Help desk
< January 3	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 5 >

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.

January 4

info on Fabiola Gatti doesn't appear

Resolved

– Corruptcopper (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fan of Uruguayan Fabiola Gatti and her pop group The Fabs, www.myspace.com/fabsonline but the links to Wilkipedia don't appear to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.27.67 (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page Fabiola Gatti was deleted following this discussion. Algebraist 23:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finding all articles by a particular editor

Resolved

– Corruptcopper (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I'm doing some cleanup of some articles that were created by a serial plagiarist a while back. Does anyone know a quick way to find all the articles created by a particular username? Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link does it. Regards. Woody (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the toolserver is currently having a few issues, so it might not work for a few days. Woody (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - toolserver's still down. That looks like what I want, though. Thanks! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Display settings

Does anyone know how to change display settings as a test for viewing a page? I have a widescreen monitor, but sometimes I want to know how a page might look on a square CRT monitor to make sure that it isn't being rendered improperly. (Note: I have attempted to change the settings locally on my monitor, but the display driver does not allow for that; I thought there might be an easy way to compare that someone on wikipedia might have come up with.) Thanks! Cardsplayer4life (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you adjust your browser window so it's not fullscreen? Pseudomonas_(talk) 20:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could adjust my browser window, sure. How would you know when it is the right proportions, though? I realize that square monitors are 4:3, and widescreen are 16:9, (and I could estimate, or eye ball it) but how would you know for sure that you were at the correct proportion? I generally want to know because sometimes things interfere with each other (images, infoboxes, etc.), and a few pixels one way or the other could make a difference. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Converting excel spreadsheet to wiki markup

Is it possible to create a sortable table in wiki markup from an excel spreadsheet, and if so, how? ←Spidern → 08:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EIW#Import. --Teratornis (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link leads to here, which lists 3 options that don't explicitly specify that they support sortable tables. Are there any options available that support sortable tables? ←Spidern → 11:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the converters I am familiar with will add the sortable class. After you convert the table, edit it and add class="sortable". --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agent.AWF

Resolved

– Corruptcopper (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is written in an unusual style. What is the right tag? Kittybrewster ☎ 08:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps template:Technical is a good starting point. But it really seems to warrant something else in addition. -Seidenstud (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Wikify}} also. For example, see WP:LEAD and WP:LAYOUT which are a useful start for reminding oneself of what an article should contain. --Teratornis (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can also explain in detail on Talk:Agent.AWF exactly what you think the article needs. It's often good to elaborate a little on what you see as the problems, since the complaint templates may not be very specific. For example, saying an article is "too technical" doesn't clearly point out which sentences you found impenetrable. On the talk page you can list the exact sentences, or some of them, that are not easy to understand. That will make it easier for an expert to know which parts someone else doesn't understand. It's often hard for experts to be aware of exactly what someone else does not know, when they know all of it. So, the more specific you can make your complaints, the sooner someone might fix them. --Teratornis (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blunder at wikimedia

Resolved

I tried to upload an image at wikimedia. In an attempt to rename it better, I mistakenly uploaded a duplicate. How do I get rid of one of those?--Leif edling (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got the answer at wikimedia help.--Leif edling (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template for image links

I know that we have a number of templates for users and articles which, taking the article or username as a parameter, generate a list of links to talk pages, history, etc. For example, {{userlinks}} and {{article}} generate

TenOfAllTrades (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

respectively. Is there a similar template for pages in the File: (Image:) namespace? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{li}}, which generates File:Example.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Xenon 54 15:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia : A propaganda of UK Unioinism?

Is Wikipedia supposed to be A propaganda of UK Unioinism? 78.148.91.80 (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Algebraist 17:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But how come I see "London, United Kingdom" everywhere? 78.148.91.80 (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is the country in which London is located. The official name is United Kingdom as used in international organisations such as the UN. Woody (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But how about London, England? I know that's true (the London, UK thing). 78.148.91.80 (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the country is the common standard when clarifying place names. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(places)#Countries and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). At such time as the United Kingdom chooses to Balkanize itself, then we can name London according to a smaller containing geopolitical unit. Also, I think the word you mean is "Unionism". If you're going to accuse Wikipedia of something, please spell it correctly, and ideally link it, to help the 1000+ worldwide daily readers of the Help desk understand what heinous transgression they are guilty of (many Help desk volunteers aren't aware of the latest political row going on in the (still) United Kingdom, particularly those of us who spell words like "color"). And by the way, London, England exists as a redirect to the primary article title, which is just: London. Evidently London is notable enough not to need further qualification in its article title. We have a London (disambiguation) page to list all the other pretenders. Note that Wikipedia has something to offend just about everyone. And yet Wikipedia, despite its near-universal offensiveness, has become one of the world's top-five Web properties or something like that. The other top sites offend lots of people too - I detect a pattern here. --Teratornis (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation?

Hello, I noticed that there is a chart of textual differences on the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition page that seems to be lifted verbatim from the back of that particular translation of the Bible. Normally I would delete the chart without hesitation but this seems to be information that anyone could compile independently if they spent enough time doing it. Do you think this is a clear violation of copyright (i.e. should be deleted) or not? Thank you. Loves Macs (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition article makes it pretty clear that the work is under copyright. I don't see much wiggle room there for an extended verbatim copy. You might mention your concern on the talk page before taking an ax to it. See for example the section with the amusing title (as if organized religion has ever been in the forefront of intellectual progress): Talk:Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition#Why can't they copyleft bibles? (I've read the Bible cover to cover several times, and I don't recall seeing anything in it that could support the modern notion of intellectual property. Other than possibly the mark of the beast.) --Teratornis (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]