Help desk
< October 17	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 19 >

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.

October 18[edit]

Italic titles[edit]

What am I doing wrong here? I think I'm using the Italic title field for the album infobox correctly but it doesn't seem to be working. Dismas|^(talk) 03:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The parameter has been commented out.[1] It's discussed at Template talk:Infobox album. The template documentation should probably be updated. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Yeah, the documentation is what led me to believe that it would work. Dismas|^(talk) 03:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Placing a picture across a Wikipedia article in different languages[edit]

I would like to know how to place the original and accurate logo of a company in all the articles describing this company across Wikipedia pages in different languages. I already uploaded and placed the correct file on the article of the English Wikipedia, and my question is: Is it necessary to upload the file again on each Wikipedia language versions, or does it exit the possibility to in some way "link" (and therefore place) the image from the English version to all languages versions of this particular Wikipedia article?

80.254.147.132 (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you would have to upload it to each language's version of Wikipedia. For something that had a free license, you could just upload it once to Wikimedia Commons. But logos aren't free, so they can't go on Commons. Dismas|^(talk) 08:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Free" logo

Some logos can be "free" in the sense that they are too simple to be copyright protected. If the logo to which you refer only consists of geometric shapes and text, it could possibly be uploaded to Commons. That said, the AkzoNobel logo does meet the threshold of originality and is therefore not acceptable on most language versions of Wikipedia (possibly only on en.wikipedia). Regards, decltype (talk) 08:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brights Grove, Ontario[edit]

The article and use of grammar suggest the title should contain an apostrophe. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using Google to judge popularity, "Brights" is used slightly more (13,000 hits vs. 10,000) than "Bright's". Take that as you will. I don't see anything like an official town web site though, so I can't say how the town refers to itself. Dismas|^(talk) 08:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some countries - but I'm not sure if it's true of Canada - the postal service is an authorotative source for the correct spelling of a place name. Roger (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a definitive name. The City of Sarnia use both styles on their website (e.g. [2]). Canada Post seems to prefer the apostrophe ([3]) when I looked up the address of Brights Cove Golf Club ([4]). Note that the golf club itself uses no apostrophe in their name, but uses an apostrophe in their address! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 10:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for help from the Canada WikiProject. See Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Place name spelling problem. Roger (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics Canada maintains a Standard Geographical Classification of placenames in Canada, though it often contains errors. A better source is the Geographical Names Board of Canada. For Ontario, GeoNames Ontario provides an alternative resource (index of entries). For this particular example, the listing indicates that there is no apostrophe. Mind matrix 15:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be appropriate to show "Bright's Grove" as an alternate spelling, ie, "Brights Grove (alternately, "Bright's Grove")....." PK T(alk) 18:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given how minimally sourced it is, I'm not convinced that we actually need a separate article about the place, as opposed to just a redirect to Sarnia, Ontario, at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image covering prose[edit]

At this article section, there's an animated map showing the dates various states joined the European Union. On the article's talkpage an editor has raised an issue with the image and Firefox, which I've also confirmed: the image can cover some of the article text. I had to resize Firefox to get this to happen, and it doesn't seem to occur in Chrome. I had a feeling that this was a known issue, and that there was an easy fix; however, I was thinking about bunching which seems to be an entirely different issue.

Help! TFOWR 13:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FF 3.6.8, working fine at the moment, even with resize. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media archealogy[edit]

I've tried to edit and add pages and all my content always gets deleted. It's too complicated.

But, because I enjoy wikipedia and find very useful information, I thought I'd suggest that someone there add an entry for "Media Archeaology." It's an emerging, cutting edge approach. A pretty good description can be found here:

http://traumwerk.stanford.edu/archaeolog/2007/12/between_media_archaeology_and.html

Thanks.

Angie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.95.118 (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could suggest this at Requested articles, specifically the Archaeology section. Include that web address and any others you can find. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But unless it has already been written about in multiple reliable independent sources, it is unlikely at present that an article would meet Wikipedia's criteria of notability, so any such article would likely be deleted.

As to your contributions being deleted: since you are posting without an account, we can't find those in the history to give you any advice (the only previous edits from the IP address you used for this posting were in 2006). This is one of many reasons to get an account. But the most common reasons for good-faith edits being reverted is that no reliable source has been provided for the changed information; or that a change was made without leaving any rationale either in the edit summary or on the talk page for the article being edited. --ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use image of a fictional character, used to illustrate the actor (deceased)[edit]

Hooray! Two help desk posts (almost) in a row. It's cool, I'm a newbie and know very little about this 'ere Wikipedia thingy. ;-)

OK, Simon MacCorkindale was an actor (he died a few days ago). He played Harry Harper in a UK TV series. His article has, in the infobox, a fair-use image of Harry Harper. Now, my question is: is this OK? I understand that obtaining a free image may now be problematic - does that impact this at all?

Help! TFOWR 14:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but I've found a couple of points in the archive: (1) Yes, it is more OK than before (see here) but (2) Since the photo is of the character that may not be enough (see here). -- John of Reading (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, interesting - thanks. My reading of that is that a fair use image would be OK, but this particular fair use image would probably not be (this image is owned by the company that made the series MacCorkindale appeared in, and owns the rights to the character). Better safe than sorry, so I'm going to remove the image for now. TFOWR 15:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD Vs WP:AfD[edit]

Resolved

If I think an article needs to be deleted but it's not a WP:CSD candidate, then when should I use WP:PROD and when should I use WP:AfD? — Fly by Night (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's likely to be uncontroversial, try a prod. You can't use prod if it's likely to be controversial, e.g. if a previous prod has already been contested (removed), or if there's evidence that one or more editors would contest the prod - i.e. they've stated on, say, the article's talk page that they consider the subject notable. TFOWR 14:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I search for previous PROD nominations? If it's a new article then surely the article's creator would contest the nomination. Does that mean I should try for an AFD instead? — Fly by Night (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article's history will show prods. I think I've only ever prod-ed new articles, so don't assume that the article's creator will contest a prod - sometimes the prod serves to show them what's expected of articles by way of notability, so they learn from it and accept the prod. Obviously, discussing the issue with the editor first is the best way - it may be that if you raise your concerns with them they'll be able to address them. TFOWR 14:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've prod-ed many new articles. A fair number of those articles were either created by corporate accounts, autobiographies, etc., and the prod was never contested. In fact, only a handful have actually been contested. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 14:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:PROD and WP:AfD are not either/or alternatives. You can start with a prod, and then, if the prod is contested, go on to nominate the article at AfD to determine wider consensus. Lots of AfD discussions say "Contested prod" in their opening. Or, if you think a prod is a waste of time because it is likely to be contested, you can just go straight to AfD. It's your call. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've Prod-ed the article. Does it seem to have been the right call to you guys/girls? I find it a bit silly that anyone can remove {{prod}} and the process is over. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks OK to me. It isn't really silly, if you think about the context - prod is to assess whether deletion is uncontroversial - it deletion is controversial, then there should be a discussion. Prod is really a way of seeing if there's any point to having an AfD: there's no point taking it to AfD if everyone agrees beforehand that the article should be deleted ;-) TFOWR 15:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! — Fly by Night (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hide[edit]

Resolved

how to hide something like here-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsible tables - in this case there's a template ({{Monopoly board detail}}) which has a collapsible table. Collapsible tables are pretty straightforward: if you're OK with tables in general you should be fine with collapsible ones. Stealing shamelessly from the table documentation I linked to earlier:

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
! Header
|-
| Content which starts hidden
|-
| more hidden content
|}

Gives:

Header
Content which starts hidden
more hidden content

TFOWR 17:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done thx-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rica Takashima[edit]

I have created an article, but am unsure if I need to do something else for it to be published. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:X1&oldid=390111032

I made it a few days ago and simply assumed it had to be reviewed before going live, but now I'm not so sure. Is there a next step and if so, what is it? Thank you for your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastian122 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the text to User:Sebastian122/Rica Takashima where other editors will be able to review it more easily. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no formal process: you can simply move the article to main space when you think it is ready. However, if you do this before other people think it is ready, it may quickly get nominated for deletion. --ColinFine (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, you need to add third-party references to the subject, to prove its notability. Rojomoke (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be taken down[edit]

Under the page of 'self-harm' there is a picture of self inflicted cuts on a persons fore arm. This should be taken down because seeing a picture of such things has been known to trigger cutters to cut. So, please, to just put a little help towards those who need it, if anyone knows how to take down that picutre please do so.

Thank You, Amber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.96.11 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read WP:NOTCENSORED. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

media description page[edit]

I uploaded an image but didn't see, or maybe skipped over, the "media description page." How do I find that page for my image? LadyDedlock (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To see the "media description page" follow this link File:Troygould.gif. The message about this file on your talk page is because, so far, the logo is only being used on your user page and not on any article within the encyclopedia.

Your user page is being used to construct an article about a legal firm. If you are in any way connected with that firm then you should read the Wikipedia guidelines on conflict of interest and advertising. The text in its current form cannot be used as a Wikipedia article because it does not include any reliable sources, independent of the firm, that demonstrate that the firm is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a directory. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adderllin[edit]

A few months ago I tried to create a wikipedia for my own supplement. I copied information from my own website and then I received an e-mail saying that I was copying someone else's work.

I am the owner of Adderllin LLC My website is www.adderllin.com

Please contact me at XXXXXXX for the information on how to go about making the wikipedia.

Thank you. Thomas Lartin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlartin (talk • contribs) 23:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section header to your question and removed your email address to protect you from spammers. Help Desk questions are answered here.

Please read WP:COI and WP:Notability. It is not recommended to write an article about a subject to which you have a personal connection. If you do so anyway, you must try to write it from a neutral point of view, and provide reliable independent references for any facts. Rojomoke (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rojomoke didn't answer your question about copyright. If you own the copyright to something you may release it under a suitable licence so that Wikipedia can use it; but there are strict conditions on the licence you use and the procedure for doing so: see WP:IOWN. But the points Rojomoke makes are more relevant to you than questions of copyright. --ColinFine (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrupt file?[edit]

There's a picture of my cousin where the Wikipedia logo should be in the upper left-hand corner. How do I get the logo back?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try to bypass your cache. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just on your userpage, is there a possibility your cousin edited that page? The Wikipedia logo can be changed there, by someone who know's what they are doing. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitable heading color[edit]

What's the six digit color code for the default background in the header of wikitable. It's used on many templates including the common Template:Navbox. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same. The default for the wikitable class is #f2f2f2. The default for {{Navbox}} is #ccccff. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The color of table headers is different than the color of Template:Navbox's background. The background color of a table header is #F2F2F2, while the background color of the regular cells are #F9F9F9; the background color of Template:Navbox is the latter, not the former. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just a tip: If you're interested, you can download the program "GetColor!" off of the internet for free for Windows. This program allows you to use an eyedropper tool to detect the color of anything on your screen. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the replies. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]