Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance): Difference between revisions

Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Bulk import of Star Wars wiki by Silver Sonic Shadow

Silver Sonic Shadow (talk · contribs) is busily importing dozens of articles from the Star Wars wiki into Wikipedia. These include Sun djem (details of one style of light-saber combat), Form IV: Ataru (details of another style of light-saber combat), Form V: Shien / Djem So (details of yet another style of light-saber combat), Form VI: Niman (details of, guess what)), and Trispzest (details of aerial lightsaber combat). About forty such articles have been created in the last eight hours.

It looks like this user's intention is to import a sizable chunk of the Star Wars wiki into the main Wikipedia. Most of the articles wouldn't pass WP:FICT; they're about minor Star Wars subjects. Should something be done about this? --John Nagle 04:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: I put a comment in User talk:Silver Sonic Shadow asking him what he was trying to do. He's deleted that note, but did not reply. He's added four more articles in the last few minutes. --John Nagle 04:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT is a non-binding guideline. If you have issues with his articles, you can try bringing them up at WP:AFD. (Oddly, this doesn't technically qualify for WP:CSD A7, but in any case I'd dispute such a deletion; see User:Simetrical#Notability for my views on this kind of thing.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, there's an AfD pending for seven of the articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Form V: Shien / Djem So. (Current status: 4 votes for Delete, 1 vote for Merge). The mass import of Star Wars article continues. He's currently importing creatures from "The Wildlife of Star Wars, A Field Guide". This is going to take a lot of AfD work. We have another 40 or so articles to deal with. I've put a note on his talk page asking him to hold off on article importing until the AfD vote on his existing articles finishes. So far, messages left on his talk page just get deleted, without reply. I don't think that Silver Sonic Shadow (talk · contribs) is a 'bot, although what he's doing certainly could be done by one. --John Nagle 06:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fairly obvious that that AFD's outcome, assuming that it's overwhelmingly to delete (not a stretch), is enforceable on all future articles in the same vein. WP:SNOW is suitable for use in a case like this, since a) it's not like the margin is narrow enough that it would plausibly change and b) it would be a great deal of hassle to open up a constant barrage of AFDs to handle such a foregone conclusion. (That's what WP:DRV is for, after all.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgy article

Is there somewhere I can flag up an article like Mike Bickle, so that an experienced Wikipedian can clean it up? I found this page while searching for another Mike Bickle who is an esteemed geologist. Also, if an article were to be created for the geologist, are there rules which would decide which person the link "Mike Bickle" directs to? 82.36.110.118 17:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevent naming rules are at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and slightly less relevent ones at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). As for cleanup, you could try something from Wikipedia:Cleanup resources. Incedentaly, the article seems to be a copyvio from the website linked - I'll list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems in a moment. Hope that helps. SeventyThree^(Talk) 18:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that. Article looks much better now. 82.36.110.118 00:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on proposal in Clinical Surveillance article

I've done a fair bit of editing in the Clinical Surveillance article now, and currently have the article divided into two sections. I believe the first part of the article is fine, although it could be expanded, and reflects the established definition of the term. However, the second part of the article is really problematic, as I believe it may have been written by an account made primarily for distributing a certain type of information within Wikipedia. I think it's fine to reflect these alternate points of view, and I propose that it be done by creating an article called clinical sousveillance and making links from one to the other. But I don't think they should be in the article.

What I need help with is 1) what is the established way to fork an article and keep the edit history? 2) I believe that since these are two separate terms this is NOT POV forking, but I would like to make sure before I do a giant edit. Museumfreak 06:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox Limit

Is there a limit on the number of Userboxes you can have on your page? Thanks... Scalene 08:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hard limit, but there is a bit of an aesthetic limit. Taking your userpage as an example, your userbox column is about 30 times longer than the rest of your page... maybe some prioritising wouldn't hurt so editors know which is more important to you, KFC or Carmen Sandiego :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but if I set it out better, can I keep them all? I mean, if there's no limit... Scalene 06:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To keep your user page uncluttered, you could create a subpage of your user page (as I have done, see User:Andrewh/Userboxes, though you'll need to visit my main user page to see the boxes themselves) and add all of your userboxes in there. Just add a link to the subpage on your user page. Alternatively, if you're familar with HTML and CSS stylesheets, you can still fit all of your userboxes onto your user page in a fixed height column by putting the userboxes in a "div" tag as below, and using a CSS "overflow" statement. Again, look at the source of my Userboxes subpage to see how its done. Andrew 22:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<div style="overflow: auto;">
 ...userbox code...
</div>

Uncategorized categories

Does anyone happen to know who I should talk to about rebuilding the uncategorized categories list? Is it something a non-admin can do? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:Beland used to run a script on a copy of the database and post the results to Category:Orphaned categories. It would appear he hasn't done this in quite some time. You might ask him about it. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will ask him. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language issue

As currently we have a discussion in the german wiki about how to deal with different standards regarding correct spelling (german, swiss, and austrian rules show some minor differences) I would like to know whether there ever has been a similar discussion regarding e.g. the use of american or british english? Nico b. 08:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the relevant document, pls. ignore :) Nico b. 13:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If AfD says merge, must the text be used?

I recently put torrent shocking up for AfD. After doing quite a bit of research, and previously knowing about bittorrent, I believe it is without basis, and also doesn't come up on google. The result of the AfD was "merge with bittorrent". I do not think that any of the text on torrent shocking is worth saving, so what I want to do is just blank the page and redirect to bittorrent. However, is this against the decided outcome? Do I have to either get a "full delete", or somehow save the text? Mrjeff 12:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've always considered "merge" to mean "merge what is worthwhile, (if anything!!!), and ditch the rest". If you convert the article to a redirect, then the text you didn't take is still there in the history. If someone else has a different take on what is savable, they've got the source to work with, and can try adding more stuff to the merged-to article, and see what others think. Hope that helps. YMMV of course. ++Lar: t/c 13:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

warnings

i am a new wikipedian an i want to know how to issue warnings to vandals.

thankyou Joshuarooney 14:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the club :-). You should probably start by reading WP:RCP. It has a lot of good inof, including how to warn, when to warn, whcih templates to use, and a few tools which you can use to automate the task and make it a little easier. --Bachrach44 15:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't waste your time. Concentrate on building good articles. It is more challenging and productive. If you issue warnings, they will either call you a vandal, or worse, they could be innocent!! Best to avoid trouble. Note. People get very very upset at being called a vandal. This represents a complete and utter breakdown in trust. My advice is never ever to call anyone names. Remember, if you write anything on a computer, it can be always used against you. Wallie 21:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zagat rating

Would it be against fair use or copyright to include a zagat rating (not the decsription just the numbers) for articles about clubs or resteraunts and what not? --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 19:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia includes ratings for various bits and pieces (I forget what now), and this may be under the same lines. As I'm unfamilar with Zagat ratings (according to the article, they apply to the US, and I live in sunny England) I would double-check though; can anyone else help out? Andrew 22:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Large-scale reproduction of Zagat ratings is a no-no, I should think. You could ask for permission, though—it's perfectly possible that they'd welcome the publicity from their ratings (but not their extra content) being reproduced. At any rate computer game magazines don't traditionally mind. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about Jiang, possible edit war

Okay, what started out as a simple disagreement I now beginning to spiral out of control. It started with the image Image:Rbreich.jpg. I posted the image, listed it as Public Domain, went and got additional permission from the artist because the electronic image was from his website. User:Jiang disgreed with me, but instead of instead of engaging in some sort of dialog, went and posted it as PUI, the discussion ishere.

Not only as Jiang threatened to try and have all portraits of government officials removed because they are not in the public domain, but he is expanding the argument to other pages he seems to think are affected by this dispute.

What do I want

to remove it from the PUI page because it has been posted with permission, and the source itself is public domain.
get Jiang to back off.
Have a copyright attorney clearly explain what is going on.

--evrik 23:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before, PUI tags are intended for soliciting input on the copyright status of an image. A claim of PD cannot be used to justify its removal because the PD status itself is under dispute. The source itself is not public domain I have a posted this issue to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and WikiEn-l mailing list in an attempt to get further opinion on the matter. The point of PUI is to promote discussion. Going around and removing tags defeats this purpose. --Jiang 23:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evrik, your personal complaints about Jiang are inappropriate. First, WP:PUI is exactly the appropriate place for Jiang to dispute image copyright status. Second, the PD status of this image is under dispute so your unilateral removal of the PUI tag was not appropriate. Third, permission to "use" an image is not enough for Wikipedia. Fourth, if paintings (not photos) of government officials are determined to be not in the public domain, then they should be removed from Wikipedia unless a fair-use rationale is available. Unfortunately, there seem to be strong arguments for the non-PD status of portrait paintings (not photos, since photos are usually taken by government employees), which you have failed to address or even, apparently, to comprehend. —Steven G. Johnson 02:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Evrik, I am a lawyer (bar admission pending my swearing in ceremony this summer), and I posted a very clear and direct explanation of the law on this issue, citing to specific statutory provisions, which you then replied to with complete irrelevancies. Postdlf 03:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have put on all pictures the text sent by Mr Whitney, which specifically states that he is releasing the content of his website under the GFDL. This should settle the matter. notafish }<';> 18:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. That's always the best solution. Have you forwarded the e-mail to permissions at wikimedia dot org? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The email *was* in permissions in the first place, I added the reference to the ticket on every single image and the talk page of the article. My mistake for not being clearer in the first place on the article's talk page. notafish }<';> 21:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template help

Is there a template that says something like, "No other articles link to this one. Please add links accordingly to this article in similar ones, if possible."? I'm finding a lot of crappy articles that need wikifying are largely ignored because no one can find them.--The i kiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 02:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's Template:Wikify, would this do? -- Rick Block (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly. After people fix an article they often forget that they have to "advertise" its existence on other pages, or else it won't be any help to anyone. Perhaps I'll create a new template for it.--The i kiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 00:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I created Template:linkless to remedy the problem.--The i kiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 14:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three-letter abbreviation template for French Guiana

I'm working on a table in my sandbox, and I can't find the three-letter template for French Guiana. (For example, typing {{NGA}} gives the name Nigeria and its flag.) Can anyone help? Is there a list of these three-letter templates anywhere? Thanks, — BrianSmithson 14:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Whatlinkshere/template:NGA might be useful. Perhaps List of IOC country codes? -- Rick Block (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your second link led me to ISO 3166-1, where I found that the appropriate abbreviation template {{GUF}}. Figures it would be in the French word order. Thanks! — BrianSmithson 14:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

typo in the name of my article

I just created a page ' Blake Parlette '. The thing is, it's about a person named ' Blake Parlett ' with no E on the end.

Please help. thank you all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ColtsScore (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It's now been moved to the correct title. Feel free to ask me directly if you need help with anything else. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English translation wanted

I am looking for information about a Polish town named Siemiatycze. There is a very small reference in the English version of Wikipedia, but quite a long one in the Polish version. I would like to get an English translation of the Polish article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bocamark (talk • contribs) AmiDaniel (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I'll drop a translation request on Wikipedia:Translation into English#Polish-to-English for you, and hopefully a willing Polish-speaking Wikipedian will come by and translate it. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Participatory Epistemology - needs review by philosophy expert

Request expert review of Participatory Epistemology, which seems, from a cursory Google search, to involve providing a philosophical basis for astrology. I encountered this as a new article, and I'm not sure whether it is nonsense, needs neutral point of view work, or actually makes sense. This is either advanced post-Derrida work, or totally bogus. I can't tell. --John Nagle 04:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Election Box Metada - Question

According to Plaid Cymru the colour of that party has changed from green to yellow. I have changed the {{Election box metaddata}} template to reflect this, so all instances of Plaid in election results boxes has automatically changed to yellow.

It seems the metadata info for the Liberal Democrats is a very similar shade of yellow, which I understand should be altered to a golden colour. However their election box name is "Liberal Democrats (UK)" which re-directs to "Liberal Democrats", so I can't access the metadata (or I don't think I can) to change it.

How can the LibDem template be changed to alter the colour if the template article is a redirect?

doktorb | words 10:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the color in question comes from Template:Liberal Democrats/meta/color. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States is up for a move vote again, PLEASE VOTE

Some newbie (User:Brendenhull) who is apparently unfamiliar with the policy on naming conventions and the common names guideline put United States up for a move vote again. If you care about enforcing Wikipedia policies and maintaining the encyclopedia's quality, then vote against at Wikipedia:Requested moves/United States.

Wikipedia policy is to use common names. In this case, "United States" is the common name of the United States of America. It is used as such in the U.S. Constitution, in thousands of federal and state laws, in millions of American newspaper and magazine articles, and in all major encyclopedias (including Britannica and Encarta).

I believe Brendenhull is apparently attempting to bypass existing policy in bad faith. If he has a good faith argument that the common names guideline should have an exception for official names for countries, he should have raised that issue on the appropriate talk page for Naming conventions rather than requesting a vote so quickly on United States (if he had checked the Talk:United States archive, he would have realized that the issue has been heavily debated at least twice in the past two years and consensus was to keep the existing title). If any admins are following this, I recommend a temporary block on Brendenhull. --Coolcaesar 00:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for using links on Rotary_International

There is an edit war in progress at Rotary_International over the addition of text that explains to the blind how to use links in the lists of members. You can see the text in this diff. The reason for its inclusion is stated to be that blind users are unable to know that the links in the lists are links and not plain text. An editor wrote that the French Wikipedia includes similar types of text. The debate can be read on the article's talk page. There was an RfC but I think that did not help much. Assistance anyone? Thanks. -- 127.*.*.1 02:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 163: / Line 163: @@
 I believe Brendenhull is apparently attempting to bypass existing policy in bad faith.  If he has a good faith argument that the common names guideline should have an exception for official names for countries, he should have raised that issue on the appropriate talk page for Naming conventions rather than requesting a vote so quickly on United States (if he had checked the Talk:United States archive, he would have realized that the issue has been heavily debated at least twice in the past two years and consensus was to keep the existing title). If any admins are following this, I recommend a temporary block on Brendenhull.  --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 00:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
+== Explanation for using links on [[Rotary_International]] ==
+There is an edit war in progress at [[Rotary_International]] over the addition of text that explains to the blind how to use links in the lists of members. You can see the text in this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rotary_International&diff=54397760&oldid=54392052 diff]. The reason for its inclusion is stated to be that blind users are unable to know that the links in the lists are links and not plain text. An editor wrote that the French Wikipedia includes similar types of text. The debate can be read on the article's [[Talk:Rotary_International|talk page]]. There was an RfC but I think that did not help much. Assistance anyone? Thanks. -- <i>'''<font color="blue">[[User:127|127]]</font>.<font color="orange">[[User_talk:127|*]]</font>.<font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/127|*]]</font>.<font color="red">[[Main_Page|1]]</font>'''</i> 02:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)