Help desk
< April 28	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 30 >

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 29

Questions on Reversions

Resolved

– --BillFromDDTDigest (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

1. Is a reversion of vandalism a minor edit or not a minor edit? It seems to regularly be either one, depending on who does it.
2. Is reversion of a good faith edit that is clearly incorrect and/or outside of Wikipedia's guidelines a minor edit or not a minor edit?
3. When reverting vandalism, do I leave the standard template reversion explanation, or do I put something extra in the explanation to note that I'm reverting vandalism?

Thanks,
BillFromDDTDigest (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to respond to each of your three questions individually.

It's not a big deal either way, but editors are instructed to mark the reversions as minor (per Wikipedia:Vandalism#How to respond to vandalism).
According to Help:Reverting, an editor should only avoid reverting good faith edits, for the most part. WP:Minor#Things to remember has more information about when to use and not use minor edits: "Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor. Reverting blatant vandalism is an exception to this rule."
As for an edit summary, WP:Vandalism#How to respond to vandalism says that you may use the "undue" button and the default edit summary, but that one is strongly encouraged to use edit summaries so others know the purpose of your edits (see WP:Vandalism#What is not vandalism).

Also, instead of manually typing numbers and having to use <br /> to create a linebreak, you should simply use # before each line, like a bullet, and it will automatically show numbers on the article. hmwith τ 04:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durations of TV Shows

Resolved

– --BillFromDDTDigest (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When putting the duration of a TV show in the info box:

1. Is Wikipedia's standard the total original broadcast time (e.g. 30 or 60 minutes) or the actual run time without commercials (e.g. 24 or 47 minutes)?
2. If one is supposed to do the actual run time without commercials but one doesn't know the exact run time without commercials (i.e. is it 47 minutes or 48 minutes?), should one use the original broadcast time, estimate the actual run time, or just not put anything in for run time at all?

Thanks,
BillFromDDTDigest (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Television says:

runtime Episode duration. Should not include commercials and should be approximated, e.g. "22-26 minutes" for most half-hour shows.

PrimeHunter (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using a Website as a Reference

Resolved

– --BillFromDDTDigest (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a really weird question, but I would imagine that I'm not the first one to ask it.

My professional wrestling website, DDT Digest, is used as a reference by others here and there in Wikipedia. (Yay, me!) When I am updating articles about pro wrestling, is it against the rules to cite my own website as a reference, even though it is, apparently, generally accepted as a valid source on the subject? I presume the answer is "yes". Does that still hold true even if the stuff on that website is ten years old? The rules against original research make perfect sense...I'm just having trouble understanding where the line is drawn when it is regularly referenced by others...can anyone reference the website EXCEPT me?

Thanks, BillFromDDTDigest (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it really shouldn't be considered a reliable source in the first place. Grsz¹¹ 00:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your username is also a bit spammy, to be honest. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the website not being a reliable source for Wikipedia citations, I can't help what other people do. Thanks for the assessment, though. And, the user ID isn't meant to be "spammy". I chose it in the interest of full disclosure when I do updates on pro wrestling stuff, to be honest. --BillFromDDTDigest (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this bit of the user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

title

we want to know if we may buy your poducts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.155.242.74 (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 2.8 million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If that is not fruitful, we have a reference desk, divided into various subjects areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the unlikely event that the original question refers to products actually relating to Wikipedia, see:

http://www.cafepress.com/wikipedia (I can't make this URL a link because it seems to be on our spam blacklist now)
Wikipedia:DVD
WP:EIW#Redistribution

--Teratornis (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think whitelisting the first link would be a good idea!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I find that to be a puzzling spam blacklist entry. We are blacklisting the page from which Wikipedia can make some money. Perhaps someone blacklisted the site because of some other page(s) it contains. --Teratornis (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion

I tried to mark Tunglskrift for deletion since the article isn't even in English (and its on the English Wikipedia). Unfortunately, I don't see whatever link I'm supposed to see to activate the deletion discussion. I'd appreciate some assistance. JamesAM (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You marked the article as a WP:PROD (proposed deletion) instead of WP:AFD (articles for deletion). PROD does not use a deletion discussion page. tempodivalse [☎] 02:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so does that mean any deletion discussion can just go on the article's Talk page. I don't want to totally botch procedure. I see another editor tagged the article creator's Talk page. JamesAM (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any discussion can go on the talk page. If someone removes the prod, (which anyone can do) a full AfD will need to be opened. The directions for that are at this page. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, it appears that the article in question has already been deleted under speedy deletion criteria. tempodivalse [☎] 03:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, now that you know, if an article meets the aforementioned WP:CSD criteria, you can tag it for speedy deletion yourself. hmwith τ 04:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About sources

I'm not sure what to do, a user on the Left-Wing article has added vast swathes of uncited info. While this normally wouldn't be a problem and I'd try to help them find the cites and/or change the info accordingly, the cites he does give don't seem actually kosher (blogs and one site that seems anti-semetic). I'm not sure if I should revert or just confront. Thoughts? Soxwon (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert, but with a clear edit summary: something like: "Not a reliable source" or "Source cited does not agree with language inserted" or whatever. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs shouldn't normally be used for sources (per WP:BLOG). hmwith τ 03:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but here's my other problem: [1]. He's made almost 50 edits since then and I'm not sure if wiping it all clean is really a good idea. Soxwon (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? If he had made this all in one edit, it would still be uncited. Make the reversion, leave a note on his talk page asking him to discuss the matter on the talk page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron's correct. You can cite WP:BRD. hmwith τ 04:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

upright?

Does anyone know what upright means when it is used in images?

For example: [[File:Playing the piano.jpg|thumb|left|upright|The keyboard of a Steinway grand piano (2007).]]

Fanoftheworld (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:EIS:

for use only on images that are taller than they are wide. This scales the image differently, considering both width and height instead of only width. A parameter can be added to adjust the size: for instance "upright=1.5" will make the image larger, useful for maps or schematics that need to be larger to be readable.

—decltype (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the standard default to use for vertical, tall images. Horizontal images (as most are), don't need that parameter. "Upright" just makes the images smaller, so they don't take up so much of the article. hmwith τ 12:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Days of our lives

Does anyone watch this show? Can anybody verify the edits made by 66.158.193.39 (talk · contribs) on List of current Days of our Lives characters? Also see the talk page. --93.163.26.110 (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Christas College

I am a student with Linda Christas College.

Several of our students have tried to get a simple entry similar to many other colleges on Wikipedia.

We have 4500 students attending online courses.

Every time a student makes the attempt, some Wikipedia scholars immediately delete the entry.

What is the problem.

We use our computer room computers to enter material.

The last time Dr. Voisin, our provost, made the entry, and BINGO within a couple of days, a Wiki scholar bombed it AGAIN.

Dr. Voisin used the Hamilton College format. Same exact words, just substituting our information.

And, yet, no luck.

What is the magic formula. Evidently someone or someone(s) have a bone to pick with our school and our students and teachers can't understand who or what qualification the Wiki scholars have to make judgments about us.

I can't be monitoring Wiki, so i don't want to get into a discussion with anyone here.

On the other hand, there must be plenty of material for Wikipedia to reinstate our school.

It's so unfair.

Get one person in the lab fooling around or get off on the wrong foot with Wikipedia and from then on, so called, Wiki editors violate every rule of fairness in terms of entry.

If anyone at Wiki cares to be fair, our Administration office is <removed>

Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annvoisin (talk • contribs) 06:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the instructions you need to write an article on Wikipedia that sticks are on Wikipedia. However, these instructions are complicated and take some time to master. For best results, a new user should first accumulate lots of edits to existing articles on Wikipedia (which aren't in great danger of getting deleted), before attempting to create a completely new article from scratch. For some reason, Wikipedia takes the approach that it's better to let everybody just do whatever, and then delete it if it doesn't comply with our policies and guidelines. Imagine if your college were to eliminate all admission requirements - just admit anybody to any class - and then flunk most of them. (When your college gives a student a failing grade, does the student usually think the grade is fair?) That's kind of how Wikipedia works, for people who don't want to spend hundreds of hours reading the complex instructions. See W:TMM for a book that explains pretty well what to do here. --Teratornis (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the instructions Teratornis mentioned, you might like to take a look at this page. Chamal ^talk 07:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And of course WP:WWMPD. --Teratornis (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for this particular case, the article was deleted because it had not addressed the issues that led to its deletion in October 2006, per this deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Christas International School. decltype (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That deletion was endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 25. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student-First Accreditation links to many related deletion discussions. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something odd

Hello, when I go back from a Governor of Provence to List of rulers of Provence, it comes up as if I clicked on another page. Why is this? Webster6^{Yo, So} 07:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you had accessed the page earlier through a redirect and clicking the back button takes you to the redirect page rather than the article. Can you provide more details about the other page? BTW, I tried this and it doesn't seem to happen to me. Chamal ^talk 07:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not that. My computer seems to randomly guess the page that I just clicked on. Webster6^{Yo, So} 17:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a useful answer, you will have to describe the problem precisely. We need to know as much about what you are doing as we could tell by watching you and your computer directly. There could be subtle hints about the problem appearing on your computer screen, but you might not realize their significance and tell us about them. In some cases, when people cannot diagnose a computer problem remotely, they must resort to creating screenshots or screencasts to illustrate exactly what is going on. --Teratornis (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offline editor

Has anyone come up with an off-line wikipedia editor? I want to do an extensive edit to an article but it would be easier to do off-line because of the amount of content I need to move around. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to something as described here? TN X Man 11:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you can easily click the "edit this page" tab at the top of an article, select all the wikitext in the edit window, copy it to your clipboard, and then paste it into your favorite text editor. To preview, copy and paste from your editor back into the edit window and click the "Show preview" button. This doesn't require any setup, and thus it may be the easiest approach for one-off editing of a long article. (For example, if you want to use an external editor's search-and-replace command.) If you need to use an external editor frequently, you may want to read the friendly manual cited above to set it up. I don't know how progress is going toward the Holy Grail of an offline WYSIWYG editor, if that's what you need. Personally, I'm pretty comfortable with wikitext editing generally, but I would like to have better tools for editing tables and footnotes. A template debugger would be nice too, while we're dreaming. --Teratornis (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And see WP:EIW#Usable, in particular m:Wikipedia Usability Initiative. --Teratornis (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

printing

Hi l am trying to print off the life of Bette Davis which is nineteen pages long however when it gets to page 15 all l get is a blank page, this has happened on other life stories as well for instance, Patrick Swayze's pages 3 & 4 will not print, is there some reasoning behind this or what, l cannot find a solution to it only that there might be pages you are unable to print off, if thats the case why does it let you print 14 pages off bafore it does it, wasting my paper, it does not seem fair if you can't print all of the pages it should let you know before you start, could you please confirm what is going on, if it's going to do it regular l might as well try looking on a different sight for help, please sort this out if you can thanks D.H.M. Salford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.160.68 (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using Internet Explorer 7? There's a known print issue with this browser: You can find out how to avoid the problem at Help:Printable. Hope this helps. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a process to connecting a wikipedia page to search engine results?

I've created a new wikipedia entry recently. When I search it's name on Google or Yahoo (Canadian Junior Golf Association wikipedia) the wikipedia page doesn't appear in the list of results. Is the a process to having the page appear under the search results? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CanJGA (talk • contribs) 14:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can take up to 3 weeks for Google to detect new articles in Wikipedia. (we are just THAT big :D ) --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Google will rank it higher if it is linked to other established pages, so you should make sure other places in Wikipedia link to it if relevant. That should also reduce the detection time. TastyCakes (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know I sound like a broken record (remember them - vinyl, grooved, music playing thingamyjigs?!), but I will say it again, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not compete in a Google rankings contest. Placement in Google search results is an interesting by-product, but not the be all and end all. – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You probably do not sound repetitive to the original poster. On the Help desk, we primarily address the original poster. Questions tend to be repetitive, and so must be the answers. If the same question is repeating frequently, it may be time to create another Help desk template, or a new FAQ entry. --Teratornis (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REUSE of material in wikipedia

I have a website. If I want to use some of the information I find on wikipedia can i do this as long as i put a reference back to the page I got the info from. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.233.220 (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:REUSE. – ukexpat (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can I change lower/capital casing on wiki page title?

I recently made a wiki page and the capitalization of the title is incorrect. I want to change one letter from lower case to capital and do not believe I could remake a page (to move pages) the way I want the title to be considering it would be the same title.. Any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddyer4 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order to fix the title, you'll need to move the page. Once your account is autoconfirmed (made at least ten edits and been active for four days), you'll see a "move" tab at the top of the page which will allow you to fix the title. TN X Man 16:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot do this yet, you can request a move at WP:RM. hmwith τ 21:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pictures

how do i put a picture onto a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary.farrar (talk • contribs) 16:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IMAGES, but also please read the image use policy before you upload any images. – ukexpat (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you describe the picture (where it is, who created it, what it depicts) and the page you have in mind, we can give you specific guidance. There are many different possibilities depending on factors such as who created the image, whether it is under the creator's copyright, whether it faithfully depicts one or more objects which are themselves under someone else's copyright, whether it may violate someone's privacy rights, etc. --Teratornis (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

business names in articles

What is the policy on the use of business names in articles?Slowart (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure to what you are referring. If you could be a little more specific, we can answer your question more completely. TN X Man 17:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too find your question a bit cryptic but as a best guess, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Companies. For some other guidance related to businesses, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations and Wikipedia:WikiProject Business.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps MOS:TM might help, too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And just to split hairs, we probably have guidelines rather than policies to cover business names. On Wikipedia, a policy carries more weight than a guideline. --Teratornis (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100% not true. On Wikipedia a policy serves a different purpose than a guideline. One is not more important or carry more weight than the other. They just serve different purposes. Guidelines don't become policies once they grow up, nor does guideline mean "something I can safely ignore". Both guidelines and policies should be followed as well as one can unless there is some greatly compelling reason not to. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the page I cited:

"Wikipedia has developed a body of policies and guidelines to further our goal of creating a free encyclopedia. Our list of policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas our guidelines are more advisory in nature, and our processes are routine methods to serve the above policies and guidelines. If process, guideline or policy pages appear to conflict, then policies should be followed before guidelines, and guidelines over processes."

Also, on Wikipedia we have an encouragement to ignore all rules, although I fully agree that ignoring rules is rarely anything like "safe." But then again, neither is attempting to follow the rules. In the long run, probably nothing is "safe" on Wikipedia - check back in 100 years, and very few of our current edits will survive unchanged by then. --Teratornis (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Providing a page for a company

I work with a software company and two of their competitors are included in Wikipedia. I want to make a factual entry (no marketing, promotional language) about my company. Is this acceptable? Does it matter if I post the content? I have lots of accurate references. Red Bend (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI. Your best approach would be to submit your materials to articles for creation and someone there will review. – ukexpat (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your employer is http://www.redbend.com then your user name is also a concern - see WP:SPAMNAME. You should abandon that name and create one that complies with the user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embeding Videos

I saw that Youtube videos are not able to be embedded into Wikipedia articles. However, I was wonder in if articles from other site are able to be embedded. I was hoping to just have it off to the side in a box or something.

Here is the site the video comes from: http://current.com/items/77163332_dam-less-hydro-power.htm

And here is the code i guess of the video: <object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" id="ce_77163332" width="400" height="300" data="http://current.com/e/77163332/en_US"><param name="movie" value="http://current.com/e/77163332/en_US"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://current.com/e/77163332/en_US" width="400" height="300" wmode="transparent" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed></object>

If such as video is permitted, then how would I go about uploading it to the article I am working on (Damless Hydro). I have been unable to find the correct code to post it.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.23.27 (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Media Wiki video policy. – ukexpat (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant the Meta Wiki video policy. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dang those confounded interwiki prefixes - thanks for the fix. – ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new user deleting page content

I have just opened an account. A "scientific" page in which I have a direct interest is totally incorrect from my own knowledge in the field (plenty of published references including patents in the field, which I intend to post). This page is very very short and clearly posted by a person for whom "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Do I have the authority to delete the erroneous content and insert a full scientific discussion of the subject which may run to 500-1000 words?Hochschule48 (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule against it. But there's no guarantee that others will like your edits, either. It probably wouldn't hurt to just be bold and see what happens. Friday (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be wise to wait a few days, and do edits on other articles, before tackling this particular page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps discuss your suggested changes on the article's talk page first. – ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do indeed have the authority and I think you should plunge in right away and make the edits, making sure to cite your sources. You write in whole sentences with no crimes against grammar/spelling/punctuation; you sound like an adult; you imply the current page is short and unverified by reliable sources; and you already appear to know the need for sourcing. In short, while there are many times when plunging in is not a good idea for certain users with respect to certain pages, I don't think this is one of those situations. Short, unreferenced pages are just placeholders for real content. If you need help with anything—formatting, placing references, any other issues—do not hesitate to drop me a message. By the way, if you are going to start the page with more content that it had to begin with, that's one thing, but if you are going to be building the article sentence by new sentence, it might be a good idea to place an {{Under construction}} tag. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know the name of the article. --Teratornis (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper source preservation

For newspapers that charge for older articles, I know there is a technique to put an article somewhere else where it can be seen by readers of Wikipedia articles. Please tell me about the technique, or send me to the place where it is described. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WebCitation? – ukexpat (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually attempting to evade their pay archive by using WebCitation could be a copyright violation and is at least unethical. I wouldn't advise it. 66.31.40.74 (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate coordinates

Does anyone know if there's a reason that location coordinates for places are often given twice, in the info box and at the top of the page? I had a thought that it might be so that Google maps can identify them better... TastyCakes (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned on WP:COORD#Coordinate templates. I'd say you're actually best asking on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. hmwith τ 21:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Baumel

why was the page for Israeli/American MIA Zachary Baumel deleted? His comrades still have their own pages but for some reason the page entry for Baumel has vanished and relocates to a general MIA page. WHY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.212.158 (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Zachary Baumel wasn't deleted but replaced with a redirect to Israeli MIAs per Articles about people notable only for one event. The same was done with his comrades, Tzvi Feldman and Yehuda Katz. —teb728 t c 22:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting

Is there a way I can get 1- to redirect to 0.999...? Or is it something that's out of my control? Thanks for helping! 99.179.26.161 (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Juliancolton! ...but how exactly does someone do that? 99.179.26.161 (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to create a new page and add #REDIRECT [[name of target page]] to it to get it to redirect. However, IPs can't create pages (you have to be registered to create pages), so that's why you couldn't do it. tempodivalse [☎] 00:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well. I actually had no idea on how to do it at all, and I just felt it was necessary for 1- to redirect to 0.999..., but thanks for your help anyway. :-) 99.179.26.161 (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New - confused user page vs article

Thank you thank you thank you in advance for your help. I have spent a couple of hours reading tutorials, FAQs and trying different things and Im not getting anywhere. I guess Im getting old and I just dont get it.

I created an account and started using the user page and saved it thinking that I was publishing it as an article, but it didnt look right. Had the user:Yourdailywiki as title. so I created an article page and re-did it again and fixed the formatting and it had the right title (Team strawberry), cool. I saved it thinking I was publishing it. But I dont see it in the google results at all, however my user:Yourdailywiki (the jacked-up version) comes up in the google searches every time now. So what happended to the properly formated article page I saved? And why does my user page come up on google for the whole world to see? I cleared the user page to see if the other page comes up by default but no luck. Now the world looks at my blank user:Yourdailywiki page. I guess I dont get it. How can I fix this? I want Team strawberry to come up on google not user:Yourdailywiki 98.154.229.161 (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can take days or weeks for Google to reindex and show the article. We have no control over Google or any other external search engine. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want Google to not index your user page next time they visit it then you can place {{NOINDEX}} on it. I currently see the article Team strawberry in Google search results. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting a new article

I registered, logged in, and tried to submit a new article, but I cannot find the way to do that. Whether I start at Upload File or Create Article or start a new page, I am sent to one other place and then one other place. Once I got a page that directed me to enter text in box below, but there was no box, and the blank space would not acccept any text.

I spent time with FAQ, reading letters from others who asked how to post an article, and I saw some who said that after getting help, they were able to post an article, but there was no information I could use.

After going through all that multiple times, I have to admit that I can't do it. Please help.

Fluffer Nutter (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted a welcome message to your talk page - it has lots of links to get you started. Also see the template message below.

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. – ukexpat (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]