Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 January 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help desk
< January 8 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 10 >
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.


Contents


[edit] January 9

[edit] Talk pages.

When starting a new topic in a talk page do you add it above or below the current topics (newest first or last)? I've seen both ways used. Is there a guideline somewhere or is it just go with however its already running? Lando242 01:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The "+" link at the top of the talk page will add a new topic at the end, consistently. I always use that link unless there's a good reason not to, so that's always what I end up doing. --Tkynerd 01:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's almost always at the bottom, unless otherwise specified. delldot | talk 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can I do an article about a Project I'm working on?

Hello, I'm currently working on a cover-album of "The Dark Side of the moon" by Pink Floyd, and I wanted to ask, if it is appropriate to do an article about this Project or if this is considered a misuse of Wikipedia.

The Project is called "The Dark Side of the Net" and is a collaboration of various musicians all over the world, connected via internet, to cover Pink Floyds' "The Dark Side of the Moon"

Thanks in advance

Typhoon84 02:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not free webspace - if you're looking to host a wiki, you can do so by downloading MediaWiki and sticking it on a server. --Wooty Woot? contribs 02:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess that answers my question, thanks Typhoon84 02:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that if and when the project becomes notable under Wikipedia's definition, an article would be appropriate, but not before. --Tkynerd 16:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
As Tkynerd said, if the project has had multiple, non-biased, independent project-centered coverage in newspapers, magazines, or well-known websites (not blogs, etc.), then it might pass notability muster. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies of living persons and the facts that can be in an article

I seem to remember a discussion, if not a guideline, that said something along the lines of "If a person does not want certain aspects of their life written about on Wikipedia, specifically their date of birth, then we have to abide by their wishes" Does anyone know what I'm thinking of? I've looked around but I can't find any reference to this. I know the two sides of the issue were discussed, at least, somewhere here. I just can't remember where. Dismas|(talk) 03:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are right. Please see this page. Xiner (talk, email) 03:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks! Dismas|(talk) 03:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how to edit in wiki

how to edit in wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.187.119.190 (talk • contribs)

If you edited this page, you already know how to edit. Be bold, feel free to ask questions, and have fun! Yuser31415 06:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of trademark symbol

When, if ever, should we add the copyright © or registered trademark ® symbols after a proprietary name within the text? In much printed and online matter, they are often used unnecessarily - for instance more than once in a single document.

Surely if the text is describing the ownership of the copyright by company XYZ, we cannot be open to any charge of diluting the owner's rights?

My example was the Hacky Sack page. Earthlyreason 08:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  • We're an encyclopedia. Using their name here will not effect their ownership. Use it at most once in a document, but don't if you can manage. I think it is covered in the WP:MOS. - 131.211.210.10 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, MOS sensibly says to avoid using the trademark symbols except where necessary to distinguish a trademarked name from its generic equivalent. [[1]] Earthlyreason 11:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content on the discussion page of an article

Posting questions first for ease of intergration into any FAQ-like database.

1. Is there a way to flag content on a discussion tab for examination or peer review in order to get a feel of the general consensus regarding the proposed changes?

2. Are there any sort of rules, informal or otherwise, pertaining to what is included on a discussion page (i.e. the inclusion of personal opinions as opposed to the obvious trolling/flaming behaviours)?

2a. Are there any universal taboos about content on discussion pages even if they are not rules per say, offical or otherwise?

3. Is there a better place than the discussion tab to ask for assistance in regards to finding a citation that is proving difficult to track down or has been forgotten while the info it conveyed has not?

4. (Slightly Off-Topic) Is it safe to presume that internal articles are not always sufficent to be used as a source?

Reasons for Questions

I am new to contributing and as such am hesitant at the moment to make any substantial changes to most articles, limiting myself to small changes such as the addition of the Convair B-36 being the only plane modified to carry the T12 Cloud Maker and the likely orgin of the term baffles as it pertains to submarines. Still, even with these two I am unsure of the quality of the edits (took for granted siting an internal article would count as a citation for the fact about the T12 bomb and the way I cited my source on the baffles page.)

So for the most part, I have been adding comments to the discussion tabs about possible inclusions or changes which lead me to look for any sort of guidlines regarding this. I noticed that some discussion tabs have a letter grade refering to the quality scale and I am unsure if this pertains to the discussion tab itself or is merely were such grades for an article are located. Also, several instances have been suggestions based on personal knowledge void of sources that makes me wish to get a peer review about it or a popular consensus. Finally, I have added my own personal thoughts on matters on these pages that are based on my own feelings on a subject that not only is based largely around opinion but can also get lengthy. My contribution to the sniper discussion for example is as based as much in fact as I can make it but admitedly the majority of it is debatable. It is also made rather ambiguous as to whether such contributions are desired as that particular one follows a comment barely breaking a single line and followed by a bolded sub-heading proclaiming how ridiculous some of the proceding comments are. In between the two is my comment that is roughly 4 and a half to 5 paragraphs long. So for the sake of intergration into a faq like database I will post my questions clearly at the beginning of this query.

--Helioglyph 10:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's take these in turn.
  1. If you add content to a Talk ('discussion') page, and nobody challenges it or responds, it's normally safe to add it to the article after a while (one of Wikipedia's guidelines is Be bold in updating pages); if there isn't a consensus, someone will disagree and revert (change back) your edit, and then you can discuss the matter on the Talk page and there will be a discussion. For more information on this process, you might want to read the essay 'Bold, revert, discuss', which discusses how this method can be used even for controversial changes. Of course, if nobody disagrees, then your change will stay.
  2. The official guidelines are at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Due to the nature of Wikipedia, it's quite likely that any unofficial taboos would be mentioned in the guidelines anyway.
  3. Apart from the talk page, the {{fact}} tag can be added on a part of an article which you think needs a source, or which you want to challenge the verifiability of; for instance, "This sentence is unsourced.[citation needed]". --ais523 10:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Wikipedia doesn't allow itself (or any other wiki, for that matter) to be used as a source; similar articles might, however, provide their own sources which are relevant to the article you're interested in, which you could then consult and reference in the article.
Other points you made: the ratings refer to the articles, and exist to help advise WikiProjects identify where to focus their efforts; and the situation which you described with the subheading is probably undesirable, but not worth fixing. Hope that helps. --ais523 10:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does, thank you very much. I failed to find the Talk page guidelines page you linked so that alone is of great help.
Helioglyph 12:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NAME CHANGE

HOW DO I GO ABOUT CHANGING MY SON'S LAST NAME FROM HIS MOTHERS LAST NAME TO MY LAST NAMEOKIESTEELERS 11:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that's what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. Also, you might like to turn your caps lock off if you want to receive a reply there. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Writing in all capital letters is considered the internet equivalent of shouting. - Mgm|(talk) 11:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bestian Order of Aestheteka

I am writing to enquire why the Bestian Order of Aestheteka entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestheteka%2C_Bestian_Order_of - is up for deletion. We are a legitimate group. The several hundred members that has been 'questioned' would quite like to post their comments concerning whether the page should be Kept or Deleted, but thereisno option for them to do so, unlike the several other Satanic groups which youhave also decided to delete. we are registered in the Slovak Republic as a company entity. our teachings are legitmate and are published in the form of two books - both by Crystal Dreams Publishing in the United States - and by Aestheteka itself elsewhere. As for legitimate links - there were several links to discussion groups, forums and otehr internet entities, due to our globally located membership, yet these have been deleted from the reference page. As for the legitimate existence of the Bestian Order of aestheteka, just do a google on 'aestheteka' and youwill see how substantial both our membership and our coverage is. Please advise - it is hardly non-discriminatory for the refernce to be deletd if its members and adherents cannot comment.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bestian Order of Aestheteka. The reasons given for deletion are that there are no sources (so the article is not verifiable), and no independent coverage (so there is no way to tell that the subject is notable). If you want the article to be kept, your best chance is to find sources independent of the article itself (coverage in newspapers, discussions about it in journals, that sort of thing), and to add them to the article. You can comment on the deletion at the link I gave above, or by following the 'this article's entry' link on the deletion notice, but your comments are likely to be ignored unless you give a reason based on policy; you'll need to answer the verifiability and notability concerns. --ais523 12:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Also note that having a Wikipedia article may not be the best idea if there are no sources, as people could write negative comments about the organisation in the article and they would be visible to the whole world after a Google search, and without sources there would be no proof that the comments weren't true. --ais523 12:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
That "coverage" is illusory. Yes, there are over 9000 hits for the word, but if you exclude Wikipedia and its mirrors, aestheteka -wikipedia, there are less than 1000. Most of the "coverage" is generated by an active campaign of Google-bombing Wikipedia and other sites where a "listing" can be posted by anybody. Jefferson Anderson 21:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image shows on source computer only...

Hello,

I'm new to editing. I recently uploaded a picture with a caption to an article here at wikipedia. When I checked the article away from the computer that I did the editing at, the image didn't appear in the article. I uploaded the image to wikipedia and followed the instructions for uploading, so I'm hoping someone here can help.

So, the image appears in the article when I view the article from the computer I uploaded the image from, and the picture doesn't appear when I view the page from any other computer. I'm sure I made an error during the upload stage...

The article is "Dustin Diamond" of Saved by the Bell fame.

Thanks,

- J —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hempdiddy (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

The image appears for me. Try visiting the article and bypassing your cache (Control-F5 on many browsers; follow the link for instructions for your browser). On the other hand, you did make a mistake uploading the image; you marked it as free use, when the picture comes from a copyrighted website. The only way you could use the picture would be if you could demonstrate the picture to be fair use (see Wikipedia's fair use criteria); so you must provide a detailed rationale according to the criteria or it will be deleted in 7 days (otherwise the image would be a copyright violation). (If you decide that the image doesn't meet the criteria, you can place {{db-author}} on the image page to request its deletion.) --ais523 13:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What Does <br /> Do?

A reply on my talk page would be great, thanks!100110100 13:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(Replying here; will copy the answer to 100110100's talk page) The tag <br /> creates a newline at that point, as you can see from the heading on this question (the original question was 'What Does <br /> Do?'). --ais523 13:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It's known as a self-closing tag that is used in HTML markup to format text in the manner described by ais523. You can read more about its use at http://www.w3schools.com/, which is a nice introduction to HTML basics. When you use it in an edit box, Wikipedia adds it to the markup that is created. - Adrian M. H. 16:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status change when logging in

I remember seeing somewhere that there is a way to change your status when you log in, rather than have to edit your userpage(s). Does anyone know where I can find this? Thanks. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 15:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I've got it now. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 20:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making Wiki!

I want to place a write up of our company history on wikipedia.com. How do I get started? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KevinAFL (talk • contribs) 15:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

First, one minor niggle; Wikipedia's a charity, not a company, so its web address is wikipedia.org (not wikipedia.com, which just redirects here). Writing about your own company is discouraged (see the page about conflicts of interests), because it's hard to stay neutral. One other problem is that many companies aren't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia; see the notability criteria guidelines for companies. If you still want to write the article, though, Wikipedia:Your first article is helpful; also read through the Introduction and Tutorial if you haven't yet, as they'll teach you the basics of editing Wikipedia. --ais523 15:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You should also bear in mind that no article is "owned" - once an article on your company exists, anyone (who follows Wikipedia guidelines) can change it, including your competitors. Above all, Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. Notinasnaid 16:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] non commercial images

Do we have any helpful pages that explain to a non-Wikipedian why we can't use non-commercial images? Specifically I'm trying to explain why we can use {{cc-by}} and {{cc-by-sa}} but not {{cc-by-nc-sa}}. Is this already written up in a simple way that I can point to? — coelacan talk — 16:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, this is 'per Jimbo': [2]. He didn't reference any policy discussion in the mailing list post I've linked. --ais523 16:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Aye, but it has to do with GFDL compatability. All GNU licenses stipulate that commercial distribution is permissible. This is part of the "four fredoms", specifically "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2)."
It doesn't appear that we have anything more explanatory on Wikipedia than WP:ERP#An explanation so I might just pass that link on. — coelacan talk — 16:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at User:Fastfission/Noncommercial. Quite nicely explained — Lost(talk) 16:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, great! Thanks, Lost. — coelacan talk — 16:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other user is changing information on our page to false info - how we stop this from happening?

I work for GGP, the developer of the Bridgeland Community in Texas. Due to trademark issues, we cannot call the community Bridgeland, Texas and must use the proper name Bridgeland Community. We have a visitor to our information page on Wikipedia who has changed the title name from Bridgeland Community to Bridgeland, Texas and we would like to ensure that this person does not do it again, as there are legal liabilities involved. Is there any way to do this?

Thank you.

There may be no gentle way to say this, so I will have to just come out with it: you do not have an information page on Wikipedia. It is not your page: you do not own the articles to which you contribute. Above all, companies and communities have no special rights over articles about them, indeed it is often considered best if they do not contribute to these articles at all, except to point out errors or make suggestions on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to start with as some background on Wikipedia policies. Since it is in no sense a part of or controlled by your company, there can be no legal implications to you if Wikipedia's article name happens to be changed. Indeed, if a place is in Texas, it is recommended that the article says so to avoid ambiguities. So you need not worry about changes to the name of the article. Notinasnaid 16:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
While I agree with Notinasnaid about ownership and conflict of interest, I disagree with the idea that the article's name is somehow irrelevant. The name of an article should correspond to the name of whatever the article is about, period. If this place is called Bridgeland Community, then the article about it -- assuming, BTW, that there really should be one -- should by God also be Bridgeland Community. (Although in this case, I would recommend following Wikipedia's conventions on article naming for geographic places in the US and using Bridgeland Community, Texas.) --Tkynerd 17:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Submit Mountain Photo(s)

I note that the page on Gasherbrum I (Hidden Peak) has no photo of the mountain. I am now in the process of developing a film from photos taken during the 1958 first ascent and would be happy to contribute color/bw image(s) but my slow computer, DSL and brain have thwarted my effort to discover how to do so. Any help/suggestions would be welcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.209.142.21 (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

There's a Upload file link on the left. Xiner (talk, email) 17:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Please refresh your page after submission. Occasionally it may take minutes for changes to show up. Xiner (talk, email) 17:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image help

I'm trying to add this image to the infobox on the Debra Messing article, but no matter what I try, the preview won't show the image. Am I adding it wrong, or is there something wrong at Commons? (If you wouldn't mind, please respond at my talk page). ShadowHalo 18:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linking up entries in different languages

Hi, I translated a site from English to Italian, how do I link them up so that on the bar on the left there are all the languages like normal? Thanks, Aaron Hydroargenium 19:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Just insert in the bottom of the page [[en:English page name]] and [[it:Italian page name]], each preferably on a separate line. Baiji has a lot of examples. And thanks for your contribution! Xiner (talk, email) 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, obviously on the English page you don't need en: and ditto for it: on the Italian page. Xiner (talk, email) 20:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I hope to do more. It's awesome that I can practice Italian, learn about random subjects, and help Wikipedia all at the same time. 81.208.83.250 21:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, there Waipawa (in NZ) is 65km south of Napier (not Hastings as you states), or 42km south of Hastings.

what day is it?

[edit] Why my account made in pt.wikipedia.org doesn't work in en.wikipedia.org?

I've created an account in wikipedia in Portuguese (since I'm Portuguese), but it doesn't work in the English version of the wikipedia, so I had to create another account with the same name but in English. So now I have two accounts with the same name, which is stupid. Is there any option for me to have just one account and manage to edit pages in English and Portuguese? Thanks... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crazy Murdoc (talk • contribs) 19:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Currently we do not support unified logins. Sorry for the inconvenience. Xiner (talk, email) 19:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok man, thanks for the reply Crazy Murdoc 20:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Great, now I have also another account in wiki communs... It should be unified... Crazy Murdoc 21:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The devs are working on it, it should be done pretty soon. See m:Help:Unified login. Prodego talk 22:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad that they'll do it... Good job ;) Crazy Murdoc 10:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allure Magazine

I need to know how to add a NPOV header to the article on Allue magazine - it appears to be an advert for the magazine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.140.240.2 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

In this case the best tag for Allure (magazine) may well be {{advert}}. Just add it before the first line. It would be as well to add it to your watch list so you can assist if the editors have any questions about applying Wikipedia policies. Notinasnaid 20:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization of an article whose subject went by several names

Hey all! At WP:SHIPS, we're having a discussion about categorizing ships that have served in more than one navy, under different names. As an example, take USS Kephart (DE-207), which served in the US Navy and then was sold to the Republic of Korea to serve in their navy. The article is in Category:Republic of Korea Navy ships, but of course it shows up as USS Kephart.

So what's to be done about this? Possible solutions:

  1. Just ignore the problem, which makes Category:Republic of Korea Navy ships less useful
  2. Create a redirect for the new name (Kyong Puk (PF-82)) and put the redirect into Category:Republic of Korea Navy ships, which means that USS Kephart will not have a link to Category:Republic of Korea Navy ships
  3. Create a redirect for the new name, categorize the redirect, and then manually put a link at the bottom of USS Kephart to Category:Republic of Korea Navy ships (see USS Serene (AM-300) for this solution in action)

We could really use some outside input! Is this a problem that other Wikipedians have run into? If so, what did you do about it? In some cases it's possible to split the article in two, like USS Mississippi (BB-23) and Greek battleship Limnos (same ship, two navies), which resolves the problem nicely. However, in other cases the only information about the second navy is "USS x was sold to y and renamed z".

If this isn't the right place to post this, please let me know. Thanks! TomTheHand 20:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You can keep everything in one article, under the name most people will search for it as (the USS name), and put the Korean Navy history in a section of that article. Then create a redirect that links to that section, and categorise the redirect. I think it is correct for USS Kephart to not have a link to the Korea Navy ships category, as it is not a Korea Navy ship. The important thing is to make clear at all points that this is the same ship, just refitted with a different name. Let ma have a closer look at this. You could also try Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Carcharoth 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, what I did was:
  • All the US Navy ship articles are now removed from Category:Republic of Korea Navy ships and instead placed in Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Republic of Korea Navy. It's a long category name, but very clear and understandable.
  • All the Korea Navy ships transferred from the US Navy now have their own redirects, which are categorised at Category:Republic of Korea Navy ships. I used the new 'anchor links work for redirects feature' to link the redirects to the section of the US Navy ship article, as most of the ROKS ships transferred from the US navy don't have articles yet.
Have a play around and see what you think. If/when the ROKS ships get their own articles, the redirects can be updated accordingly (they would be turned into the new article). I'm not sure how many ships the Republic of Korea Navy got from the US Navy under that security agreement, but if they are all listed, and there are lots of normal ROKS ships to write about, then Category:Republic of Korea Navy ships transferred from the United States Navy could be created for people browsing by Korean name and wanting to find that subset of ROKS ships. But for now, that category would largely duplicate Category:Republic of Korea Navy ships. One small point, not all the Korean names are uniform, as I don't really know enough about ship naming conventions, so that might need a little tidying. Carcharoth 01:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Com 215 Written Communication

I need three little messages for an Informative & Positive messages as if I was talking to someone important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.244.66 (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps you should try doing your homework. This page is for help on using the wikipedia. You might want to try one of our reference desk for information related to your assignment, but don't expect anyone here to do your homework for you. —Mitaphane talk 03:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference problem

I have been "wikifying" the references to Daniel Rodriguez article. I didn't write the article, and the creators didn't know how to do anything, so left a big mess. Anyway, I managed to format 34 0f the 36 references with no problem, but two of them refuse to wikify themselves! The ref #s are 26 and 34. I have tried everything, from using cite web/news templates, to doing it manually, and nothing works. I'm at the end of my rope and would appreciate some help with it. Thanks a lot. Jeffpw 20:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed the refs (hopefully got the details right) using Template:Cite web. Hope that helps. Trebor 23:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so very very much! That was driving me batty! Jeffpw 23:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Search

How do i advance search?

Please see Wikipedia:Search. Xiner (talk, email) 21:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PD-Soviet

Hi, I'm from the Hebrew Wikipedia. We too have the above license. I understand it was canceled in Commons. We have several pictures with this tag, most of them from your this wiki. What should we do with them? Thanks, Yonidebest 21:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably delete them unless they're public domain for some other reason; the legal situation of such images appears shaky at best, and both Commons and the English Wikipedia have deleted or retagged the images concerned. If your wiki allows fair use, you might be able to make a fair use claim on the pictures. If the pictures are still on Commons or the English Wikipedia, you might want to check to see which licence they have been changed to and do the same. See Template talk:PD-USSR for more information. --ais523 09:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which Southern State owned the most slaves?

Please help me!!! I cannot find clear info! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.233.187.133 (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi. Please ask such questions at the Reference desk. This is for Wikipedia-related questions only. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 21:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recreation

How do I get a page to link to its history? See

You have [[special:mytalk|new messages]]. ([[Special:Mytalkhist|last change]]).


Gets

You have new messages. (last change).


But It does not link to my talk hist.

Darkest Hour Ж Ж Ж Ж Ж 22:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, without the "edit conflict" screen) While there is no link to the history in the usually "new messages" box, there is a script written by Topaz that lets you change the box to whatever you want it to say. (I came up with the idea, by the way :)...unless someone else did and didn't mention it). See User:Topaz/Wikiscripts and User:Topaz/usermessagechanger.js. –Llama mansign here 20:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I don't think that you can link it to your talk hist, if you were it would be through an external link. But I personally would not advise you to put that "you have new messages" on your userpage since it will greatly confuse the newcomers, greatly. See it through the eyes of the newcomer. Arjun 23:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you have to use an external link. Copy the full URL and single-bracket it ([]). Xiner (talk, email) 23:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] political map of nothern europe

do you have the map of nothern europe that is already filled in?

I'm not sure about the question, but Wikipedia:Reference_desk would be the place to ask. Xiner (talk, email) 23:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Is Image:Northern-Europe-region-map-extended.png what you're looking for? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questioning Nuetrality

How does one go about questioning the neutrality of an article?

Thanks, -Vince Petaccio —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VincePetaccio (talk • contribs) 23:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Check out Wikipedia:Verifiability. Xiner (talk, email) 00:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If you have concerns that an article is not WP:NPOV, the best course of action is to raise these concerns on the article's talk page. --Tkynerd 00:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You might also try to bring it to the attention of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project if there isn't too many people who frequent the discussion page. —Mitaphane talk 03:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need article-namespace sandbox

Is there anything like a "sandbox page" in the main namespace (article namespace)? I'm debugging a template which uses ParserFunctions to cause it to appear differently depending on which namespace it is in. Of course, I'm having trouble with the conditions when it is placed in article namespace. I could not find anything at About the Sandbox to help me. I could create a page named something like Page for testing templates which use ParserFunctions but if there is a better alternative, I'd like to use that. :) Thanks! —DragonHawk (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge no article namespace sandbox exists. Perhaps there is some place you could request to create such a page for testing purposes to have it speedied shortly after. DoomsDay349 00:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Darn, I was hoping I was just missing something obvious. Well, thanks for the quick response. I'll see if anyone at the pump has any ideas. —DragonHawk (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You could always create a subpage of the article or even make the article (because not many would see it, probably only new page patrollers), then leave a note on the talk page explaining the situation. James086Talk | Contribs 04:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)