Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archive of the help desk. Please do not edit this page. To ask a new question, go to this page.


Adding articles to watchlist[edit]

I would like to propose to wiki(media/pedia) that hitting watch or unwatch at the top of an article will give the article with a notification at the top similar to the ones you see when you have a new message in your discussion area. Redirecting me to a page that describes what just happend and redirecting me back a few seconds later is pretty useless. Most people will probably head back to the article page after hitting watch anyways. What's the procedure to request that this be implemented?--Will2k 20:04, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Follow the help link that's shown on every page. From there there's a link to Bug reports and feature requests in the Getting in Touch section. -- Rick Block 20:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia in English for PalmOS[edit]

Hallo, I should like to know where I can download the English version of Wikipedia for PalmOS so that I can use it on my Tungsten T5. g.e.s.

The current size of the English Wikipedia download is around 800Mb-2Gb. DJ Clayworth 17:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please see for more information. Zzyzx11 | Talk 17:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My article which was factual was removed because x thought it wasn't[edit]

I produced an article on the bearded lady of Guildford who does exist as a figure but the article was removed even though it is perfectly factual. Surely if an article is factual it should be allowed in a encyclopedia because that is the effective aim of this encyclopedia so if a user removes an article because they don't think it's factual that is going against the whole project.

Wikipedia is plagued by hoaxes and spoofs, and so its understandable that someone feels an article about a highly unusual suspect such as this is such a joke. The solution to this is to cite your sources; indeed, everything in wikipedia is subject to this rule and subject to deletion if sources can't be produced. I can't comment on your specific article as non-admins can't view deleted articles. If you look at the deletion log for your article, the admin who zapped it should have left a reason why they did so. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 16:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Here it is - 17:59, 12 Apr 2005 Mel Etitis deleted "Bearded Lady of Guildford" (nonsense). I've left a message on his talk page to notify him of this post. Shimgray 17:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Apologies if I made an error; I'd have to see the article again before knowing exactly why I deleted it (I seem to remember that it had been tagged for speedy delete by another user). Odd-sounding articles created by anons tend to be treated with considerable caution, I'm afraid, and page-creation and other vandalism is so frequent that we tend to be rather rushed. Try creating it again, and make sure that, first, it's not just a stub, secondly, it's well-written and presented, and thirdly, it gives at least one citation. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The content of Bearded Lady of Guildford was A Bearded Lady who lives in Guildford wears a leopard print coat and has long white hair and a beard.. It was accompanied by a broken link. Sounds like speedy deletion material to me. Also note that Mel was the second admin to speedily delete this article. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:36, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Googling around a bit, it did sound fairly unencyclopedic, but it's good to check - and, hey, if someone is concerned enough to complain... (To the original poster: factual doesn't really mean it's worth putting in. I could write a few hundred words on the boots I'm wearing - they're good boots, fine examples of their kind, and I am quite sure that those few hundred words would be absolutely factual. But, is it really worth including? I'd doubt it. You have to draw a line somewhere - a local MP is encylopedic, say, but a local pub landlord probably isn't) Shimgray 17:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is important that the facts are not original research, like with your own personal boots. For more info whether the topic deserves to be included, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which is an official Wikipedia policy, but also Wikipedia:What's in, what's out and Wikipedia:Importance, which are not. --Eleassar777 18:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Set a recording and have TV remain on that channel automatically[edit]

If you want someone to answer a question, you're going to need to ask one and specify what kind of television and VCR you have. Mgm|(talk) 18:55, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


When I go to this page to find out if someone is (or isn't) an Admin or to find an Admin with whom to discuss something I get a list of the first 50 (alpha) Admins which makes little sense if I want to see the "Admin list". So, I have to do another search to get the rest. Isn't there some way to get the complete list of Admins by default on the first shot since that's most likely what someone is lookin for anyway? hydnjo talk 21:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I think would be a good idea would be to have a list of admins by most recent edit. That way if you need to have a private conversation with an admin, fast, you should be able to find a few who are online. moink 21:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps both. But not very good the way it is now. hydnjo talk 21:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Are you looking for Wikipedia:List of administrators? That's a human-edited page that has all the admins. Isomorphic 21:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's definitely better than Special:Listadmins. Does human-edited mean self-nominated or is it more rigorous than that. Thanks for your help. hydnjo talk 22:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List of administrators lists all admins, whether they were self-nominated or not. The list is divided into active admins, inactive admins, former admins, and users who have declined adminship nominations. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for filling in the details.
PS:Your Username reminds me of the magic word XYZZY from the very old computer game of Advent aka the Colossal Cave Adventure. ;-) hydnjo talk 22:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Renderer - is their a program to view and format wikitext locally?[edit]

Is there a program I can use that would allow me to paste Wikipedia text (copied from edit view) into it and then render that (with the formatting) on my machine here?

Basically, what I'd like to do is copy one of Wikipedia's List of... pages and annotate that for my own use, using wiki markup for formatting. I have no need to publish it on the web, I'm just interested in being able to edit it for my own use and to view it (looking nice) here. --bodnotbod 21:49, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

The notation that Wikipedia uses is tied in and versioned with its engine MediaWiki. You can actually download the mediawiki engine yourself and install it on pretty much any POSIX system (Linux, BSD, etc), and you'll have your own wiki- which you can paste Wikipedia material into and markup and render as you like. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:58, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
BTW, mediawiki works fine on WindowsXP, without the need of a posix layer like cygwin. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 22:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you want static, that can be done with Tim's script. You still need mediawiki to render the pages first, but the pagesets it renders are static and self-contained, so can be put onto a CD or whatever. See the "wiki 2 html converter" thread at [1]. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 22:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Screencap from a DVD special feature interview - okay?[edit]


I'd like to add a photo to an article about a Japanese animatior I just wrote, and I thought I might take a screencap of him from an interview that can be found in the Special Features of Pioneer's Last Exile DVD Vol 1. Does this count as being under their copyright? --Marcg106 00:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, those are generally considered fair use. Tag the image with {{film-screenshot}}. [[Usomeone is (or isn't) an Admin or to find an Admin with whom to discuss something I get a list of the first 50 (alpha) Admins which makes little sense if I want to see the "Admin list". So, I have to do another search to get the rest. Isn't there some way to get the complete list of Admins by default on the first shot since that's most likely what someone is lookin for anyway? hydnjo talk 21:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What I think would be a good idea would be to have a list of admins by most recent edit. That way if you need to have a private conversation with an admin, fast, you should be able to find a few who are online. moink 21:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps both. But not very good the way it is now. hydnjo talk 21:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Are you looking for Wikipedia:List of administrators? That's a human-edited page that has all the admins. Isomorphic 21:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's definitely better than Special:Listadmins. Does human-edited mean self-nominated or is it more rigorous than that. Thanks for your help. hydnjo talk 22:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List of administrators lists all admins, whether they were self-nominated or not. The list is divided into active admins, inactive admins, former admins, and users who have declined adminship nominations. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for filling in the details.
PS:Your Username reminds me of the magic word XYZZY from the very old computer game of Advent aka the Colossal Cave Adventure. ;-) hydnjo talk 22:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Renderer - is their a program to view and format wikitext locally?[edit]

Is there a program I can use that would allow me to paste Wikipedia text (copied from edit view) into it and then render that (with the formatting) on my machine here?

Basically, what I'd like to do is copy one of Wikipedia's List of... pages and annotate that for my own use, using wiki markup for formatting. I have no need to publish it on the web, I'm just interested in being able to edit it for my own use and to view it (looking nice) here. --bodnotbod 21:49, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

The notation that Wikipedia uses is tied in and versioned with its engine MediaWiki. You can actually download the mediawiki engine yourself and install it on pretty much any POSIX system (Linux, BSD, etc), and you'll have your own wiki- which you can paste Wikipedia material into and markup and render as you like. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:58, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
BTW, mediawiki works fine on WindowsXP, without the need of a posix layer like cygwin. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 22:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you want static, that can be done with Tim's script. You still need mediawiki to render the pages first, but the pagesets it renders are static and self-contained, so can be put onto a CD or whatever. See the "wiki 2 html converter" thread at [2]. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 22:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Screencap from a DVD special feature interview - okay?[edit]


I'd like to add a photo to an article about a Japanese animatior I just wrote, and I thought I might take a screencap of him from an interview that can be found in the Special Features of Pioneer's Last Exile DVD Vol 1. Does this count as being under their copyright? --Marcg106 00:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, those are generally considered fair use. Tag the image with {{film-screenshot}}. Meelar (talk) 00:48, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Once I get permission, then what[edit]

I found your FAQ and examples for asking for permission to reproduce a piece of copyrighted material. What I do not see is what to do with the acceptance letter. I can't find a specific place to forward this letter or file with the article to prevent further people from marking the article suspect for infringement. What is the procedure for this resolution? --Crickett 02:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it's text you're reproducing, you should place it on the article's talk page. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 02:16, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
If it's a photo, do I just put the acceptance letter in the Photo Information Page? Someone told me recently that is an ok way to do it, so I have continued, though it makes for a long photo info page. But I've seen one Wikipedian who makes a directory from his userpage to keep old licensing acceptance letters shown there. That would be ok if anyone thinks to look there for it or if the userpage doesn't end up deleted years from now. -Emerman

Are large photo files really necessary?[edit]

I am in the process of asking a source for a photo for one of my articles. When I do so, is it really necessary to ask for a photo that is 500 mb to 2 mb in size? If so, why? Doesn't that cause more risk of spreading the photographer's work around for misuse such as being put in a print situation? It certainly isn't needed in order to view the photo online. I understand Wikipedia may some day appear in other formats -- is it for a possible print version reason for wikipedia itself? If so, I could upload a large file to the wikipedia database but just show a small file in the article itself. I almost feel like I'm protecting the photographer more if I upload only a small version of the file. On the other hand, I've occasionally seen record label sites that sometimes have had a Press section with huge files there, which other people could get to besides the press, so I'm a little confused.

Also, why is it that Wikipedia wants people to have photos licensed for anyone else besides Wikipedia to use commercially? (I saw this question on a wikipedian's user page today too.) I can see someone giving permission for Wikipedia itself to some day possibly use in a commercial format, but why does the whole world have to also have the right make money off a photographer's work while the photographer is not paid? That seems really unfair to me. In Wikipedia's case, it may possibly need to sell the encyclopedia in a cd-rom form one day to recoup the costs of the servers, is that right? Some admin once told me that but I don't know if it's true.

Lastly, should I assume that GFDL requires the photographer be attributed by Wikipedia and those downloading from it? Or is attribution something the copyright holder has to ask be added to the license or something I can offer as an additional part of the license not normally included? Emerman

Personally, I find large photos are quite useful in Wikipedia, it's nice to see the fine detail, it makes photos easier to clean-up if necessary, and as you say, it makes them more useful if you want to print an article. I find "thumbnail only" sites such as BBC much less useful in comparaison.
From the photographer's view, I think most of us are trying to create the best encyclopedia possible, rather than maximizing the resale value of the photos we contribute. If someone wants to publish your GFDL image in a magazine, then they'd need to give you credit, and include a note explaining that anybody could copy from them.
There certainly are a range of no-commercial use licenses available (Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags), but Wikipedia policy seems to be not to use them -- we do allow commercial use of the Wikipedia, subject to the relevant licenses being honoured, perhaps other people can give some good examples of where that's useful (teaching with Wikipedia in a private school, perhaps?). Ojw 18:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I still don't see why we would allow people to profit off a photographer's image without the photographer being paid, nor do I think educational use is a commercial use such as I'm talking about. It's not me who would be credited regarding a photo. I edit and write a few things here. I haven't so far used photos of I took myself. I don't upload photographs that aren't professionally quality, and they do not need "cleanup" but if you insist on giving away people's work and allow it to be profited on by someone else then you seem to me to be impeding the ability to get professional quality photographs in the future since many professionals may not wish to do that, including at least one wikipedian I read the userpage of today. I have seen 50 kb photos be more than large enough for a wikipedia internet article (there has been only one article with a small photo file I had trouble viewing, and that was only in Mac IE, not any other browser). If wikipedia itself needs to come out in print, that might be a different situation, but is there anything wrong with me just asking the photographer for a 40 to 80 kb file? It will take up less space in your database if I do instead of 500 kb to 1.5 mb ones. It is not a "thumbnail" when it's 50 kb in size and sized to a large enough size unless you size it tiny. I'm wondering what the reason initially was for asking for 500 kb + files and whether this is a priority or not. I try to be honest with photographers about what I think the license means.
And it's not true that everyone who download from wikipedia gives photographers credit. I just found an example from a search engine two days ago where a site took some of the text and an image from one of the articles I edited without crediting the photographer (and did the same presumably with everything else they took from wikipedia on that page -- several different selections along with photos). They mentioned at the bottom of the page they got all the info from wikipedia. Because the photographer had been specifically promised by me in my licensing request that he would get credit, I asked them to either remove the photo or give him credit. I don't know how often this happens; I found that site by accident.
As for the person who once told me they thought wikipedia might itself have to sell a cd-rom version some day (which still wouldn't need a large file, only print would), if they do that then they can't call themselves a "free encyclopedia" any more, can they? I'm just trying to understand things well before I communicate further with photographers and press professionals with photos about these licenses we are asked to get before uploading any more photographs, not trying to be a problem. If there is an important reason for me to require a larger file, I'll do it. If not, I may decide to use smaller ones to protect the photographers, assuming it does a photographer any good for me to do that. Emerman
You raise many points. I'll try to answer a few of them in fairly random order.
  1. "I still don't see why we would allow people to profit off a photographer's image without the photographer being paid." Well, we do so because we are a free encyclopedia. People who contribute their text or photos or anything else to Wikipedia do so with the intention that others will redistribute it and build on it. The point of our license is to make it as easy as possible for others to do this, for profit if they so desire, subject to just two basic restrictions: they must credit the authors, and whatever they produce based on our work must also remain free.
  2. "I am in the process of asking a source for a photo for one of my articles. When I do so, is it really necessary to ask for a photo that is 500 mb to 2 mb in size? If so, why? Doesn't that cause more risk of spreading the photographer's work around for misuse such as being put in a print situation?" Maybe so, but then it's intended that if someone wants to use a photo in a "print situation" they are free to do so. If the photographer is not happy with their photo being used anywhere else except the Wikipedia website, they shouldn't be releasing it under a free license.
  3. "Lastly, should I assume that GFDL requires the photographer be attributed by Wikipedia and those downloading from it? Or is attribution something the copyright holder has to ask be added to the license or something I can offer as an additional part of the license not normally included?" The GFDL requires that the author of a work be credited.
  4. "In Wikipedia's case, it may possibly need to sell the encyclopedia in a cd-rom form one day to recoup the costs of the servers, is that right?" I don't think it's really a question of needing to recoup the cost of the servers, just a natural progression from what we already do, with the aim of making a free encyclopedia available to as many people as possible. It's a goal of many in the community to produce (hopefully before the year is out) some kind of 'stable version'. This could be sold on CD. The German Wikipedia is ahead of us on this one. You can already buy the German Wikipedia off Amazon.
  5. "is there anything wrong with me just asking the photographer for a 40 to 80 kb file? It will take up less space in your database if I do instead of 500 kb to 1.5 mb ones." Don't worry about the database. Space is not Wikipedia's most pressing technical issue. I would say the higher resolution photo the better, but if a photographer in unwilling to release their professional-quality high-res photos under a free license, but would be happy to do so with a smaller version, that's clearly better than nothing.
  6. "And it's not true that everyone who download from wikipedia gives photographers credit." Agreed. It's an unfortunate fact that loads of sites mirror our content without complying with the license. The only thing you can really do is remind them of their obligations under the GFDL, and follow it up with legal threats and a DMCA takedown notice if necessary.
  7. "As for the person who once told me they thought wikipedia might itself have to sell a cd-rom version some day (which still wouldn't need a large file, only print would), if they do that then they can't call themselves a "free encyclopedia" any more, can they?" This arises from a problem with the English language. Wikipedia is free in the sense that free software is free, i.e. other people can reuse it and build on it. It's incidental that this particular website, on which Wikipedia content is made available to internet users, can be accessed freely, in the sense that you don't have to pay for it. There is nothing inherent in Wikipedia's license that means it has to be given away free of charge. It will be a bit strange if people see a CD version in the shops with "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" on the cover, right next to a price tag. If and when a CD version is sold someone will have to think of a way round this semantic problem.
I hope this goes some way to answering your questions. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This was a very thorough and helpful set of answers. The only thing I am left wondering is whether it is a technical problem for any type of Wikipedia release if the photo is a small file. If it is a Cd-rom release or on the web, then 50 kb ought to be fine technically as far as that purpose, shouldn't it? If Wikipedia wanted to be in print, wouldn't it need something better than a 500 kb file anyway? As for a photographer agreeing to let someone license their photo, what if they just don't want it licensed to be sold in a print version particularly so they prefer giving a small file? This wouldn't be trying to keep it from being in anything outside Wikipedia, but it would just be pretty much limiting it to use online by the fact that it's not a large file. And you already allow people to upload small format album cover jpgs as Fair Use when nobody has anything else, so it would seem to me a small 100 kb file or less would be sufficient for an online encyclopedia. And if Wikipedia's not concerned with server space, I don't know why they were trying to raise money recently. Anyway I really am still wrestling with the concern about whether it's in any way in the best interests of a photographer for me to just ask for a smaller file. I want to do what's best for everyone and I think the fact that some don't follow the rules who download from us makes me wonder about that.
If I find any violation of a photographer's copyright in a site downloading from us should I notify some part of Wikipedia to try to enforce it instead of me in the future, (not that I'll be looking)? Emerman 23:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Essentially, small photos are good, and big photos are better. A 50kb photo will do fine, and if the photographer's prepared to release a high-res version then all the better. A small photo is perfectly acceptable for our needs as an online encyclopedia. No one is going to delete a photo on the grounds that it isn't thousands of pixels wide. You're right that a high quality print edition would require high resolution photographs to look really professional, but I have never seen anyone raise this concern anywhere on Wikipedia. This encyclopedia is first and foremost a resource designed for electronic media. Small photos would be the least of our problems if we wanted to prepare a print edition. I personally don't think there will ever be a print edition of Wikipedia in the way that there is a print edition of Britannica or any other traditional encyclopedia. There are a whole variety of reasons for this, but I don't want to go too far off topic here. As for server space, the recent fundraising drive was not prompted by lack of disk space (which is not an issue considering the whole thing will fit onto a DVD) but the hardware needed to deliver one of the internet's most popular websites to the world. The rate at which people request pages from Wikipedia is mind-boggling, and it costs money to be able to provide them with these pages. Storage space taken up by people writing articles doesn't really enter into it. I'm not sure how best to respond to your concerns about the best interests of photographers. If a photographer doesn't want people using their photos because it will lose them revenue or something, they would probably not consider releasing them under a free license to be in their best interests. If you're in a position to ask photographers to license thier work, I'd recommend aiming to get high-res versions out of them but being prepared to settle for low-res, which is perfectly acceptable and useful for Wikipedia. Finally, there is no part of Wikipedia which polices mirror sites in any formal or dedicated way. It's up to individual contributors to enforce their own copyright themselves, since the Wikimedia Foundation which runs the technical side doesn't own rights to any of our work. If a someone uses material from Wikipedia without crediting its author then the dispute is between the author and the person illegally using their work. Wikipedia doesn't really enter into it. — Trilobite (Talk) 00:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is Canadian English a legitimate article language?[edit]

I noted that someone recently made a single minor change to the Bernoulli's principle article: from "propellor" to "propeller". The former is the British spelling and the latter is the American spelling. I was going to change it back, with a note pointing to Wikipedia:Style_guide#National_varieties_of_English, but first I thought I'd check if the page had a consistent American or British spelling orientation. I then noticed that the article used the word "airfoil" (American) and not "aerofoil" (British). So I thought, fine, it's an American-spelt article, leave it at that. But then I realized that I most likely included both spellings when I edited the article in the past. As a Canadian aerospace engineer, I use both "propellor" and "airfoil" and have never felt inconsistent about it. We Canadians are weird; we like to use odd mixes.

I know this is a minor point, and one I shouldn't get all up in arms about, but it made me curious. Most of the debates on this subject seem to imply a dichotomy between American and British English, and someone is likely to "correct" articles written in a hodgepodge of the two to be more consistent, but a hodgepodge of the two is actually a legitimate national dialect!

So err, should it be "propellor" as originally written, or "propeller" as it currently stands? moink 18:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I've always found it odd this centered about just American and British. In my opinion Canadian is just as valid. However, if there's more of these kinds of mixes, it may become an issue... Mgm|(talk) 19:01, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
The rule I use... If it looks glaring - ie it uses color and colour interchangeably - it probably ought to be consistent, one way or the other. If it's discussing an explicitly national thing, it probably ought to use only the relevant spelling - an article on the Union Jack should really talk about it being coloured red, white and blue - but an article on the American flag would look silly unless it talked about the colors. Not that that much helps your query... Shimgray 19:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Without wanting to comment on the debate, "propellor" is not in fact British English. All the dictionaries I have checked (which span the last 110 years) use "propeller". So it is either a spelling mistake or, indeed, Canadian specific. I have no dictionaries of Canadian English. Notinasnaid 19:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, then maybe the point is moot. Perhaps I'm just a Canadian aerospace engineer who can't spell. :) moink 20:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've found one web site that states that propeller/propellor are alternatives in US English, but propeller is UK English. I can't find any other support for this assertion. Google counting favours propeller. Notinasnaid 20:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at the history of the article, it was propeller for a long time, and only switched to propellor after an anonymous user, errr, "experimented" with it and then corrected his or her own experiment. And there's another use of it later in the same paragraph where it's spelt "propeller". So I'm obviously just over-sensitive. Nevertheless I think I brought up an interesting question. moink 20:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
According to Canadian English, "There is no universally accepted standard of Canadian spelling." So it would be very difficult to standardize/ise. IMHO, I think it would be easiest to use British or American spelling exclusively within each article, and use Canadian spelling only for canada-related articles. Of course, I realize this might be seen as unfair to Canadians, so I'm open to suggestions on how to include Canadian English while preserving ease of use. Best, Meelar (talk) 21:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Well... there isn't anything that's "universally accepted", but every Canadian I know would think "The colour of the cheque matched neither the aluminum nor the car's tires" is a correctly spelt (though nonsensical) sentence. moink

Can I...[edit]

You guys have an article on here about Star Wars, right. So would I be allowed to post an article about characters or planets from some sort of fan-made thing about Star Wars? Just wanted to know so I don't throw it on and have it knocked back off, I'd prefer it to just never be. Thanks for your help and thanks for all the Wiki-things you guys run, they're all great.

Thanks for asking. But I'm sorry to say it's not likely. Wikipedia articles need to be not only verifiable. A certain degree of importance is also required. You might like this fan-thing immensely, but unless it's got major press coverage it's unlikely to be acceptable. Mgm|(talk) 18:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
It's mostly not necessary for articles to be included to get major press coverage, only in this case it would probably be so. See also the links that were given in my answer to the comment Wikipedia:Help desk#My article which was factual was removed because x thought it wasn't. These will give you a clearer picture. --Eleassar777 19:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While your article sounds off-topic for wikipedia, it's probably on-topic for some other wiki -- have you tried the Star Wars wiki ?

Archaic Word and Possible Rare Usage[edit]


I have been asking regarding the following without success and could not find it in the OED. I will post the question as asked previously elsewhere:

"Sorry to bother you, but perhaps you have better resources than I about a possible British word, squift, now "out of the language."

See this sentence segment:

"Possibly he may have a squift at the name Diatribe ..."

This word was used in a book published in England circa 1823. I can find no reference to the word except something about a web site." Additionally, it was used in a note by a translator translating a book from Latin to English.

Thanks for anyone's assistance.


Well, that was a word I probably could have done without googling. Huh. I'm reasonably sure I've heard the word used verbally in the last ten years, as "quick look". cf/ shufti or the like. Not that that's desperately much help - but a lot of slang never goes near the OED, and can vary wildly in spelling. Shimgray 20:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Linking more than once in one story to another wikipedia article[edit]

In the 4AD article, I keep running across someone adding links to a band already linked to previously once in the article. I had thought administrators here had told me in the past to only link to something once and not more, including years. If that is correct, I will revert the latest change on that page because I already linked to Throwing Muses in the first paragraph and it doesn't need a second link later down the page.

Also, as for years, when you link to a year early in an article and then you get down to the list of References (or Notes) or anywhere else lower down the page and find you have a full date that you need to link at least the month and date for, do you also wikilink the year? In other words, assume I link 2002 early on in an article. Later, I am in the Notes or References section at the end for a citation, and an article citation there has March 22, 2002. Do I also link the year? So far I've linked the years as March 22, 2002 but I'm not sure that is what I should have been doing. (p.s. my signature doesn't seem to be showing the time -- how am I supposed to do the signature? I have forgotten and have been using three tildes.) Emerman

I would say that it is especially important that the article is as "reader-friendly" as possible. --Eleassar777 20:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Consult The Book of Armaments. If that doesn't help, then employ your own personal guidelines. Mine are that if a date has been linked to once, then I refrain from linking to it again. However, if an article name is used in an introductory section of a very long article, then I think it is acceptable to relink further down. This can cause problems if there is a need to resolve ambiguities, but such is life. (Four tildes is good for name and date.) Noisy | Talk 21:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
I realize that if a date has been linked to once, I would refrain from linking to it again, but I was talking about a year within a citation listing that includes month, date and year, when the year (not the date) has already been linked to once in the story, and not being sure whether to then not have the year relinked (so that it would look like March 22, 2002) I just want to be consistent; maybe I need to write a question on the Talk page at the Book of Armaments?
In a situation like this, you should always link both components of the date ("day+month" and "year") because only then is the MediaWiki software able to engage date preferences for displaying dates (see here for the official position). HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 11:50, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I could not remember the software reason for that and I have indeed been doing it the way you mention. I'm sorry to realize I probably should have understood it from the manual. Emerman 12:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Let me rephrase the question about the 4AD record label page that someone keeps adding links to after I remove them. The place in the article this is going on is in the section immediately below the first paragraph not much scrolling. I don't understand how I can be consistent about only linking once to a concept or name in an article in other situations if not also here. Otherwise every band listed in the opening paragraph has to be linked again in the article and all the story involves is one paragraph followed by a list of bands. That is not what I call a "long" article. The mention of Throwing Muses occurs twice with hardly any scrolling. I suppose it's a close question. Anyway, I've decided to go for consistency for now. Emerman 16:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyright status of audio file[edit]

I have come across the speech that Swami Vivekananda gave at the world religion congress in Chicago in 1893. The mp3 files are located at

I have downloaded and converted them to ogg. Can I go ahead and upload them to wiki commons? Can the files be classified as public domain? Calvinkrishy 14:27, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Linking to Wikipedia[edit]

We'd like to link to Wikipedia as a search tool from a desktop application. Is there a standard way to do this? I know I could come through using their standard interface. Any way to cut out the middleman?

  • I do not know if this answers your question, but you can use this form on any web page to access the Wikipedia search engine. Here is the HTML code:
<form name="searchform" action="" id="searchform">
<input id="searchInput" name="search" type="text" accesskey="f" value=""/>
<input type='submit' name="go" class="searchButton" id="searchGoButton" value="Go"/>

Zzyzx11 | Talk 18:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the Rewording or Deletion of Copied Articles[edit]

I recently found some articles on Wikipedia that were copied from an external source. Sure, some words were changed or moved around, but overall, it was the same. Does this count as plagiarism and does Wikipedia have specific rules regarding plagiarizing an article (e.g. delete or reword a plagiarized article)? Is this a copyright issue or not? JMBell | talk | 21:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • It depends on what the particular circumstances are. Can you point us where you found this? Smoddy (tgeck) 21:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • My feeling has always been that we should not allow plagiarism, regardless of whether of not it is also an issue of copyright, but not everyone agrees with me on this. Quill 22:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It's in Across the River and Into the Trees. I compared the orig. article and the one on Wikipedia (posted by IP on the talk page, then I fixed up the synopsis. However, I seem to have added some more material quite similar to that of the original article, so I might have canceled out the good in my act. Would you think this a case of plagiarism? JMBell | talk | 23:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians with article[edit]

I'm having a little trouble with this category. Other than the obvious Jimmy Wales or Angela Beesley many of the others don't seem to be Wikipedians at all (given that their Username is not divulged in their Articlespace and stupid me can't figure who the heck the User may be. So, my questions are:

  1. Is inclusion permitted by self-nomination and,
  2. If so, what controls are in place to prevent anyone with a bio to include themselves as a Wikipedian and,
  3. Whats the point if we can't tell who's who? hydnjo talk 23:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I guess that, like anything else, wikipedia:cite your sources should apply. We can site wikimeetups to show Jimbo and Angela are wikipedians. But we should require more evidence of Eric Raymond's or Joi Ito's membership that someone just making an account of that name. If they mentioned it in a blog entry or a speech or a journal article, that would be fine. If someone emailed them and they confirmed it, I guess that would be fine. The others should be considered pending verification at best. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 23:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The few that I checked out either were not Wikipedians or their Username was so completely obscured so as to defy any connection. So, if their name is to be in this category it should be verifiable in some way. Or else, what good is the category? It also leaves room for mischief if it is not accurate. hydnjo talk 00:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I suppose that I could get lots of folks into this category - lets see now .... hydnjo talk 01:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is at least one instance where there are contributions from the IP address of a wesite of the subject of the biography. I hadn't imagined that people would be classified as wikipedians without their having divulged the info . that they were wikipedians when I first created the category. Where do we draw the line between checking auto-biographical contributions and privacy (if any exists -- note that anonymous contributions are easily tracked to owners of websites with the same or similar IPs) of contributions. -- Paddu 20:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A not-so-convincing "proof" for Joi Ito is [3] where Joi cites Jimbo saying Joi uses Wikipedia. :) -- Paddu 20:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IMO, we should just get rid of this category altogether. It doesn't add any encyclopedic value; it's of interest mainly to Wikipedians, and it just looks like navel-gazing to outsiders. That, and as people have pointed out above, it's hard to verify. Isomorphic 14:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seconded, and we would avoid self-references to boot. Categories should be no-brainers, not puzzle games. If Wikipedians with articles want the world to know they are, they can use their user pages. If the fact that they edit Wikipedia is notable (hard to imagine) it can be mentioned in the article, but not through a category. At best this category should be moved to the talk page. JRM 16:12, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
There are too many self-references in the Talk: (e.g. {{featured}}), Wikipedia: (everything) and Category: (e.g. Category:Wikipedia and subcats) namespaces. If this should go, those all should go too. IMHO this should just be moved to the talk: namespace, probably templatised. Probably something like: Edits to this article under the username <whatever> could be autobiographical. -- Paddu 19:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Listing of user subpages?[edit]

At some point, months ago, I made a few rough draft article pages as my own user subpages, and don't remember what I called them. Is there any sort of utility that can list my user subpages? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

yes -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 23:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Claim previous edits[edit]

How do I claim edits made while I was not logged in? I guess my connection expired and I'd like to get credit for my work. Thank you.

How to include a thumbnail photo from another language?[edit]

From the help pages I see that it is possible to make a link to a photo in the Wikipedia of another language, for instance this link to a French picture of the Eiffel Tower. But I have not found out how to make a thumbnail image which links directly to the image uploaded in fr:Wikipedia. It seems that I need to copy and upload the image to en:Wikipedia and refer to that one. Please could you say how (or whether) it is possible to include a thumbnail of an image from another language Wikipedia without uploading it again? Strobilomyces 14:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, you need to copy the image. If an image is GFDL or public domain, you can instead upload it to Commons. Images there are magically visible in all wikimedia projects, including wikipedia, without such uploads. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 14:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Trying to find category.[edit]

Is there a specific category where I can put names of roller coasters in? Also, is there sub-categories for steel, wooden coasters etc? I can't find it here.

• Thorpe • 14:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Browse is a good place to start. I would, however, be pessimistic about your chances of success. Nevertheless, there could be one. Smoddy (tgeck) 14:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See Category:Amusement rides. -- Rick Block 15:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocking message.[edit]

You say in a message to me,"This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing.  ? Jrdioko (Talk) 06:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)"

And I say, "Huh???"

Bill Burke User:

Hi, Bill. I can't seem to find this message, but what it probably means is that someone using the same IP address as you was vandalising pages. Unfortunately, as many ISPs reassign their IP addresses all the time, this often appears as a message to the next user with that IP who turns up - who may well be someone else entirely. Hope that helps... Shimgray 20:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RSS on Wikipedia?[edit]

I know that Wikinews has them but what about Wikipedia? Are there any rss feeds available? In particular, I'm wondering if there is a rss feed for the Daily Featured Article.

The URLs for the RSS feeds are listed on Wikipedia:Syndication. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neato. I must have missed the link somehow. Thank you Zzyzx11.

seeking information[edit]


Is it possible to download the all the contents of this very educational free encyclopedia? If it is possible, which I very much hope, can you please how to do it? You can send me an e-mail at

Thank you


See Wikipedia:Database download. --cesarb 17:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there a specific policy for transliterations?[edit]

I was going through some Russian-related pages, and noticed a variation in how the articles are structured in terms of writing the English form of the word, the cyrllic form, and then the English transliterated form. Some examples:

This page has the following: (Russian/Cyrillic: Москва́, pronunciation: Moskva)

This page has the following: (Russian: Санкт-Петербу́рг, English transliteration: Sankt-Peterburg)

This page doesn't transliterate in the initial paragraph (in fact, it's a bit confusing, because the first time "kopecks" is mentioned, the Russian word "kahpeika" is written in parenthesis, though this is the singular form, and because it's in parenthesis like that, it could lead a person to assume that the Russian pronounciation is "kopeck".)

---- See Transliteration of Russian into English. — Sebastian (T) 15:47, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

Finding Copyright Violations in Old Articles[edit]

I've noticed that there are certain articles which have been around for some time with a substantial amount of copyrited material such as this one, this one and this one (look at the comparison between the current edit and this unwikfied text dump [4]). What is the proper course of action. Should I list these as copyright violations or should these articles be rewritten without being listed? ErikNY 16:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If only a small amount of the original copyvio remains, remove it; if too much of the original copyvio remains, tag it as a copyvio and copy the non-copyvio parts to the /Temp subpage. At least that's what I did with this user's copyvios. --cesarb 17:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-encyclopediac editing[edit]

Some of my changes were eliminated because they were deemed not encyclopediac. Kindly define what you mean non encyclopediac. If an administrator can eliminate changes because that person considers them non-encylcopediac, then there is not much point in making changes. If alternate views, specifically factual ones, are not permitted, then Wikipedia will not live up to its promise. Nagig

Well, it would help if we knew the exact situation. What page did you edit? Meelar (talk) 17:07, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

A little research shows: the message was posted by [[User::Nadig|Nadig]]. I can't find the specific incident, but I can find several chanegs that were undone. One affected article was Augustine of Hippo. One change was "subscribes to the doctrine of original sin" to "subscribes to the mightily flawed doctrine of original sin". I suspect this is the sort of thing that was meant, since this is not a universally shared view, so far as I (in my theological ignorance) know. You should read up on Wikipedia's rules about "neutral point of view". Your change to Paul of Tarsus was specifically undone by someone mentioning NPOV, which is Wikipedia jargon for "Neutral Point Of View", though I am unable to understand the topic well enough to say if that is valid. To oversimplify: you can't just state what you believe, or even what you know to be fact: the article has to represent fairly each established view, right or wrong. Notinasnaid 13:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary markup[edit]

Can someone please describe or direct me to a page describing the various markup one can use in edit summaries? Specifically, I have noticed some edit summaries contain a link to a subsection, but the link is a right arrow. How is this accomplished? Thanks. ~K 01:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They appear automatically if you edit a specific section (using the [edit] link next to the section header). The edit summary for this entry should be marked as such. — Knowledge Seeker 05:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this is a good question. Is there an FAQ or similar document that lists the WikiCode allowed in edit summaries? I have a couple of specific situations, but would rather refer to a document than ask specific questions. If such a document doesn't exist (which I doubt), I'd be glad to gather the information and write up in the Wikipedia namespace. --Deathphoenix 15:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It does exist, of course: see Wikipedia:Edit summary (and Wikipedia:Edit summary legend) for details. Please feel free to add links to it from the FAQ or elsewhere in the WP namespace. — Catherine\talk 15:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. Those pages don't seem to provide a list of actual WikiCode allowed. I'd like to know, for example, that typing /* This is a section */ will give you the link with a right arrow, or that italics and bold aren't allowed. I have seen something in m:Help:Edit summary#Rendering of wikitext; URLs, which would probably be good as it states the use of <nowiki></nowiki>, Wikilinks, Interwikilinks, and so on. Maybe I should add something about WikiCode to the FAQs that you mentioned.--Deathphoenix 15:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The allowed code can, AFAIK, be summarised as follows:

  • when editting a section, the section name will be automatically added between /* and */; this text will display differently in history etc, and automatically be preceded by an arrow (→) linking to the section with that name.
  • internal (and "interwiki") links are allowed, with or without specifying the text (e.g. [[something]] or [[something|something else]])
  • everything else is treated as plain text.

Feel free to add that to any help pages you'd expect to find it on. - IMSoP 23:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New password needed[edit]

Could an Administrator or Developer please change my account password and email it to my new email address: I have been on sabbatical for a couple of years and my email account has changed since I have been here, along with my computers, or I would use the send new password to owner email address function that Lee Crocker coded for us. If this is not possible then an email regarding ideas on how to proceed would be welcome. user:mirwin

templates and categories[edit]

Why are British Rail Class 01 (and several more BR class articles though not all of them) still showing up in Category:Locomotives even though the template file on the individual pages should have moved them into their own subcategory Category:British Rail locomotives, which indeed is how they are marked on the individual pages? Is this some kind of cacheing problem? Blotwell 12:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The individual pages won't update until they're edited. It's sufficient to edit the page and immediately save (a "null edit"); this won't show up in the history unless your browser happens to mangle some of the non-standard characters. —Korath (Talk) 15:14, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
A very easy solution would be to bypass your cache (e.g. just hold down the Ctrl key), as User:John Fader just mentioned below. — Sebastian (T) 15:39, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

Another meaning.[edit]

I was trying to put this link to forward the page to music album page but it goes to the page saying which Monkey Business meaning.

[[Monkey Business]]

If I want to link it to to the music album what do I do with out people seeing (Album) next to the name?

You'd need to use "pipes" - this character here | (It generally looks like an upright dashed bar on the keyboard.)
The format is [[link page|description]], thus [[Monkey Business (album)|Monkey Business]]
You'll note we don't have a page for the album - do feel free to create one! Shimgray 17:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where to request PCDATA article?[edit]

I'd like to request an article (probably only worth a few paragraphs) on the term PCDATA. All I know about it is the term is used in XML files. I'm new to wikipedia, so there's a few concerns I have. First, perhaps this isn't a big enough topic for an article. Second, where can I request such an article? In the request area, there is a topic "Computer Science" under Math and one under Natural Sciences. I would actually call this a question of Information Technology, which is parallel to but definitely different from Computer Science. (Computer Science deals with questions of the nature "What can we make computers do, in theory?" and IT is more "Let's build an e-commerce website.") So I don't know where to file this. Thanks. Pojo 18:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would think that this probably wouldn't merit an article in its own right, unless there are aspects that I'm unaware of - the most I could imagine is a description of its use in XML, and why it's called what it is. It might merit a mention in XML or some related article, I guess.
In terms of requesting things, I wouldn't worry too much; the normal way an article comes into existence is that somebody references the term as a link, and someone follows that link to an empty edit box to create the article. The requested articles page is split into broad subject areas merely because it was otherwise too big to be useful; just add things wherever you think interested people will find them.
As for Computer Science vs Information Technology, I would have thought something like a technical aspect of the XML standard falls well within the realm of CS anyway. I guess in terms of categorising and organising actual content, we should be careful not to apply the terms too loosely, but in general "lazy" usage, they (as well as other terms, like "computing") can generally be taken as synonymous, or at least heavily overlapping - and, as I say, the requests page doesn't really need to be strictly organised, IMHO. - IMSoP 23:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Confused about cleanin' up[edit]

I'm pretty new around here, and I'd like to help out "behind the scenes" with some occasional maintenance, but after extensive prowling, I'd have to say the rules, guidelines and procedures for doing so are pretty confusing. So a series of questions:

  • So an article can be "tagged" but not listed, or vice versa, or tagged as a stub, but listed under "Pages needing attention" and not the "stub" list, or any combination thereof, and this can be changed at any time by any user. Correct?
  • If this is true, than one of the maintenance tasks available to any user would be to correlate the central lists with the tagged articles, including re-tagging and re-listing (i.e. a stub that has been expanded but still needs work could be tagged as "needs expansion" and listed on that central page while erasing the stub tag and erasing it from the stub list). Correct?
  • If I think that an article no longer belongs on a central list (i.e. a stub has been expanded) how do I remove it from the central list? Should I just erase it? Should I add a comment under the listing, wait a bit for other editors to check it out, and then erase it? My choice? Which is better Wikiquette?
  • Wikipedia:Cleanup process is cited and linked to from all over the place, but if you look at the bottom of the page, it's listed as a "Wikipedia historical page", which implies that this is no longer a valid process. Huh? If this isn't the correct process, what is?
  • And then there's Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Maintenance which appears to be used as both another "Pages needing attention" central list (complete with comments) and as a big list of articles that may need to be untagged and/or unlisted from whatever "needs attention" list they may be on. What do we do with this page? The "big list" seems pretty old; AFAICT by spot-checking, a lot of the articles listed are currently "valid" articles (and have been for a while) that don't need tags or listings , but the newer entries are the ones that treat the page as a "Pages needing attention" resource. Perhaps this page could use a header explaining what it is.
  • While we're on the subject, there seems to be a very recent semi-major policy change about the merge template. Not to sound overly suspicious, but how official is this? There's nothing on the Category:Articles to be merged discussion page explaining the change or the need for it. How is this different from the old merge? It asks us to tag articles as {{merge|article}} but it's not clear if the "article" is what we're merging "to" or "from" or "with." Furthermore, I seem to recall this change being "announced" in the header of the Wikipedia:Recent changes page for about eight hours. I think it would be nice if a serious procedure change, as this one seems to be, would be left as an "announcement" for, say, a week or so for the benefit of editors who don't check that page very often. (Disclaimer: while this may be the "most annoyed" question of the above list, I haven't really investigated merging much, so please temper all responses with a "lost newbie" grain of salt.)

Thanks for listening and answering, Soundguy99 18:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To answer one little part, the categories are built automatically. Stub tags, cleanup tags, wikify tags, etc. all contain the line of code that adds the page to the category. For the other ones you list (requests for expansion, etc.) they're purely manual. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 18:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Aaaahh. . . .O.K. So I can clean up the "manual" pages at will, then? (see "correlate" question above) I believe the source of some of my confusion is that the links at the top of the Recent Changes page tend to send one to the "manual" pages rather than the "automatic" Category pages. Also, quite a few Talk pages had some grumbling about the "new" system right around Jan 2005. Is Wikipedia sort of in a "growing pains" stage between a primarily manual system and a more automatic system? Soundguy99 20:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is always in a growing pains phase; it's creative anarchy at times. Categories were added only about a year ago (the software didn't support them before), but one go to wikipedia:stub and hit "what links here" to list stubs (so it was kinda automatic anyway). I really wouldn't worry too much about what the right way to fix something is; most of all that process is just there because people are afraid that valuable but imperfect stuff will get forgotten and lie fallow (and the processes only succeed in that ambition to a degree). There's quite a lot of people who just sit and push "random page" and tweak every article they find (there are very few that don't need something fixed, formatted, or improved). -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 20:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To answer another part, decision making is entirely decentralised. If you think an article is no longer a stub, take of the stub tag. Ditto for wikify, cleanup. NPOV and similar tags are generally discussed on the talk page and removed by consensus. Only delete and copyvio tags are considered on specific pages. So "be bold", justify what you do briefly in the edit summary, and don't take it personally if someone else has a different view than you do. I can hearily recommend cleanup duty as one of the more fun occupations at the wikipedia, as you'll end up reading about all kinds of stuff you'd never have sought out. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 18:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess my question is more about procedure for cleaning up the "manual" list pages rather than tagging/untagging the articles themselves. See the 4th question above. Thanks Soundguy99 20:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many of the pages you describe give specific directions on what to do. For example, Wikipedia:Duplicate articles says, "After a pair has been merged, please remove it from the list below." So be sure to read all the instructions on those pages. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Soundguy99, I'll try to give an answer for some of the questions you raise. Please feel free to contact me on my Talk page if any of these answers are not clear or if you feel I misunderstood your question:

  1. Yes, "Tagging" an article is pretty much at the discretion of the editor. There are some guidelines, such as to try not to put too many tags on at once. Basically it is up to you.
  2. I believe the answer is "Yes" although I am not familiar with how "Pages Needing Attention" works. Definitely these categorizations can change at any time. For example, if you delete the {{stub}}text from the article then the stub notice will dissapear and the article will no longer be listed as a stub. If you put it back, it will be listed again.
  3. I am not sure I understand your question. I can tell you how I find articles to edit. I load the "Recent Changes" page or the "New Pages" page and click on an article. Sometimes you can tell by the size of the article that it is likely to be a stub. Then I might follow some links in that article to try to improve related articles while I'm on the subject.
  4. Don't worry about editing the list of stub articles. Just take the {{stub}} notice off the article and it will vanish from the list.
  5. You are correct that this page is tagged [[Category:Wikipedia historical pages]], which means it theoretically has been superceeded by some better content or process. How someone finds a page to edit and then exactly how they go about improving it is really a matter of personal style and, ultimately, group consensus as to what edits remain for how long. You can use the Community_Portal page as a jumping off point to lots of suggested edits tips, guidelines, policies, etc, as well as a place to see pages to work on.
  6. The most likely explanation is that someone improved the page but did not remove the page from the listing. If you are pretty confident the article is good, feel free to 'be bold' and remove it from the list.
  7. I'm not sure.

Johntex 23:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template question[edit]

I frequently use <nowiki> and <code> together, like this: <code><nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/Knowledge Seeker]]</nowiki></code>, which gives [[Special:Contributions/Knowledge Seeker]]. Is there a template which does this? If not, and I create one (once I figure out how to do that), should I list it somewhere? (and any suggestions on what to call it?) Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker 20:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What to call it, I don't know. Perhaps Template:Wiki-coding The content would have to be :
(try writing that above line...) and you would call it by {{subst:Template:Wiki-coding|insert text here}}. I have to wonder whether it is worth it. Smoddy (tgeck) 20:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right; it's probably not worth it. Although it wouldn't require the "Template:" in the call, right? On a related note, what does {{code}} do? — Knowledge Seeker 20:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

True, it wouldn't need the Template: thing. Incidentally, if you have Firefox, you can download a plugin which lets you do the operation to give nowiki and code tags in three clicks. As for Template:Code, I have no idea. It puts a set of text (called as the second parameter) inside what appear to be pointless font tags giving it an id of another parameter. Nothing links to it, so its purpose is anyone's guess. This is it in use action: useless template. Smoddy (tgeck) 20:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's easier to memorise the Unicode character numbers for these things - Left Square Bracket is 91 (&#91;) and Right Square Bracket is 93 (&#93;) producing [ and ], so I can type [[This is not really a link, but no <nowiki> tags were required]] and no nowiki tags were required. Almost as ugly as <nowiki><code><nowiki>[[(insert link here)]]</nowiki></code></nowiki> to get the stuff above. Warning: If you wish to remain sane, don't view the wikitext. Alphax τεχ 17:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge and Renaming Questions[edit]

Recently I said I would edit two sad stubs about the same item that needed merging if someone else would do the merging. I think someone has, but the two stubs still exist, so I'm not sure, and I don't know which one to edit. How do I figure this out? After I've edited/written the article I want to change the title to the correct name for the item, but I don't know how to get to the Title line. Is there some horrible procedure I have to go through to request that the merged "Heath toffee" and "Heath (candy bar)" be changed to Heath bar? Mothperson 21:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the tabs at the top of the page, there should be a "move" between "history" and "(un)watch" - click on this and give the title of the new page. This'll move it for you... Shimgray 21:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Everything looks okay now. I've done some formatting on Heath bar after I checked. 12:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Does anyone on this site have an education or knowledge of current events. For example - you may want to read George Bush's speech to the UN in October of 2002. It will show that your mutilated version of his policy in Iraq completely wrong (and totally misleading for the ill informed). It waS not Bush that wanted inspections in Iraq - it was France. Bush's speech lays out the numerous times Sadam defied the UN (not occasional). Those of us born after 1990 remember the NUMEROUS times - remember Clinton hacving to bomb Iraq because of it. Read the speech. It will show you how ill informed you are. Unless of course, your intentions are other than seeking truth. If that is the case than your website makes sense. Know that not all of us are sleeping - many of us are paying attention to the CBC and the BBC and can compare that to the full context of speeches shown on C-SPAN. The full context of speeches doesn't match the convoluted, misguided and uneducated versions you display on this website.

What's the title of the article with which you have a problem? -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 22:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's the beauty of Wikipedia. If it's wrong fix it. Be bold.— oo64eva (AJ) (U | T | C) @ 09:15, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Help page on the gallery extension[edit]

I could just be blind, or stupid, or both, but: Where's the official help/documentation on the <gallery> extension? Alphax τεχ 17:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gallery. Should be at Help:Gallery surely? HTH anyway HAND --Phil | Talk 17:42, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

can you help me?[edit]

Maybe, if you tell us what you need help with -- Ferkelparade π 18:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

can you help me?[edit]

hi there im planning a trip and was wondering if you could tell me about the road that runs under The English Channel.

could you tell me from which cities it runs.... if you could please help me that would be wonderful thankyou

my email address is

thank you very much for your time and help kimberly mackie

There is a small road that runs under the English Channel - however, it's a service tunnel, and not open to the public. You probably want the Channel Tunnel, which is a railway route.
There are passenger trains from London to Paris, and "vehicle trains" (ie, carrying cars and vans) between Sangatte (near Calais) and Folkestone. This means you can take a car through, easily enough, but not directly driving. Shimgray 19:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page for movie[edit]

There is a page for the word definition and song CONVOY though it does mention the movie by same name there is not a page for the movie. I inputed CONVOY into alist of 1978 movies. Now, how can/do I seperate pages for the word definition/song and movie? I run a website for the movie so I will create page for the movie.

I've created a link to Convoy (movie) from Convoy; if you click on that red link, it'll give you a page to write a page on the movie. Enjoy... if you have any problems, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll see what I can do. Shimgray 20:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, once you've created that article you can link to it using Wikipedia:Piped links so it displays as "Convoy". Mgm|(talk) 21:31, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Arena page apparently shut off?[edit]

Please explain this: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wikipedia search is disabled for performance reasons. You can search via Google or Yahoo! in the meantime. Note that their indexes of Wikipedia content may be out of date. If the search term contains an underscore, change it into a space.

I run a web site covering a large history of wrestling history in Philadelphia. The Arena was a venue which I will include more than wrestling had been hosted there.

Well, the search function eats up a lot of server resources, and we're always short on servers (our traffic increases to fill any extra capacity we might get). As for the Arena, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. If we don't have a page on a notable institution, you're welcome to start one. Best, Meelar (talk) 00:43, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I moved a pic[edit]

Hi, I moved a picture from the French Wikipedia that I did not take myself at : Image:HarpesTrilobite.jpg. I added all the relevant copyright info, I think, but want someone to see if I didn't leave anything out or make any wrong moves in doing this. I want to use the image at one of the trilobite order articles (Order Harpetida, genus Harpes). The original is on the French equivalent of the Trilobite page here. --DanielCD 14:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Multiple users from the same I.P. address[edit]

My school has one I.P. address assigned to around 700 computers. I have noticed that the I.P. address has been blocked from editing though? So, does that mean it will affect all users? Many people do use Wikipedia in my school for educational reasons but a few spoil it by contributing useless edits and sometimes deliberately making pages a mess. May I also ask if a ban is forever or a limited time?

Please do not tell me to change the I.P. address since it is impossible. When I double-click the two computers (taskbar) I cannot disable the network or reconnect because the button is grayed out for some reason. There is no possible way of changing the I.P. address.

• Thorpe • 16:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most IP bans are 24 hours, a few are for longer periods, and a very small number are permanent (these last ones are for open proxies). Yes, everyone under that IP is blocked by a block on that address. We're acutely aware of the problem of blocking valuable contributors while swatting vandals, but IPs are the only means we have of identifying users, and blocks are necessary to stop the vandals (otherwise we'd spend our entire time cleaning up their mess). So there's not much wikipedia, either technically or proceduraly, can really do differently. The only think I can suggest is that, when you are blocked, is to dig out your proxy's log, figure out who was actually vandalising the wikipedia (the proxy will show the internal address of the guilty party, which you might be able to pin down on a specific person), and publically punish that person. I appreciate that, in a dynamic school environment, that's going to be difficult, but really I can't think of anything else. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 16:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Another option is to surf to Wikipedia via an anonymous proxy server. There are loads of free anonymous proxy servers. Just type in anonymous surfing into google. What you're basically doing is surfing the web using their computers instead of your own. You might have to deal with their advertisement filled frame though. — oo64eva (AJ) (U | T | C) @ 09:13, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
This is ridiculous when there are so many DSL home users with changing IPs. 13:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk page not fully loading[edit]

I was trying to read User talk:Carnildo, but for some reason the whole page isn't displaying. I tried forced reloads, clearing my cache, clearing the page's cache, but nothing seems to work. The last thing I see is Fvw's "*falls off chair laughing*", but not his signature. Looking at the Wiki text, I can't figure out why nothing else displays (and it was displaying yesterday). Looking at the actual HTML source, I see <i>*falls off chair laughing*</i> <a href="/wiki/User:Fvw" title="User:Fvw">. The <a> is never closed, but next comes the HTML for the navigation links and such, so it doesn't appear to be a problem with my Internet connection. Can anyone help me figure out what's wrong? — Knowledge Seeker 17:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, User:Korath just fixed it. — Knowledge Seeker 18:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) - fvw's sig has been breaking things. Alphax τεχ 02:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Featured page feature[edit]

is there an equivalent of the link but for the current featured article? i have the randompage link as my current homepage, but i'd love to load up the latest of the best wikipedia has to offer (plus i imagine it would be great for the cache if a bunch of people switched over to the frequently viewed featured article from some random stub).

if this doesnt exist, is there an easy way to add it? or some simple hackage i can do to just load it up myself?

  • You can put the front page blurb anywhere using: {{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}. You could put this code in a user subpage and use that page as your browser's homepage. It's not the entire article, but the best I can think of at the moment. Mgm|(talk) 18:29, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

my entries have disappeared completely...[edit]

a few weeks ago, I contributed a couple of carefully researched and worded articles about two horse breeds. I had found the long list of horse breeds and found two that were "empty" of any info so I filled them in. They were the Caspian horse and the Fjord. It was my first try so maybe they weren't submitted perfectly, but now I see they have just vanished, even the headings are gone. why?

I've found Fjord horse, is this the one you wrote? As far as I can tell, this breed was never in list of horse breeds which I suspect is the long list of horse breeds you're talking about. I can't find any article about a Caspian (horse or pony), although there is a link to Caspian pony in the ponies section of the list article. I hate to suggest it, but are you sure you saved (as opposed to only previewed) the article? BTW - it would be easier to chase this down if you registered a user name and logged in while editing. -- Rick Block 00:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

using pictures from the encyclopedia[edit]

I am creating a website for educational purposes and I would like to use pictures about chess piece movements. How would I go about doing this?

Click on each picture that you are interested in using. It will take you to a page with more information, including the copyright status. If it says "public domain" you are free to use the pictures for any purpose. Otherwise, refer to the copyright information shown. In some cases, for example, you would be allowed to use the picture provided you give a credit for each one to the copyright holder. (I don't think "educational purposes" is a get out for copyright, though it may depend on the country you are in). Notinasnaid 08:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)



Could someone please explain to me the logic of case-senstivity in page titles?

For example, in the search box, "Abraham lincoln", "abraham lincoln", "AbrAhAM LincolN" and every other variation I've tried successfully finds the page titled "Abraham Lincoln".

OTOH, "Isle of Wight Festival" is found only if you get the capitalisation exactly right, which is definitely NOT what you want. Searching should always be case-insensitive.

What's going on?

From some experiments (NOT from looking at the code), I believe the algorithm is:
  • If the article name is all initial caps (for example, Abraham Lincoln), the search is case-insensitive.
  • If, after the first word, the article name is all initial lower case (for example, Rochester railway station), the search is case-insensitive.
  • If, after the first word, the article name includes some words with initial caps and some words with initial lower case (for example, Isle of Wight Festival), the search requires an exact match.
You can pretty much fix this by adding a redirect. For example, someone has added a redirect from Isle of wight to Isle of Wight, which provides a case insensitive redirect to the desired article. If you're new to redirects, you might want to visit Wikipedia:Redirect. -- Rick Block 01:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yep thanks, that looks right. I should have been able to figure that out myself I think! If anyone ever has time this ought to be fixed to make searches always case-insensitive, which IMO is what 99% of people want 99% of the time. Redirects are a horrible workaround since there are potentially so many case variations.

You missed the subtle point that the redirect can be case insensitive. For example, if you enter IsLE oF wiGHT (or any other case variation) in the search box, you end up being redirected to Isle of Wight because of the one redirect Isle of wight. -- Rick Block 13:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I've got it now... thanks.

confused about deletion and redirects, also about a disambiguation situation[edit]

I am very confused by the information I read in the directions on how to delete a page and deleting a redirect. I do not want to accidentally cause a page I moved and redirected a first page to, to end up also deleted by my failure to understand the directions. While researching Fort Apache Studios, which is very often just called Fort Apache, I originally created a page called Fort Apache (recording studio), figuring I would need to disambiguate the term since the name of the studio comes from a fort and Indian reservation. I then created the Fort Apache disambiguation page.

Meanwhile I read something that led me to believe the studio is actually called Fort Apache Studios, partly from seeing how many times it is listed that way in other Wikipedia articles, and then finding an early business card photo of it listed that way. There's a Google listing for it as Fort Apache Studios (see title at top of that page's browser window) too. (But only later did I see that that page is no longer the one linked at the main site and appears to be a mirror page for those who know it by that name; meanwhile an identical page that follows the studio link at the home page says just "Fort Apache" at the top). I created a Fort Apache Studios page and redirected the Fort Apache (recording studio) page to it. Immediately after moving it I saw that the official page links to the afore-mentioned studio page just called Fort Apache now, so I'm not sure whether to delete the Fort Apache (recording studio) redirect or not. It appears the studio has been known by both names almost equally. One could write to for further info, but getting an email back is difficult due to their workload.

Question 1: If it's determined the Fort Apache (recording studio) page I created originally when I thought it was just known as "Fort Apache" should be deleted while keeping the page it already redirects to (Fort Apache Studios, then what is the procedure -- list on the page for deleting redirects? I couldn't tell for sure because the page deletion directions were not clear to me regarding whether that Delete Redirects page is for deleting a page 1 that redirects to a page 2 while leaving page 2 alone or not. (I don't want to risk hurting the page 2 in the equation, "Fort Apache Studios.")

Question 2 is whether I should just leave it alone and not delete. But it seems highly unlikely anyone would search our index for the studio by typing out "Fort Apache (recording studio)," so unless both that page and Fort Apache Studios are listed on the Fort Apache disambiguation page, which seems redundant, I think there is no point to the Fort Apache (recording studio) page and it should be deleted, leaving the Fort Apache Studios page alone, and this could be justified on disambiguation grounds even if the studio is more often just called Fort Apache. It is hard to know what it's more often known as, even if it technically may NOW be called just Fort Apache. At some points in its past, as shown by a business card photo online and its own past Google listing, it definitely was also called Fort Apache Studios. I'm sorry I'm so confused about how and also whether to delete this sort of page without asking questions. Emerman 03:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I would simply leave the redirect there--there's really no reason not to have it. It should also be listed on the disambiguation page. And yes, redirects for deletion can delete redirects without harming the article that the redirect goes to. There's just no need to do so in this case. Hope this helps, Meelar (talk) 03:07, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright question[edit]

If I post material that I wrote, say for a college paper, does what I post become property of Wikipedia or can I retain my own copyright?

You still retain the copyright; HOWEVER, bear in mind that you're releasing whatever you've written under the GFDL, which means other people are allowed to use and publish this, and create derived works, etc. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for all the info. Best, Meelar (talk) 03:13, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

links from powerpoint[edit]

I'm working on a powerpoint project that has a time-line of historical periods. I want to put in links to Wikipedia to allow the user to get additional information. No Wikipedia text is in the powerpoint slides. If I sell my powerpoint slide product do I need to get some sort of licence for including the links?

No. This will be totally fine. Good to know you're making use of Wikipedia! — Trilobite (Talk) 08:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This will not bother us in the least. In fact, we'll encourage it. Free advertising is a glorious thing! Seriously though, there's only one situation I know of where anyone would need permission to link content, and that's for images (where it's considered rude to link an image directly without permission because of bandwidth issues.) Linking to full pages requires no permission. Isomorphic 17:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Fair use" question[edit]

What does "fair use" mean for Wikipedia in practice. Does that mean that I can take whatever image published in media and post it here on Wikipedia as long as the copyright info (e.g. (C)Reuters) and the claim of fair use is provided? What about the images on web pages of individuals? Thanks. --Eleassar777 09:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair use is not Wikipediaese for "I want to use this image", despite frequently being used like that. There's some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image sleuthing#10 point plan for judging fair use.Korath (Talk) 12:02, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Nesting parameter templates[edit]

I am trying to nest templates, like this: {{foo|a=1|sub={{bar|spam=eggs}}|c=3}} But, as can be seen here, it fails to interpret the nested template. How can I achieve nesting parameter templates? Gerrit MUTE 11:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It can't be done, according to m:Help:Template#A pair of double or triple braces inside a pair of double braces. —Korath (Talk) 12:07, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

few questions on wikipedia:reference desk[edit]

I have several questions about wikipedia:reference desk. 1. Could I move particular questions posted in here to relevance article's talk page? 2. Why the data in RD not arhived? It already has a long page already. 3. Why there's a repertition of questions in that page? Thank you. Roscoe x 18:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  1. I'd say move, no; but copy, yes. Either way, what would be the point? Integrating information into the article proper (i.e. not the talk page) would be more productive, IMO.
  2. It is archived.
  3. Because Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia isn't displayed prominently enough at the top of the page. ;-) --David Iberri | Talk 19:06, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Because my English is not good, so I'm planning to make it look like simple faq on the talk page. That's easier for me. Thanks for your answers. Roscoe x 13:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I am a beginner and I hope this is the right place to ask. My question is: In the English Wikipedia, is there an agreement to use a certain type of English (GB/ USA/ Aus/ Etc.)? If there is nothing like this I assume everyone can use the English he wants to use. Is that correct? If so, is this stated somewhere?

It may sound like a silly question, but I actually need a reference for another group of languages where this is discussed. --Karoschne 00:03, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. It helps if you try to be consistent in any given article - it looks a bit odd if it keeps changing from American to British usage in alternate sentences - but otherwise whichever you feel more comfortable with. Stylistically, I try to remember to make it appropriate - if the article is about an American-specific topic, then it seems to be sensible to try and remember to use "color" not "colour", but I do forget most of the time (and I think I'm unusual in trying, anyway). But it seems like it should be that way.
(Be careful with article titles, or where the word appears in names, though; Wikipedia style is happy with "armoured" or "armored" in the text, but an article on the U.S. 1st Armored Division really shouldn't be at U.S. 1st Armoured Division).
I can't help you on the last part, but perhaps consider Spanish? I vaguely recall that "American" and "European" versions of the language have diverged quite strongly; the same may well be true of Portugese. Shimgray 00:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
More specifically, articles about US subjects tend to use US English, and articles about UK subjects uses UK English. Oz, NZ, Canada tend to use their idioms; and there's a large gray area in which so long as the article is internally consistent, all is good. --Tagishsimon (talk)

iSeries Article has been deleted[edit]

Wikipedia has a article called AS/400. This system has been renamed and updated since 2000. There was no information about iSeries and i5/OS, which is why I added the iSeries article in the first place. I have spent the last couple of weeks adding to this article as I had time, with as much information and links that I thought would be helpful as possible. To my knowledge everything I added was CORRECT and as I found discrepencies or read something that differed, I made changes to the article. Possible there was some parts that should have been removed or needed changes. Today I tried to go the page and found it completely deleted and the link for iSeries takes you back to the AS/400 article again. I appreciate all my effort being wasted.

Perhaps you should bring this up on the article's talk page or ask the user who redirected it. ISeries has not been deleted, just changed to a redirect—all the previous edits are there in the history. Anyone can restore them, if that's what people feel is best. — Knowledge Seeker 02:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As Knowledge Seeker said, it's been turned into a redirect. You can get to the original version following the link that says "(Redirected from ISeries)" and looking into the history. Notice, however, the justification given by whoever turned it into a redirect:
Changed back to redirect. There is nothing useful here that isn't covered in the AS/400 article; just a big features list and some poorly-backed counterarguments to criticisms of the system.
If you want to turn it back into an article, you might want to address these complaints.
--cesarb 04:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

if articles are taken out of wikipedia, link is necessary ?[edit] uses articles from wikipedia without a link back to Wikipedia see e.g.

I didn't find any contact details on that site to complain. whois gives:

probably better if someone from Wikipedia tells them about their wrongs ?

  • But people arriving at that page (via Google e.g.) most probably do not read the copyright page - that link to wikipedia shouldn't be on each page ? Personally, I would find it much fairer than just that hidden link.
    Yes, they are supposed to be linking on every page. We don't tend to get especially nasty about it as long as they're acknowledge us somewhere. Isomorphic 04:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it may be necessary. I believe that has copied a Wiki article verbatim and is using it as hidden text in their java code in order to gain unwarranted stature in the search engines. The article does not show on their page, providing no info, but does show in keyword phrases when searching Google. This is a clear violation of GDFL, by making a free article into proprietary software. I wrote most of the article for Wiki after copyrighting the article to my own website. Several keyword phrases from the article came up in a Google search with their description for quoting the article verbatim. Any suggestions? This is abusive in that the abusive website is selling language courses, but not Zuni, and states that there is no info for the Zuni language. The article is no longer "free" ware and to allow such use/abuse establishes a nasty precedent. Amerindianarts 05:17, 30 Apr 2005

image upload problem[edit]

Hi, I am trying to upload a new image and (after a "successful" upload) when I try to view it I keep on getting the messge "The image "xyz.jpg" can't be displayed bacause it contains errors." The file is in the Commons, here: Image:Ganymede with cockerel and hoop - Louvre.jpg Naturally, it seems ok on my computer. This, by the way, was a tiff-to-jpg conversion. Any suggestions? Thanks, Haiduc 11:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't determine why the file contained errors, but I used ImageMagick to convert it to PNG and then back to JPEG, and now the image is fine. I think Image:Ganymede with cockerel and hoop - Louvre.jpg should be deleted now that the Commons version works. Would you object to my deleting it? --David Iberri | Talk 17:40, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. Thank you very much for your help, and yes, please feel free to delete the English version. Haiduc 22:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

no wikipedia logo in internet explorer?[edit]

the wikipedia logo which should be in the upper left corner doesn't display in internet explorer. anybody experienced this? 12:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IE6 SP2. Yes I have flushed the cache. 12:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Odd. Are there any other sites that show the same sort of problem? Mgm|(talk) 10:41, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
Odd indeed. I haven't noticed similar problem anywhere else. The Wiki.png image displays fine in many different places but not in the upper left corner. Actually, I've opened hundreds of Wikipedia pages yesterday and I've seen the logo ONCE, on one of the many similar pages! Thanks anyway. 13:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have the same problem - no logo - when using IE, but it appears when I am using Mozilla. --Eleassar777 14:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh-huh! I know how to get the logo. Right-click a link to a Wikipedia article and then Open in New Window. 19:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is probably a rather unfortunate side-effect of an ActiveX filter which was just mentionned on the mailing list for a different reason. Basically, the problem is that IE, although it can display PNGs in general, doesn't support alpha transparency (which lets the image's creator make pixels "partially transparent", e.g. for anti-aliasing) without an external tool. So the logo is displayed in a rather "weird" way (through a special filter) in IE, which could explain its erratic appearance. - IMSoP 17:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looking for a template[edit]

I recall vividly seeing a "locationnal" template on several city pages, a template that showed what cities were located north, south, east and west of the one described in the article, but I can,t figure out where I've seen it. Can somebody help me in finding it? Circeus 12:12, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

There are a few Japanese town articles with an inline table for this, for example Wassamu, Hokkaido. Is this what you're thinking of? -- Rick Block 23:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Pretty much, found it back by accident on Quebec City and Calgary. I'll create a template {{nearby cities}} soon. Circeus 14:19, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Links not showing correctly in Firefox 1.03[edit]

Links in Wikipedia are not showing correctly in my installation of Firefox 1.03. They appear nicely in IE 6.0. It is difficult to read at times. This does not happen with sites other than Wikipedia. Operating system is WinXP, SP2.

I have posted screen captures to this page to make what I mean clearer.

Any help is very much appreciated. --Andre Saito 13:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just got the firefox 1.03, and my links work fine. I use Windows 98SE though, and I've heard SP2 makes things crash. Howabout1 04:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That looks suspiciously like a font SNAFU (Firefox might be picking up some strange font you have installed). --cesarb 04:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
FF1.03 on SP2 works fine for me, with no font problems. Maybe you have a bad stylesheet cached? -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 16:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks all for the help. I cleaned the cache, but it didn't help. Since links show fine to you, the problem must be in my machine. I use a Japanese WinXP, so it may be some font configuration mismatch. I'll check it further. Thanks again! --Andre Saito 21:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Try a different skin. The different skins specify different fonts, and you may simply be unlucky with one specific font. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 21:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks John. I chose a skin that remove underlines, and that's good enough. Nice hint! --Andre Saito 00:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Linking to Wikipedia[edit]

I have my own wikisite, and I want to link it to wikipedia, just like in Wikinews. They do it like this [[w:electronic]] to link to an article in wikipedia about electronic. How do I apply this in my MediaWiki site? Thank you. Roscoe x 14:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See m:Help:Interwiki links. —Korath (Talk) 14:57, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Success, thank you very much. Roscoe x 15:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

to be deleted image keeps getting restored[edit]

I've been trying for HOURS now to get this image (and every image with the same name) deleted, but all the moderators do is just put it back on instead and restart the discussion why it should be deleted.

I don't want it restored, I want it deleted myself! But they keep restoring it so they can delete it later... sorry, this really doesn't make sense!

  1. Please 'sign' your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
  2. Why do you want it deleted?
  3. You're not the person who up-loaded it, so your request isn't a reason for speedy deletion.
  4. The image is linked to by an article (which is also being discussed for deletion, but which exists at the moment).
  5. However, the image does have an earlier request for deletion by the up-loader, so I've deleted it, and removed the link from the relevant article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Maybe he was the original uploader, on a dynamic IP? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 15:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could be — but we can't delete files because someone claims to be their up-loader. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I *am* the preson who uploaded it and I have a static IP... DarkSkywise 15:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) (here's 4 tildes for you)
Fine — but you weren't logged in when you left the earlier comment. I don't think you'd be very happy if admins deleted your images and articles because someone using an anon IP address claimed to be you and asked for them to be deleted. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Probably happened while jumping back & forth between various Wiki-sections (with somebody on the phone yelling "Get This Fixed Now!") because I never acually logged off or switched browser windows.

DarkSkywise 16:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IP vs. username[edit]

In the last couple of days I have accidentally saved two articles without being logged in thus my IP address appears as an author. Is there any way this can be changed to my log in name? --Ttyre 17:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Theoretically this is possible but as the developers have more pressing tasks I don't think any of these edit reassignments have been done for months, and if you've made only a couple of contributions while logged out I'd say the chances of having them assigned to your username are next to nil. If it's important to you to have credit for these edits you could either make a note on the articles' talk pages or on the user page or talk page of the IP you used. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help with uploading images[edit]

I'm trying to upload an image—not to the Wikimedia Commons, because it's a "fair use" image—and I'm sure I've got the filename correct, but I can't get it to upload. I've turned off my firewall software, and I still can't get the "Browse..." button to do anything, and when I enter the filename and path into the dialog box, it comes back with a message telling me that the file I am trying to upload is empty. What do I do? Hermione1980 20:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you put in an incorrect filename then you'll see that message. (Some people also mistakenly imagine they can put a URL in that field, which you can't). I don't understand why your "browse" button shouldn't work; perhaps you should try a different webbrowser? -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 15:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Piped links for categories[edit]

The link [[Category:U.S. ethnic groups|Famous Americans by ethnicity]] in Category:American people by ethnicity has the following effect:

The article appears in Category:U.S. ethnic groups under the letter "F", but with the name "American people by ethnicity". Shouldn't this appear as "Famous Americans by ethnicity"?

(I think this used to work. Maybe it changed for similar reasons as #Category_Shortcuts.3F above.)

Sebastian (T) 22:16, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

  • No, whatever comes after the piped link in a category link, is used to sort alphabetically and make it possible to sort something in another category than Wiki software would usually choose. It's useful to sort using last names with people instead of sorting them by first name. As far as I know you can't make an article appear in a category by any other name than the one it already has. Mgm|(talk) 22:20, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
I see, thanks! That's a pity! — Sebastian (T) 23:28, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

Images with embedded initials of photographer[edit]

I am having trouble locating the Wikipedia policy page discussing this subject. I found a good photo that I wanted to ask a photographer permission to upload at Wikipedia. She embedded her initials in a corner of the jpg. Am I dreaming or did I once read on some page that we don't post photos containing embedded credits or initials? I want to be correct in what I ask her for and the reason I give for it. I will tell her also she doesn't need to do anything she's not comfortable with, if she doesn't want it uploaded without the initials. However, I'm not even sure I am remembering policy here correctly. — Emerman 02:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm really confused on how to handle this still. I see in the Wikipedia:Image use policy area the following:

6 Edit the images to show just the relevant subject.

7 If you create an image that contains text, please upload also a version without any text. It will help Wikipedias in other languages use them (translate them).

8 Don't put photo credits in articles or on the images themselves; put them on the description page. has a section discussing it. But everyone is coming at it from the point of view of an image you create yourself instead of one we sought permission to use from a professional. Having seen someone who uses Wikipedia a lot for their website download part of one of my articles and use a GNU photo in it without attributing the photographer, I sort of feel like people shouldn't mind if initials or a tiny name are shown at bottom right to protect the photographer. I'm torn about whether to ask photographers to not keep initials in files like that. One admin said they didn't know of any policy and pointed me to an article with text embedded in the bottom and thought that was ok, although pointing out someone could edit it out. I wonder how we can say we'll give credit to the photographer via GNU and then demand people not put their credit in tiny print at the bottom right like is common? Hope i can decide what to do. Emerman 03:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having troubles with a category[edit]

I can't figure this out. The Category "Timurid Monarchs" exists and works fine; it has the two guys I've added to it so far, but whenever I go to either of the two pages, the link to the category is in red, and clicking on the link takes me to the edit page of the category, which has all the parent categories I added. How can I make it so that the pages take the user to the actual category page instead of its edit page?

  • It is a bug in the software. The correct way to do this is to create the category first, then add the articles to it. Because you created the category last, you are going to have to save those two articles again. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok thanks.
Another way is to do a purge of the page (just click on the edit link and change action=edit on the URL to action=purge). --cesarb 13:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How about bypass your cache (e.g. just hold down the Ctrl key), as User:John Fader just mentioned below? — Sebastian (T) 16:15, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

easy way to leave user/timedate sig?[edit]

is there a shortcut for leaving timestamped sigs on talk pages? i've been doing it manually by getting the latest time from Recent Changes, but there must be an easier way. i'm talking about the sig like this: SaltyPig 02:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • What? Are you telling me you have not been signing your name on Talk and vote pages with four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date? Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I guess nobody has ever given you the standard welcome message on your talk page about this... so I'll do that now. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ha! thanks. i finally hit the correct answer in help, right when you were typing it to me as well. it was just one of those things i was in the middle of something else when it was time to learn it. heh heh. appreciate it. and yeah, i've been doing it manually each time. i'm pretty fast at using multiple windows and stuff, but i guess there's no excuse. i should go back and brush up on basics now that i'm spending so much time here. thanks again! um... SaltyPig 02:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
it worked! SaltyPig 02:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update watchlist from file?[edit]

meta:Wikistress recommends: "remove articles causing stress from your watchlist". Of course, i'm not always under stress, and when i'm not, i want to watch these articles again. So i would like to be able to switch this as swiftly as my moods swings. Apparently it is not possible to keep different watchlists. But i can save my list in a file. Now my question is: Is there any way to update a watchlist by adding some 100 articles read from a list? Thanks! — Sebastian (T) 08:00, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

I don't know of a way to easily add and remove large numbers of articles, but you could create an artificial watchlist on a user subpage. This would involve setting up a page like User:Sebastian/Watchlist and filling it with links like:
* [[Exploding whale]] [[Talk:Exploding whale|talk]]
or something like that. Now when you followed the "related changes" link at the side of that page you'd get something similar to a watchlist, but only including changes to the articles you had linked from the page. I use this myself for a set of stubs I created where I'm interested to see anyone adding information to them, but don't really want them cluttering up my watchlist. — Trilobite (Talk) 11:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is a great idea! I'll give it a try. Thanks a lot! — Sebastian (T) 19:35, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

Making links to categories[edit]

I want to include two links to the categories in the sentence:

"I suggest that the [[Category:Inuit people]] is added in the [[category:People]] too."

If I use <nowiki> and </nowiki> functions here, the two links are not functional. If I used them, the whole Help desk would fall in the categories "Inuit people" and "People". How can I make functional links to these two categories and avoid making the whole page part of those two categories? Thanks! --Eleassar777 09:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P.S.:Someone should take care of the "Category:People" talk page.

Just add a colon in front, like this:

  • "I suggest that the [[:Category:Inuit people]] is added in the [[:category:People]] too."

This gives you:

As for your suggestion itself: For Native Americans, there is Category:American people by ethnicity – maybe there's some similar category for Canadian people by ethnicity or for First Nations? — Sebastian (T) 09:50, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

What a simple solution! Thanks. --Eleassar777 21:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What links here problem[edit]

Hey, I've just renamed County Constituency to County constituency (because it really shouldn't have a capital C, and it fits in with the other similar articles) but when you look at it lists County constituency (note the small c) and I just can't figure out why. Is it a bug or have I screwed up somewhere when moving it? Cheers -- Joolz 22:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • It's fine and it's a bug. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I do not want to go into the technical details here, but basically because the article title "County constituency" is bolded in the text of the article, it seems to count it in What links here. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the response :) -- Joolz 22:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How to mention source of uploaded image?[edit]

Hello Help Desk!

I loaded up an image and used it in an article Dry_fly. The author of the picture allowed my to publish it. Now I think I should mention the source of the image but I don't know how this could be done?

Any hints are appreciated!


If you click on the picture, you go to the picture's page. This is the place to add text about credits, and the copyright status of the picture. As a good example of this, see the two picture ons pike (fish) and their different status(es?). Be sure you know exactly what the copyright status is, and describe it, or the picture is likely to get deleted (as a copyright risk – Wikipedia cannot risk being sued). For example you cannot give permission for a picture only to be used in Wikipedia, so far as I know. This difficulty is why so many pictures do not have illustrations. Notinasnaid 12:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. I just added the name and mailadress of the author. He personally allowed me to use his image here.
ImreSaling 12:29, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)