This edit just added an external link to a "newspaper" to Wellman, Iowa. The link didn't look like a newspaper link to me, so I went to check it, only to find that it's blocked by my college's filter as a pornographic site. Could someone please look at this and (1) remove the link from the page, or (2) leave a quick note on my talk page telling me why it's an appropriate link? Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The site looks ok and does seem to be a newspaper. The filter probably blocked it because of the phrase "threechicks" in the URL, which is the name of the publisher. Whether it is appropriate to add a link to a newspaper for this article is for you guys involved with that article to decide. Chamal ^talk 04:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New feature???

Hey, do we have a new feature to avoid edit conflicts? I just answered this question, and when I saved I saw that User:Tnxman307 has answered before me. But I never got an edit conflict. Did I miss something in the few days I was taking a break? :) Chamal ^talk 05:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of any new features (not that such a feature wouldn't be greatly appreciated). The page history does show, however, that your edit registered two minutes after mine. Perhaps it got caught in a lag? I don't know enough about the technical side of things to give a good answer, I'm afraid. TN X Man 05:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you hit the edit button a few seconds after Tnx's comment was posted, and then you went about your way making your comment. That sometimes happens to me; what I see in the page and what I get on the edit page isn't always the same as someone posts a comment in between the two events. Gary King (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I'm certain Tnxman307's comment wasn't there in the edit box when I typed my comment. I even went back and checked when I saw what had happened. The "mystery of the help desk" I guess :D Chamal ^talk 05:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts would be that the answer would lie in the server cache. IMHO — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 06:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki software is usually pretty good at resolving conflicts automatically. There are only a few cases where it decides it's too much for a computer to figure out so it asks for human intervention.--RDBury (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a pretty old feature. When two edits add completely separate bits of text, Mediawiki is sometimes capable of realizing this and silently resolving the conflict. Algebraist 13:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki release history says automatic merging of edit conflicts is from version 1.3 in 2004. In a post at the bottom of a section, I think it's necessary for the last editor to start with a blank line like Chamal did in [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic tensions between Iran and the United States

A tag at the top of the Diplomatic tensions between Iran and the United States article mentions a proposed merger to Iran–United_States_relations. However, the link that follows when one clicks "discuss" appears to be outdated - this section seems to either no longer exist on the relevant talk page or have been deleted. I support this merger and want to re-open it to discussion. What would be the best course of action for me to take? CopaceticThought (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who added the tag may never have started a discussion— a common occurrence. Go ahead and start it. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 09:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who added the tag incorrectly started a discussion at the source talk page at Talk:Diplomatic tensions between Iran and the United States#Merger Proposal, and failed to tag Iran – United States relations. You can tag it and move the merger discussion to Talk:Iran – United States relations. By the way, there is an old AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current diplomatic tensions between Iran and the United States. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How famous does somebody have to be to have their own article?

My grandfather was a Colonel in the British Army who went on to found an HMC boarding school, which has been going for about 130 years. Does this meet wikipedia criteria for notability do you think? 79.75.156.177 (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have people written about him so that information about him can be found in books, newspapers or other reliable sources? (We can't rely on your personal knowledge because other editors can't check its accuracy) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have a number of reference sources, in addition to several books that he had published. 79.75.156.177 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the reliable sources that Mgm mentioned, your next step is to either register an account (so you may create the article yourself) or make a request at articles for creation (where you can create the article and remain anonymous). I would suggest looking at this guide for tips on writing your first article also. TN X Man 13:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Save edit without leaving editing page

I just wanted to ask if there is a way to save your changes that is made without leaving the editing page, e.g. If you are editing live sport event every min. or so. Thanks Jonathanburger (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is, I don't know about it. It's probably a bad idea to edit such a thing so often. It's probably better to tag it with {{inuse}} and lower your edit rate. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating tables?

I'm looking to create something suitable for Nobility of Malta where each family's coat of arms is displayed. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're doing images, you might try Wikipedia:Gallery tag. However, I've checked other 'Nobility of' articles and they generally don't have collections of coats of arms; it would probably be more encyclopedic to limit yourself to one or two of the most significant ones. In that case you wouldn't need a table.--RDBury (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a shame not to use them, they're interesting in and of themselves. Maybe other articles simply don't have the images/information to hand. But a few well chosen photographs and paintings could work too I guess. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a member of the WikiProject on Heraldry and Vexillogy, so obviously I find them interesting. But I feel this is a subset of WP:NOT#DIR: Wikipedia is not a Heraldic Guide nor the Almanach de Gotha. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that if the images are Fair Use, they can't be used in a gallery. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I edit pages?

I noticed a spelling error on the main page of wikipedia, am i allowed to edit it? thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.174.129 (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Talk:Main_Page and point out the error there. The main page is protected (for obvious reasons), but anyone can propose changes on the talk page.--RDBury (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks RDBury, I just might. Does anyone get paid for doing this? and the reasons are not that obvious, what is the reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.174.129 (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we got paid for editing. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organisation. The developers are paid employees of the Wikimedia Foundation, but their job is to make sure that Wikipedia is available for us to edit. There also aren't that many, owing to the fact that the WMF relies entirely on donations. And what do you mean by "reasons that are not obvious"? The Main Page is protected because it's about the third-most-viewed page on the Internet - it has more daily views than the BBC or Myspace. Xenon54 (talk) 11:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the main page is viewed so often, combined with the fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia, often leads to vandalism, where people insert incorrect or nonsensical information. This happens to many articles, but the main page especially. TN X Man 13:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the reasons are not that obvious" to a new user. How does someone who looks at the Main Page for the first time have any idea of how many views it gets, or anything about the risks of vandalism? Wikipedia disabled its view counters long ago. How would a new visitor have any knowledge of the years of past discussion and debate on Wikipedia that led to the Main Page becoming the most glaring exception to Wikipedia's foundation issue of allowing anyone to edit any page without registering? Right at the top of the Main Page, this text appears:

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

But most people cannot edit that very page! Speaking of unobvious, how can all the experienced Wikipedians who decided what the Main Page should say remain oblivious to the logical contradiction on it? An experienced Wikipedian is aware of the exceptions to the slogan, but the first-time visitor is not. This type of problem occurs when Wikipedia lapses into promotional language about itself. Wikipedia is not really editable by "anyone" in much the same sense that a minefield is not really traversable by someone who doesn't know where the mines are laid. Many pages are protected or semi-protected, and many other pages are so thoroughly watched by experienced users that most of a new user's edits are likely to get reverted quickly. To "edit" Wikipedia in the meaningful sense of seeing one's edits stick around for a while, "anyone" will have to spend hundreds of hours studying our complex manuals to understand what to do. Out of 48,310,145 registered users, how many have learned enough to do more than merely dabble a bit? Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can try to edit, but maybe only around 2% of people who try get far enough to find the result very satisfying. This is not a criticism of Wikipedia, which probably cannot be made much simpler than it is, but rather a criticism of overselling. I think we should hold Wikipedia to the same standard that we expect our articles about companies to uphold. Wikipedia is huge and important enough to sell itself; we should not mislead new users about the great effort it takes to master Wikipedia. Plenty of people are willing to make such efforts, and those are the people we should speak to, not the people who think they can breeze in and know what to do without studying anything. I recommend changing the slogan to:

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can learn to edit.

with the "learn to edit" phrase linking to a page that accurately describes the effort Wikipedia requires to learn. --Teratornis (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor comparison tool

Resolved

– ukexpat (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it exists, as I've used it in the past, but can't find it. Can someone therefore please point me in the direction of the tool into which you put two editors' names, and it gives you pages which they have edited in common? pushthebutton | go on... | push it! 16:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in WP:EIW#HistTools or WP:EIW#Monitor that obviously appears to be what you want, but the one-line descriptions in the Editor's index probably do not exhaustively enumerate their capabilities. Maybe you will recognize something you used before in that list, or otherwise jog your memory by reading the names of other tools. If nobody else is familiar with the tool you have in mind from your brief description, give any other clues you can remember, such as how you first learned of this tool, what kind of tool it is (Web site, JavaScript, stand-alone application, etc.), any details you can recall about what it looked like, and so on. I have heard about tools for intersecting two categories, but not for intersecting two sets of user contributions. In the future, you might consider taking better notes about what you do, on user subpages. Very few people can remember all the important minor details they discover along the way, which is part of why humans invented writing. The other motivation was to share discoveries with other people. Computers (especially those with graphical user interfaces) encourage a kind of present-tense laziness, but whenever you want to do something that isn't accessible with one click, or you figure something out that won't be obvious a year from now, it helps to write. --Teratornis (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiStalk is what you want. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I added a link under WP:EIW#History. --Teratornis (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the replies. pushthebutton | go on... | push it! 18:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

archiving long user talk pages

For someone who doesn't prefer archiving user talk pages often, how long should the talk page become before it is recommended to archive? I'm looking for a number in KB or number of lines. Jay (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Older browser can only enter 32KB in edit boxes, so if you want to be user-friendly you should archive every 32KB. People who don't do that normally do it per 50 topics or per month. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can I respond to anonymous concerns about my new page?

My new page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Eccleshall has had some warning flags added at the top, quite rightly, which I should address if I wish it to survive. However I don't know who posted these concerns so (a) I'm not sure how much I have to do to meet them because it's not obvious who put them there, so I don't know who to talk to (b) I don't know whether the warnings will be automatically removed or what! Please advise me. Beeflin (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can find out who made what change to a page by viewing the Page history. In this case, the tags were placed by Radiant chains, who you can contact with that link. Or you could discuss the article on its own Talk page. The tags will not be automatically removed, and should not be removed manually until the concerns are addressed. Algebraist 21:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think also you are starting to address these concerns anyway, in paticular when the tags were placed no sources were present. Like Algebraist infers its probably good to get a dialogue going with radiant chains (his talk page). Theres no danger of deletion yet the tags are concerns and warnings about what needs to be done to improve the article Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I disagree with Ottawa4ever: I think your article is in serious danger of being deleted. It hasn’t been nominated for deletion; so it is not an immediate danger. But the article does not demonstrate the notability required of the subject of a Wikipedia article. See the general notabilty guideline. The article needs to cite “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” The article’s citations to youtube and myspace are worthless; they not reliable sources. Even leaving aside the reliability of the other sources, they just mention the subject; they do not give significant coverage. —teb728 t c 22:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability guideline is not the only one that applies. See Wikipedia:Notability (people) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expert-subject tags

Resolved

Hi, I'm confused about something. I think an {{expert-subject|Devon}} tag should put the article into a "Devon" subcategory of Category:Articles needing expert attention, but New Quay (Devon) remains stubbornly in Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention. Nerfari (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{expert-subject}} will only put articles in categories which exist. Create Category:Devon articles needing expert attention and all will be well. Algebraist 22:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Nerfari (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings-Do they ever get cleared?

Hello, Do user warnings ever get cleared? For example, my second warning was received towards the time of my user creation (those days I didn't know much about Wikipedia). Would I get a third warning if I would vandalize an article in present time (no, I am not- I know what your thinking!). Just curious. There are some user talks out there I have seen and left me wondering. Zoo Fari 23:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this link, any user can remove warnings from their page. The action is usually interpreted as a user saying "I have read this message". Best, TN X Man 23:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The levels of warnings are intended to be quite flexible, but the idea is that the vandalism should be within a short period (less than a day) for them to escalate. You're free to remove the warning itself from your talk page whenever you wish. Algebraist 23:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Less than a day?... not sure I agree with it being quite that short. I think it's probably closer to escalation if within 30 days in actual practice. As far as ZooFari, I wouldn't worry about it, mainly because you're not out to vandalize pages. I know that all edits are kept in history (not explaining "rollback here)., but it's not like some sort of super-duper official Editor A has been given x-number of warnings thing. Sure, someone could dig up a difference at an Editor Review, or RfA - but it's not likely to be something you really need to worry about either. Archive your talk pages, even remove the warnings if you want - and just keep adding good edits to the wiki. ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 01:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about them. They'd only be a problem if you received more than 1 of them in short succession. Anyone watching your page would notice the earlier warnings were from when you were a newbie, so they wouldn't hold those against you. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend preserving all your warnings when you archive your user talk page. As you gain experience on Wikipedia, it's easy to forget how confused you were as a new user (just like everyone else). You can see this in the behavior of some of our experienced users, who write with all sorts of cryptic Wikipedia jargon and unlinked abbreviations as if everybody should understand it now that they do. Reviewing your early mistakes from time to time is helpful for maintaining perspective. Due to the high turnover among Wikipedia users, the median level of editing experience among active users at any given time is probably rather low. --Teratornis (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]