Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 February 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Help desk
< February 28 << Jan | February | Mar >> March 1 >
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.

February 29[edit]

Guenter A. Rieger[edit]

Guenter A. Rieger, Mayor of the Township of Spallumcheen, 1989-1996 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GARCanada (talkcontribs) 02:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you have a question for the help desk? If you spot an error in an article, you should fix it yourself WP:BOLD RudolfRed (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS and non-free use[edit]

An OTRS volunteer added an OTRS permission tag together with a non-free use tag at File:Arnold Leibovit.jpg. Is this right? It seems a contradiction to me to combine OTRS permission with the non-permission of non-free use. —teb728 t c 04:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the subject, but if I read it correctly, the OTRS says that there is copyright release for Wikipedia to use the image, but there isn't a free use release for anyone to use it, and the Wikipedia policy is that for subjects such as living people it generally doesn't use non-free images. My interpretion of the OTRS permission is that the copyright holder has released it so that it could be used for a purpose in which Wikipedia allows non-free images. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The OTRS ticket tag needs to say the specific kind of permission which was granted by the copyright holder. Otherwise it's misleading. If they didn't specify a compatible license, then the permission letter is invalid for keeping the image. See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. The most usual compatible free license is CC-by-SA. Permission for use on Wkipedia only (or only for non-commercial purposes) is incompatible with our licensing and still makes the image non-free. As it is an image of a living person and therefore replaceable, it does not count as a valid fair use and should almost certainly be deleted. File:PuppetoonMovie(2).jpg is another problematic one from the same user. At least it has a valid fair use rationale, but does not state who the copyright holder is and again, has a misleading OTRS tag. Voceditenore (talk) 11:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

nonprofit laws on charitable giving[edit]

can a home owner make donations to a nonprofit for home repairs sed nonprofit is education at-risk youth in maintanace/construction — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol move vote.svg This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Singularity42 (talk) 04:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing 'citations needed' category from an article[edit]

Hi. I've read through lots of the online help but couldn't find an answer to this question. Until recently this article

had a few 'citation needed' references. It is categorised as both

   Articles needing additional references from February 2012


   All articles needing additional references

This is why (I think) that a big box appears at the top of the article saying "This article needs additional citations for verification.". Now that I've added citations to the article neither this box nor the categories above are relevant any longer but I can't seem to remove them. They aren't in the body of the article like normal categories. How do I remove them? Or will they disappear once the citations have been accepted?

Many thanks David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbradbury (talkcontribs) 05:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing the {{Refimprove|date=February 2012}} template from the top of the edit box removes the edit notice and the categories. Dru of Id (talk) 06:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
And, you can propose this in talk page first to get some opinion from active editors of that article. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 11:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

3D television[edit]

I have looked under WP:TITLE and WP:CAPS here, without much guidance. The trouble here is my natural instinct is to cap the T in Television, and I am not sure why, but it must have something to do with it starting with a number that somehow "3D" does not count as a word and so "Television" needs to be capped. I should appreciate views, or at least a better place to ask for them. The article is marked as requiring cleanup, which I shall do as best I can, but I should appreciate views on whether the T in Television should be capped. Thanks Si Trew (talk) 06:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't have thought so. Both 3D television and the longer-standing article 3D display look OK in that respect. If the article were entitled Three-dimensional television, I wouldn't expect "television" to be capitalised. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
A very sensible argument. Somehow to me it just "looks" wrong. But probably best left stet, there is no good reason to move, especially since the WP search is now case insensitive. Thanks for your help. I am a bit busy this morning but then will get on doing the cleanup as best I can. I only have an old fashioned black and white telly that still picks up episodes of Coronation Street from 1968, so you can guarantee an NPOV.
Thanks once again. Si Trew (talk) 08:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing stack in User:Tompw/bookshelf, Wikipedia:Size in volumes etc.[edit]


There is an error in the displayed set of bookshelves in the graphic illustrating the size of Wikipedia. This is hosted at User:Tompw/bookshelf. Details reproduced below.

I posted a message (reproduced below) to Tompw on Feb-16: User_talk:Tompw#Missing stack in User:Tompw/bookshelf, Wikipedia:Size in volumes etc. regarding a proposed correction.

As Tompw appears to be inactive, I posted a query about making this change myself (reproduced below) Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2012_February_21#Missing_stack_in_User:Tompw.2Fbookshelf.2C_Wikipedia:Size_in_volumes_etc.

Per the suggestion I tried to seek consensus on the project.

I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics#Missing stack in User:Tompw/bookshelf, Wikipedia:Size in volumes etc. on Feb-21

I was redirected to Wikipedia:Statistics Department (via a note on my user talk page), where I posted Wikipedia_talk:Statistics_Department#Missing_stack_in_User:Tompw.2Fbookshelf.2C_Wikipedia:Size_in_volumes_etc.

Unfortunately Wikipedia:Statistics Department appears to be inactive, and I have not had any comments.

So I’m still left with my original questions regarding how to proceed (again, see detail below).

Is there another place I should seek consensus, or should I go ahead and make the edits in Tompw’s user space, move the code to another space (I’m thinking this should probably be a template), and fix it there, or...?


The display of "how big is Wiki in terms of printed books", which is included in several places (notably Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia), appears to have a problem in the way it calculates the size of the display. For example, the current display computes the size as equivalent to 1634 volumes, but then displays that as approximately 7 1/6 full stacks (shelves of books), rather than the correct (approximately) 8 1/6th stacks. It appears to be a relatively simple miscalculation (rounding the result to nearest rather than rounding up, see description below).

The problem is that this is hosted at User:Tompw/bookshelf. I have left a message regarding this at User_talk:Tompw#Missing stack in User:Tompw/bookshelf, Wikipedia:Size in volumes etc. (reproduced below).

Unfortunately Tompw appears to be inactive. They've made one edit since last July (in October), and they've not responded to my message in several days.

So I have two questions.

First, as a matter of etiquette, should I go ahead and fix the code under User:Tompw/bookshelf?

Second, given the general use of these pages/images, should this be moved out of user space, and perhaps set up as a template?

(the following was posted to User_talk:Tompw on Feb 16):

-- Missing stack in User:Tompw/bookshelf, Wikipedia:Size in volumes etc. --
I believe the number of stacks in the various "how big is Wiki in printed books" graphics is missing a stack.
It's currently 1634 volumes, which should be eight full stacks, plus a partial ninth stack.  It's displaying
seven full stacks plus a partial eighth.  I believe the problem is with the calculation in
User:Tompw/bookshelf/stacks.  It's currently:
 {{ #expr:  {{User:Tompw/bookshelf/volumes}}/200 round 0}}
It should probably be something like
{{ #expr:  ceil({{User:Tompw/bookshelf/volumes}}/200)}}
(I think I did the conversion of braces correctly, but if the above has ended up with a missing or extra brace,
I apologize in advance.)
The round function is not what you'd really want.  Round would convert 300-499 books (1.500 to 2.495 stacks) to
2, and 500-699 books (2.500 to 3.495 stacks) to 3.  Ceil will get the next highest integer.  Thus 1.005 through
2.000 (201-400 books) would get 2, but 2.005 through 3.000 (401-600 books) would get 3.
Likewise, the calculation in User:Tompw/bookshelf/volumes, should probably be changed from:
 {{#expr:({{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}}/(500*2*2*80*50/(6*562)) round 0) + 1}}
Although that's only going to be off a book at worst.
I haven't quite traced through how the partial stack gets drawn, so I'm not sure if there's an impact there or not.
Rwessel (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Rwessel (talk) 07:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If the stacks are reproduced outside his userspace, then I think it would be OK to correct it. If it's purely something he has had in his own userspace for his own enjoyment, it's fine to leave a note about it, but I would not alter it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
These are the main links: Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Tompw/bookshelf.
The most notable page is Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia (which is linked from Wikipedia:Statistics and many other places – so it’s actually fairly prominent). Wikipedia:Size in volumes is also linked from a number of places.
The problem is that User:Tompw/bookshelf is transcluded into those places. Which is why I was thinking template. Rwessel (talk) 10:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Horizontal borders for tables[edit]

Is it possible to have a table with horizontal borders but not vertical ones? Help:Table doesn't mention this possibility, but it would be useful. Thanks. Yaris678 (talk) 08:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

See the example at Help:Table#Width, height. Instead of | abc || def || ghi, just have | abc. Look in the source of this section to see how the following table is coded.
Goodvac (talk) 09:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I made myself clear there. The example you give has both horizontal and vertical borders. I want horizontal ones but not vertical.
Yaris678 (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Template collapsing[edit]

I've recently created Template:Knots as a navbox for pages on individual knots. However, it's fairly large (it may actually warrant breaking down into individual boxes at some point) and I'd like it to display by default in its collapsed state when added to an article. What I can't seem to do is get persuade it to do so - I've tried changing the | state = parameter to collapsed, and I've even tried nesting it in <noinclude> tags, but it still shows in its expanded state when in article space (at present, I've only added it to one article, Adjustable bend). Suggestions welcome - this is my first attempt at building a template, so I've probably cocked something up somewhere. Yunshui  09:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's working for me. When I go to Adjustable bend, the navbox is automatically collapsed.
Also, I changed {{{state<includeonly>|collapsed</includeonly>}}} to <includeonly>collapsed</includeonly> because I don't think {{{state|collapsed}}} does anything useful in this context. According to Help:Template#Handling parameters, "{{{1|unknown}}} will be replaced by the first unnamed parameter if there is one, or otherwise by the text 'unknown'." Since I'm assuming you want the template to be collapsed for all transclusions and since I don't think you're going to have parameters when using the template, the "state" parameter will not exist and "collapsed" will always be returned. If this isn't your intention and you want to make it customizable (e.g. choose whether to collapse by default or not), feel free to revert and have |state=autocollapse as a parameter of the template when you transclude it if you don't want it collapse by default. Goodvac (talk) 10:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks for the fix. It still shows as expanded for me, so I guess my cache needs a spot of refreshment. Any other tweaks you want to make will be appreciated! Yunshui  10:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Help with random[edit]

This is a tough ask (or as I know). Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge/RandomArticle, I created for the project, when you click on the merge icon it will link you to a page which links you to a random article needing merge. Can anyone format such that the icon directly links you to a random article needing merge. Thanks, extra999 (talk) 09:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done, just replaced the url in the link= parameter to the target url. Best, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :) extra999 (talk) 12:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

wiki Login Issue - Email expired and not working[edit]

Hi, I forgot my log in password and when I click for new password its forwarded to my email id which is expired/closed long back, can wiki admin help me retrieve my password? Regards, Avinash Birambole — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, no, even the administrators here cannot reset your email address or password. You will have to create a new account, following the advice at Help:Logging in#What if I forget the password?. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Large white space[edit]

When I open any new page, a large white space comes up, which disappears after refreshing. I have been facing this problem since last week or so. I use updated version of chrome, thanks in advance for your help! — Bill william comptonTalk 13:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please be more precise, are you referring to Wikipedia pages or any web page? If the latter is the case, you might get more help by asking at the Computing section of the Wikipedia Reference Desk as it would appear to be a browser problem. CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow, am I that stupid? I'm taking about Wikipedia, of course; am not some random user who asks for his browsing problems here. — Bill william comptonTalk 02:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Where in the page is the large white space at? - Purplewowies (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
This page gets a lot of posts which are not about Wikipedia (many posters think we are a help desk for some organization or website we have an article about), but they are rarely from users with a customized signature. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Screen goes blank says there is a problem with revisionjumper. Try to disable it at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets if you have enabled it. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks PrimeHunter, but the problem is not with revisionjumper, because it's already disabled. The space comes at the beginning of page, like someone has newlined whole text at bottom. Also, it doesn't appear always. — Bill william comptonTalk 12:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Links in References do not appear for editing, need to be changed[edit]

Someone inserted malicious links into my References section, but when I view Refs- there are no links listed.

Megatouch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All I see is this:


<references />

Our competitors regularly go in and replace our company's links with links to their own websites, and I regularly go in and change them back, but am no longer able to do so. Kathleenglica (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I have added nowiki tags above so that "references" does not appear as a new section. Singularity42 (talk) 14:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
You need to click the edit tab at the top of the page so that the whole article is in edit mode, then you can edit the references where they appear in the article's text. Please also read WP:COI and WP:RS - at the moment the article relies almost exclusively the company's own website for references and that is not sufficient to demonstrate the required notability for Wikipedia purposes. – ukexpat (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
(e/c) The reason for this is that the References section transcludes the information on references from the article text. The references are placed within the body of the article and the <references /> markup makes them appear in one place on the visible version. So that's why you can't see them.
The article is currently in dire need of better referencing (it currently relies entirely upon the company's own website), and it may be that the whole article meets our criteria for deletion. In addition, you have repeatedly added inappropriate external links to the article, in violation of our external links policy. Please read the conflict of interest guidelines as well before editing any further. Yunshui  14:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Historians, &c.[edit]

I regularly edit in quiet corners of WP that are usually edited by historians or researchers. Accordingly, their writing styles are best suited for research journals or historical essays -- but not what would be called "encyclopedic". These articles usually contain generalities, assumptions, and weasel and peacock wording. Is there any essay or guideline I can reference when questioned about this? The only thing I could find was WP:TONE (besides WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK), but, while it is a good start, it doesn't necessarily touch on all of the points I hoped it would. Is there an all-in-one essay that helps when editing with historians, &c., maybe a "the difference between writing for a journal and an encyclopedia"? Rgrds. -- (talk) 14:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV perhaps? – ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
No, it's never been an issue with positing any agenda or anything. It's more of, how do I put this, an old guy telling the history of a town like he was reminiscing to his grandson. I guess what I am looking for is an easy way to explain the difference between the writing style you would expect from a historical society and an encyclopedia. Most of the time, these editors aren't WP-savvy at all, so they aren't the easiest types to template. I apologize for not being any more clear, I guess I'm more brainstorming than asking a direct question. Is there maybe a "instead of writing it like that, write it like this" help page? -- (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
On second thought, maybe WP:NPOV is what I'm looking for, or at least will lead me to it; I just wish there was something specific I could use with historians and researchers. Thanks. -- (talk) 15:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest {{essay-like}}. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I was more concerned with helping the editors change their writing style. I usually clean up the articles rather than tag them, but the template did lead me to click on a few more links. The MOS doesn't really have a page on the actual writing style, it just dances around the topic. I guess the best I've found is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, which ironically contains the WP:WEASEL I linked to in my OP. Thanks for the links. -- (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Louisiana Blues Hall of Fame[edit]

Hello, I have been trying to get info on the Louisiana Blues Hall of Fame on Wikipedia. It was on for a while but was deleted. What do I have to do to correct or add info to get it back on? Can you please help me. Gary Daigle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garydaigle (talkcontribs) 15:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the deletion log, the page was deleted by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) yesterday because there was "No explanation of the subject's significance ...: no independent sources". The first step is to stop by his talk page and ask your above question directly to him; he may be able to move the article to your userspace for you to improve. If you are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Music Chart template problem?[edit]


OK, so I've found the following strange text in two articles (and by in the articles I really mean inline text inside the main articles):

"INVALID BULGARIAN CHART ENTERED! Only the charts at are acceptable. Please link to an individual chart, and remember that the charts published at are not acceptable"

I thought this was someone not knowing about using Talk pages to highlight problems, so I tried to delete the text from the article to move it to the talk page. However, I couldn't find it anywhere in the article's edit text - I assume it's some kind of template that is invisible. How can I find how this confusing text got here?

Thanks, OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 15:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it is coming from Template:Singlechart. RJFJR (talk) 15:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Aha, that's him, thank you! OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 15:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

irrelevant wikipedia article[edit]

The article at the above URL is irrelevant. I was in this band and I made the article myself and inflated the band's importance so it wasn't removed. I did this so when people searched Phaethon (alternate spelling of Phaeton, mythical Greek figure) in Google, our band would be near the top of the list. The fact is, the band was never payed any attention and was more of a case of high schoolers screwing around recording together. I feel that the article is illegitimate and should not be in an encyclopedia that is supposed to be taken seriously, so in the interest of ridding wikipedia of inappropriate material, I felt I should notify the administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to put a deletion proposed tag on it first. See here:
I.e. put {{proposed deletion}} in the article. OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 15:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Done I've tagged the article for deletion. While I'm not 100% sure of the IP's stated connection to the article, it's not necessary after looking at the article itself and judging it by its own merits, or lack thereof. --McDoobAU93 15:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a clear A7 speedy deletion to me, so I have tagged it as such. – ukexpat (talk) 15:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Whole article a copyvio?[edit]

Hi, while researching a user's contributions, I came across this article:

Music of Morocco

and was preparing to add an unreffed article tag to it when I noticed a ref section at the end (but no inline refs).

Curious, especially because the reference is a whole chapter of the book:
Muddyman, Dave. "A Basic Expression of Life". 2000. In Broughton, Simon and Ellingham, Mark with McConnachie, James and Duane, Orla (Ed.), World Music, Vol. 1: Africa, Europe and the Middle East, pp 567–578. Rough Guides Ltd, Penguin Books.
I went to check it at Google books (btw the ISBN in the article is wrong, it leads to Vol.2 of the same series).

Now the other day I could see pp567-568, the copyvio is obvious, it's just a conciser form of the text, with an occasionnal word changed or sections presented in a different order. But today I can only access from p569 onwards, but if you check the two the copyvio for the later sections of the article is obvious. As I said above, sometimes the info is presented in a different order but the wording is (almost) identical everywhere.
Google books link, you need to scroll to page 569 and onwards for the relevant sections

Would a more experienced editor give it a lookover? What to do? Stub the article down to just its title and section headings? Any advice/help appreciated. CaptainScreebo Parley! 16:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Could I have some input please? Or I will just stub this down to the titles and a couple of lines. CaptainScreebo Parley! 13:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Diagrams for articles[edit]

I have figures in format <.ai >, <.pdf >, <.bmp >, <.eps><.txt >, or <.psd >.

How do I translate these to appear in my article?

`````` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bparslow (talkcontribs) 17:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't use any of those. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
But you could convert them to .jpg format and upload them - provided, of course, they are your diagrams, not ones you have copied from somewhere else, and you do not mind releasing the copyright. Arjayay (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Uhh, it's quite possible to upload PDFs. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

About my new page[edit]

Hello,I am Beril Tanriverdi and i made an information page for myself.I am a singer and student so i need to be seen on Wikipedia,people will need and look for me.All the sources are true,I just want to keep my page.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beriltanriverdi (talkcontribs) 17:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:COI. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
If you intention is solely to promote yourself on Wikipedia anything you write is unlikely to survive. If you are notable some day someone should write an article on you, until then you should not write one yourself. Яehevkor 17:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, assuming the content on your user page is the content of the article you want to create, there are no sources listed. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
You seem to confuse Wikipedia with social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a social networking site. —teb728 t c 21:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Have you looked at the original poster's contributions? He has only made two edits thus far; neither one created an article about himself. They were both to the help desk, which is rather confusing. Interchangeable|talk to me 18:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Another four contributions have been deleted, and the messages at User talk:Beriltanriverdi explain what they were. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki to facebook.[edit]

There is a Facebook page for my job from wiki that is confusing our workers. I need wiki creator of VAW 117 on Facebook to change their name from "VAW 117" to "VAW 117 Wikipedia". Our workers utilize this site and sometimes get confused thinking that is our Facebook page when it isn't. Do do i get wiki to chnage the name on Facebook? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Your question is a bit vague, but I believe your question is whether Wikipedia can change the way a Facebook page is displayed. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has no control over what happens on Facebook, so we cannot help you. Sorry about that. "Pepper" @ 18:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess your question is about which was copied from, but not by Wikipedia.
Symbol move vote.svg Facebook community pages may incorporate content from Wikipedia— such use complies with Wikipedia policies on reuse of content. We at Wikipedia have no control over how the content is included nor can we help to remove it. Facebook does have a topic on Community pages and profile connections on their Help Center. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Lost uploaded image[edit]

Hello, an image was uploaded to the Bill Drummond page in November, but it has now disappeared - only the file name is visible. I tried to re-upload it, but am getting a message saying that it is a duplicate. Where did the image go?! It is the Penkiln Burn poster, under the section heading "the17". Thank you for any advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katrinacrear (talkcontribs) 19:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That PDF now appears to be on Commons at File:The17 Choir, Poster 59, Bill Drummond.pdf. Note that it lacks evidence of permission from the copyright owner. – ukexpat (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually you garbled the file name with this edit. The deletion log doesn't show the filename without "Choir" as having existed. —teb728 t c 20:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much teb728! The pdf does have permission to be there from the copyrighter - I just have to figure out how to make that clear - another job, another day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katrinacrear (talkcontribs) 11:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

How in the world is this an advertisement??[edit]

I do not work for any party that has anything to do with "Hadoop". I found this article as a result of a Google search:

Apache Hadoop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Why in the world did Wikipedia tag this article with a warning that it's an advertisement? On what planet could that possibly be true? I read the entire thing and I have no clue where there is any hint of an advertisement. In fact, this article pertains to an open source application which generally flies in the face of advertising!

What specific sentences lead you to believe it's an advertisement? This is exactly why no one takes Wikipedia seriously. End-users like myself look at articles and then move on and do more searches for better information. Markjohnson52931 (talk) 19:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is written in a way that does not meet WP:NEUTRAL 100% but is not bad enough to be speedily deleted. i.e it can be changed by an editor to meet the guidelines. Hghyux (talk) 19:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The lede paragraphs, in particular, are just a little too breathless, with lots of sparkly "global" and "petabytes of data" sorts of bragging points. We strive for a more neutral point of view and a more matter-of-fact tone. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The "advertisement" tag is warning you that the article may not give a true picture of the product. It reads like a product datasheet, in other words like something that could have been written by the producers of Hadoop to explain how wonderful their product is. Most of the references are to websites by the developers of Hadoop (Apache, Google, etc). There is a lack of independent analysis of the product: whether it works, how widely it is used, and whether there are better alternatives. Some of the claims of the product's benefits may be vague, meaningless or unsubstantiated. Many Wikipedia pages contain imperfect information, but at least we tell you that - if you go to other websites or blogs there is unlikely to be the same open process of self-criticism.
Also, you're wrong to say that it can't be an advertisement because it is open source. Many open source applications advertise, most prominently Google Chrome.[1][2] But the "advertising" tag does not mean paid promotion - it could equally well be support by fans, developers, or lazy writers recycling press releases. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What does the Improve this Page tab man?[edit]

What does the blue tab in the corner of some pages mean and what is it there for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gourleyo (talkcontribs) 20:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5. Deor (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I mean the fixed tab in the bottom right - not the one at the bottom of pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gourleyo (talkcontribs) 18:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That tab only appears on articles with the Version 5 Article Feedback Tool. Clicking it brings up the tool in the middle of the page instead of you having to wait until you reach the bottom to rate it. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way to remove the "Improve this page" tab?[edit]

Is there any way to hide the "Improve this page" tab in the corner of the browser in articles with the Feedback version 5 tool? I find it intrusive and more than a little distracting. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Click on "my preferences" at the top of any page, then click on the "Appearance" tab, and under "Advanced options" check the box in front of "Don't show the Article feedback widget on pages" and click the "Save" button at the bottom of the page. Deor (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
That works, but I like the widget itself (particularly the one that's still being used on most pages), and I'd like to still be able to use it. I just don't like the little thing in the corner that, when clicked, brings up the new widget in the middle of the page. I guess I'll just have to live with it if there's no way to just remove that. :( - Purplewowies (talk) 21:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Image frame in a thumbnail[edit]

Why does this image have a white frame within the thumbnail?
If you force the image size on the identical file, the white frame goes away.

The image right has a white frame around it within the thumbnail. The image file itself at commons does not have a whiteframe (it was removed three months ago [3]) and the whiteframe does not show up on any of the other wikis. What's gone wrong? DrKiernan (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Maria II Stuart.JPG

Nothing's wrong, you added it to a thumbnail. See now. It's the thumbnail styling... I guess other wikis won't be having it then. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No. It's the white frame within the thumbnail I'm talking about not the light grey thumbnail frame itself. On the other wikis it's added as a thumbnail image but it doesn't have the old white frame around it. That only happens on the english wiki when it's added as a thumbnail. DrKiernan (talk) 21:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I was guessing that the thumbnail by default leaves some space as styling at en. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
No other images have a white frame around them. DrKiernan (talk) 21:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Apart from the image size, the two thumbnails look the same to me. What white area are you referring to? RudolfRed (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the white frame either (in Firefox 10.0.2). Perhaps it's a browser specific issue? – ukexpat (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I see a small line of white at the top of the image. Is it possible that the problem is that there's just still some white space in the picture? (I also see this white line on other WPs.) I don't see any other whitespace anywhere in the picture on any WP. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I see. I've just looked at it in firefox and the files look the same. However, I still see the old version of the image file from February 2011 on the unforced image in Explorer. DrKiernan (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Right, I've cleared it by uploading another new version without the thin white line at the top. Must have been some sort of caching issue; although I do clear my cache every week so quite how it kept going for three months I don't know. DrKiernan (talk) 22:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it's a caching issue it's unlikely that anyone else would see it unless they had viewed the image before you cropped out the white line. I've purged the image, does that resolve it for you? — Bility (talk) 22:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Maybe it was the purge then, but something's definitely worked. DrKiernan (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

iPad 3[edit]

Hi I just found out from another user that the article for iPad 3 is currently a redirect page that is fully protected. In light of the current press releases that show an Apple event on March 7th in which the iPad 3 is to be revealed I was wondering if a separate article with information on it be made. Would this be a good idea or would it be best to wait or not do this at all? Hghyux (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It is only speculation that the March 7th event will be about an iPad 3. The redirect is being maitained since Wikipedia does not pretend to know the future. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Note that you could prepare a Userspace draft that you could polish post-event provided adequate sourcing. Dru of Id (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Appears that there is support for the creation of this page at Talk:iPad. Don't see why some admins are still keeping this locked over what appears to be consensus to create it.--JOJ Hutton 22:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Because this is not a kindergarten class voting on what to name a kitten. We are expected to abide by our policies and procedures. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we don't obsess over speculation and gossip; per WP:V, we don't print mere rumors just because some folks rilly, rilly, rilly fer-shure just know that the March 7 event will announce an iPac 3, possibly with unicorns and rainbows. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
See Vaporware. Dru of Id (talk) 22:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

HTML tags in page titles[edit]

I've noticed this for a while now, but I haven't found it intrusive until today. If I'm on an article which has an italicized title (e.g. a movie or TV show), I see the HTML <i></i> tags displayed in the title. Also, starting today, on my watchlist, I see <span dir=auto>My Watchlist</span>. Any idea what would be causing this?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's caused by the StumbleUpon browser extension. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense.. Do you know of any way to disable StumbleUpon from affecting the title?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Wait, nvm. I figured out how to do it. For anyone else wondering, there's a checkbox in options under "Search & Tagging" that says "Highlight recommended results." Uncheck that, and the problem is fixed.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
For me, that didn't work, but unchecking "Show names of friends who like search results" did fix it. Spalding (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)