Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 March 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help desk
< March 29	<< Mar \| March \| Apr >>	March 31 >

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.

1 March 30

[edit] March 30

[edit] Daylight savings time

Does Wikipedia change to use daylight savings time? Astronaut (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia always uses UTC for it's time but users can make it appear that all times are in their particular timezone in their preferences. Nanonic (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] change username on wikipedia of another language

Resolved.

I need to change my username on a wikipedia of another language. I have problems logging in because the username is "broken", but they dont' have many bureaucrats and only from time to time they go to the page of the requests, I would like to know if I can had a request somewhere else. thanks in advance. SF007 (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Placing a request here won't do any good. I'm afraid you'll have to wait for a crat's assistance on the other language. Sorry. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You can go to Meta. Check meta:Steward requests/Username changes. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have many edits in those languages? I should think not if you don't know the languages. And if not, why not just abandon the usernames and create new ones (if you really even want usernames in the languages anyway. —teb728 t c 05:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

How can this image possibly not be copyrighted, unless the uploader is the photographer, editor and what-not of the book mentioned in the original upload text? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the name of the uploading account, he very well might be the author and publisher of the book [1]. Unfortunately, the account has been inactive for a year and a half, so it might be impossible to verify. He has email enabled, so that might work for contacting him...If the copyright question becomes an issue (i.e. someone IFDs it and the others from that book) the usual procedure is for OTRS to confirm his ownership of the copyrights. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've listed the image at WP:PUI for discussion - just in case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] deleting an article in a Mass moderated AFC archives page

There is an article on an archived page under the "Category:Mass moderated AFC archives".

The top of the page reads "All article submissions on this archive page have been mass moderated, and none of the remaining submissions are suitable for articles on Wikipeida", and each article has been tagged as not conforming to the standards of wikipedia, with a stated reason.

One of the articles on one of these pages makes statements about a living person which are derogatory and not referenced, and therefore, the article meets the requirements for a "Quick Deletion" and it has even been marked for a quick deletion. The article, however, has NOT been deleted, it is two years old, and Google has picked up on this article.

In summary my question is how do you delete an article that appears on one of the archived pages under "Category:Mass moderated AFC archives". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.212.209 (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide a link to the particular section, I can blank that submission out, which should have already been done. However, we can't delete the entire archive for copyright reasons. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-11-30#Bobby_Rose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.212.209 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the section. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transclusion problem

Something is wrong with the transclusion function. {{2007 NBA Draft}} and {{2006 NBA Draft}} should both be transcluding the current version of {{NBA Draft template list}}. However, they are transcluding different versions. I have tried using different browsers and the problem persists.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as a guess, I have purged Wikipedia's server cache for all three templates. Is it still malfunctioning?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

They look the same to me...It could also be your browser's cache, which you can also purge (Wikipedia:Bypass your cache). Someguy1221 (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are working now, but the 15 others from 1985 to 2005 that are not redlinks are not working.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keyword Search

Hey I have a wiki web page. I found out that wiki search engine doesn't support keyword search feature. 155.246.169.126 (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)I am just wondering it there a way to get keyword search feature on wiki. Or can we install another search engine on wiki?155.246.169.126 (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks.

Hi. This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. A better place to ask your question on this site would be at the computing section of the reference desk, where information questions are answered. However, the Project:Support desk at MediaWiki is probably the most targeted place to ask your question.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Before Common Era or Anno Domini

Hey I'm Just windering if you could tell me if there is a universal time standard, I have seen article that use AD over CE and i have seen articles that use BCE over BC, I think it should be BCE and CE over the AD/BC because its more for everybody regardless of religion, but is there the standard, if not canwe pass that along to someone to tell them to make a standard, cause what if i decide im going to make a page in say... Hewbrew Calendar dates, or whatever, like I know most people use the; I think Gregorian Calendar, but what if?--Jameogle (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Currently most of these sorts of questions are covered by WP:MOSDATES (in particular WP:MOSDATES#Longer periods). That doesn't mean it's impossible to change such things, just a touch difficult once things already have so much momentum across so many pages. If you're interested, you're of course more than free to start discussions in venues such as the village pump. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Gaining consensus on this is almost impossible. Many people are just used to BC/AD, and others feel that BCE/CE is an insult to their beliefs. Like the argument of American English vs. British English, it's going to be something that gets done on a per-page basis. -- Kesh (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Driver licencing in New Zealand

I keep changing the article back to its original title. However the article won't revert after trying many times. Why is this? There was no consensus to change the artilce title. Also it's licensing not licencing (licence the noun, license the verb). Ozdaren (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it to Driver licensing in New Zealand, it worked fine for me. Is your account over 4 days old? If not you can't move pages. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 14:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had my account for a number of years. Strange all the same. Ozdaren (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Format of citation

Hi. How should this citation be formatted? Kipnis, B.A. (2001-10-08). Tel Aviv, Israel - A World City in Evolution: Urban Development at a Deadend of the Global Economy. Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network at Loughborough University. Retrieved on 2007-07-17. Cities in Transition. Ljubljana: Department of Geography, University of Ljubljana, pp. 183-194.

It is a report made at University of Ljubljana but this is published at Loughborough. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where to ask merging usernames?

I have user name on Милан Јелисавчић on meta, sr.wiki and other Serbian language projects and commons. Also, this was my username on English language wiki but I renamed it to Milan Jelisavčić. I heard about single login and I would like to this usernames bi merged in the database, but I don't know where to ask? --Milan Jelisavčić (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You can request to change usernames at Wikipedia:Changing username. If the account already exists then you will need to go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. You might have to list it at WP:USURP as you already own the account User:Милан Јелисавчић and a crat should waive the 1 week waiting period. Regards. Woody (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, single user login has only been activated for administrators for the moment (to test the system and make sure it isn't completely buggy), but it does sound like a good idea to get your usernames in order now for when it's released to everyone else. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contact an Admin SARAH?

Being computer semi-illiterate, I saw the was a lits of Admin who would furnish copiesof delated articles etc. How can I lease a message for Admin "Sarah"? Foumnd her page but not idea how to leave a message Thanks

Fred646 (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Go to the admin's userpage (the title, the big black letters at the top of the page, should start with User:), then click "discussion" at the top of the page. Then click the "+" button at the top of the talkpage. Fill in the section heading box and then type your message. Xenon⁵⁴ 12:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HELP!!! i screwed up an artical

Resolved.

hi, i recently just tried to update/edit an artical but i have messed it up completely. What should i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moffat23 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi! If you mean the article Shao Jiayi, I have just fixed it for you. :) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 13:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You can click the "history" tab at top of Shao Jiayi to see the page history, and click "last" next to the edit by Stwalkerster to see the fix.[2] You must have accidentally clicked the Ab icon above the edit box in this edit. The icon inserts [[Link title]] (where "link title" is supposed to be replaced by the name of a page you want to link to). You can click "last" next to your own edits in the history to see what you did, or click the time of a version, and copy the right parts to a new edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My PC crashed before I could click "save" for my Wiki work-in-progress! How can I recover it? HELP!

~ Can someone PLEASE HELP ME? I just spent all night working on a Wikipedia page "Bathory (2008 film)" and did a MASSIVE expansion on it, with loads of information, background, dozens of cross-references and citations. It was the first large (for me anyway) Wiki project I've ever done and I was SO happy with how it had turned out, after hours of careful re-editing and original research.

Well, you can probably guess what happened next - JUST before I was about to finally SAVE my work on Wikipedia (I don't know why I had only been PREVIEWing it up till that point, but I had - MANY times in fact), my PC mysteriously shut down and restarted! Now all my work seems to be gone. I'm almost on the verge of tears here. :-(

My question is: Can I recover the all the painstaking work I just did? Is it in my PC somewhere? I'm pretty adept at PCs and can look for it if it's saved in my browser's cache somewhere (I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.13, and Windows XP Pro), my search so far isn't going so well. Since I clicked on PREVIEW so many times, I'm hoping that my work is stored temporarily either on my PC or perhaps even on Wikipedia somewhere (but for that I don't even know where to begin looking, if it's even possible!) I guess the issue is recovering lost "form field data", is that right? And is it possible?

Any help would be GREATLY appreciated! Thank you very much.

Monk777 (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You have the right idea, that's the data you need to recover. However, if you have used Firefox's Clear Private Data function, this data wil be lost. However, finding the data will not be easy, if possible. I'm not entirely sure how you could do this, but one suggestion for the future would be to write your article in some word processor, and paste it in when you are done, or click save every now and again, instead of just preview. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 15:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My usual method for long edits is to write in the edit box with use of preview, and sometimes copy the current content to a text editor, or just to the Windows clipboard with Ctrl+A followed by Ctrl+C. I cannot help with the already lost data. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a common question here. Basically, it's best to write articles (or do major editing) in a separate text-editor like Wordpad or SubEthaEdit, so you can save your work on your computer. -- Kesh (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted entry

I'm new to this so I'm trying to understand why my entry was deleted. I added Kennedy's Pub abd Market to the points of interest list under Marlboro, Ma. I understand why it was deleted the first time I entered it because i put a link to our website. I saw others listed in the same spot with links and didn't realize they were links to other articles in Wikipedia. But now just listing the name seems to be getting deleted still. I was told not to add "promotional material to articles". There are others on the same list that would be in the same boat as us, businesses in town. We are one of the longest running family businesses in town, have had many events documneted in local papers including our annual St Patrick's Day celebration. Why are other establishments able to be listed under points of interest that are businesses? Just trying to understand the rules of the game. Please advise. I enjoy and use wikipedia frequently and want to understand what is going on. Thanks for your help.

sgogan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgogan (talk • contribs) 13:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest so you are strongly discouraged from making article edits about it. I don't know anything about the city. You can suggest the link on Talk:Marlborough, Massachusetts where other editors can evaluate it. The editor who reverted you can be contacted at User talk:Hello Control. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Additions like this should adhere to our notability guidelines, preferably satisfying WP:CORP. This is similar to a "famous persons" area in a city's article: only people who are notable should be added. -- Kesh (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There were some inappropriate items there, and I've trimmed them out. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Based on what I originally saw listed there, I didn't think it was an issue. We are a well established landmark and destination in town and thought that we could be listed. I understand your point. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgogan (talk • contribs) 16:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Stoke Field

I am a registered user, Elizabeth Scales, and wish to change a reference in the Stoke Field entry. Unfortunately when I click on edit, only part of the item comes up, not the part I wish to edit. The reference to Lord Scales is wrong. As Earl Rivers' biographer and author of a book about Sir Edward Woodville, I wish to amend the reference, using my historical knowledge.

14:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)~ Elizabeth Scales

I think the problem you are seeing is that because of the large infobox, one of the edit buttons is in the wrong place. I see two edit buttons (it may vary depending on browser) and the lower button does edit the section that you want to edit. If all else fails you can click the "edit this page" button at the top of the screen.

Whatever you edit, be sure not to rely on your historical knowledge. All material should be cited to reliable sources. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the bunching problem (on Firefox 2.0.0.13, at least). Algebraist 21:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Teaching profession

Would like to have information about the teaching profession and why it appeals to certain persons?59.180.96.86 (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC) <email removed>

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 is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising

what is sales promotion, public relation, advertising and marketing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.19.85 (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds suspiciously like homework to me... George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 19:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New biography

How do you write a new biography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.9.99 (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean on wikipedia. To create a new page, you first need to get an account as anon users cannot create pages. Once you've done that create a link by putting double square brackets around the title you want. Hit preview and then click on the red link. An edit box should cxome up. Start typing. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For the longer answer, which actually goes towards answering the question "How do you write a new biography, and not get it deleted within 5 seconds?" ...

You will need to first register an account, which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles. Once you have registered, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page subpages

I have been cleaning up Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein (adding {{unsigned}}, archiving etc.) and have noticed a couple of sub-pages - Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein/Sexuality and Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein/SemitismAndHitler. Is there an approved style for linking to these pages from the main talk page? I think the links should go near the top (maybe by the archive box) but am not sure. Any help appreciated! DuncanHill (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If these are old discussions (as in, not ongoing) they should be added to the Archivebox template for the page. It's common for long, off topic discussions to be archived on their own. In fact, I'll take a look at these and see about cleaning up the archive box to make this a little better. -- Kesh (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and standardized the archives. They all follow the "Archive #" name, and have a template that makes navigation easier. The discussions that were moved off to their own pages have been incorporated into this, to make it easier to find and follow. Hope this looks good! -- Kesh (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SACEUR

Background Bio of General Bantz J. Craddock, current SACEUR/EUCOM Commander,a U.S. Army General. Does WIKIPEDIA foresee future of this great soldier having being featured in this superb media? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.9.112.239 (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No we don't, and please do not ask nonsense questions. Nothing 444 20:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think we do have an article on the individual in question: Bantz J. Craddock. Canderson7 ^(talk) 20:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if we do, you should've gone to the reference desk. "That desk, that desk, its only a link away" (a parody on the tommorow song from wizard of oz or some other musical. I don't blame you if you think its not funny) Nothing 444 21:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] inserting a picture into a wikipedia article

I've read the faq on inserting images...I created an account in commons...I uploaded my jpeg and can see my jpeg...but when I attempt to insert it, nothing happens...or a box with my jpeg link appears. What am I doing wrong?19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)~~ I even copy and paste the format that the "uploading images" tutorial provides me.

EX I use this template found under help and under the category, adding images to file.

Image:Image name

Caption

only in this case I use my jpeg image BSpencerhome.jpeg

I'm not sure I'm understanding what I'm doing wrong.

Any direction would be greatly appreciated <email removed>

Try [[Image:Image name.jpg]]. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 19:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Or .JPG, upper case (I tried it and it works). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hudson Cutler is a hoax?

I really believe that the Hudson Cutler article is a hoax and I tagged it as such shortly after it was written. I didn't tag it for speedy-delete because it's actually pretty well-written and contains some valid facts. I would really appreciate it if members of the Wiki community would review it and determine if it should stay or go. (Or maybe it's a candidate for April Fools?) Is there a process to request someone to look at a potential hoax article? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Since that article claims that he won the Nobel prize aged one, I think it's might just be a hoax..... --87.112.38.211 (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Flathead laboratory" mentioned may be something to do with Zork, which I understand to be some sort of computer game. DuncanHill (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of it is verifiably false such as the alleged nobel prizes. The author's username User:Towel45 was created today both here and at http://digg.com/users/Towel45 where it made [3] about the alleged Hudson Cutler. Your appropriate tagging with {{hoax}} puts the article in Category:Suspected hoax articles which is a way to draw attention to a possible hoax for evaluation by other editors. If you think a suspected hoax requires expert evaluation then you can also post to the talk page for a relevant WikiProject, for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, but that doesn't seem necessary here. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What happened here please?

In Dermatophyte, starting from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dermatophyte&oldid=195013650

something odd has happened.

there were two sections called "Classification"
An IP replaced a bunch of content with "pea]]" for some reason, presumably vandalism, but not clearly so. ("pea]]" is part of a link, added by a bot, to a non-English Wiki article on the same topic)
there are steps missing from the edit history.

The missing information makes it very confusing to figure out. I don't know if it is possible to sort out what went on here.

Wanderer57 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to the last good version I could discern, but I don't see anything missing from the edit history. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like normal vandalism removal of content in [4] to me. "pea]]" was the ending of the former version and part of "[[wa:Tchamosseure del pea]]" which was added in [5] by a human editor. Versions in the history can be oversighted so they become invisible to both normal users and admins. I haven't seen evidence that this happened to the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Help:Section#Creation and numbering of sections says: "Section names should preferably be unique within a page." The article could be edited to fix this but it's not a big problem. My talk page (which really should be archived) has 13 sections with the same name. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. Not sure now why I found it so confusing. Could it have been the tequila and nachos for breakfast? Nah! Wanderer57 (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] use of singular "they"

I'm in the process of doing some minor edits on an article (Charles F. Hockett) with (ironically) imperfect grammar. The author also regularly uses "they" in the singular, which is painful to my eyes and brain, but I do understand that it is acceptable. Does Wikipedia have a policy about whether I should or should not let singular "they" usage remain? 128.135.96.205 (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the context. He or she is preferred. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 21:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language. There is also a page on meta, meta:Quest for gender-neutral pronouns, with a number of suggestions on how to deal with such sentences. Basically, "they" might be better than "he," but there are very likely much better ways to deal with it. And the reason the gender neutral form is preferred is that the use of gender-specific pronouns where the gender is actually unspecified may suggest a certain point of view, such as that only men should be doctors (To steal from someone else: A doctor must take care of his patients; this could be fixed as A doctor must take care of his or her patients; and of course a grammatically more pleasing way to solve this is with Doctors must take care of their patients). Someguy1221 (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you do, please, PLEASE do not use Xe or Co or whatever THEY are trying to make up. Paragon12321 (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote from the meta link provided above: "This use of singular they has existed in English since the 15th century and is commonly heard today". I'm not one to argue with 500 years of history :-) Personally, I find the singular they a useful way to avoid using a gender specific phrase. Astronaut (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Circular Redirect - Leave or Fix?

Example: Page A contains a link to Page B. Page B is a redirect to Page A.

On the one hand, it's circular and my instinct is to remove the link, i.e. I would leave the text but de-wikify it.

On the other hand, apparently there was once a dispute about whether Page B should exist or not and eventually it was deleted. I imagine that the circular link is a leftover side effect of that...

(Page A describes a company and Page B describes one of it s products.)

Should the link stay because perhaps Page B will be recreated? Or should it be cleaned up? Your thoughts?

Elsendero (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What are the pages involved? Has one been deleted? I don't think I have the full picture here. —— nix eagle 21:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is Mindtouch. The opening paragraph has a link to Deki Wiki. My question is about the appropriateness of cleaning such links in general, not specifically for this page. Elsendero (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically, yes, the wikilink should be removed. It's not only confusing to readers, it's redundant. Anyone who searches for Deki Wiki will be redirected to Mindtouch anyway, so linking back to the redirect is rather pointless. Looking at it another way, if the redirect didn't exist, this would be a redlink, which is frowned upon. -- Kesh (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Since when are redlinks frowned upon? O.o Redlinks are just articles needing to be created! Though in this case, if the article was created and later deleted, we probably don't need to link again. —— nix eagle 00:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:RED for guidelines on when to create red links. Red links are only useful when they link to articles that someone will eventually create, and the article subjects meet all the requirements such as notability and thus have a chance to "stick" rather than getting deleted. The surest way to justify a red link is to create the new article yourself, at which point the link is no longer red. When we create red links and just leave them, basically we are telling other users to do some work for us. For the encyclopedia to work, there have to be more people actually creating things than people who merely think up jobs for someone else. Wikipedia has enormous backlogs of things that need work, so it would be nice to chip away at the existing backlogs rather than add to them, if possible. Also, since we have 2,407,985 articles now, there's a good chance we have suitable link destinations for lots of things. If no article exists at a particular name, an editor should {{google wikipedia}} to see if another article covers the subject. --Teratornis (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but knowing things need done is a step forward. Backlogs are great because now articles needing attention are tagged and bagged so we know in the future that they need fixing. The idea that redlinks are somehow evil is one that I've never understood. If you are working on one article it does no harm to leave red links to related articles that may someday be created. Backlogs are bad, but we have to remember that things need doing whether they are tagged or not. I'd rather have the backlog I can see, then the backlog that I don't know about. Now back to working on the m:Talk:Spam blacklist :). —— nix eagle 01:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying red links are evil. Wikipedia must have had huge numbers of red links in its early years, when most notable topics still had no articles. Back then, red links were a handy low-overhead method of creating to-do lists. This is fine for a young wiki. Perhaps the objection to red links now is that they are a somewhat crude way of managing backlogs. In a well-developed wiki like Wikipedia, some people might prefer a more orderly approach to organizing our pending work. For example, if we mark things that need doing with the appropriate messagebox templates, then it becomes possible to generate coherent lists of backlogged tasks, which editors can work on systematically. With red links, they tend to scatter randomly among millions of articles, and people would just have to stumble across them to see what needs doing. Also, now that Wikipedia is more popular, readers outnumber editors by a large margin, and having red links might tend to confuse people who are only here to read. The other problem with red links is that creating new articles on Wikipedia that will "stick" can be very difficult. We are showing red links to millions of casual visitors, most of whom are not nearly ready to take on the harrowing task of creating articles for them. In any case, the only rule on Wikipedia seems to be Ignore all rules, so there will always be some people who like red links and some people who hate them. I don't think we can have a policy that says "Everyone must agree that red links are evil." That would be contrary to everything I like about this place. --Teratornis (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is the "collapsing" of references encouraged?

Articles will often show the same item multiple times in its reference list.

It seems to me to be an improvement when such a reference is listed only once.

If I understand correctly, the way to do this is to add an "name" attribute to 1st occurence of the reference element for the item in question. And then to refer to that name in the subsequent occurrences.

I want to be sure before making edits to do this that this is considered appropriate. Thoughts?

Elsendero (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if the reference is to the same thing multiple times. Please provide example articles for further questions. It really helps to have an example to point to. —— nix eagle 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's one: iPhone OS version history. I notice the last 2 references are the same. In fact I noticed it because I was trying to understand what the DumZiBot does. If collapsing references is encouraged, would be nice to have a bot do this, eh? ;) Maybe I'll suggest it to the author... Elsendero (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That is indeed the correct way to handle things assuming the references are exactly identical. On the other hand, sometimes a single reference appears multiple times in the reflist with citation to distinct page numbers; in this case, shortened notes form should be used if you still wish to collapse the references. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How to reuse a reference is described at Wikipedia:Footnotes#Naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The name can be on any of the refs; it doesn't have to be on the first one. I sometimes duplicate the ref data even though I use a name. That way if later a piece of text with ref gets deleted, all the other refs of that name will still work. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how you're formatting your refs. A named ref will always appear in the reflist with the information contained in the first instance. So if you format refs the way I do, using just an underscore in all subsequent references for easier readability in edit view, then it is very important that the first ref contain the information! Someguy1221 (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. You can have the ref data on the first, last or any of the refs, on one, many, or all of the refs. For readability you could have the short form with the trailing ~~backslash~~ forward slash on all of them except have the full ref with data as the last one. E.g. for readability you might use the short form on all refs that are in the middle of a paragraph, then put the long form on a footnote that happens to be at the end of a paragraph whether it is first, last, or in the middle. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I'd known about that trailing backslash option...Someguy1221 (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Forward slash not backslash. e.g. <ref name=fred/> Sbowers3 (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] adding notable Belizean artist to existing category

How can I add biographical information to the "O" section within this category (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Belizean_artists) about a Belizean artist.

Rdoliver (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The artist must have an existing article on Wikipedia, and then you add the template for [[Category:Belizean artists]] to that article. Categories are automatically populated by articles that have the template in them, so you can't simply add a name to a category without the article on the person. -- Kesh (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RMS Mauretania

I have a postcard of RMS Mauretania New York to Southhampton sailing June 6th 1950 Abstract of log on back is this ship still sailing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.72.43 (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

We do have an article on this ship, at RMS Mauretania (1938). In future, the Reference Desks would be a better place for this type of question. DuncanHill (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)