Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 June 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Help desk
< June 5 << May | June | Jul >> June 7 >
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.


June 6[edit]

Messed up jumble of HTML?[edit]

Resolved: 6 June 2008 Tiggerjay (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am a contributor to the Wikipedia article Katara, and recently I have been having trouble wih some HTML on the page. Right below where the references are cited, there is a section entitled, Appearence in other media. I have tried multiple times to sort out this HTML so that it will work, but to no avail, eventually I gave up on the idea and tried removing the entire section as it contained a very minute amount of information that could be replaced shortly after. However, once I deleted the section, the entire reference list was deleted as well, even though they are in different sections. If someone could un-tangle the HTML or figure out how to get rid of it without deleting the references I would be most thankful.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Upload File Problem[edit]

I cannot upload a revised image. The message is "unauthorized." I need to replace a picture of Firouz Naderi. How do I make this change?

CdloewenCdloewen (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you must make 10 edits and wait 4 days before you are allowed to upload files. Make sure you've read the image upload policy before uploading. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 00:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Although your account dates back a few years, a recent change means that editors now have to make 10 edits before becoming "auto-confirmed" and able to upload files. So, although you could in the past, you can't now. A few more edits will take you over the threshold, though. (You're the first editor I've seen become "un-auto-confirmed", though...) BencherliteTalk 00:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Footnote color[edit]

Resolved: 6 June 2008 Tiggerjay (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the midst of constructing a template about using references and need to match the color of footnotes. Anyone know offhand what color these--> [1][2][3][4][5] are? (they're not purple [1][2][3][4][5] nor blue [1][2][3][4][5]).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

hexcode 0000ff ? Calvin 1998 (t-c) 01:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
no, it's hexcode #002BB8 . I used Firebug to peek at the CSS stylesheets. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 01:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Calvin. After looking at your post they still looked completely different to me. I figured it must be a display issue—my browser deciding that I had looked at footnotes before and coloring them to show "already clicked on". Lo and behold, looking at them in a different browser shows them to be identical.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Somebody messed up the colours(not me) on the Celtic FC page ,I need help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YXN (talkcontribs) 13:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Style query about referencing[edit]

Resolved: 6 June 2008 Tiggerjay (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If references are from dictionaries and commentaries, as tertiary refs should they be inline cites, or not? I thought only secondary/primary texts were necessarily cited inline. Thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the nature of the reference should change the method of citation. We may say this or that particular source is no good at all or could be better, but the reason we choose inline citations over other methods is for transparency; ease of seeing exactly what reference is being used to verify what information. That rationale seems to me to persist regardless of whether a source is primary, secondary or tertiary.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I'll leave the tag on the article then. It has a forest of 3ary refs at the bottom of the page for someone to sort through and place inline. Good to know, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Table help[edit]

Resolved: 6 June 2008 Tiggerjay (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems like it should be so simple but I've been staring at Help:Table for a while now and I've not found an answer nor has playing with it, inserting colspans, rowspans, nesting a second table inside and so on. In the example table below, I'd like each of the top and bottom rows (A and F) to take up the entire length of the rows they are in as single cells, stacked right above and below the sandwiched rows (B-C and D-E).

A
B C
D E
F

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Something like this, perhaps?

A
B C
D E
F

Sounds like you're asking about colspans (in this case, colspan=2). Also demonstrated "align=center" in the F cell, in case you want that as well. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I had thought colspan was the way but when I played with it I missed the trailing pipe.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

please clarify one sentence in spoken english[edit]

we can say "i was ill" is correct to spoken in spoken english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.13.134 (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? Can you explain your question a little further? And Please sign your post by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button above the edit box which looks like this: Button sig.png. Do NOT sign in articles. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 05:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "I was ill" is both grammatically correct and an unremarkable (i.e., not an unusual or awkward) turn of phrase.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
For further questions about English grammar, please ask here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. This Help desk is for questions about using Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand[edit]

I have been trying for two weeks to get an answer to my question, I tried your suggestion and nothing has worked please help me out! I am uploading an image (I know, keep rolling your eyes)it is on a site http://www.eliteanswers.com/media/media-images/logos.html that allows you to download the image. I even called the comapny up to ask them for permission and they said it was fine to use their image...why can't I upload it? when i try the upload button is a dummy button? what the @@#$%? It can't possibly be this compicated to d can it?Yitzhaac Pesach (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "dummy button". It looks like you are creating the article on your user page. You have the image as a redlink— simply click on the link and the upload file page will open. Since this is a copyrighted company image, you need to have a {{non-free use rationale}} on the image page. You do need to move the article to articlespace. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It should be pretty straight forward. You will need to download the logo from EliteAnswers to your computer first. Back in Wikipedia, when you click on the red link where the image should be, the upload page will appear, click the browse button and navigate to where you put the logo on your computer. Put "{{Commercial logo rationale|User:Yitzhaac Pesach}}" in the summary box and choose "Logo" in the licensing drop-down list (it's quite a long way down that list). Click Upload File and you are done. Astronaut (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
However, perhaps you should not upload the logo until you moved your article to article space. Then you would list the article rather than your user page in the summary box. The reasons are that you can’t host a non-free image like a logo unless it is used in an article, and you aren’t supposed to use a non-free image on your user page. If you upload a non-free image without using it in an article, you will get a warning on your user talk page, and after a few days it will be deleted if it is still “orphaned.” If you use a non-free image on your user page, it may be removed.teb728 t c 18:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability requirements[edit]

Hi,

I started an article on Lost in a Garden of Clouds (Part 2) and expanded (a little) Lost in a Garden of Clouds (Part 1), both by the British Electronic group, Alpha. Both have been classed as requiring Notability/References etc. However, I had referenced a quote relating to the release from the Alpha website. I've read through the requirements and am at a kind of loss as to what's needed to verify the albums. From a quick perusal, they might be eligible because previous Alpha releases were through 'Virgin Records'. Additionally, they were the first band who released work through the 'Massive Attack' label, 'Melankolic'. Any tips on how to rectify the above would be greatly appreciated as I feel the band's work deserves merit.

Thanks in advance

Theblako (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I tagged both those articles because as I read them they do not meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC#Albums. I wanted to give you a chance to improve them rather than immediately nominating them for deletion. Note that self references (the band's own website) and fan sites do not qualify as reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The first (but not only) way to look for reliable sources is with a search engine. For example, we can use Google:
This finds some blogs and fan sites and so on, but I'm not seeing any articles from major news outlets in the first few pages of search results. See: WP:WWMPD#If all else fails, try another wiki and wikiindex:Category:Music. There are lots of other wikis that specialize in music and do not have Wikipedia's notability requirements. While you are looking for reliable sources that can assert the notability of your articles on Wikipedia, you should also find another wiki which specializes in music and copy your articles there. Then in the worst case, Wikipedia deletes your articles and you still have them up elsewhere. --Teratornis (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I did mistake while archiving....help.[edit]

Resolved: 16:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I did a mistake while adding the miszabot parameter to Talk:Nagpur. I forgot to set the counter to 1, it was set to 3 by mistake. So now the archive box does not have link to archived pages. Check the history of Talk:Nagpur. How to put the links of those pages in the box? --gppande «talk» 16:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • That is what messed it up, for the moment, I set a manual archive box, instead of the auto -- so at least people can see the archive for now and not get on you about messing up the history. :) I have also posted a comment on the talk page of the tool about assistance with this. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems Mizabot has created Talk:Nagpur/Archive_3 and Talk:Nagpur/Archive_4 (check the talk page history). You can either fix the archive box to point to there archives, leaving archives 1 and 2 as "never created"; or perhaps the better thing would be to speedy delete archives 3 and 4 and revert the last 2 edits to the talk page back to just before you added Mizabot. When 3 and 4 are gone, then you can re-add the Mizabot instruction with the correct parameters. Astronaut (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, a much cleaner fix... Just rollback the whole thing. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Fixed, I made the rollbacks per Astronaut, and there is no reason why it shouldn't perform properly now. :) Tiggerjay (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Big Thanks to both of you. You saved me - I will be more careful from next time. --gppande «talk» 14:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

to edit the first part of the entry[edit]

Hello, I feel that the introductory paragraph of an entry could be bettered.However I do not see an "edit" button . How do I go about editing the first paragraph. Thank you fuadaj India —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuadaj (talkcontribs) 16:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Click the "edit this page" tab at the very top (it should be next to "discussion" and "history"). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 16:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You can also go to your Preferences at the top of the page and click on the Gadgets tab. There's one in there to add an Edit link for the top section of pages. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert edits, protecting a article[edit]

Resolved: 18:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

I am wanting to know how to revert multi edits by the same user that if identify as being wrong or vandlism will save me doing it one by one.

2nd questions how do i protect these pages so non register users cant modify it without registering meaning they could be punished if they presist on doign it after registering

thanks

andrew

--andrewcrawford 16:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

ps is there a way to auto put your signature into ever talk page message?

For the first one, you need to be in the group rollbackers. When you have about 500 edits, and have a history of reverting vandalism, you can make a request at WP:RFR. For the second, you need to be in the group administrators. You need at least 3-6 months of consistent editing, some article work and a good understanding of policy before you should apply at WP:RFA. For the third, you sign with four tildes "~~~~" which will generate your signature. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply, is there a way then i can request someone make a page protected? i think i might be able to apply for the roolback feature but i dnt think i can apply for the otehr one yet.andrewcrawford 16:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You may want to check in at the requests for page protection. Be sure to read their guidelines first. TNX-Man 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like you have your rollback rights now, along with having already addressed your need to rollback the prior edits. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Talk page, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and Wikipedia:Signatures. Since you asked about signatures, you should read those three instruction pages, because there are many more unobvious features you may not know to ask about yet. Wikipedia is very deep. --Teratornis (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Number of edits[edit]

Resolved: 18:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

In your preferences section where it says "number of edits".Does that mean mainspace or all of your edits?Mr. GreenHit Me UpUserboxes 17:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

All of your edits, even edits that have been deleted. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
So if mine says 1,070 that means I can apply for rollback if enough are vandalsim edits?Mr. GreenHit Me UpUserboxes 17:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
From a technical standpoint, yes you can apply. :) Tiggerjay (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Cooly.I just wanted to be sure so that when I do eventually I can be sure of getting it.I'll join the war on vandalsim on Monday....Mr. GreenHit Me UpUserboxes 18:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Pandemonium article[edit]

There's lot of conjecture and unreferenced 'theories' in the end of this article that don't add anything solid to the idea. Should it be corrected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donahew (talkcontribs) 18:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Which article are you talking about? Mr. GreenHit Me UpUserboxes 18:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of Pandemonium articles. To which one were you referring? TNX-Man 18:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm a check of the user's contrib's didn't help... Tiggerjay (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Maple tree seeds[edit]

Resolved: 06:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

how do you stop Maple trees from seeding?98.206.56.200 (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You can try asking on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. The Maple article describes seeding but does not say how to stop it (I suppose cutting down the trees would be one option). This Help desk is for questions about using Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

2 Megs Of Nothing[edit]

Resolved: Information hidden by comment tags. --TNX-Man 20:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does this user page [1] contain nearly 2 megabytes in terms of data, but is blank? Fribbler (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears the user has listed the info as a comment using <!-- and --> tags. These are used to put comments in articles that will not be displayed on the normal page. For example, if you edit this page you'll see a comment I put in here that doesn't display on the page. TNX-Man 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Didn't think of that. Thanks! Fribbler (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Cheers. TNX-Man 20:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Since it was so huge, to the point of causing accessibility issues, I've removed the content, and informed the user as to why. Prodego talk 04:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

citation[edit]

On the Thandie Newton Wikipedia page, I corrected some of the information in the 'early life' section after watching a recent BBC interview (which can be watched here http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/page/item/b00c1842.shtml?q=thandie&start=1&scope=iplayersearch&go=Find+Programmes&version_pid=b00c17yj ). I tried adding a source, but it obviously didnt work since the page was reverted to the unedited, earlier version and I was sent quite a rude message telling me not to edit the page again. Is the source I used (a very recent, BBC interview) not 'good enough'? I'm not sure how to add a source (especially since, due to BBC regulations, you can't watch any of their online content outside of the UK and the interview/programme will be removed within 30 days off of their site anyway). In any case, I think it's important to change the incorrect information on the page ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by LyleLanley (talkcontribs) 23:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you edited before you created an account, so your IP address is used. I'm going to try to keep some anonymity, so I am not going to note the IP here. You made some changes, but you did not add a source. The message on the IP talk page is a generated by a template, so it is rather impersonal. Reading that message, it directs you to read Wikipedia:Citing sources. The process is edit, revert, discuss; you make a change, someone reverts it, you discuss it on the talk page. It looks like her place of birth has been discussed already, so you need to try to work this out in discussion. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thousands of people add incorrect information to Wikipedia everyday. All information in Wikipedia should be verified by reliable sources. So when we see an edit that 1) doesn't cite a source, which is added to 2) an article on a living person, meaning even more scrutiny must be given to any information, that 3) changes a fact that already is ascribed to a source in the article; and 4) without any explanation of the reason for the change (no edit summary), many editors will revert. If you ant this edit to stick, at the least you must cite the source in detail. Please see {{Refref}} for a focused explanation of how to use the citing system already in place in the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding BBC iPlayer: the page you link to might not be available after the programme is taken off iPlayer (remember, programmes are only on iPlayer for 7 days). Could I suggest linking to the programme's entry on BBC Programmes instead? Unlike the iPlayer, it provides permanent online reference for the programme and it details when the programme was (and will be) broadcast, possibly making things easier for other contributors. It's quite easy to work out a programme's URL on BBC Programmes too, as it uses the same identifier as BBC iPlayer; if you look at the URL of an iPlayer programme, they are all in the form of bbc.co.uk/iplayer/page/item/XXXXXXXX.shtml. There might be (as there was in your case) more after the .shtml, but this is irrelevant. Just copy and paste the eight-digit string (XXXXXXXX) before the .shtml onto bbc.co.uk/programmes/ (ie bbc.co.uk/programmes/XXXXXXXX). http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00c1842 --saxsux (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)