Help desk
< September 28	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 30 >

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 29[edit]

I Want a Phrase to Link to an Article[edit]

I want "London Sci-Fi Film Festival" (with brackets) to link to this article" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_sci_fi_film_festival because whenever I try it it shows up as a red link. How do I change it so it accepts the phrase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.103.169 (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use the code [[Sci-Fi-London|"London Sci-Fi Film Festival"]], which makes "London Sci-Fi Film Festival". The stuff after the pipe (|, shift+backslash) is what shows up, before that is the name of the article to be linked to. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 01:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

essay[edit]

how do the deeds of our war veterans have contributed to the freedom you have today —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.89.25 (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a homework question and we don't do your homework for you. – ukexpat (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many if not most political boundaries on the world map resulted from wars. For example, the former Northwest Territory of the United States could possibly have ended up as part of Canada, had U.S. forces suffered defeat in the Battle of Fallen Timbers and other campaigns. Had that occurred, millions more people in what is today part of the U.S. might have health insurance. All seriousness aside, the degree to which your current political freedom depends on military prowess depends very much on where you live. Democracies such as the United Kingdom and Israel have fairly recently fought wars for their very survival. The United States, on the other hand, enjoyed a much greater degree of geographic isolation from foreign anti-democratic regimes, and had to fight its bloodiest war with itself. If you are an African American, then you directly owe your freedom to the deeds of abolitionists and civil war veterans on the Union side. On the other hand, former slaveowners lost their freedom to own slaves. Native Americans also suffered as a result of other actions of U.S. military conquest. See for example Trail of Tears. --Teratornis (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

computer syntax[edit]

I've noticed in some templates, templatequotecite is used, for example, [1]. In this case, it's used with other computer syntax. So I was wondering, what does this do, and how it works with other syntax, not just in the case that I linked above. Thanks, and a reply on my talk page or just to let me know you've replyed here with a linke would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again!Assdga (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a CSS class used in the formatting of {{quote}}. Here are the relevant definitions from MediaWiki:Common.css:

/* Styling for Template:Quote */

blockquote.templatequote { margin-top: 0; }

blockquote.templatequote div.templatequotecite { 
    line-height: 1em;
    text-align: left;
    padding-left: 2em;
    margin-top: 0;
}

blockquote.templatequote div.templatequotecite cite {
    font-size: 85%;
}

These have the effect of adjusting the appearance of the contents of the template when rendered. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 04:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How A7 is meant to be interpreted[edit]

Hey, I was reading A7, which is as follows:

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.

However, I've seen it used when an article asserted its notability but it still didn't meet guidelines. So is the rule meant to allow speedy deletion of what is not notable, or just what does not make a claim to notability? Chris Picone! 03:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if it's the latter (which I suspect it is), what do I do about it if I saw something like it? (The particular example I'm looking at is Conserve School which last time I checked (albeit a year ago) it had multiple independent sources that at least attempted to claim notability. Not to mention that notability for schools is pretty lax if I recall correctly. Chris Picone! 03:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be notable, and make assert that notability. I thought that notability for schools was more strict. Regardless, that's a good speedy tag, IMO. Grsz ^talk 03:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm confused then. Why would there ever be a discussion on AFD for an article's notability if you can just delete any article you feel is non notable? Chris Picone! 04:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can't. That's why there are discussions. Grsz ^talk 04:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how I read A7 - to survive A7 an article merely has to indicate importance or significance and that is a lower standard than notability. Afd is the forum for discussion of deletion for lack of notability. – ukexpat (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, A7 is used when the article does not state why the subject is notable. If the article asserts notability, it cannot be speedy deleted, but instead deferred to WP:AFD for some actual discussion. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles don't have to be notable and assert it in order to survive A7; they just have to assert it. But see the original questioner's phrasing: "... give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable". I have seen A7-nominated articles whose creators have obviously tried very hard to assert notability but have failed, generally because their assertion is not specific enough. "X is an important public relations firm" may not be a valid notability assertion for avoiding SD, but "X is the biggest public relations firm in China" probably is, particularly if it's backed with a credible citation. The fate of a speedy deletion request rests with the admin who picks it up, and it's a fact that flawed requests do get made and accepted. (This is particularly true of G1, patent nonsense.) However, I've seen plenty of speedy requests declined by admins, including A7s where notability may not be established but is definitely asserted. If there's doubt, it's better practice to prod an article or take it to AFD rather than trying a speedy request, and it's certainly more courteous to the author. And if there's been a genuine attempt to assert notability but it's flawed, why not spare a few moments to look for evidence to improve it? Ka renjc 11:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunately quite common for CSD taggers (not uncommonly, new users) to not understand the difference between showing notability and asserting notability. I decline A7 nominations every week for this very reason. (see e.g., this 4 day old diff and please excuse the edit summary typos). Although there have been admins too who don't quite get it, remember that just because an article is tagged doesn't mean the article will actually be deleted on the stated basis.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations[edit]

I am working on an article and this line continues to appear above it. I have cited everything that needs it could you please tell me how to remove it?

"This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.148.151 (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from Catherine Gross - you could have done so too. I also cleaned up some of the other formatting, but it does still read like a PR piece. – ukexpat (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion log mystery[edit]

Hello. I created Typo Eradication Advancement League which has now been deleted. I think speedy deleted, even though I put a {{hangon}} tag in it. I was planning to improve the page, but didn't get round to it in time, I guess. My question is, why can't I find it in the deletion log? Robinh (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it without trouble at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&page=Typo_Eradication_Advancement_League (also by clicking on the red link above). —teb728 t c 09:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, teb. But I wanted to see the content before deletion. The reason for all this is that I disagree with the assessment on notability. The TEAL did satisfy the conditions for notability, as I said on the talk page just after the deletion flag was added. And the page was deleted before I had any chance to improve it in any case. There was no discussion, just a speedy delete. So, next question: is there an appeals process? The case didn't merit speedy deletion, IMO. Robinh (talk) 11:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of deleted pages are only visible to administrators. The deletion log is just the notice that the page was deleted. It's displayed at Typo Eradication Advancement League while the page is deleted and permanently at [2]. See Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? The first step if you disagree with deletion is usually to contact the deleting administrator, in this case at User talk:Seicer. You can ask for a userfied version of the deleted page so you can work on references to show notability. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that adding {{hangon}} and comments on the talk page do not put the process on hold. The reviewing admin will read your comments, but is free to delete the article despite the hangon. – ukexpat (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. I'll have a word with Seicer (it's not obvious that this is the first step until one has it pointed out!). I thought that {{hangon}} did mean to delay a speedy, at least for a little while. Evidently not enough time! OK, I'll speak with Seicer. Cheers, Robinh (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first step seems fairly obvious in Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?#What you can do about it, but one would have to find one's way to that page and read the instructions. Wikipedia would be ergonomically better if it required users to demonstrate some basic awareness of Wikipedia's article deletion process before allowing users to create new articles. Instead the design principle seems to be: let anybody do whatever they want, and then clobber them if it didn't magically conform to all the rules they hadn't yet heard of. --Teratornis (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of adding Why was my page deleted? to the See also section of {{Notabilityguide}} which is transcluded on many article advice pages, including WP:YFA. – ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

could wikipedia help summerize information for homework purposes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saihou Sillah (talk • contribs) 14:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you're struggling to find relevant information on wikipedia, we'd be glad to help and if you can't find information on wikipedia or google, you can always try the Reference desk. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I also must warn you that teachers may think Wikipedia is unreliable. A smarter thing to do would be to study the references used. Use that as a starting point. 903M (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be linked to other pages[edit]

Hi,

I would like to know how can I link my page to other wiki pages? e.g. Whenever someone wikis "Food", there would be a reference link that directs them to my page " First Flavor'. thank you!

blessings joyce Joycech (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi - if i understand your question properly, you probably need to get acquainted with this policy regarding external links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOSPAM#External_link_spamming

hope that helps Sssoul (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the rules here don't allow what you'd like to do; we only need links to the best available information on a subject, and our rules don't allow us to create links to our own web sites. As you can imagine, with millions of users, if we allowed this, our articles would soon become too cluttered with advertising links to be useful as encyclopedia articles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a page in need[edit]

Resolved

vandalism reverted and vandal cautioned. – ukexpat (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i just happened to come across this page while looking for something else: Davenant Foundation School it looks like it's been subjected to repeated vandalism for several days; i lack editing gizmos to revert it all in one fell swoop and am unsure where to report it, so ... so here i am. hope someone can take care of it, and/or let me know where to report repeated (but not currently-in-progress) vandalism in need of reversion. thanks Sssoul (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done I fixed it and cautioned the vandal. – ukexpat (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a user/IP address is consistently vandalizing, you should warn them first. If you get to a final warning (if it's really bad, you don't actually have to go through all the warnings before anything happens; use your discretion with that) and they still do not stop, report them at WP:AIV. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 19:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks - i do know how to revert single instances of vandalism, how to leave warnings, report current vandalism etc, but that page had been hit on a number of times in a row, so i wasn't sure how to undo all of them at once, or whether there was one vandal or a series of them. thanks Ukexpat for sorting it out. Sssoul (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Reverting. Ukexpat reverted to the 8 August version. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP: CSI layout problem[edit]

Resolved

– PeterSymonds (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just migrated WP: CSI's new layout and something is not right, I can't get it to show the participants that have joined since April. see right panel's source, their names are on there but they just won't appear. HALP?--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 16:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been resolved Yamanbaiia? I can see all the names on the source. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I purged the project's main page. That seemed to work to cause all the names to show. Laenir (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine now, the right panel was probably taking the slow train into the main page (?). Thanks for taking a look!--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 19:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Glad it got resolved. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to add the {{WikiProject Footer}} to the bottom of that page to add a purge link. -Optigan13 (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posting HTML-3 Logo on Home Page.[edit]

Resolved

I tried asking this at the village pump, but someone told me to ask here.

I notice how people often put signs up on their home page, like "I'm part of the Help Page Patrol" or "I can run C compilers". I have researched and found that there is a category of users who know HTML, specifically Level 3. How do you post such signs on your home page, specifically this one for me.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMathinator (talk • contribs) 19:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Userboxes and {{User HTML-3}}. If you wonder how something was done on a page then click edit to see the source. But it may be hard to see what was done if a template has been substituted. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)By "Home page", I'm assuming you mean your user page - yours is at User:TheMathinator, for example. What you're seeing are called "userboxes", and the one in particular you're looking for should be {{user html-3}}. Hope this helps! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys! I put some userboxes! TheMathinator (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amusing that Jimbo Wales did not like userboxes in 2006, but they are one of the most popular features on Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:20080920 Cubs Win flag on pennant clinching day.jpg[edit]

Resolved

Why won't Microsoft Paint open Image:20080920 Cubs Win flag on pennant clinching day.jpg so that I can crop it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~It works for me.~~ I have version 6.0 Windows Vista Home Premium. Try downloading it again. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was testing the 800×532 version. The full resolution also fails for me in Paint. I don't know why. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It failed for me when I saved it to my desktop and tried to open it from there. But I was able to copy it from IE to the clipboard and paste it into Paint. —teb728 t c 00:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That worked.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FALSE INFORMATION APPEARS ABOUT OUR POLITICAL PARTY[edit]

Thanks for the opportunity to address our problem. I am the National Communication Director for the National Party South Africa (NP).

Someone published incorrect information about our political party in an attempt to stain the good reputation of our party.

The information says that we are attracting mostly white Afrikaners as voters. By doing this the person who posted that info tries to attach as to a right-wing label. That is certainly not true. If you check our LEADERSHIP button on our official website www.nationalparty.co.za then you will notice that 80% of our leadership is actually non-white. Will you please remove that incorrect statement about our membership. You will also see that if you check our media statements button, that we clearly confirmed that we attrack many black voters instead.

The writer also by purpose states that Badih Chaaban is a deputy leader/chairman of our party. That is not true. Chhban is a politician here in South Africa with a very bad reputation. He is not involved in our party. Once again, you welcome to check our leadership button where you will find he is not involved in this party. Will you please remove that slander.

I am sure you will check the links on our website and correct this.

Regards Juan-Duval Uys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.3.7.209 (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can change it yourself if you'd like; Wikipedia may be edited by almost anyone. Please read WP:5 and WP:EDIT before you do, however. Also, please note that unsourced material can and should be removed from Wikipedia; see WP:RS. Further, you may have a conflict of interest that will be problematic if you do not carefully source your additions or give clear reasons why things should be deleted. The party's website is NOT a neutral source. Tan | 39 22:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does, by any chance, this article refer to this? Similar origins but different date and abbreviation (NP/NNP vs. NPSA). I suspect it's yes, so I'm tempted to redirect the article. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starting an article versus developing a section of an existing article[edit]

I started an article on Elm Bark and another editor re-directed it to the Uses section of the Slippery Elm article. I am wondering what the rule of thumb is for when to create a new article and when to add to a section of an existing one? The particular article is not big deal to me, I just wanted to try starting a new article. Can anyone make any suggestions of where to learn about that?Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are meant to follow summary style. That is, when a topic is inextricably related and relevant to some parent topic (the bark of a tree is such a topic, needing always to be from that tree. A CEO of a company is not, since he can do things outside that company), it should be contained in the parent topic's article. Only when it takes up too much of the article should it be given its own. It's often just an editorial judgement when this should happen, but there is some guidance in the policy on undue weight. Basically, no article should dwell excessively on any one aspect of the topic. If you should find, for example, that 70% of the article on Elm is about the use of its bark, it's a sign that either a new article should be spun off, or that the rest of the article should be beefed up with more content. But I will agree with the editor who redirected your article; a single sentence is not enough for a new article when it fits right in on a parent article. Now, if you're saying that you weren't actually finished with your article, you could consider placing {{Construction}} on the page to let other editors know this, or create a draft of the article in your userspace (like User:Elmmapleoakpine/Sandbox) and move it when you're done. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someguy- Thank you for answering my question. I wasn't actually done with the article and i thought that I put the construction thing on the article correctly. However, I can see from what you said that there is no need to start a new article in this case. Can you tell me where I can find a list of the Wikipedia policies? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the shockingly large lists of policies and guidelines at Wikipedia:List of policies and Wikipedia:List of guidelines, respectively. And I wouldn't remember where hardly any of them were if I didn't make an effort to answer questions here! Someguy1221 (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upload images[edit]

I was trying to upload an updated version of Image:Conscription map of the world.svg. However, I noticed that the image is on Commons. So if I'm not wrong I should upload it there and not on Wikipedia. However, I don't have an account there (my SUL account doesn't work in commons because there's already a user with no edits with the same username). I also tried in vain to search for the page were I can request for usurpation. Could someone direct me? I've never worked with images before. Thank you. And one more question. I understand that SVG is preferred for graphical images, however it seems that SVG images are much heavier (several MBs) than other formats. So what's the benefit? Eklipse (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking for commons:Commons:Changing username#Current Usurpation requests. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yhank you. But I still don't know how to upload an updated version of an image and not a duplicate. Eklipse (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Links[edit]

I was just wondering if I can link to a Wikipedia article in my signature. I think so, but I just wanted to be sure. Thanks, Genius 101^{Happy Botswanian IndependanceDay!} 23:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Signatures#Link. Use your best judgement, I suppose; it's pretty vague. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do Wiki Projects Work[edit]

I signed up for a project on New York roads and I am clearly way over my head. Can someone direct me to a place where I can learn more about how they work? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:WikiProject. It includes some more links to pages that might be useful. If you want help with a particular wikiproject, ask at the Wikiproject's talk page or any of its experienced members. Cheers. Chamal ^Talk ± 00:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A project is merely a collection of participants. If nobody responds to a ressonable new section on the talk page, then the project is essentially dead. You may try to resurrect it by placing messages on the participant's talk pages. You may discover that you have become the de facto new "leader" of the project. Welcome to Wikipedia: anarcy in action. -Arch dude (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]