Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 September 12

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.

September 12

Fair use?

Sylvia von Harden has a painting of the subject by another artist? I don't know enough to tag it as it's been there a while. adding sig Mjpresson (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC) E=mc squared

I don't think that is fair use, just as screen shots from movies etc should not be used in actor bios, so I have commented it out for the time being. – ukexpat (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please answer the question - how to submit an article?

That's a excellent observation - nowhere on Wikipedia does it state exactly how to submit an article. Creating an article is clearly not the same as submitting an article. I too have created an article on my User page, followed all the protocol, included references etc, and days later the article still doesn't appear in the search engine. It's just sitting there on my User:page. Could someone please give a direct answer to the question - how does one submit an article? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artdesert (talk • contribs)

The below response actually does say how to create an article if you follow the instructions carefully. "Submitting" an article and "creating" an article usually (not always) refers to the same in Wikipedia which is: Creating a page with an article text in Wikipedia:Main namespace. As you say, your text is on your user page User:Artdesert. This is not in the main namespace and therefore not a Wikipedia article. An article can be created by editing The Tender Trap (club). In the below instructions, you can reach that by typing The Tender Trap (club) in step 5. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear PrimeHunter, big thanks, you have explained clearly and succinctly how Wikipedia works, a prime piece of information that I was unable to glean from days of reading through the official "instructions". Once again, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artdesert (talk • contribs)

Good. I have moved your post to below the post it replied to. You can sign talk posts with ~~~~. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Having now created/submitted an article in Wikipedia, following the direct instructions above posted by PrimeHunter, I can see that the article below does give correct instructions, so apologies. I would recommend to any new-comers to disregard the confusing information on the "your first article" page, and simply follow the clear instructions listed here by PrimeHunter and Alinnisawest. Thanks guys.

I do not see how to categorize or submit an article

I have written a short biography (not an article) of a ballet teacher, 1893-1981 who taught in Boston. There is no other bio of him on this rather famous man in Wikipedia and there should be. That is why I have written one. I have spent hours reading your many, many pages of instructions until I am blind and cannot find a simple answer to a very simple question. I catagorize this short piece as a biograhy but how and where can I do that? Then, simply, how do I submit the piece? Can you give me a simple answer? I would appreciate that. Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliobus (talk • contribs) 00:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Your first article.

1. Ensure that you have an account and you are logged in. If you don't have an account, create one
2. Make sure the subject is notable enough to have their own article
3. Find references
4. Make sure no article on the subject exists under a different title by typing the subject into the search box to the left (←) and clicking 'Search'
5. Type the page name in the search box to the left (←) and click 'Go'
6. Click 'Create this page'
7. Create the article, including all your references, making sure you adhere to the Manual of Style and our article layout guidelines
8. Be aware that Wikipedia deletes thousands of new articles for failing to adhere to our policies and guidelines. New articles by new users are at extra risk of deletion, due to new users' unfamiliarity with our rules. Consider gaining experience by editing existing articles before attempting to create new ones LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 00:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the categories, WP:CAT is the place to go, if you haven't gone already. Wikipedia can have a steep learning curve, sorry! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 04:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

browser text size

I inadvertently pressed some keys on my keyboard and now my browser text (only in Wikipedia) is about 3 point font. I can't figure out how to get it back to normal size. Help!

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.72.143 (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is browser dependent, but you can usually reset it from the View menu. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What Web browser are you running? Would you consider installing another one (or two)? See List of web browsers and Comparison of web browsers. Since many browsers are free to download and easy to install, you might as well keep at least two handy on your computer. Then if one of them "wigs out" on you, you can try the other browser for a sanity check. Sometimes that can tell you the problem is in your browser and not on the Web site which appears to have a problem. Also see Wikipedia:Browser notes. If you just can't read a Wikipedia page at all, sometimes you can read the page source. In some browsers, there is a View | Page source menu item you can select. That will show a bunch of HTML tags, but usually you can see the text of a page. --Teratornis (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Pressing the Ctrl key and using the mouse scroll wheel worked just fine...but thanks for the tips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.72.143 (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

IP giving article assessment

Hello! I had written an article, John Coxon, months ago, and was thrilled to see that it was assessed. However, upon checking the page history, I found that it was an IP that assessed the article! (this is the IP's edit). Although I am thrilled, I would like to make sure that this assessment is legitimate. Thank you! BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 01:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The definitions of the assessment terms are here. Since you're familiar with the topic, you can probably judge whether the anon's assessment is accurate better than I can. Algebraist 01:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like a start-class to me. You can assess your own articles, as long as you don't overstate their importance or their quality. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, thank you so much! I'm kind of new to the assessment thing, as opposed to other sections, so thanks for your quick replies! BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 03:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Brief explanation to appear above the text

Is there a way to make brief explanation appear above the text when the mouse scrolls over it? Without having to click it/ click another link.

--60.49.34.94 (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean a brief summary of an article when you scroll over the (blue) wikilinks? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. It is not a link. I got this idea from a few websites. Here's an example: Nciku Scroll you mouse above this phrase 春天到了，万物复苏。 The pronunciations will be displayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.34.94 (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

When a pronunciation is available in a Wikipedia article, it is displayed outright. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Displaying pronunciations is not my intention. I want to use it for other purposes, like displaying a brief explanation without using a link (wich would be quite messy if littered all over a page) THis is another better example: Novel Scroll down about 3/4 of the page until you see some purple words. Put your mouse over it. You'll see what I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.34.94 (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That's called a tooltip or mouseover. I don't know if you can make them in Wikipedia (I'm inclined to think you can't), but if you're asking for the purpose of making, say, a webpage with these, you're probably better off asking at the Computers Reference Desk. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 04:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll do that. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.34.94 (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:H:title does that. {{H:title|hover text|text}} gives text —teb728 t c 07:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

WOW! It works like magic. Thank you very much, friend. Appreciate it. =p

--60.50.73.63 (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

dictionary

hi... how do i use your dictionary in order to look up the meaning of a word? for example: deligates ? thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.7.14.234 (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the best place to find dictionary definitions from. Though, if your looking for dictionary definitions on the internet, you can go to the English Wiktionary (assuming that you can read and understand english) and search whatever words you need there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. -- RyRy (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How do I copy tables from a wiki article to say OpenOffice. Live table, not a screen shot

Wiki tables are invaluable and would be useful to copy into documents for studying. Editing the shape, content, and form of the table is necessary. Retaining integrity of links within the table is preferable, but not essential. An example is found on "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscarinic" under the title "Comparison of Types".

Thanks 67.162.47.174 (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about OpenOffice, but with Microsoft Word if you copy all the text in the table it should transfer the HTML code with it. 193.194.132.78 (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How can a page which is a complete fabrication be deleted?

I'm trying to delete a page relating to me personally but every time I delete it the page is restored. I don't want to be on wikipedia and would like to be removed. The page is Steve Porter (footballer). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbeecher (talk • contribs) 09:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason why the article should be removed? If any of the information is grossly incorrect or inappropriate you are welcome to change the article yourself, discuss it on the article's talk page, or if you would like I can even make the changes myself. However, if you would like the article deleted simply because you do no like it, then I am afraid there is nothing that can be done. Bvlax2005 (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't delete the page, you just blanked it - replaced its contents with an empty page. Page blanking generally gets reverted because it looks like vandalism. If you think you have a valid argument for having the page deleted, you need to first demonstrate that there is community agreement or consensus with your argument; then an admin will properly delete the page for you. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion for more details of the correct process. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find any information on this alleged footballer, so it may be a hoax/vandalism. Should probably go to Afd. – ukexpat (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Done that. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

re-posted......Yes i would like some information

I would like to inquire about the procedure that needs to be followed for removing a specific website and its associated content from wikipedia's spam list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.Aucoin.la (talk • contribs) 09:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals. Or if it's a Mediawiki blacklisting instead of only Wikipedia, see meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#Proposed removals. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

                         -------------------

But how do i know which one is it black listed on. My site appears on the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Apr_1

can i understand from this that on which page will i have to go to in order to start a discussion so that my site can be removed from the listing? I would also like advice on how to start discussions and related information like who i will be discussing it with. What should i say etc?

All blacklisted sites are listed on the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. What site gets bounced back as blacklisted? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC) (And please log on and sign your posts.)

I cannot say where it's blacklisted just from being on that page. What is the domain? (write it without http://). Arguments would depend on why it was blacklisted and what it contains. Requests are reviewed by editors with administrator status at that site. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The domain name is LiveAdmins dot com. I posted my request up at

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist

but apparently no one seems to have noticed it. Can i make it more noticeable somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.87.133 (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Do i need to post in the current date, cause i updated my previous post on the 10th and i didnt hear back from wikipedia's support team for this page. Can you please answer the upgraded part of this post. Thank you.

Getting sites off the blacklist is, I expect, very low priority, so be patient, you're not in a position to be pushy. Also please log on and sign your posts as requested before by someone else. 82.231.41.7 (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Your site has been blacklisted at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist since [1], and your request is in the right place. I cannot say when it will be reviewed. Note that MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals says: "You should show where the link can be useful and give arguments as to why it should be unlisted." So far you have only indicated that it will not be spammed again and being black listed doesn't reflect well on your business. You probably have a better chance of being unlisted if you can give arguments as to why it would benefit Wikipedia. As the quote says: show where the link can be useful. If the site does not appear useful to Wikipedia then the reviewer may think there is no reason to risk spam by unlisting it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes i am sorry about that, my explorers cache was cleared, otherwise it usually remembers my login.

Apparently you said that we would have to somehow benefit wikipedia to be considered for un-listing. Wikipedia is an information resource, we could contribute in terms of information, without the external links as they caused the listing in the first place. I thought that the line you forwarded was suppose to mean that i should link to the archives where the discussion is suppose to kept. Now i am a bit confused. Please do point in the right direct how i should proceed with this matter. Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that what PrimeHunter is suggesting is that you give examples of what articles should have links to liveadmins.com and what pages at liveadmins.com the articles would link to. The people processing removal requests might decline to remove the block unless there would be useful links. —teb728 t c 09:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "the link" in the quote refers to potential external links to the site in Wikipedia articles. From Wikipedia's point of view, there is only good reason to unlist the site if there is good reason to make external links to it, which is what the blacklisting is meant to prevent. If the site contains nothing Wikipedia would want to link to, then the reviewer may not see any reason to unlist, whether or not the reviewer trusts that the site will not be spammed. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

So then what you are suggesting is that we at our website should create something that's non-commercial and then write a proper article inside wikipedia and then provide the external link? Is this what you are suggesting. All we require is that you should take off all postings that were ever made by the user haseebjj and his associated ip's along with the name of LiveAdmins. Hence the question of external linking will never come up. We offer sincerest apologies as we respect Wikipedia and on our behalf assure that whatever happened before will not occur again.

Our organization provides customer services, it has nothing to do with an information resource such as wikipedia, because we are all promotion based. Up-till this point there is nothing on the website that could as such prove to be useful in a non-promotional way. WebGreeter the business name for LiveAdmins has a blog, if the external linking is necessary we can have our team of content writers add to that blog and then external linking be made to that. Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of blacklisting is to prevent external links to the site. Requests for delisting are normally made because somebody thinks that external links to the site would be useful for Wikipedia. It sounds like you don't want external links to the site and don't think it has useful content for Wikipedia. You haven't said in this thread why you want unlisting but at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#www.LiveAdmins.com you wrote: "being black listed here doesn't reflect well on our business". Is concern for your business reputation the sole reason for your request? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The reputation of the business is not directly effected, but its more of a self conscious calling. You see, we are a pure white hat organization and do not adopt any un-ethical ways of promotion. One of our employees did that. We want to make up for all the losses. The point that i tried to make in the previous post was that wikipedia's readership will not find information on our website usable. However the content on the url blog dot webgreeter dot com can be improved over a period of time and then informative content can be published on wikipedia with links that would help the readers of the content on wikipedia in gaining more information. What we want at this stage is to make up for the in-subordination. We would like wikipedia to take us if not good then not bad either. We want to improve our standing on the internet and being blacklisted on something as important as wikipedia takes us back on more then a hundred years of clean effort. We would like for you to consider our request for de-listing and give us positive ways of contributing towards wikipedia (non- promotional). We will contribute the best of efforts to maintain good term relationships over the years to come.

Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

One more thing do i need to take this conversation back onto the front by manking a re-post in today's date or is it better of left here. Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This section has been archived. I see new posts here but few others will. I have added a link to the permanent archive page for this discussion at your requested unlisting where the reviewer can see it. I have never reviewed blacklist requests and will not review yours. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia or Wikisource for Parliamentary votes?

This is a difficult question about scaleability and where the proper home of something is.

For the past five years I have been maintaining a database of the meanings of votes in the UK Parliament for each division. Many of these relate directly to issues that are wikipedia articles. For example: Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008 refers to this vote here; and British replacement of the Trident system#Parliamentary support relates to this vote and this vote.

Up till now these entries have been entered into a hand-rolled wiki on my website Public Whip, but it would be very convenient for the long term (maintenance, accessibility, categorization, better infrastructure, connectivity to wikipedia articles) to move them into one of the wikimedia projects.

Now, the natural home for these would be wikisource, as they are official resolutions. Unfortunately, the text that is available unedited in the Parliamentary record is fragmented, garbled, incomplete and useless. The original form of the first example is here and the second example is here. Sometimes all you get is "I beg to move that we delete line 20 of the current motion." This is why I had to implement a wiki on my own webpage to convert them into something intelligible.

But Wikisource is not for edited text, even though this is like source text. They are wikipedia articles, but of a very regular form with several hundred per year. Would it be good for wikibooks -- the book of UK Parliamentary motions? It doesn't feel right to put this material in the main Wikipedia, even though these are clearly wikified articles. A similar category of articles (species) got its own project (Wikispecies). I'm not suggesting this, just looking for thoughts about where the right place would be.

Please point me to anywhere I could discuss this.Goatchurch (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a stumper. I'm not sure the Help desk volunteers will know a good answer, since here we focus on questions about using Wikipedia. You could look at:

• Wikipedia:Alternative outlets
• wikiindex:

And did you read the Wikisource article? It says Wikisource has some translations and annotations, and everything on Wikisource has to be releasable under the GFDL, which means anybody can modify it. I'm not sure exactly how the rules work on Wikisource, but maybe a de-garbled version of a proceeding transcript would be like a translation or an annotation. See for example wikisource:The Annotated Strange Case Of Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde. Would something like that do what you need? --Teratornis (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

{{numberingroup}}

Is there a way to display this with the above magic word on enwiki? And also how is Special:Statistics now displaying the amount of active users? -- 194.75.236.69 (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're after with your second question. Some change has been made to the software to keep track of active users; what sort of details do you want? Algebraist 12:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Like, is it a new magic word that does it or a formula? -- 194.75.236.69 (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Active users are defined (at Special:Statistics) as "accounts with at least one edit or logged action, except account creation, in the past 30 days." — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but how can I replicate the calculation? -- 194.75.236.69 (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know you can not. However, I would suggest asking the techy people at Wp:Village pump (technical) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Need help, desperately

Hello. I am devastated because my entry ghostgirl has been deleted. The reason is, I'm sure, because I didn't tag the photos rights and I can't figure it out. There are two images - both fair use. One is a book cover that I authored and the other is a promotional poster. Both of these images are fair use. I am desperate to get my entry re-instated. I used the talk pages, but I'm not even sure how those work. It's all so complicated. Can you please help me.

Also, I uploaded a promotional photo of myself to be posted on my own wiki entry : tonya hurley. I can't seem to get that up either. Is it automatic? I know i tagged that one wrong as well. It is fair use - created for promotional and publicity reasons.

Thank you so very much. I appreciate it.

-Tonya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyahurley1 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion which determined it was not notable. It is therefore very unlikely to be undeleted. I would also suggest that you read our policy on conflict of interest. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, please remember what Wikipedia is not- it's not for promotional purposes, it's for encyclopedic articles. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia can certainly be devastating to new users, due to the inviting user interface which is easy to see, combined with the staggeringly complex rules that are not immediately obvious. See Wikipedia:Why was my article deleted? and Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. If I were the King of Wikipedia, I would limit new article creation to users with at least N edits, where N is the edit count above which, say, 95% of new articles started by users with that many edits survive. (That is, it would be useful to collect statistics tracking the fate of new articles, including the edit counts of the users who made the first edits. If we find that article survival rates increase with the edit counts of their originators, then it might be possible to spare many new users a lot of anguish, and save the time of the users who delete articles, by choosing a survival rate and then requiring users to have the corresponding number of edits before allowing them to create new articles. Effectively this would mean restricting article creation to users who have accumulated enough editing experience to have a decent shot of making their articles stick.) The English Wikipedia already has 6,819,112 articles, most of which need work, so it's not as if we have a screaming need for yet more articles, and the emotional damage to well-meaning but inexperienced contributors whose work gets deleted can be huge. --Teratornis (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Also see WP:EIW#Postmortem. Your article lives on at Deletionpedia here: Ghostgirl. I like the idea behind Deletionpedia: creating a wiki consisting of Wikipedia's rejects. Wikipedia deletes so many thousands of articles that they can constitute an impressive wiki of their own. Deletionpedia even rates some of them as "featured," which is kind of ironic in light of what featured means on Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge edit

Will wikipedia merges edit by same user to reduce history archive? e.g. a three edits in a row expresseed such following: "It is famous stution" -> "It is a famous stution" -> "It is a famous station" to only one "It is a famous station", and remove any intermediate revisions.

marge in a row edit and remove any intermediate revisions.RushdimIDlike (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Some user don't like to "preview", so many edits to same articles will be produced within minutes. RushdimIDlike (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

They are not merged. Every edit is saved in the history. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted to erased

How long the content will be permanent erased from wikipedia servers since the article has "deleted". RushdimIDlike (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The information is gone from the public eye immediately. However it is always saved and can be seen by admin. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted articles are also available at Deletionpedia. – ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How does Deletionpedia work? How could a bot look for deleted pages, when they are, well, deleted? Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Exports pages that are tagged with a speedy tag, and puts them in a temp folder, when the bot sees in the deletion log that they have been deleted, they're uploaded to the wiki. All this is at http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Deletionpedia:Archive . Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 02:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and in reply to the original asker, deleted content isn't actually erased, the only way to erase content is 1.)Possibly WP:Oversight. Not sure. 2.)Have the developers run a SQL command to completely remove all mentions of a page from the MySQL database. Note that this would likely cause major bugs to occur in the MediaWiki software that Wikipedia runs on. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 03:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oversight doesn't deleted anything. It just hides it from everyone except oversighters and those with direct database access. Algebraist 08:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Template for tagging articles about works of fiction in which the summary is too long?

Many articles about books, movies, etc have a 'plot summary' section. Often these sections grow ridiculously long. Is there a tag that requests that a summary be condensed? ike9898 (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Plot}}. Xenon54 19:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It'd be more useful of you to stick around and help fix the problem than just tag them. --erachima talk 19:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's strongly discouraged to tag for maintenance, especially when you could fix it on the spot.--LAAFan^sign _review 20:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly true. But I wouldn't really say it's "strongly discouraged". Maintenance tagging is a form of Wikignomish activity that is appreciated. I'd say overzealous/multiple taggings might get a little obtrusive. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Or if there's only a minor problem that you could take a minute and a half out of your busy, busy day and fix. One fix is worth a dozen tags. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 20:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem to say a plot needs condensing, then leaving it. Readers who have not read the book are in a poor position to know what is important and what is fluff. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you edit a category page?

How do you edit a category page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VladJ92 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The same way you edit any other page: go to it and click the edit button. However, that only lets you edit the category page itself, the stuff before the 'Pages in category "Foo"' header. To add or remove pages from the category, you have to edit the page whose status you want to change, not edit the category. To put a page in Category:Foo, add [[Category:Foo]] to the bottom of the page. See Help:Category for more information. Algebraist 22:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To add a page to a category, put a link to the category at the bottom of the page. You can edit the text that appears above the list of pages the same way you would edit any other page. See Help:Category for more information. Hope that helps! --ais523 22:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to edit below the "Pages in this category" heading. Is this in any way possible?-VladJ92 —Preceding unsigned comment added by VladJ92 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want an existing article called Bar to be listed in a category called Foo below "Pages in this category" then do as ais523 said: Edit the article Bar and place the text [[Category:Foo]] at the bottom of the article.The category page will automatically be updated without editing it. If this is still unclear then please say the page name, the category name, and whether you want something other than listing the page name in the category. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to be able to edit the text below the "Pages in this Category" heading to make the page more user friendly.

To be specific, I want to edit the text below the "Pages in this Category" heading on the page: Category:Channel 5 TV Stations in the United States, so that it says next to every link what city /location in which the station is located.-VladJ92 —Preceding unsigned comment added by VladJ92 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

First: Starting a line with a space removes the formatting and puts it in a dashed box. Second: You can't do that- everything under Subcategories and Pages in category are automatically populated by adding the category to the article. What you can do is to create a separate list article that gives that information and add the same category. See List of television stations in the United States by call sign (initial letter K) for a similar list. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 00:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates for a comparison of three basic approaches to navigation on Wikipedia. You might also be interested in portals. If you want to make a list of television stations that the reader can sort by various attributes (such as location and call sign), see Help:Sorting. --Teratornis (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot log in to my account anymore

Before I start, yes I read the FAQ about logging in. Here's what happened. I've been using WP at work for months with no problem. Last week I tried to log in at home and got an "incorrect password" message. I was stumped and so requested a temporary password. I used it to login and was prompted for a new password. I set a new password and made sure to note what it was this time. After entering the new password, it said "now logging you in" and immediately under that "incorrect password" again. I tried to log in one last time using the new password I had just set and my account was frozen for too many login attempts.

Today I tried to login at work using the new password I had just set. Didn't work. I tried the temporary password. Didn't work. I requested a new temporary password and logged in with it. Again, I was prompted to set a new password. I set it again, same thing as last time. Again, it said "logging you in" followed immediately by "wrong password." I closed everything, deleted cookies, and tried one last time to log in with the new password I just set. Now I am once again blocked for too many login attempts. What the heck is going on? Is there even a way to request help other than this? I can't put anything on my talk page, I can't access it. This is seriously annoying! 75.149.46.46 (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried somewhere other than your workplace, perhaps at home or at a library? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this problem affects me both at work and at home. It's actually when I tried to log in at home that this problem started, see above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.46.46 (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I read "I've been using WP at work for months with no problem" and must have skipped over "Last week I tried to log in at home and got", with "at home" being what I skipped. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it exists, but maybe your browser isn't letting you log into certain things? I can't think of any other reason. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting "poor quality" contributions

Hi. I was wondering whether it is acceptable to revert a users contributions on the grounds that they made a bit of a crude job of their editing? To give you an idea as to what I am referring, today I noticed that a user edited this into this. Frankly I far prefer the way the article was before it was edited - the colours on the coat of arms are sharper, the university in question's logo is at the head of the information box, and the university's colours are not obstructed. I am worried that if I revert the article back to its previous state it might offend the user who made the contributions in question, and moreover I’m not quite sure as to how I can legitimise a revert in an edit summary? Am I even justified here to be proposing a revert? Sorry for all the questions but I have never edited on here before so I wanted to consult first before jumping in. 79.75.139.98 (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that the prior version was better, revert to that version with an explanation as to your reasoning in the edit summary, discuss it on the article's Talk page, and then post on the editor's Talk page to open a dialogue as to why you feel that their version wasn't as good. Corvus cornix_talk 23:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 00:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

While people are kinda looking at the article, I think it should be noted that the section of notable alumni feels like it has way too many blue links. It hurts to look at. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

When I look at these two sections:

• University of East Anglia#Notable alumni
• University of East Anglia#Notable academics

I prefer the list layout of the second section. Since there is a separate List of University of East Anglia alumni article, and the first section links to the big list with a {{main}} template, the first section could conceivably get shorter. The purpose of linking from sections to sub-articles is to shorten the sections; see Wikipedia:Summary style. You could suggest this on Talk:University of East Anglia and see what the other interested editors think. It's prudent to discuss removing content from an article before removing it, as removals can be contentious. --Teratornis (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

After glancing at the article, I also wonder if the section University of East Anglia#Faculties and Schools runs afoul of the WP:NOT#REPOSITORY policy, and the guideline WP:EL#Important points to remember (item #3). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)