Help desk
< October 10	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 12 >

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.

October 11

Munster Rugby - protected templete deletion?

Munster Rugby Section 8.2 on this page has a templete slated for deletion on it, which is fair, but it has become partof that section's title and it is warping the size of the contents box at the top. Preferably, I'd just like the tag to be place where it wouldn't interfere with the contents box. I can find how to fix this, so I'd appreciate any help! Syferus (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily removed the {{BILru}} template which was causing the problem, pending the outcome of the TFD discussion. On a side note, use of those templates in headings appears to violate WP:MOS as it puts a link in a section heading. – ukexpat (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! Syferus (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in infoboxes

Is there a better (more appealing?) way of citing sources in an infobox? See Jayde Nicole for what I'm talking about. I don't like the look of all the [1]s all over the infobox. Any ideas? Dismas|^(talk) 00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me an excuse to look at Jayde Nicole. :-) Usually I would agree with putting footnotes behind each stat. For example, for ethnic groups, you might have several different population figures (one for each of several geographic areas), and each figure might be drawn from a different source. In Jade's case, however, all info comes from the same source. If this situation is a common one for Playmates, and I expect that it is, then there may be a more elegant answer, such as finding or creating a single location for the ref, if and only if all the refs are the same source. I suggest that you take it to Template talk:Infobox Playboy Playmate and discuss the idea... Let me know if yo have further questions.. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do all come from the same source rather often, the Playmate Data Sheet on the back of the fold out centerfold. And thanks, I'll take it up at the talk page of the template. Dismas|^(talk) 03:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content box

How do you make the content box appear on talk pages that don't have them? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What content box? Do you mean {{notaforum}}? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contents box appears automatically once there are 3 or more things to list in it. Astronaut (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OH, the table of contents! You can also force it to appear by using __TOC__. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you actually have to add it to the page. I don't think there's a way to make the table of contents always appear just for you. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 03:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) The question didn't say anything about making it appear just for you. I can't imagine any reason why doing it just for myself would be useful, though it may be kinda fun. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One could, for some reason or another, want the table of contents to always display (when there are only 1 or 2 sections). Since the default for everyone is 3, a way to lower that for oneself isn't that crazy (there are some even more trivial things you can change in Special:Preferences). It is, however, a bit useless, as you said. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 03:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_TOC_ did not work. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need two underscores on each side :) Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. :) --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

electricity produced using nuclear fuel

which country is the leading producer of electricity using nuclear fuel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.230.26 (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Nuclear power by country. --Teratornis (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't do your homework for you. – ukexpat (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, around the middle of 2008, the United States became the leading producer of electricity from wind, nudging Germany into second place, but China is growing its wind power on a percentage basis faster than anyone else, more than doubling its installed capacity each year since 2005, and should sieze the lead sometime after 2010. --Teratornis (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol backlog (patrolled edits)

The backlog for the patrol log is very large, articles are falling off the list one after the other without being marked. Is there something wrong here? Does this need more patrollers? Clark89 (talk) 07:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's normal actually. There are a lot of articles being created, and it is simply not possible to patrol each and every one of them. But they will eventually be noticed, and any problems with them will be dealt with later. (When they are being assessed by their related Wikiprojects, for example). A new article won't go unnoticed forever. Chamal ^Talk ± 07:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will these articles be marked in the patrol log? Clark89 (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they will. Once patrolled, the article will have a white background like normal. They'll be patrolled sometime. Does that answer your question? – RyanCross (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Clark89 (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AWB

Is there a way for me to scoop up a tutor who can tell me how to use this tool? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, ping my talk any time you have questions. I'm sure there's also a help forum... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an AWB IRC channel at irc.freenode.net — #AutoWikiBrowser. Cheers. Chamal ^Talk ± 12:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? did I say something wrong? ;) Chamal ^Talk ± 12:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent). No it isn't your fault. IRC evokes strong feelings, both positive and negative. Forget it. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I wish to plagiarize work from Wikipedia to put on my college essay. Will you be angry/sue me if I do so? --ProductosLatvia (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a fantastically bad idea. Besides being against the law (Wikipedia's reuse liscence, GFDL, requires attribution) it will likely not go well for you. I understand that many students believe that that are far smarter than their teachers, and will get away with such actions. Speaking as a teacher myself, you won't. Plagarism of this sort is fantastically easy to spot. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if I copy it, then add a few spelling mistakes, and alter a few words? Would that be ok? --ProductosLatvia (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just take the necessary information from whatever article you need, and then present it in your own words? You don't have to act stupid with spelling mistakes then. Chamal ^Talk ± 13:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me no stupid --ProductosLatvia (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Me is making Big Joke for Benefit Wikipedia help desk Persons... If you're joking, then that's pretty funny. :-) If you're serious, then the answer is a strong, loud and clear "No, that is Not OK." Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like turtles --ProductosLatvia (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will stop trolling, wow that blew about 20 mins. Cya --ProductosLatvia (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine how much better the world would be if evolution had wired the human brain to get pleasure by doing things that are constructive. Actually, a few human brains are wired that way, hence we have Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music Genres in the Background Information

I have noticed that the "Genre(s)" section at the background information of music bands pages at the webstite disappeared. That section was very useful to me and, I suppose, to other users.

What is the reason of this disappearance?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.47.30 (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Genre' was earlier available as a field in the Infobox used for articles on music artists and bands. That field has been removed from Template:Infobox Musical artist per consensus reached through the discussion here. Chamal ^talk _work 15:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Started articles?

I'm drawing a blank right now; what's the best way to see a list of all the articles I've started? Special:NewPages only goes back a month. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are logged in, click the "my contributions" link at the top of the page or go to Special:Contributions/HelloAnnyong. – ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I was hoping for a cleaner solution than "go through all 9000+ of my edits." :/~~ Just saw the "Articles created" link at the bottom. toolserver.org seems to be dragging a bit, but it worked. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help Desk/Preview before post

JustbeBPMF (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep...? What's up? _Gb^T/c 17:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your post here is related the deletion discussion of the page linked in your title, you are welcome to comment in that discussion. Just click here to do so.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Williams,alex gar-field football player

this offensive and defensive lineman should be looked at very closely, with his size and speed and a little help he can be one of the best on both sides of the ball with his versatility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballfan21 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The top of this page has some instructions which briefly explain what this page is for, and unfortunately they aren't always looked at very closely. Also note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; on Wikipedia, when we write about people, we focus more on what they have done than on what they might do in the future. Speculating on the future of American football players is particularly dicey, as each player is always one play away from a career-ending injury. See for example Ki-Jana Carter, who entered the National Football League with great potential, but suffered a devastating injury in his first pre-season game, and never fully recovered. --Teratornis (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

change of email

i have lost my password and my email due to change of my isp. now i cant get the reset password to email me my new password. please help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.125.48 (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be able to help, but I am a little confused at your second sentence. Maybe you can contact me at my User talk and rephrase that part. --Archeopteryx (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bug another

Hey. There is a user, user:archeopteryx I want to destroy because i am a vandal. How can this be done? contact me on talk page--Archeopteryx's worst enemy (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destroying someone is very difficult over the Internet, but I hear trolling can be effective... of course, you're already well-schooled in that, so I'm sure I won't need to give you any pointers. *bows to Fuhghettaboutit* Thank you for making the world a better place. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 01:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about that :) Best question I've seen here so far. Chamal ^talk _work 03:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I dare say this is a good block. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

proofs in articles

OK, first off: I'm not sure if this is the right place for this; is there a better place to ask?

QUESTION: Wikipedia has loads and loads of good articles on mathematics, but many of them state results with no proof. I would like to see proofs of every assertion in every mathematical article. I would go further and say that wikipedia really must (eventually) include such proofs. And I'm happy to make a start in the areas that I know something about. But I'm not sure what the best way to do this would be. Consider Weierstrass elliptic function as an example. There are loads of good statements in there, none of which have a proof. Adding a proof to each statement in the article itself would make the article unreadable (not only would it be too long: also the reader would lose the thread). Perhaps including sub-pages along the lines of proof that the laurent series of the weierstrass elliptic function is indeed what we claim it to be or proof of assertion 75 in the page on Weierstrass elliptic functions would be better . . . but this can't be optimal either.

Shorter pages have their own problems. Consider example of a game with no value. This has one "interesting" result: that two certain quantities (game values) cannot possibly be equal (one is less than 1/3 and one is greater than 3/7). And the proof of this fact is rather long and boring and technical and unedifying. But I feel that the proof is notable and must eventually become part of wikipedia. But adding a link to proof that the example of a game without a value does in fact have no value is a bit lame.

How do the serried ranks of wiki editors suggest that we add proofs to each and every mathematical assertion in a page? Robinh 19:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The right place for this is WT:WPM. The current situation vis-a-vis proofs is summarized at WP:MSM#Proofs. There's some previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs. Algebraist 19:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure that WPM and WP:MSM denizens will have a more nuanced and detailed position than I, my off-the-cuff response would be to note that Wikipedia isn't intended to be a repository of primary source material. Where we make non-obvious statements of fact in our articles we should provide appropriate references and citations from reliable sources, but we don't need to include entire proofs. (For example, our article on Fermat's last theorem briefly discusses the techniques used to complete the proof, but includes the actual nuts and bolts only by reference to Wiles' and Taylor's published papers.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other things to look at:

See WP:NOT#HOWTO, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, which might peripherally relate to adding the technical details of proofs for every mathematical assertion. (Later edit: I don't know whether these apply or not, but you should understand these guidelines before discussing the addition of proofs, because someone else might bring them up. Always be prepared.)
Examine some featured articles about mathematics. Featured articles represent the best content on Wikipedia. Thus the featured articles about mathematics illustrate the current consensus of Wikipedia editors as how to best write about math topics encyclopedically. If you know how to make those articles even better, perhaps you can shift the consensus, by discussing on WT:WPM.
Wikipedia makes lots of claims without necessarily supporting them with prose right next to the claims. For example, the article about the Sun gives the mass of the Sun, but doesn't detail all the work that goes into determining that value. Ultimately, however, Wikipedia might contain (if it doesn't already) articles that describe all the theoretical and experimental tools which allow scientists to confidently report the mass of the Sun. See WP:BUILD.

If you want to collaboratively edit anything that isn't suitable for Wikipedia (which is not to say proofs aren't - I have no idea), there are many other wikis. {{Google}} for some:

math wiki

That finds several results, including a Mathematics Wikia where the rules are presumably different than on Wikipedia. (No one is likely to start another wiki which works exactly the way Wikipedia does, because Wikipedia is already the 800 pound gorilla in that space, so when you see another wiki that has some content overlap with Wikipedia, it almost certainly will have different rules for content.) --Teratornis (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. I didn't know about WP:MSM#Proofs; but I don't agree with it. Neither did I know about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs (would it be better to continue discussion there?). But I'd not thought about proofs being primary source material (my thinking suggests that proofs are more likely to be criticized for being OR). But rephrasing and wikifying a proof that one sees in a classic textbook should be part of wikipedia, no? Robinh 19:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I quite like the mass of the Sun example. Why not create a page History of estimation of the mass of the Sun then (I am not offering to do this! :-). But maths is different, I would say, in that proofs are the sine qua non of the subject. Robinh 19:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs would be the place to continue discussion on this topic. (And if they shoot you down there, look at Mathematics Wikia and other wikis.) This Help desk is very general and can only superficially address such technical issues. We merely point the way to the proper venues. As to documenting the history of mass estimation of the Sun, I haven't searched Wikipedia to see what Wikipedia already has on the subject. Presumably this would be a special case of calculating the mass of all astronomical bodies, and might be covered in Orbital mechanics or Astrophysics. The point is that Wikipedia has an enormous amount of existing content, and it continues to gain more content at a furious rate, so before suggesting any new addition, one should carefully look to see if the material is already in Wikipedia somewhere, and then link to it. Plus the consensus on Wikipedia continually evolves, so if you aren't satisfied with Wikipedia today, check back in a year. --Teratornis (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Another option, and perhaps a really good one, is to include links to proofs where originally published, as footnotes via<ref> tags or as external links. The casual reader may not need to see the entire exhaustive proof, and may lack the knowledge to understand how it works, but ALL articles should strive to be referenced to quality outside sources. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to cut-and-paste the above discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs? Robinh 19:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as you attribute where it was cut and paste from. At the top of the pasted section, you could include a link to the dif of the version you pasted, and in the edit summary, say "Copied and pasted from discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk or some such should be sufficient for GFDL purposes. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I would estimate the probability of my doing this correctly at about

10^{-10^{10}}

. Any chance of you doing it for me? Robinh 20:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) You can just link to this discussion, and then summarize whatever points you want to draw from it. The Help desk archives its pages after several days, so the eventual location of this discussion will change. Currently, the link is:

Wikipedia:Help desk#proofs in articles

The permanent link to the revision right before I add this latest comment is:

permanent link

The archive link will eventually be (when the following link turns from red to blue):

Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2008 October 11#proofs in articles

The above discussion does not flow very well, and expecting a new crowd to slog through it would weaken your case. One idea would be to make a user subpage where you write whatever case you want to make, collecting whatever points you need from the above discussion and writing them in your own words. Then you can take that to the appropriate discussion page. Also be aware that some of our comments above (particularly mine) might appear uninformed to people who have been heavily involved in WikiProject Mathematics for some time. They might have already gone over some of these points and retired them. The more time you spend studying what they have already done, the more likely you are to frame your suggestions in reference to that existing material, and avoid being immediately dismissed as a newb. --Teratornis (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]