Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 May 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Help desk
< April 30 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 2 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

May 1[edit]


How do you put pictures on a page?CrocGator

Free Death Certificate Information[edit]

Can Wikipedia direct me to a site whereby I can obtain a Death Certificate of my deceased father who resided in Santa cruz NM?

email removed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure that there's anything on Wikipedia that can help you with that, but I'd try the Coroner's or Medical Examiner's Office in the city or county. WODUP 00:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, don't post your email address, it's a good way to get spammed. Hersfold (talk/work) 02:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Customizing Signatures[edit]

How can I Customize my signature?--thebearguy 02:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In your preferences (the "my preferences" link up top), add the wikicode you want your signature to be in the "Signature" box, and check "Raw Signature". If you only want to change the name that appears when you sign your name, just type that in and leave the box unchecked. Hersfold (talk/work) 02:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
See: User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia#Sig. --Teratornis 16:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing Sources?[edit]

Chris Benoit's page, for example, how do you edit the sources? I click edit, but that takes me to a template. Any help? Kris Classic 03:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to find where each reference is used in the article and change what is included in the <ref> tags. The References section doesn't contain the references themselves, only a template that allows the article to display them. Hersfold (talk/work) 03:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Kris 03:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Article "Hits"[edit]

Is there anyway I can check how many times other people have viewed my article (e.g "hits") Justice League of America (1997 film) please? Ryan4314 04:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No. The feature to count how many times a page has been visited has been turned off for performance reasons. For more details please see Wikipedia:Technical FAQ#Can_I_add_a_page_hit_counter_to_a_Wikipedia_page?. You can, however, see how many people edit a page by clicking on the "history" page. An alternative to see viewing statistics is WikiCharts, see Special:Statistics#Other_statistics. You can also see articles with the most edits at Special:Mostrevisions.--Commander Keane 04:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou very much Ryan4314 07:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The MediaWiki setting that controls "the feature to count how many times a page has been visited" is: $wgDisableCounters, in case anyone wonders. Despite Wikipedia's setting of that option, someone has managed to obtain page-view statistics for some of the most viewed pages. Also see the links under User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia#Sta (scroll down a few lines to the "Statistics and reports:" entry) for some other possibilities. In general, frequently-viewed pages are also frequently edited, especially articles which have obvious needs for further editing. As a rough rule, there may be about 100 views per edit (that is, the number of people who merely view a page will usually be much larger than the number who edit it). Also check the "toolbox | What links here" for your article, to see what other articles link to it. If many other articles link to your article, that probably means many other editors are aware of it, and those links may direct viewers to your article. In the case of an article about a film, there could be potentially many links to it, for example in the filmography sections of articles about the film's actors and director. If the film won any awards or nominations, it could be listed and linked in articles about those awards. --Teratornis 14:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User ignoring AFD and 3rd opinion[edit]

An editor continues to revert a redirect on Rolan Bolan that was decided on by AFD. Other editors concur that the redirect should stand, and the editor seems to be associated with the subject. What's the next step? Ckessler 04:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I have protected the redirect and left a note on the talk page, Talk:Rolan Bolan. You could have requested protection at WP:RPP, and/or Wikipedia:Resolving disputes has info on resolving disputes.--Commander Keane 04:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


When we are using copyrighted literature as a source of our information (such as that of another encyclopedia) to what extent does the information need to be rewritten and restated in order to avoid plagiarism or a copyright violation?

For an example, here is an excerpt from The Columbia Encyclopedia:

Tradition holds that the bay was named by the Spanish explorer Alonzo Alvarez de Pineda, who found it on Corpus Christi Day in 1519, but there is evidence that it was named instead by the first settlers, who arrived from the lower Rio Grande valley in the 1760s. In 1839, Col. H. L. Kinney founded a trading post, and traders and adventurers collected in a raffish colony on land claimed by both Texas and Mexico. The small port and terminus for overland wagon-train traffic boomed during the Mexican War. It was briefly captured by the U.S. navy in the Civil War. Corpus Christi developed industrially after the discovery of oil in the area and the completion (1926) of a deepwater channel past Mustang Island.

Based on this text, I composed the following:

Spanish explorer Alonso Alvarez de Pineda is said to have named the Corpus Christi Bay upon discovering it on the day of the Corpus Christi feast in 1519. However, evidence suggests that that the name was given in the 1760s by its settlers from the lower Rio Grande Valley. In 1839, a trading post was founded by Colonel Henry Lawrence Kinney, which formed a raffish colony on land claimed by both Texas and Mexico. During the Mexican War, the port and terminus for wagon-train traffic experienced a boom. It was captured by the U.S. navy for a brief period of time during the Civil War. Industrial development began after oil was discovered in the area, as well as the 1926 completion of a deepwater channel past Mustang Island . The city is protected by a 3,749m sea wall. [1][2]

Using the facts from the copyrighted text, I composed the rewrite with the following things in mind:

  • (1) Delivering the facts without distortion
  • (2) Reorganizing sentence structuring to differ from the copyrighted text as much as possible, while maintaining the proper overall organization by the date of said events
  • (3) Using available words that both differ from the original, and convey the correct meaning.

However, some words or phrases such as that of terminus have no conceivable replacement without degrading the quality of information inferred.

I haven't yet merged this into the article in concern, as I thought it would be more appropriate to get some advice on the subject first. --CMBJ 04:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not really happy with the concept of the rewrite; it is probably free of copyright law, but still: I expect an enclopedia to distill facts from sources, and hence for our articles to be much shorter than the original source. Indeed, I think I read somewhere that a general enclopedia is not an acceptable source. Notinasnaid 06:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the article in concern is completely lacking a history section, so for the most part, it would probably not be sensible to prune any of those facts in the rewrite. I would like to clarify that my intent was not to deliberately plagiarize the other material, rather to rewrite a version suitable for Wikipedia which would not neglect to contain those facts. Regarding the usage of a general encyclopedia as a source, I had thought that I had seen a similar policy at some point as well. Although, I have seen numerous articles that sourced the Encyclopedia Britannica. Most/if not all of the facts included in the rewrite can probably be sourced elsewhere in addition to that encyclopedia, if necessary. --CMBJ 20:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


I have photos I've taken of musical figures with Wikipedia articles. I'd like to upload them. 1) would they be welcome? 2) how do I do it?

I Put the cursor in the article, hit gallery, but from there I'm confused.



Leomunter 04:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they would be welcomed! See WP:IMAGES for info on how to upload the images and put them in articles. By the way, I also suggest uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons so that they can be used in the Wikipedias of other languages as well as the English language Wikipedia. Dismas|(talk) 05:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, upload them just to the Wikimedia Commons, as images stored there can be used here on Wikipedia without a problem. See commons:Commons:Upload for instructions (you need to create a username on Commons separately from Wikipedia). --ais523 14:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

cricketer michael clarke[edit]

Where did he grow up, live and go to school —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Try Michael Clarke (cricketer), or factual questions can be asked at the Wikipedia:Reference desk.--Commander Keane 05:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

talk page notificatios[edit]

Is there a way to get 'new message' notification for sub talk pages? I have created sub talk pages for the users I have adopted and dislike having to check my watchlist all the time. Can the adoptees also get a notification when I add a message to my sub talk page that is created for them? Thanks!--killing sparrows (chirp!) 04:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That cannot be done.--Commander Keane 05:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe with the tools listed in User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia#Wat. --Teratornis 16:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Higher attention necessary[edit]

I post this after an user reverted my edit on a page. As I've already written, I am experiencing alot of issues with this specific one. In the end, a month ago i decided to leave it to its own. Yet I notice users being ... "a bit too bold". I fear I'll have the need for an higher attention as soon as I upload the new version (being written offline). What are the options in this case? I know there's an "arbitration comitee" but this seems a bit too excessive.
MaxDZ8 talk 06:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you taken this up on the other editors' talk pages? And on the article talk pages? Are you using edit summaries? And are you proposing your major changes for discussion on the article talk pages? Are you sure there is a consensus for your changes? All of these things can help to stop a difference of opinion or a misunderstanding becoming worse. It is a normal process to try something, see if it is reverted, and if it is reverted, discuss. Also, make sure everything you add is sourced. Notinasnaid 06:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, if after using all of these avenues without reaching consensus, you find yourself in a dispute with just one editor, and they consent to the process, consider Wikipedia:Third opinion. Notinasnaid 07:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not well aware if Wikipedia:Third opinion is a viable way. There seems to be a much more rooted issue with the conventional wisdom agains the documented evidence... a more involved discussion below.

  • Have you taken this up on the other editors' talk pages? I believe I've contacted a few but in general I didn't - the average user seemed to lack the technical know-how to understand a well behaved discussion. I actually have a discussion on my talk page about another article - it weights a few screens of text... just to remove a 'D' from the article!
  • And on the article talk pages? Yes, plenty and more than that. I have asked multiple times to define with good approximation user's needs with scarce results. For example, some users actually helped me figuring out the notion was too broad and to turn the page in a disambiguation, providing more general info on another. When I did that, the version was reverted. An user complained that the new pointed article was a redlink... looks like no one really wants to spend more than 2min on fixing this.
  • Are you using edit summaries? Yes, but considering how this does evolve, I'm not sure I obtained the correct result.
  • Are you sure there is a consensus for your changes? I am sure most of the time there is consensus AGAINST the changes, however as far as I know, consensus isn't needed if a trustable and verifiable source is provided. This actually happened in previous revisions. Right now, I don't care for sources since no one seemed to care anyway. There's a serious issue here: the well-known sources (hw sites and such) sperficially collide with the more authoritative, less known sources. With the next major revision there will be a split of contents so this will hopefully go away but who knows what will happen.
  • It is a normal process to try something, see if it is reverted, and if it is reverted, discuss. Indeed. I have done this a few times with no reply. I have also seen a few users do that with replying (mostly by me alone, but a few other users helped) but with scarce results on the understanding. In general, discussions don't live much.
  • Also, make sure everything you add is sourced. As already stated this was. IT isn't now - no one seems to care anyway. Also, for a lastly-issued concept, providing a readable source is considerably difficult. There's strong evidence from the documentation sustaining my proposal but there's no explicit evidence of the other. At the same time, the unfeasibility of the other proposal CAN be INFERRED from the references but this requires skill and effort (similartly to what it takes to understand chemistry or quantum physics).

Here's a "summary" of page's history.

  1. The page is originally created as a redirect.
  2. Various users work on it for roughtly an year producing
  3. My first major edit provides restructuring, rewording and references (seeing the result, I understand there weren't enough references)
  4. Various edits up to
  5. A confusing tag is added In the meanwhile, various people on the talk page complains the article to be too technical. It becomes evident the audience is consideraly broader than originally intended - lacking the time for radical changes, I leave the thing to other authors.
  6. Other various edits. On, a first split happens, taking some information to another page. I hoped other editors would have been encouraged by this.
  7. Various evolutionary edits till
  8. Various edits (mostly by a single user) up to Note the references added in (2) are gone... and I wouldn't need to write more. However, the user asked for discussion on the talk page and he/she actually got it Talk:Shader#COMPLETE ARTICLE REWRITE. You can actually check a detailed rationale for the RV I operated. I think it is very interesting he/she writes to have spent a week on this. I have 10 years of experience and it took me more than a month for (2). The offline revision is being worked since January... Also note that not all the changes were RV: a few did make sense and were kept.
  9. After that, it has been a mess. A few... very weird edit summaries ("...this looks stolen from somewhere..." - over 2000 pages to check! Too easy to say!) and the removal of the proposed intro redlink (I know it's a redlink, but someone shold write it!) made me realize this was doomed to death no matter what. Note the article is essentially a stub now! Even worse, the "references" are actually "unused"... guess why. You can track those two to one of my revisions...

The last few edits are interesting - take care starting from The rationale: after searching for references for the offline edit, I have come to this conclusion. People however felt this wasn't right... the problem here is that their knowledge of the issue does not allow them to figure out those are two differents meaning for the same word!

Now I've told you a little of story about this stuff, I hope you can help with the issue because I'm not sure of what to do - people seems to not be interested in the authoritative sources. It would be just easier for me to leave it to their own but... well, you get the problem. ;)

Something easier to understand: if you go buy a car and the engine is marketed as "The Most Powerful Ever" you are impressed and this provides a reference. However, if you have the power/torque curves and compare them to other engines, you figure out this is not true. Now, that's marketing VS tech specs... what wins?

While we're at it, you can see that there are a few people feeling the old version were ok: Draconins, BobtheVila, Tarinth MaxDZ8 talk 09:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I can sense, and on occasion share, your frustration, but I wanted to pick up on one thing you said. "I am sure most of the time there is consensus AGAINST the changes, however as far as I know, consensus isn't needed if a trustable and verifiable source is provided." Absolutely not; if you are working on this principle, frustration and conflict is certain. The contents of the article is decided by consensus. There is no higher authority to add "better facts" against consensus. Consensus is a crude tool, and often an annoying one, but it's the one we have. See Wikipedia:Consensus: worth a detailed read because it certainly doesn't work the way I intuitively felt it would. Notinasnaid 10:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't get it. Does it means that WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS are second-choice policies? In other words, if the consensus contraditcs NOR, V and RS does consensus wins? "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research)." The other way: if there's consensus on something, is it enough?

It's also a bigger problem than that. I guess you also heard Jimmy on the "quality" and "audience" issues... Even in that way, I still don't understand how to act to fix this... and yet deliver information.

MaxDZ8 talk 12:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are indeed policies, but much of what you are describing doesn't really come under those headings. I honestly don't know what is the correct procedure when dealing with an article where one believes that the consensus violates policy. There are particular cases like WP:BLP where Wikipedia tends to encourage its immediate application by anyone, but you do seem to be describing something more under the heading of content dispute. Multiple contradictory sources are only a problem if you view the editor's job as synthesising facts from them. Rather, view your task as reporting in a balanced way that multiple sources contradict each other: it is especially not an editor's job to pick the winner, even if they have inside information about reality. For instance a person has no automatic right to change sourced facts in an article about themselves, even if they know the source is wrong. Notinasnaid 13:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Mh, I think I get the point... If I get it, the point is that it's very complicated. I'll try asking somebody in the wiki mailing lists.
Thank you for your attention! At the end, you helped in reaching this conclusion! MaxDZ8 talk 15:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you do come up with an answer, please share it with us (perhaps as a new post if more than a couple of days pass). The problem of "how to improve articles when there is consensus not to" has, I am sure, vexed many. Notinasnaid 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll copy this title adding [solved] and putting a permalink to the old (this) stuff. It will probably take a few weeks.
MaxDZ8 talk 06:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Great Wall of[edit]

Great Wall of China. I wish to —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

  • I don't know what you wish to do at or with the great wall of China, but it looks like you haven't finished your question. Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that's what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. - Mgm|(talk) 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Look up the Great Wall of China article, read it, and if it does not answer your truncated question, try on the Reference desk. --Teratornis 13:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sign up and then...[edit]

I've just secured my account on the French and Spanish Wikipedia and I found that they redirect people to the introduction after a succesful signup. Where are users with a new account directed to here? - Mgm|(talk) 10:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a special page that's identical to MediaWiki:Welcomecreation, apart from the title (I think). --ais523 10:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Can one link to wikipedia entries in other languages?[edit]

Nzattitude 11:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Can one link to wikipedia entries in other languages? Several times, reading up on a topic which relates to the spanish speaking world, I have found subsequently a much better entry in the spanish version of wikipedia - but it is too long to simply translate.

  • Links to an article in another language can be done using Interwiki links which will make a link to that language appear in the bar to the left of the page. - Mgm|(talk) 11:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Interlanguage links. I looked this up in: User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia#Int. --Teratornis 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Can Anyone please help me by solving the C Projects?

I want a help for solving this project. The question is: I want to write a program on Client-server program using OLTP i.e., Online transaction processing. a) Using Centralized solution. b) Using Decentralized solution. c) Shared memory, message queues, fifo, Communication Channel, socket using Centralized solution. d) Semaphores using Decentralized solution. e) A simple program on clent-server program using oltp.

  • This sounds an awful lot like homework, please rephrase your question to something more specific and try at the reference desk. - Mgm|(talk) 11:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Reformatting the question would be a good idea too, as a look at your wikitext shows you were trying to make an ordered list with items beginning with letters. To do that here requires using HTML, namely the <ol> tag. Let's try reformatting the question, and linking all the jargon terms to their definining Wikipedia articles (which you should read):

I need help with a C programming language project. I want to write a computer program on Client-server program (sic) using OLTP:

  1. Using Centralized solution. (sic)
  2. Using Decentralized solution. (sic)
  3. Shared memory, message queues, FIFO, Communication Channel (sic), socket using Centralized solution (sic).
  4. Semaphores using Decentralized solution. (sic)
  5. A simple program on client-server program (sic) using OLTP.
I marked with (sic) every phrase or term that makes no sense in your question, and needs restatement or clarification. The entire question is vague, as is the OLTP article itself. Your instructor probably refers to some specific type of OLTP system, and your question won't make sense until you specify the OLTP system you are talking about. The phrase "write a program on Client-server program" is not grammatical in English (we would speak of writing a program in a given programming language, or to run on a given operating system, but we do not speak of writing a program on a program, although technically an operating system is a program (or a collection of programs), as is a compiler, so the way you wrote could sort of make sense, but that's not the way we say it). If you are not a native speaker of English, or if the original problem statement is not in English, you might try babelfishing it from a coherent statement of the problem in whatever language it can be stated coherently in.
And now for the harsh reality check: according to C. Gordon Bell, " software engineering, it is understood that different programmers vary in their productivity by several orders of magnitude." In my personal experience working with programmers and attempting to teach programming to various people, I have noticed something similar. When it comes to programming, there are a few people who just get it, and a whole bunch of people who do not. And I don't mean to be unkind, but the undeniable reality is that the people who get it tend not to ask questions like yours. Either they figure things out for themselves, or they ask questions that are sufficiently well-formed to admit answers. See: How To Ask Questions The Smart Way. --Teratornis 16:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist–edit-history anomaly[edit]

In my watchlist, it says for an article that two changes have been made to it today (1 May 2007) (00:00 – present), but in the edit history it shows several revisions (10+) made today. This is the first time I've come across this. What on Earth could be the problem? Christopher Connor 12:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd never expect to see an article twice in the watchlist, for me it only shows the very latest edit. Are you sure it isn't two articles with very similar names? Notinasnaid 13:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It may have been due to lag between the various servers (the lag that causes a database lock on occasion that lasts a few seconds). You can check the current lag value with this link: (From 0 to 20 is typical in my experience; it's recommended to not run a bot if it goes above 5). --ais523 13:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The articles are one and the same. The two edits that appear in the watchlist appear as the last two edits in the edit history – only the edit history shows several more revisions not shown in the watchlist. The lag value says 0s and 1s. Christopher Connor 14:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Are they still there? Check your preferences to make sure that 'expanded watchlist' isn't on by mistake, and try bypassing your cache to see if that solves the problem. --ais523 14:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the article was deleted and restored today so I guess that is the problem. Imagine it'll work as normal from now on. Christopher Connor 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


how do you start an account 13:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Register a new account. x42bn6 Talk 13:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
See WP:ACCOUNT. --Teratornis 13:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How to wikilink at the same page with the same section titles?[edit]

For example, I'd wish an in-page link to the "Help" section; however there are 2 sections entitled "Help", so how would I like force the wikilink to the second link? --Howard the Duck 13:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)



Hope that helps! --ais523 13:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
YAY! Thanks!!!! --Howard the Duck 14:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Columns and numbering[edit]

When I tried creating a list, using '#', with multiple columns, it kept resetting back to 1 with each new column. Is there a way around this? Never mind. I'll just number manually. Clarityfiend 14:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

deletion of image[edit]

Please i would like to know how to delete an image that i uploaded.

I dont want that image there anymore. Kindly assist. cheers

My user id is damolat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Damolat (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

get rid of image[edit]

Please how can i get rid of an image I was never to upload it and it was a mistake.

also how long does it take for my contributed articles to register on wikipedia, because when i search for it, it doesnt display. but it shows on my contributions page. the article is precisely evans brothers (nigeria publishers) limited Damolat 16:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You can access articles and images from your contributions page. Just click on the link. Your article on Evans Brothers (Nigeria publishers) Limited shows up in my Wikipedia firefox search box. There may be some issues with alternate capitalizations not finding a page through search.
To delete an image that you did not mean to upload, the easiest way is to edit the image and add {{db-author}} to the summary. That will put it into a category for an administrator to speedy delete the image. ~ BigrTex 16:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Search facility is a little slow on the updating of new article creations. It may take a week or so before the article shows up. If you use Google search and search for the title with "" (minus the quotes), you should see it in a few hours. Corvus cornix 18:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Website Pages[edit]

I want to create a page about a website, not as an advertisement for it, but so there is a record of it and it's history. Is that wiki-worthy? I didn't want to create something to have it deleted because it seemed to be to advance the site or because it lacks sources (I'm planning on getting some, but as it's a website, it's a bit difficult side from the site-link). Thoughts, comments, interpretive dances? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mazzic Cron (talkcontribs) 16:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

See Wikipedia:Notability (web). Jacek Kendysz 16:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If there are no reliable sources about the site then it cannot satisfy the guideline, and an article about it will likely be deleted. Your stated purpose is not by itself considered "Wikipedia-worthy" (our wiki is for other things), but it might be "wiki-worthy" at other wikis. See for example List of wikis which includes PrimeHunter 16:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Another perspective: if you want to create a record in Wikipedia "so there is a record of it and it's history" then this is certainly not Wikipedia-worthy. Wikipedia exists to collect information already recorded somewhere else, so this can never be a motivation for an article. Notinasnaid 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Creating new article with duplicate title[edit]

I've been randomly learning my way through Wikipedia, mostly working on articles listed as needing clean-up. I'd like to try my hand at creating an article on an individual referenced in an article I've already worked on. He is a video game producer, one of the "top 100" on various industry lists, and I think satisfies the notability requirement for a small entry. I have verified that other producers on the list have pages. The problem is that he shares his name with a musician who already has a page. I've read how to retitle the musician's page (perhaps dropping "drummer" after his name) so that I might create a "disambiguation" page, but I'm a little nervous about being so bold. The drummer Steve Reid has a long list of credits. I would list the producer Steve Reid with his middle initial, but it's not given. Is there a forum where I should ask more experienced users how I should proceed with this? (Maybe this one?) Or am I meant to just take the initiative? Sorry if this question is answered in bold print on some perfectly obvious page; I can't find it. As a newbie, I worry about overstepping proper bounds. Moonriddengirl 17:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You should probably create your article at Steve Reid (gaming). What to do next depends on which would be the primary topic (how likely it is that someone will look for each one).
If they're about the same, then a disambiguation page is in order at Steve Reid; move that page to Steve Reid (musician) and create a disambiguation page in its place. Because this involves significantly changing the existing page, you may want to discuss it first on Talk:Steve Reid.
If the musician is more likely to be searched for, just add disambiguating links to the tops of Steve Reid and Steve Reid (gaming).
If the gaming Steve Reid is more likely to be searched for, move Steve Reid to Steve Reid (musician), move Steve Reid (gaming) to Steve Reid (over the redirect), and add disambiguatin glinks to the tops of the articles. Because this involves significantly changing the existing page, you may want to discuss it first on Talk:Steve Reid.
I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, you can ask here, on my talk page, or you can place {{helpme|your question here}} on your talk page, and someone will be around to help. Cheers! WODUP 17:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Remember that if you move the existing page, you need to fix all the articles pointing to it. - Mgm|(talk) 07:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It would be cool if we could settle the issue with a Steel cage match: Reid vs. Reid. This time it's personal. All seriousness aside, I have nothing to add to the complete replies above. --Teratornis 02:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, except to say that if "you need to fix all the articles pointing to it," you will want to read Help:What links here. --Teratornis 02:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

statically saving and viewing[edit]

I'm on the road a lot. Is there a way to statically save and view the topic (including all contents, links, etc) of my interest and view it while I'm on the road? Please reply back at <email removed - see guidelines about posting>

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MoebiusNu (talkcontribs) 18:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Well, you could save the webpages, as you would with any website. Or you might be interested in RSS. Adrian M. H. 18:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
See WP:DUMP and m:Wiki on a stick if you are technically inclined and you want to set up your own offline instance of the real Wikipedia. An easier but less capable method might be to run TomeRaider. --Teratornis 02:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

capitalizing the name of my contribution[edit]

To Whom It May Concern:

I created an entry for the Green Highways Partnership. However, the title of the entry is "Green highways partnership," with the "h" in highways and the "p" in partnership in lowercase. I would like it to read "Green Highways Partnership" with all three of the words capitalized. How do I do this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getf (talkcontribs) 20:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

There should be a 'move' tab at the top of the page (alongside 'edit' and 'history'). If there is not, then someone will likely see this and move it for you. It requires having had your account for 4 days. More information can be found at Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page. ~ BigrTex 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If your account is over 4 days old, you can move it yourself, since it doesn't look like your account is that old, I've done it for you--VectorPotentialTalk 20:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I really appreciate it.



Wikipedia's talk pages are not for starting conversations. They are for communication that relates to Wikipedia. If you want to chat, MSN might be more appropriate. Adrian M. H. 21:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • To respond in an existing section, you click the edit link next to the heading for that question. Starting a article-related conversation is done by visiting the talk page and hitting the + tab at the top of the page. - Mgm|(talk) 07:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Text colour has changed[edit]

For some reason most of the text on my Talk page has turned blue. Anyone got any advice on how to fix this? Thanks in advance! EyeSereneTALK 21:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

All sorted now. Be careful with your markup; you left out some closing font tags and a closing paragraph tag. Check the diffs to see the details. Adrian M. H. 21:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That was quick! I thought it must be something to do with the markup, but I didn't know what I was looking for. I can't take the blame though, I've never edited that page! I'll have a look at the diffs anway for my own enlightenment ;) Much appreciated, thank you. EyeSereneTALK 21:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, actually, it was in a Welcome Template. Didn't look too closely at what it was. I might check that template's source in case it's still broken. Adrian M. H. 21:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The template must have been changed fairly recently as it was OK up to a few weeks ago. The diffs were very helpful - I'll know what to do if it happens again. Thanks again EyeSereneTALK 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing the template would only matter if the message was transcluded, which it wasn't. My guess is that it was all fone until additional messages came in. - Mgm|(talk) 07:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would have had a reason to change the substitution on your talk page (as Mgm wrote, it wasn't transcluded, because welcome templates should always be substituted), so I expected the original to be broken at some point in the past. But I haven't been able to locate it to find out if it's fixed. Hopefully, it was fixed long ago. Adrian M. H. 13:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How to squish rows in a table together?[edit]

Recently, I've had problems with sizing issues of tables. You can only make the text so small, but that does almost nothing to reduce the size of the row, or the free space left in it. For example, I have this template (see this revision in case I've since changed it) for which I have made an example on the talk page. If you look at the bottom two lines, they are awefully far apart, too spread out for my liking. I would like this template to be as compact as possible. How can I squish these rows together to make the "table" tighter?

Another example which I would like to fix is 2008 Summer Olympics calendar which is too long and should probably be squished up, if at all possible. Could someone tell me how to do this?! Jaredtalk  21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the exact answer to your question, but if I were trying to solve it, here is how I would search for the answer:
--Teratornis 15:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Inserting Images[edit]

How does one go about inserting images? --LtWinters 21:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Try reading this page. Wikipedia:Images. That may be of some help. Jaredtalk  21:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--LtWinters 22:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WP-Commons image uploading[edit]

I have uploaded 22 images, all but 2 of which are free-liscensed. I now think that I should have uploaded them to Commons instead of Wikipedia. Should I re-upload them to Commons then request their deletion here on Wikipedia? J Are you green? 22:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes please do that! You will need to set up an account at Commons. All free images should be on Commons (there is Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons and even a WikiProject). Re-uploading is the only way, so please go ahead and do that. You can use the same filename when you upload to Commons. To delete the images on Wikipedia, you could place {{db-author|I have uploaded this image to Commons under the same filename}} on the Wikipedia image description page for each image, or if you don't feel like adding that to 20 image pages just post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents with a list of the images that should be deleted.--Commander Keane 05:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Since this isn't really an incident, I'd say WP:AN is better suited than WP:ANI. Anyway, make sure you use the exact same filenames so the links in the articles using the images don't break. - Mgm|(talk) 07:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I have posted them to WP:AN since the template gave the wrong reason. Thank you for your help. J Are you green? 20:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

making a new page on my current userpage.[edit]

How do i make a new page on my userpage? like, a private page where i can do stuff in. dposse 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks!! dposse 22:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind, that subpages aren't actually private, and that other users can of course see them too--VectorPotentialTalk 23:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


I am currently trying to add some references to the page for Scotty 2 Hotty, so I added the automatic sourcing template under "References", but nothing is appearing. I see it works for another article, Chris Benoit. Any help on why it isn't working?

Thanks, Kris 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to format the links. in order to appear the References section, the links must be formatted with <ref>link</ref>. Try that :) Cheers, Phaedriel - 23:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Kris 23:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

helpme template[edit]

If you add the template {{helpme}} to your talk page, an editor will help you shortly. How can I be that editor? Jac roe 23:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone adds the {{helpme}} template to a page that page is categorized into Category:Wikipedians looking for help, so you could look there for active help requests. Also--and this is how most requests are answered--you can go on IRC on the Freenode network into the channel #wikipedia-bootcamp which reports when someone adds the helpme template, or when a question is added to the Help desk, and people come in there sometimes asking for help, etc. —Centrxtalk • 23:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Jac roe 23:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I wonder why you didn't post {{helpme}} on your talk page.. :) --Kjoonlee 17:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I use a script (User:ais523/catwatch.js) to monitor the helpme category, and I quite often get to helpme requests first. (No IRC needed!) --ais523 17:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Looking for the distance from home plate to second base??


Connor (Little League Player)

For that type of question, try posting it here. This help desk is only for Wikipedia-related help. →EdGl 01:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The playing field diagram in Baseball#General structure implies that the distance from home plate to second base is twice the distance from home plate to the pitcher's mound. I will let you do the math. --Teratornis 15:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
There's also more information in the Baseball field article. Mike Dillon 15:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The bases are on a square with sides of 90 feet, and the line from home plate to second base is a diagonal of that square. Square (geometry)#Properties says the diagonal of a square is the length of a side times . Plugging values into Google Calculator gives: google:90 * sqrt(2) = 127.279221 feet. --Teratornis 15:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

main page[edit]

I really enjoy checking on news headlines and featured content on the main page, but it takes a long while for me to find the related article for detailed content. Is there a reason that these excerpts have no direct link to their origin? I would suggest incorporating a link perhaps bound to the bullet point of each feature. 23:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... the words in bold included in each of those passages should link to the relevant articles. If the bold links in the current events articles don't lead to a page about that specific event, there probably isn't enough detail about that event to merit an article of its own, but the link provided should give sufficient background information about the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hersfold (talkcontribs) 02:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC).