Help desk
< February 2	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 4 >

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.

February 3[edit]

I have nothing that plays OGG files. Why are the sound files in OGG?[edit]

I have nothing that plays OGG files. Why are the sound files in OGG? Why cannot they be wav or qt or avi or mp3 or similar? OGG, ugh. VERY frustrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.218.236 (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a result of Wikipedia's desire to be a free encyclopedia- Ogg formats are equivalent to most other formats, but are completely free and open for further software development. Some systems do not support Ogg by default, but here's a page that will teach you to get them to work. Liquidluck✽talk 05:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commercially-developed sound formats are usually locked to a select group of a few players and may also be subject to copyright issues, while Ogg's status as an open format means it can be supported by many players. If you're itching to play them Wikipedia should provide a java-based player that works in any modern browser. Downloading an HTML5 compliant browser, such as Firefox should allow you to play the files using an HTML5-based player. I recommend the cross-platform VLC media player if you want a desktop player - it plays pretty much every media format known to man, therefore replacing all the other players you used to use. Xenon54 / talk / 14:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon splitting a page, the talk pages are now linked[edit]

Per a discussion on the talk page, one page was carved into two, and it was decided that the talk page should be linked to the main page. Subsequently, the page Integral_Theory was moved to Integral_(spirituality). Subsequently, the redirect at the Integral Theory page was deleted and the Integral_Theory page was created. Now the two pages share the same talk page. How can this be fixed? Joeperez69 (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez[reply]

When you moved Integral Theory to Integral (spirituality), Integral Theory and its talk page were made redirects to Integral (spirtuality). I replaced the redirect with a talk page header, so you'll no longer be sent to the Integral (spirituality) talk. Cheers! Liquidluck✽talk 05:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks! Joeperez69 (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez[reply]

Date of birth categories[edit]

I am trying to add a biography to a year category, like "Category:1954 births", and the person shows up in that category alphabetized by her first name, not her last name. How do I get it sorted by the last name?--Lunar Dragoon (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SORTKEY. In short, use piping thus: [[Category:1954 births|lastname]], (use the actual lastname where I have written 'lastname', of course). That will be sorted by the lastname. --ColinFine (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added {{DEFAULTSORT}} instead in [1]. That only has to be placed once and is better for biographies. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PrimeHunter. I was vaguely aware of DEFAULTSORT, but I didn't know how to use it. Now I've learnt something! --ColinFine (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need help changing entry name[edit]

Would like to change the entry titled 'Gladstone LNG' to 'GLNG'. The project this page refers to is known as GLNG, which is a registered trademark. There is a similar (but still different) project known as Gladstone LNG, which is also a registered trademark. In short, the title of the page and the URL link to it should be changed to GLNG. I have left a note on the Request a Move page of Wikipedia, but I would appreciate you checking that I have done the right thing there and that the change will be made. Also, the logo that is used is out of proportion. How do I upload a new image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.84.89.149 (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article. I have also removed the "®" from the article, as the Manual of Style says that these should not be present! I will look at the logo in a moment, as there are a couple of things I need to sort out following the move. Incidently, I can't find anything about the other "Gladstone LNG" online, so unless someone wants to make an article on that one, the 'article' currently redirects to GLNG. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help changing the page title. Will wait on assistance with the logo. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.84.89.149 (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To upload a new image, you will need an autoconfirmed account. To achieve this, you will first need to create an account, then wait until your account is at least four days old and you have made at least ten edits while logged in. Once that's done, you can click "upload file" in the menu on the left hand side of the screen (It is the middle link in the very last white box) and follow the instructions. Here's a direct link to upload logos of organizations. Liquidluck✽talk 06:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification on ArbCom amendments to old arbitrations[edit]

Who do you notify when you place an ArbCom motion? I know you notify the involved parties, those who are directly affected. But is it customary to inform all participants in the original dispute? What about those that commented on previous ammendments to the dispute? How about bystanders who have expressed interest in the matter? What's the etiquette?Likebox (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any definitive answer on this, but what I would expect is that the parties involved are notified (as you have mentioned), and anyone else who is interested will probably have one of those pages on their watchlist. If you want to inform those who have commented on previous amendments, as long as the "invitation" is neutral (i.e. "There is an ArbCom motion about user-abc. As you have commented on this user in a previous amendment to the dispute, you may want to have a look at the motion at xxxx") I don't see there is any harm in that. Personally, I would not inform "bystanders who have express[ed] interest" - they are not directly involved, and will probably notice it through changes on their watchlist! However, if someone else can find some 'official' advice on this, please leave a link here, so I can learn about it too! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a particular article or page that is central to the dispute, it might not be a bad idea to note the request there as well, particularly if editing restrictions may be applied to that article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lock a value so people can't edit it[edit]

Is it possible to make a value locked, so only certain people can edit it? We are part of a group that wants to make a Wikipedia value for themselves, unfortunately this group has a strong opposition and last time we tried this the value got defaced and "vandalized" too much, and we couldn't do anything with it, so it got removed.

Is it possible to have only certain people be able to edit the value? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezign (talk • contribs) 14:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "value" I assume you mean an article. Although by default Wikipedia articles are editable by everyone this can change - the article can be protected - as a result of continued vandalism. There are two main levels of protection for existing articles: semi-protection prevents anonymous and new users from editing the article, and under full protection only administrators and above are allowed to edit the article. Remember that articles cannot be protected pre-emptively (i.e. it is not being vandalised at the moment but you are sure it will be in the future) and articles are only protected in cases of vandalism. The last version of an article, not your preferred version, is always protected.

However, you should not really be making an article about your group anyway, as you have a strong conflict of interest. If your organization was notable, in other words "important enough to deserve an article," then chances are you would already have an article. See also the organization FAQ.

Finally, role accounts are disallowed. Accounts are to be used exclusively by one person and cannot be shared under any circumstances. I assume at this point you are simply speaking for everyone in your group, but be aware: if evidence appears to suggest your account is in use by more than one person you are liable to be blocked. Xenon54 / talk / 14:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please also read WP:OWN - no article on Wikipedia is "owned" by anyone. As the notice below the edit box says: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. – ukexpat (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image source URLs[edit]

Several years ago, someone uploaded the image of the University of Miami seal from the university's ftp site and provided the URL on that image's page. We are now going through a GA review, and the reviewer noted that this URL no longer works. I have tried the www.archive.org site, but can't seem to find an archive of the ftp site. Assuming that the original URL was accurate at the time, how should I respond to the reviewer? Racepacket (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a page (http://www7.miami.edu/ftp/umidentity/logos.html) with logos and seals from the University of Miami that should be sufficient. If it's not, then the response should be based on whether or not the issue affects the article meeting Wikipedia's good article criteria. It says that images have to be tagged with their copyright status and contain a valid fair use rationale for non-free content. According to those guidelines, identification of the source of the image (i.e. the University of Miami) is necessary, and a URL is helpful but it doesn't look like it's required. --Mysdaao ^talk 15:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace edits[edit]

How can i see the number of main space edits ive made ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hybirdd (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

X!s tool will show all your contributions broken down by different space (article, talk, user, user talk, etc). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things in text[edit]

Where do i find the page that shows how to use <s></s>, <u></u> and ones i have not encountered yet? Simply south (talk · contribs) (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see This page Hybirdd (talk · contribs) 15:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see HTML element which explains them as well. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ABout Content[edit]

How can I add "international rankings" content to a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesgul82 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which page are you thinking of? That will help us give better guidance. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What just happened?[edit]

How comes half the page disappeared and deleting closing-a-template sorted out? diff Simply south (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was an old unpaired {{ much earlier in the page. The }} you removed looked unpaired but it was interpreted as closing of the earlier unpaired {{, so everything between the old {{ and the new }} was non-displayed template parameters before your edit. I have fixed the open {{ in [2]. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing categories[edit]

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing a tool that would compare two categories and list those articles that were listed in both. Can someone point me to it? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 17:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's CatScan. --Mysdaao ^talk 17:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're a rock star! Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 18:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! --Mysdaao ^talk 20:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to submit photos[edit]

I have pictures of Wilkinsburg Sterlings Football Team 1890's and would like to submit. Grandfather played...Charles Wilford Borland of Wilkinsburg, Pa.

I can identify but, not other members. Have 2-3 pictures and articles. e-mail address redacted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you wish for them to be permanently removed from the page history, email this address. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the photos, have a look at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials which explains how to donate them (although they should be out of copyright). However, we don't appear to have an article about either the Wilkinsburg Sterlings, the Wilkinsburg Sterlings football team or Charles Wilford Borland (Charles Borland is about an American actor). This means that we have nowhere for the pictures to go!

Do you have information which could be used to create an article about these? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the copyright has expired or they are otherwise in the public domain, please consider uploading them to Wikimedia Commons so that they are available for use on all Wikimedia projects. – ukexpat (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they are original photos, they will be PD (copyright is photographer's death+70 years, I think). If they are in a book, it depends on the publication details. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timing for approvals...[edit]

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How long does it take for an article to be reviewed and published? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nroth82 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As everyone here is a volunteer, sometimes it can take a few days! I have not forgotten your request to me (on my talk page) to look at User:Nroth82/Maritz LLC. I've been a bit busy the last couple of days, but I am going to be looking at it later today (I'm currently looking at another article which I was asked to do a few days before your request!). If someone else wants to look at it, make any improvements (or suggest them) and/or move it to article space, feel free to do so - otherwise I will do that later today. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean your request at WP:Requests for feedback for a review of User:Nroth82/Maritz LLC, it can take several days. We are all volunteer editors. There is no requirement that your draft be approved so if you want to move it to the mainspace, go ahead and move it, but leave the tag at the top so that it shows up in the unreviewed articles category. From a very cursory review, the draft does look at little too promotional in tone. – ukexpat (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the quick responses. I understand the need to take time and handling multiple requests. Just wanted to check a timeline. Take your time. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nroth82 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GFE[edit]

In searching "GFE" I found "Girlfriend Experience" ...shouldn't I have also found "Good Faith Estimate" (which is something explaining what one would receive from a mortgage lender when applying for a loan) ...Please help for education purposes *smile* Thank you! Have an awesome day! ...just an Angel in California ^i^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.214.62.202 (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC) \[reply]

Using the search box, if you enter GFE and click search rather than go, you should see GFE in the search results. The second article listed on that page is Good faith estimate. – ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word,best.[edit]

What is the literal translation for the word best, in the Greek language ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Ghartey (talk • contribs) 20:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Language reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Condemnations in Adam[edit]

Attn: Help Desk,

I recently tried to post an article on Condemnations in Adam. Within a few seconds I received an email indicating that my recent post was going to be deleted. Could you help me understand why my post was being considered for deletion, even before it was read by someone at wikipedia? Since I am new, I presume I am the problem. What did I do wrong?

By the way, I was not finished with the article but wanted to get something posted before my time ran out and I was automatically logged out. I have more work to do, but it doesn't make sense to continue if I'm doing something wrong.

I did read the section on posting your first article. It seemed simple. I'm most willing to comply with your format requirement, so please let me know if I am doing something wrong or if I've misunderstood the website entirely. I tried to post this article at Theopedia but it too was rejected for theological reasons.

Sincerely,

El Athon —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Athon (talk • contribs) 20:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First question first - I've wikilinked the article title, for reference. The editor who proposes deletion is concerned that the article is either original research, in that it is your positions and point of view being expressed, or that it is witnessing. From my reading, it looks to be someone's analysis of Condemnation as it relates to the Baptised - though it is unclear whose analysis it actually is. Wikipedia articles must be Neutral and verifiable, backed by reliable sources that document that the subject is notable - the contention here would be that the article has no reliable sources and is non-neutral. It's possible that some of this material is already in an existing article - Original Sin comes to mind, for example - so you may wish to look at improving an existing article, if this one is deleted. Alternatively, if you believe this topic is encyclopedic and can be discussed in neutral fashion, you can userfy the article and work on it in your userspace. I can help with that, if you like.

As for the speed of the notice, we have a new pages list that shows new articles as they are created - and editors who routinely look at them to ensure that they comply with the relevant policies. So, I apologize if the notice seemed a bit bitey, but it appears to be a valid one on the face of it. I can't speak to Theopedia, not being familiar with their policies - but if this article is your research, as opposed to information found in scholarly works and other reliable sources, then it might not be suitable for Wikipedia, either. Have a look at our policies, linked above, and see what you think. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions show only a few edits. If you are new to Wikipedia, be aware that few new users could know enough about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to be able to write new articles that "stick". It's better to edit existing articles and read our friendly manuals before attempting to create entirely new articles. Wikipedia deletes thousands of articles, most of them contributed by inexperienced users; see Deletionpedia for 60,000+ examples. Experience shows that when you have accumulated an edit count of 500 to 1000 more, you will have a better idea of what it takes to write new articles here. You may wish to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion or one of the related WikiProjects. If you need time to develop an article before going "live" you can edit on a user subpage, like: User:El Athon/Sandbox. Also see Category:Religion on WikiIndex where you can probably find a wiki sympathetic to your views. --Teratornis (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation of direct quotes[edit]

Hi there, I've recently gotten into a discussion with another editor on whether direct quotes need immediate citation, or if they can all be cited together at the end of the paragraph if they're all from the same source. You can see the issue at this dif where he put in citation needed everywhere a direct quote was used, despite all of the quotes coming from the program cited at the end of the second paragraph. Is he correct? I think it would look quite silly having the same ref numbers put into four consecutive sentences. TastyCakes (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes always need a citation directly afterward, regardless of whether they are contentious. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." You might also like to take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources#When quoting someone. Liquidluck✽talk 00:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks. TastyCakes (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation / Evidence[edit]

When a citation has been requested for a statement, but has not been provided, can an individual confirm as a witness instead?

For example, in the entry for John Lennon's "Woman is the Nigger of the World" song, it is stated that the version of the song on the album "Shaved Fish" has been edited by the removal of one verse. A citation has been requested for this.

Thing is, it doesn't matter if someone else has ever published this fact in a book or not - it is a fact - you can go listen to the original version and then go listen to the "shaved fish" version - the proof is in the pudding as they say.

So the question remains, if the evidence is there for all to see, hear, witness, is that not equal to a second hand citation?

217.42.188.161 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no. Wikipedia has a policy against original research, since what is obvious to one person may not be obvious to another. Therefore, we rely on reliable sources, such as newspapers, books, and magazines to publish information which can then be incorporated into the article. Liquidluck✽talk 00:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here's the deal. If its so obvious, as you say, someone wrote about it before you did. A 30-year-old song is likely to have been noticed by someone, and you just need to find that notice. A John Lennon song doubly so. Many many volumes of books have been written about the man and his work. I am certain someone wrote about this if it is true. --Jayron32 03:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]