Help desk
< March 16	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 18 >

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.

March 17

why article's history page doesn't show the changes I made but my contribution pages show them?

Article history pages doesn't show I made any changes: [1]

but my contribution page shows them: [2]

The changes I made to Ghaem Magham Farahani remianed in the article but its history page doesn't show them. what happened?Farmanesh 00:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the changes that you're made, if that helps :) Perhaps you should bypass your cache? It doesn't appear to be a server-side problem, but who knows, it's probably just a quirk. The problem happened to a lot of people a couple of days ago. Gracenotes ^T § 00:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because the server might be a bit slow in updating. Wait a few seconds and it'll show the changes. --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 00:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edits

Is stub sorting considered a minor edit? Its not really adding much content, but it does change categoriztion and appearance. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's only superficial, and it doesn't really add content. But some editors see it differently. It's up to you to make the pick, but I'd strongly suggest marking as minor. The Evil Clown _{Please review me!} 01:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

are there any proffesional historians who post here?

Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles might be a helpful page, and lists several notable historians. If you have a question about history, please ask it here. In addition, if you want to contact any historian, I would suggest not doing it on Wikipedia, but there's not a rule against it. Gracenotes ^T § 01:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to Wikimedia commons

I have put a photograph in Wikimedia Commons. I would like to create a link from a Wikipedia article to this photo. Can you point me to where I'll find the necessary help.Bebofpenge 03:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there. If you want to link to the file, type [[:Image:name.ext]]. If you want to display the image, you can type [[Image:name.ext|thumb|right|200px|Caption text.]]. WODUP 03:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior Librarian

Hi there,

I was going to try to create an entry for Warrior Librarian, but reading your guidelines I'm not allowed to 'publicise' my own material (?)

Google produces over 400,000 hits for "warrior librarian", and most of them relate either to my website, myself, or other references to either.

I couldn't quite work out how to 'request' an entry ... and I'm out of time now. Sigh.

If someone else can 'do' the base entry, maybe I can add to it?

Warrior Librarian is:

A cartoon charactor created by Australian library humorist and author Amanda Credaro; also occassionally used as a psuedonym by same.
A registered (in Australia) business name
The host website for Warrior Librarian Weekly, a satirical online library journal (ISSN 1445-9124)

Thanks in advance for any advice or information. WarriorLibrarian

Thank you for reading some policy pages before starting. Lots more are here. Since you seem to be a published author, not to mention a librarian, you are worlds ahead of most new Wikipedia users; you won't have any trouble becoming a productive contributor here. In fact, Wikipedia has a screaming need for people like you, to fill in some of the millions of missing references. Some tips on starting your article:

You could request an article at: Wikipedia:Requested articles.
You could request editing assistance on one or more WikiProjects relating to your topic. For example, perhaps:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Culture#Comics - maybe: Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics
- Look for articles related to your topic, and check their talk pages for WikiProject banners.
- I was suprised to see no library project banners on Talk:Library or Talk:Librarian. Is there no WikiProject for library-related articles? I would think librarians would be the first to organize their articles here under a WikiProject. If there really isn't such a project, perhaps you should start one (see: WP:PROJGUIDE if you get that ambitious).
You could help the process along by starting a user sub-page such as: User:WarriorLibrarian/Warrior Librarian (just click that red link to get going), and start writing. See WP:LAYOUT. When you have something that looks like an article, come back here and ask for some experienced editors to review it. Then when it's in shape, someone can copy the content to the real Warrior Librarian article.
- Quality references are the most important missing items for many new articles. You can help other editors who work on the article by listing definitive references on User:WarriorLibrarian/Warrior Librarian. Since we're lazy, it helps if copies of the references are readable online. The most useful kind of references for establish a subject's notability are reputable publications that write about it, other than the subject's official site itself.
- Even though WP:COI says not to write about yourself or any organization you are personally involved with, WP:IAR says to ignore all rules when they get in the way of improving or maintaining Wikipedia. However, brand-new users typically don't have the level of editing experience on Wikipedia to know how to break (I prefer: creatively interpret) the rules the right way; that kind of know-how might take a year and a thousand edits to accumulate (probably less for a librarian). It's perfectly fine to write about yourself or your own organization or invention or whatever as long as (and this is very heavy emphasis) you write as if you are not personally involved. Wikipedia does not formally keep track of who is writing about what; we just want it to look as if everyone is writing impartially (i.e., neutrally). For example, I strongly suspect topics such as MediaWiki and Microsoft receive significant input from people with personal involvement in those topics. However, those articles don't suffer from the kind of peacock language which is the dead giveaway for naive attempts at promotion here. If you can write about your topic in neutral style, then have at it. The best way to learn is by studying some featured articles; those illustrate what you're aiming for.
  - However, given that you chose a user name which obviously identifies you as having an interest in this topic, an overzealous deletionist might apply the letter of the WP:COI law, and tag your article for speedy deletion regardless of quality, if you start it yourself.
Be aware there are many wikis. Wikipedia has perhaps the most elaborate and exacting rules of any wiki on Earth (this is the most complicated wiki I have yet seen). There are probably other wikis which don't have a problem with you writing about your own creation. Search WikiIndex for some appropriate wiki. Having another outlet for your writing makes edit wars on Wikipedia seem less threatening.
When you mention a Google search in discussion pages like this one, you can link to it like this: google:Warrior Librarian. (You have to use   to represent the space between search terms for the link to work. That's an example of an interwiki link being somewhat misused to link to a site that isn't a wiki.) However, as you probably gather, Google searches do not constitute adequate references for article pages themselves, because their results continuously change.

Good luck, and welcome to Wikipedia. --Teratornis 15:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ES builder

Can anybody tell me what ES builder does, please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dudforreal (talk • contribs) 06:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

ES builder?--SUIT^양복 06:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ES builder, do you know what it does?Dudforreal 06:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us a clue about where in Wikipedia ES Builder is used, or the Wikipedia connection? I just searched the whole of the English Wikipedia for the phrase [3] and didn't find it. Notinasnaid 10:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want to ask at the reference desk. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ThankyouDudforreal 05:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a category name

Someone has changed the name of a category that an article I frequently edit is part of. How do I change the category name back? Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caleb Murdock (talk • contribs) 09:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've heard of these, it's categories that have been proposed name changes since a certain date, and changing the name back would not help in any way and probabally would be reverted back again, or something like that. I'm not sure on that part, but to me, it sounds right.....an admin could explain it better anyway..... Captain Drake Van Hellsing 10:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you told us what category it is, we could find out why it was renamed in the first place. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contact Information

Hi, I'm wondering what WP policy is in regards to provision of Contact info at the end of articles. See, for example, Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Committee, Grihshobha. Is this something that is encouraged? Doesn't it make the article look a bit like an advertisement? Johnfos 09:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I've removed it. --Cherry blossom tree 12:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever seen contact information in articles about ongoing disasters. Removing them from any other type of article is indeed the correct thing to do. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all very well to say that the Contact info should be deleted, but wouldn't you consider writing to the user concerned to ask for it not to be included in the first place. Thanks. Johnfos 23:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reporting Copyvios of wikipedia

I know we have many places for reporting copyvios on wikipedia, and there's wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for verbatim copiers, but where do I post about someone who's reused some content and violated the GFDL, but not actually forked the encyclopedia? I posted on wikipedia talk:copyrights, but that's obviously less than ideal.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report them on the Administrator's Noticeboard. Real96 10:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how do i...

how do i create a new article and put in on wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heathbear1989 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Basically the same way you asked this question. Try Wikipedia:Tutorial and Wikipedia:Your first article to get started. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you also want WP:VFAQ especially Wikipedia:How to start a page. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And watch the MediaWiki training videos. --Teratornis 14:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Learning the ropes

The current lesson at the Virtual classroom is Learning the ropes.

The Transhumanist 15:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable website

Is http://www.ex.ac.uk/~watupman/undergrad/aac/index.htm considered reliable source? S. Miyano 15:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. It depends on the website. It's best to use only published sources for wikipedia. As some website sources are not always going to be true. Examine the website, its quality, its language and its text. If it's consisting of nonsense, don't put anything it says on wikipedia; thanks. Retiono Virginian 15:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction page to the site states "Finally, there is a Links Page. Where possible I have used online sources to research the arguments and information displayed in this website. There are links throughout the pages: as authors or documents are mentioned, a hyperlink is provided to the source in question. In addition to these links, a country-by-country guide to organisations lobbying for sex worker rights, opposing prostitution or providing debate or information is included, totalling well over two hundred external links." If their sources are reliable, it would seem that they would be reliable as well. Dismas|^(talk) 15:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll have to examine this source more carefully before taking information from it. Thank you for the replies S. Miyano 16:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, you should follow relevant external links in the article to their source, and cite that, rather than citing a source that cites a source. In other words, don't cite XYZ website, which gets cites info from ABC newspaper, if you can follow the link to ABC newspaper and add info from a newspaper article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR policy: deletation or putting {{fact}}/OR/Unreferenced

I am puzzeled. If an article has OR problem what should be done, should we just delete the OR part and blank that section of article or should we place one of these signs there :{{fact}}/{{OR}}/{{Unreferenced}}

I appricite if you give me the answer in a refrenced way to established wikipedia policies (just to avoid OR problem here).Farmanesh 16:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. If the OR is about a living person, then it must be removed immediately, and you are allowed to revert war to keep it out until it gets a citation. If it's not, though, then there's no policy that covers what to do, but the best thing is to slap a tag on it, list your problems on the talk page, and then delete whatever remains OR after two weeks or so. -Amarkov moo! 16:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. I undrestand the living person part but my question is about other things. So as you say there is no policy regarding what to do with other ORs? Then why you are proposing to delete OR section after few weeks of being tagged? If there is no established policy one might say having OR-tagged section is better than a blank page... any answer for that based on established policy? If not doesn't that just allow for edit-war?Farmanesh 16:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything must be based on established policy. Having said that, you are deleting it after a few weeks because it is prohibited by WP:OR, but you wanted to give the information a chance in case it wasn't what it looked like. And one might indeed disagree with you, so you'll then have to discuss it with that one. And if you can't come to an agreement, you'll have to go through dispute resolution. -Amarkov moo! 16:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for exact rules for each and every sentence in Wikipedia articles, you're going to be frustrated. Editing requires judgment. If some text is unreferenced, is it "original research" or is it simply lacking a cited source? My personal approach is to separate text into one of three categories:

If it seems unreasonable (for example, text saying that Abraham Lincoln invested a large amount of money in a company that proposed to build a bridge between Alaska and Russia), then remove the text (saying in the edit summary that it's original research) and shift the burden of proof to someone who steps forward to defend the text (if anyone does, which often doesn't happen - the vandal/joker has moved on).
If the text is plausible (for example, that a group of leading oil company executives gathered in Scotland in August 1928 to discuss cooperative marketing and pricing, worldwide), then the best thing is to put a "fact" tag on it if it might be questioned (for example, if it might be controversial).
If the text is clearly uncontroversial but uncited (for example, in Nobel prize, the sentence The prizes were instituted by the Swedish scientist Alfred Nobel through his will in 1895; they were first awarded in 1901), don't put a "fact" tag on such text: the tag doesn't add anything useful at all, since there are tens of thousands of articles with such tags that no one has gotten to, months after being tagged. Save the "fact" tags for things that really are important. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title category

I need to channge category title name how do I do it?

Order of corups christi should be The Order of Corpus Christi

thanks

Brother Rock —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brotherrock (talk • contribs) 17:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You have to move it the appropriate title. There is something at the top called move, and you can go on from there. The Evil Clown _{Please review me!} 17:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating columns on a page

Hi. I have a list (including subheadings) that i want to display as two columns, rather than one long list.
How do I achieve this? Thanks --Sparklism 18:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently two ways to do this: CSS divs, or tables. For this list:

Foo
Bar
Baz
Etc
Content
Stuff
OMG

You could use CSS as follows:

Foo
Bar
Baz
Etc

Content
Stuff
OMG

Or you could use tables:

Foo
Bar
Baz
Etc

Content
Stuff
OMG

CSS3 will have the column-count attribute, which will do this automatically, but until the awesome day comes when it will get released, there's nothing we can do. (You could do -moz-column-count, but that would only work for Firefox or Seamonkey.) Check out the source code for how I did it, by the way. Gracenotes ^T § 18:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! Thanks--Sparklism 19:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Gracenotes ^T § 19:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's another way using templates. User:MacGyverMagic has a nice example in the recent edits section. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, a scintillating solution, if not an icky CSS hack. Oh CSS3, hasten the day of thy arrival! Amen. Gracenotes ^T § 20:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adding an article

if i wanted to add an article on anything could i and how would i do that—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippiequeen1124 (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia:Your first article. The article you create does have to follow certain guidelines such as notibility, citing sources, etc.--SUIT^양복 19:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you meant an article about anything, you'll see we already have that article. Dismas|^(talk) 20:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show/hide script

Hello to the wizzkids,

I'm trying to get this show/hide script to work, which I copied and altered from the Dutch Wikipedia. However, for some reason it standard shows instead of hides the extra content. Does anyone know how to fix this, or have another show/hide script?

Cheers and thanks

JackSparrow Ninja 19:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used to use a show/hide script on one of my sub-pages, and it worked as you describe. Here's the old diff - feel free to open it up and copy it. It's the Navframe bit that you need. Hope that works for you. Adrian M. H. 21:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hidden can make this easy and is customizable. See the Awards section on my userpage for an example. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both =) JackSparrow Ninja 05:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

phenotying study in medical student at libya-medical college

Dear sir, I am given the above subject for writting my Ph.D. thesis. can you guide me the method how i should proceed and how to collect the data in a suitable tabulated form and the relevent litureature from your side Hope you will guide me Thanks Dr. N.K.Sen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.86.24.99 (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If you want to do a PHd thesis on phenotyping (can you be more specific?) I suggest you start looking for literature in Pubmed. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to ask that at the reference desk. While Wikipedia can help you get information and stuff, it doesn't exist merely to help people get good grades, or even a PhD. I wish you the best of luck in writing it; there are people here that have written PhD theses, and you could include something similar to above in a query at the reference desk. But who knows, you may find something interesting. For example, see our article about phenotypes, which may point you in a beneficial direction. Gracenotes ^T § 19:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstating Timeline

There seemed to have been confusion re Timeline of fictional future events. There was a two-member support (discussion 23 October 2006) for splitting the article due to inconsistancies in the ' tense ' of the submissions.

HOWEVER, List of fictional timelines, along with Category:Fictional timelines, make no reference to any similar OVERALL general-fiction timeline.

Since the original timeline is pretty rich & involved in interesting references, why not go beyond the ' tense ' problem & just label it as General Fictional Events Timeline or something similar ?

WHENever they are listed to occur, as a group in one place, it is still an interesting & fascinating compilation of fictional events in media & literature.

Look it over & I hope you see what I mean . . .

PFSfuture 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully understand your question. Aren't List of fictional timelines and "General fictional events timeline" close enough? Is there a difference? Once again, I'm sorry, but I'd appreciate it if you clarified on what exactly you want to change/add. Gracenotes ^T § 19:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TAKE A LOOK and you'll notice that the first one you mention is a LIST of timeLINES, while the second is a SINGLE timeline of GENERAL fictional EVENTS (and is my suggested title change from the original title, the defunct page Timeline of fictional future events, which, with it's involved introduction, causes concern over the ' future tense ' of the submissions).

I'm suggesting that the original page's content is still rich in detail, with a general overall review. It's content could be re-activated with a different title and a non-confusing introduction (WHENever proclaimed fictional events/predictions are made, for whatever period, they're still fictional).

I'm thinking this would alleviate the ' tense ' confusion.

PFSfuture 17:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pedophillia user box wars

what was the pedophillia user box wars about? was it really about user boxes and or pedophillia?--Fang 23 22:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you go through the archives of the Wikipedia Signpost you can probably find all the background you need about this. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could also read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war to get some more information if you're interested. PTO 22:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation coding

How does one enter endnotes citing sources? Specifically, how does one enter the "ref" tag, with its peculiar-looking bracket?

Please see Wikipedia:Footnotes#How_to_use. Xiner (talk, email) 18:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When to list schools?

The article, Carmel Valley, San Diego, California has all the schools listed under separate sections, eventhough they are not that many schools. I was wondering, if Wikipedia guidelines say for it to stay a list, or for it to be in a sentence or paragraph form? Thanks a lot -ChristopherMannMcKay 23:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing stating that it has to be a list - although I can't really see a problem with it staying as one. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]