Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 February 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help desk
< February 28 << Jan | February | Mar >> March 1 >
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] February 29

[edit] Wikipedia:Images

Is Wikipedia:Images a wikipedia policy page which should be followed like NPOV or it is an advisory page? Farmanesh (talk) 02:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an editing guideline, and I'm about to tag it as such. Our actual policies are listed here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, so if it is not policy then no need to exactly follow it and it is subject to users understanding of the matter? Is there somewhere which says how binding an editing guideline is?Farmanesh (talk) 02:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
As the tag says, all guidelines should be treated with common sense, and in the occasional situation where common sense tells you to do something else, you can be bold and ignore them. Is there a particular situation in which you feel this guideline should be ignored? Most of it seems fairly sensible to me. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive; you may ignore it, of course, providing that you give good reasons. :) You might see also Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not a question, but can't figure were else to alert Wikipedia

Resolved.

The article on George Gershwin has been vandalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.252.179 (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed now. Dr.K. (talk) 02:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
In the future, you can revert vandalism yourself - click that link to see how. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, be BOLD! If you see something wrong, don't be afraid to fix it! Mr Senseless (talk) 03:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Processing Data Dumops into MySQl

Hi,

Could anyone guid me through steps which I should follow to load one of the data dumps into a database. I know It is a common task which is applied in lots of research papres. I tried to do it but it seems a bit complicated and now I think it might involve sw which I am not aware of.

I downloaded one of the dumps and extracted the zip file. The result is a notepad file. When ever I try to open the file it says that the file is too large for notepad use anothe editor.

Any comments and helps are highly appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazks (talk • contribs) 13:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • See WP:DUMP there is a section there that helps with importing the data. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Javascript

I don't know if it is better to ask this here or the reference desk. So I chose here. Please tell me of I have made a bad decision.

I want to ask if it is by all means possible to use javascript in Wikipedia? Visit me at Ftbhrygvn (Talk|Contribs|Log|Userboxes) 14:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

But if you meant, "Is it possible to use it in pages?", then no. You can use scripts to enhance or change how you use Wikipedia (e.g., Twinkle), but only administrators can make JavaScript changes that would be applied to everybody else. Just to clarify it. • Anakin (talk) 17:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] multiple wiktionary links in one box

I have been having trouble interwikilinking on the article screaming to various words in wiktionary. How do you do it properly? Help?CholgatalK! 16:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For that, you’ll need to use a different template, {{Wiktionarypar}}, which accepts multiple parameters. —Travistalk 16:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verification

I work with a band whose page has a notification that it needs verification (VAYDEN). We are mid-press campaign and i dont want the page to get deleted before I have more to add to it that would verify it.

If it is in danger of deletion, can you please email me at [email blanked for privacy] If you want to verify that they are a real, signed band, you can check out our page www.bigmachinemedia.com in the clients section.

Thank you, Jamie Roberts —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneSane (talk • contribs) 16:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to Vayden. I read the article and it does not appear to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for bands and will probably be deleted because of that. I will also point out our conflict of interest guideline as you clearly have some relationship with the band. Thanks —Travistalk 16:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
See wikiindex:Category:Music for other wikis which have more lenient requirements for articles than Wikipedia does. You can probably find another wiki specializing in music where you can develop your article. If and when you get your article into encyclopedic shape, you can try again on Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
As an impartial observer who has no relationship with the band and who has read articles on other bands, I would say the article is just as encyclopedic as any other band with a similar amount of notability. I would like to give it time before it is considered for deletion, especially if new press regarding this musical group is still forthcoming. Also, given that the article is only a few days old, I feel that more edits from more users who eventually discover that there is indeed a wikipedia article on this band, will get it into a more encyclopedic format. Deleting it would only hinder the betterment of an article whose notability may not be entirely solid by wikipedia standards, but at this point cannot be totally discredited either. Roadiejay (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If I have Mediabase airplay stats to send for verification - to whom do I send them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneSane (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rocket jet planes

Dear sir,

Have you all thought of using rockets along with your jets to go deep into space and go to other planets! You could take off with the jets snd then when reaching the outer atmosphere you turn on the rockets and go to other planets! Just imagine going to mars for a lunar landing and moving into a space colonie hotel. Or landing an Europa the ocean moon of Jupiter. or passing the rings of Saturn on the way to Titan the moon with more atmosphere than earth! Just think of the view ther of other planets, moons ans rings of Jupiter and Saturn, think about it !!!!

Sincerely Thomas M. Lively

<personal info removed for privacy>

please respond! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikelively (talk • contribs) 17:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over two million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If that is not fruitful, we have a reference desk, divided into various subjects areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. • Anakin (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
See Human spaceflight and Single-stage-to-orbit for some information relating to your question. Also see Peak oil and Hirsch report for a problem that seems very likely to retard any serious expansion of manned space exploration for the next several decades. Space travel with any technology we are likely to have during that time uses enormous amounts of liquid fuels, which could create difficulty when the supply of liquid fuels begins falling chronically and increasingly short of demand for terrestrial applications (especially transportation, petrochemicals, and industrial agriculture) which are extremely important and dangerously dependent on a single finite resource. --Teratornis (talk) 18:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical Apocrypha

As a Catholic, I find the opening paragraph of this section offensive in that it states:

"The Biblical apocrypha (from the Greek word απόκρυφος meaning hidden) are texts which are often printed as part of the Bible despite their perceived status of being outside of the biblical canon."

The article later goes on to clarify that not all churches perceive this to be the case, but I would suggest this revision:

The Biblical apocrypha (from the Greek word απόκρυφος meaning hidden) are texts which are often printed as part of the Bible despite their perceived status by some Christian faiths as being outside of the biblical canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peeb2 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I would like to direct you to the article’s talk page where you will find some interesting discussions about the topic. If you feel that the article text should be revised, you should discuss it there to determine if there is a consensus for change. —Travistalk 19:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capital E

Resolved.

Sorry, I'm a Brit, so I need a snap answer to:

Do you say "...shipped in from the East-coast..." or "...shipped in from the east-coast..." (or something else, e.g. no hyphen) AndyJones (talk) 20:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably “East Coast.” See East Coast. Cheers —Travistalk 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for several replies. AndyJones (talk) 20:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using Wikipedia Material

can i use info that can be published from this site. and do we have to include acknowledgment of where the info came from??

please advise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.218.192 (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, and you are free to copy and distribute the information here, provided that you keep to the terms of the GFDL. For more information, see WP:Copyrights. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia —Travistalk 12:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guy Talk, Girl Talk by Sal Marino

"Guy Talk, Girl Talk" by Sal Marino is an amusingly filthy look at sexual yearnings, unfulfilled love, brushes with fame and accounts of the not so ordinary oddities of life. Sal Marino is a connoisseur of fun! Known as the founder of "The Funism Art Movement", Marino's unique vision of the world is punctuated by a wry and sometimes cryptic observarion of everyday life. Marino's stories are the mechanism by which the reader is drawn to the reflective surface of his subject matter, yielding to laughs, snorts, giggles and more. We all can see a bit of ourselves in these vignettes, whether it is from the point of view of the protagonist or the many diverse personalities (some recognizable) who are represented therein. The author allows a glimpse through the window of his experience and subsequently our own, suggesting that we each have reflective, sometimes dark and perhapps equally amusing stories to tell. "Guy Talk, Girl Talk" is a hillarious journey through some of the not so average experiences of a not so average New Yorker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmarino (talk • contribs) 21:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a question? If you are trying to submit an article, please see Help:Starting a new page. Please note that your article as posted here is not presented from a neutral point of view or encyclopedic tone, and may be deleted if posted as it is here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention, judging by the username it may be a case of WP:COI. Dr.K. (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revealing names of underage suspect

Is it against WP policy to state the name of a suspected murderer when the suspect is still legally a minor? There seems to be a disagreement on the E.O. Green School shooting article. Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and as news sources appear to have released his name and picture (according to the talk page), I'd say that the information should be included in the article. Just make sure to provide a reliable reference, as per the terms of WP:BLP. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
If you've got a source. The relevant policy is WP:BLP. Prodego talk 22:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've copied this discussion to the talk page, as the discussion there appears to be ongoing. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. The reason I had come here was to get an opinion from people that haven't been involved in editing the article and talk page. I guess I'll wait to see the results of the consensus. Thanks Hersfold & Prodego. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Arguements of why the "suspect" name should be included

  • The murderer of Larry King should NOT be withheld from this article, regardless of the fact that he was a minor. His name and picture have already been publicly released via many news sources, including CNN, and the police department. If this were a small incident, and had little to no media attention, then the protection of his name could be argued. But the fact is, it was not and because the mass media attention already being shined on this event, and the many witnesses claiming he was the shooter, the murderer does not rightfully deserve to be protected by WP:BLP. And people who are removing the killers name from this article are only removing it do to a bias twist of the WP:BLP. Publicly released information is not protected by WP:BLP. The two students who committed the Columbine High School massacre, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, have no right to have their name protected from being on the Columbine High School massacre article, and neither does the murderer of Larry King. It is understandable that the killers picture should not be displayed until he is charged for his crime, but his name has no right to be protected by WP:BLP.

"Caution should be applied...When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated". The killers name has been widely disseminated, and as such, his name is not protected by the WP:BLP clause.

  • The "suspect" should be referred to as a "suspect" in the article because that is currently what the state of California recognizes him as. And do to this, his status as a suspect in the case is fact.

--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, why is this here?--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 23:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The correct place for the discussion can be found here. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)