Help desk
< July 18	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 20 >

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.

July 19[edit]

Collapsing tables[edit]

At {{Two-innings cricket match collapsible}}, I'm trying to make it so that the title row (with the team names) and the scores from each team are shown when the table is collapsed. I'd then want it to display match information between after the first line of scores (and before the second scores), and after the second line of scores.

Whilst collapsed:

11 – 15 December 2008	New Zealand	v	West Indies	Match drawn
	365 (116 overs)		340 (100 overs)
	44/2 (10 overs)

Whilst not collapsed:

11 – 15 December 2008	New Zealand	v	West Indies	Match drawn
Scorecard	365 (116 overs) Daniel Flynn 95 (188) Chris Gayle 3/42 (21 overs)		340 (100 overs) Jerome Taylor 106 (107) Daniel Vettori 6/56 (25 overs)	University Oval, Dunedin
Scorecard	44/2 (10 overs) Tim McIntosh 24* (35) Daren Powell 2/17 (5 overs)			University Oval, Dunedin
New Zealand won the toss and elected to bat.

{{Single-innings cricket match}} shows an example of this working, but without a second innings, if that helps. Thanks - 97rob (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion of incorrect birth date on wikepedia person profile Nivedita Bhattacharya[edit]

I hereby request deletion of incorrect birth date on wikepedia person profile Nivedita Bhattacharya.

The following should be deleted.

Born: July 21, 1970 (age 43), Lucknow

Page LInk: https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nivedita%20bhattacharya

deletable material is in bold Nivedita Bhattacharya Actress NIVEDITA BHATTACHARYA is a renowned Indian actress. She was born in Lucknow, home to legendary exponents of Muslim elegiacal poetry and many eminent littérateurs of Urdu. Wikipedia Born: July 21, 1970 (age 43), Lucknow Spouse: Kay Kay Menon Nominations: Star Guild Award for Best Actor in a Negative Role — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundaryalahiri (talk • contribs) 05:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Soundaryalahiri: This is from Google's Knowledge Graph, which includes information from a variety of sources, not just Wikipedia. The article at Nivedita Bhattacharya currently shows a different birthdate (though there doesn't seem to be a source to verify it). Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced birth date has been deleted as per the policy on biographies of living persons. The word "renowned" has been deleted as overly promotional. The article needs improvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that since Google Knowledge Graph uses Wikipedia as one of its sources [1] it cannot be cited as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preuss filter[edit]

Hello,
Occasionally, when I am patrolling the edit filter logs, I come across a puzzling filter called a "Preuss Filter". From what I can see here, it disallows the text "Joy Richard Preuss Money, Joy Richard Preuss Valuta Powerful Micro Computer is My Manager World News BBC News--Passengerpigeon (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)". What is the reason behind this edit filter? I assume the text was repeatedly inserted into articles, but by whom and why? Passengerpigeon (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Passengerpigeon: In that log entry, click "filter 613" to see the details of the filter. This one is just checking for the use of ~~~~ in an article. It is not looking for particular words or names. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know. The preuss filter is hidden from public view, but I did see it go off in the edit filter log. Passengerpigeon (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A search for "Preuss" in the Wikipedia namespace finds Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Joy Richard Preuss. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This filter is not hidden from public view. As John of Reading says, it checks for new users adding their signature in articles. It adds a tag to histories so that patrollers can go in and remove the signature if there was no good reason for it. The text you saw was tagged because it was signed, not because of anything in the text. This filter does not actually disallow anything, it just adds a tag. SpinningSpark 08:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit filter log for this user shows that they triggered both filters, both 613, signing in articles, and filter 534, the one found by John of Reading above, which does disallow the edit. Passengerpigeon linked the wrong one above. SpinningSpark 08:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

creating a book[edit]

Hello

I apologise for my ignorance.

I would like to create & download a Wikipedia “book.”

I've tried to create a book, by clicking on "Add this category to your book” in order to add all articles in that category to the book. The book I downloaded included the main article, but only the titles of the related articles.

Is it possible to create a book (which includes the other articles, and not only their titles) simply by adding the relevant Category?? Or do I have to add each individual Wikipedia Article to the book??

In advance, I thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.46.223.183 (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It worked fine for me when I just tested it on a fairly large category. Can you please provide more informtion? What category are you trying to make into a book? SpinningSpark 18:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, you'll have to create an account and request confirmed status before you're able to create a book. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not so. Logged out users can create books. There is not a link in the sidebar, but they can go to WP:Books and click "Create a book". SpinningSpark 20:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This will need to be adjusted. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the guideline is correct. An IP cannot save a book (on Wikipedia), but they can certainly create one and download it (whence they can save it locally). SpinningSpark 21:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BeginnerW (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your help. The Category I'm trying to make into a book is Christianity. All I get is the main article on Christianity, followed by pages after pages of a list (titles) of related articles.[reply]

I created such a book at User:Spinningspark/Books/Christianity. As I say, it worked fine for me. The book rendered fine both in Pediapress and as a downloaded pdf. I think your problem is that one of the pages in Category:Christianity is Index of Christianity-related articles which is indeed a list of article names. If you keep on turning the pages of your book you will eventually come to the next article Outline of Christianity. Perhaps you want to remove the index article from your book. You might also like to note that adding a category to a book does not include pages in the sub-categories. Each sub-category has to be added separately if wanted. SpinningSpark 01:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proper depiction of the Argentine flag[edit]

Dear Wikipedia,

Until recently, all or at least most of your representations of the Argentine flag before 1985 correctly referred to the then prevailing "old" flag, i.e. the blue-white-blue triband without the sun, also referred to as the "civil flag" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_flag#mediaviewer/File:Flag_of_Argentina_(alternative).svg), the one with the sun, also referred to as the "war flag" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Argentina#mediaviewer/File:Flag_of_Argentina.svg), having been introduced only in 1985 as the official flag of Argentina (cf. the law of 1985 imposing the sun on all Argentine flags).

It now seems that in several instances, e.g. on articles relating to past sporting competitions, the "old" flag has been removed and replaced with the "new" one, i.e. the depiction of the Argentine flag is being standardized (with the sun) across the spectrum of historical periods without regard to which version was then prevailing. See e.g. the standardized representations of the flag in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina_football_team. Fortunately, this is not the case on all articles, where the flag is (sometimes) still correctly depicted in a differentiated manner depending on the period in question: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89quipe_d%27Argentine_de_football.

I assume the recent changes in the depiction of the Argentine flag before 1985 are due to an incorrect systematic linkage to the "new" flag file instead of to the "old" flag file as used to be the case. Please can someone help fix this "bug" (and restore some historical accuracy)?

Sincerely, Martín — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.180.183.93 (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FLAG says "use historical flags in contexts where the difference matters" giving the difference between the USSR and the Russian Federation as an example. The unstated corollary to that is that historical flags presumably should not be used where there is no difference in the state represented by it. How would you suggest handling articles that span the historical period and the modern period? For instance List of FIFA World Cup finals would have to use two different flags for Argentina in the same list if the historic flag was used. To me, that seems a very confusing thing to do. SpinningSpark 18:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. That would show the US Medal winners in the 1900 Olympics under the 50 star US flag, something that probably didn't exist in the lifetime of most of the competitors.Naraht (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The US flag icon doesn't have enough pixel detail to provide a count of stars. The same flag icon is used for American Civil War and for World War Two, and in neither of them can I count the stars, only recognize that it looks like a US flag. In any case, the purpose of the flag icon is as a symbol of the nation, whether the United States or Argentina, not to define the flag in detail. Argentina is the same nation before and after 1985, just as the United States is the same nation (even with different boundaries) in 1865 and in 1945. As SpinningSpark says, the MOS says to use historical flags only when the difference matters, and in the cases of Argentina and the US in sports, it doesn't matter. (It does matter between the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, replace the United States with Canada which has also changed its flag since 1900 without significant change in boundaries. You'd have the Red and White Maple leaf used to denote the country in the 1900 olympics?Naraht (talk)

Thanks, Naraht, that was exactly my point. Does Spinningspark suggest to use the current South African flag in relation to events dating from before 1994 or the black, red and gold flag for pre-1945 Germany? In most instances Wikipedia correctly distinguishes flags and uses them appropriately in their historical context, why not do so consistently across the spectrum? Regards, Martin Btw, the link List of FIFA World Cup finals correctly depicts two different flags for Argentina (as it does for Hungary and Italy) depending on the period considered. This is a good example of what should be done on all Wikipedia pages, where applicable.

Current Events Portal[edit]

My purpose in writing is to inquire about the use of the Current Events Portal. I am confused because the portal is constantly reporting tragedies and incidents of death, which, although tragic, don't seem to qualify as "current events." In a world of 8 billion people, there are bound to be accidents. It is my opinion that it is unnecessary and irresponsible to look at every single country that exists and report on every single bus that crashes within them.

I would submit that there should be a separate page for tragedies. It is imperative that we celebrate the lives of those who are taken from us early, and that we mourn their deaths, if we are to progress as a race. But to inundate a Current Events Portal with tragic accidents is to ignore the positive things that are happening all over the globe every day.

Wikipedia is something I enjoy, but it is not something for which I can take responsibility, and so I am humble in my suggestion. It may fall on deaf ears and that is okay. I simply feel that the media's preoccupation with death and destruction is a detriment to the human race as a whole.

Thank you for reading.

You might want to discuss your points with the editors of the page at Portal talk:Current events. SpinningSpark 22:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi![edit]

I Am New To Wikipedia, And Am Wondering Where To Begin, And What is Acceptable . Thank You.

See your talk page. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]