Help desk
< August 25	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 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.

August 26

-Why isn't there a section displaying a detailed listing of mathematics notions according to academic levels in the portal named Portal: Mathematics?

It seems so much evident that English-as-second-language learners and also native English speakers would like to consult a complete detailed list of mathematics notions according to academic levels. For example, a list of all mathematics courses could be listed for the high school, college and university levels with the corresponding notions in each course.

It would be at the same time a homework helper, and it would also be a list from which learners of the English language would be able to discern and retrieve mathematics notions related to academic levels individually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.58.186 (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a list similar to what you are suggesting, at Lists of mathematics topics. It should be evident from its size why it is not included in the portal. However, the purpose of Wikipedia isn't really to list "mathematics notions according to academic levels"; it is to create a repository of knowledge presented in a non-arbitrary way, and some maths courses are laid out pretty arbitrarily. Therefore we need to cover university-level as well as secondary school-level material about a topic in the same article. Moreover, "academic levels" may vary from region to region—Wikipedia is, after all, an international project. Intelligentsium 01:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I sincerely thank you because you gave an answer to this message. In fact, I agree to mention that the pedagogical aspects and the classifying of notions can be an annoying thing. In reality, in the case someone that is an ESL learner or even native English speakers that are not very well educated do not only want to learn English but wants to use it for specific purposes and this aspect leads to the fact that learning mathematics allows to be more complete overall or globally, and we may just think that it is the natural way to be. In reality, wherever one can be situated on the planet, he or she needs to read and write his or her own language but also to calculate, learn and understand mathematics because this is the way to be. We need mathematics to work and live. Buying books correctly and being able to situate your academic level among a ton of notions can be a complex thing. I think that using Wikipedia for this purpose would be certainly more an aim at helping others who try to help themselves, and I think that it would require to be this way in the case of mathematics specifically. Do you agree? This is one of the aims of these comments because I think that there is a bit of absolute truth in this message. Agreeing with it? Nonetheless, I want you to believe that those comments are not reproaches at all. I really appreciate what you do and respect it. I even thank you very much for placing on the Web this huge amount of information that is hopefully reliable because sometimes buying books is really expensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.58.186 (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Table Positioning

I have a problem where every time I try to add a table, it just adds it where the text is. I've seen peoples pages that have a chart along the right side of the page, but I don't know how to do that! Please Help!

Mixmasher (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click "edit" on a page to see how it does something. Help:Table#Floating table shows a possibility. Many articles use an infobox with a table floating to the right. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) It would be helpful if you told us exactly what you're seek to do and where—is this for an article? A talk page? A chart of information? An actual table or an infobox? If you could point to an existing page which has the table you seek to do something similar to that would be good, and of course, when you do find an example, clicking "edit this page" and seeing the code that produces the table you like is a very good way to answer the question of how it's done. In any event, you might some useful information on this at Help:Table, Wikipedia:How to make a table in Wikipedia and m:Template talk:Table demo.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

navasha daya

i want to delete an article i posted entitled navasha daya I mistakenly published the article before editing the article and verifying some facts....my humblest apologies...i am new 2 wikiworld and the processes are cumbersome for me...

please assist...i do not understand the deletion processes...who would ever guess there were so many and all so complicated...for me, that is...smiles...

i thank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theflyinlion (talk • contribs) 04:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image size/de-uglification

The logo in the infobox at New College Worcester looks ugly (pixelated), while the original file (Newcollegelogo.png) looks okay. It looks as if the image is being (badly) resized. I've tried removing the size spec. in the infobox, or setting it to the actual image width (217px), but neither make any difference. What am I missing? GyroMagician (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The logo has been replaced with a .png file in this edit. Do you still see the same issue? TN X Man 16:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was that edit that took me to the page. I still see ugly. The logo appears badly resized on the NCW page. If I click on it, taking me to the PNG page, it still looks horrible. If I click on the logo again, so that I only see the logo and not the licence text, it looks much better. I can't figure out why??? GyroMagician (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've figured it out - and it's a bit of a 'doh' answer. To make things big enough to read on my screen, I've got used to hitting Ctrl+ (in Firefox). Apparently Firefox remembers my zoom setting. Turning it back down makes the image nice and sharp (if a little tiny), as it should be. GyroMagician (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Definitions

Hi

I added an Urban definition which is used to an item and it was rejected. why can i not add an urban definitiion to Toast as it should not breach any possible terms Wiki has in place

Regards

Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt6986 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:NOTABILITY. – ukexpat (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:DICT --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 19:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English literature

Who wrote the English drama 'Hamlet" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.40.11.236 (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Srsly? – ukexpat (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not the same unless it's in the original Klingon. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to head over to the Humanities Reference Desk, since this question is more under their purview. This help desk is for using the encyclopedia itself, as opposed to its content. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may also find this article of interest. TN X Man 14:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

detailed company history Vs promotional

I recently added an entry on Wikipedia. After being given access to Schweppes archive. Within that archive there are items from the 200+ years of the companies history, really great stuff.

We are a creative content agency (exposure, London) and we were given access in order to put some of this history online, other pages like Coca cola or Coleman’s mustard are much more detailed. However my entry was removed for being too promotional.

I guessing that this might have been due to the user name i sued (Schweppes UK) But it was written in neutral tone, much of it was linked from and verified.

It would be a shame if this had this couldn’t go up.

How can I write something that is really detailed about a history of a person / company without it being ‘promotional?

Any help would be appreciated.

Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.99.250 (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI - you clearly have a conflict of interest and are strongly discouraged from editing this, or any related, article. – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the question itself, your edits were not encyclopedic in tone. While you did refrain from overtly promotional verbiage (e.g. "best tasting", etc), there were still numerous instances of non-neutral, more subtly-promotional text, e.g. "The brand owes its existence to the work of Johan Jacob Schweppes", "His innovations are widely considered to have paved the way", "Skillful and dexterous, he pursued a successful career as a watchmaker", "Schweppe's true stroke of genius came from", and so on. This is an encyclopedia, so articles must be written from a much more neutral, factual, opinion-free, emotionless tone. The article on Coca Cola that you mentioned above is a good example of that tone. Note the lack of such terms in that article (which we refer to as "peacock" and "weasel" words). Lastly, you should use in-line citations to support statements rather than listing a reference work at the end of a section. In-line citations make it much easier to verify the statements in the sections. See WP:CITE for more on how to do that. Hope this helps! Arakunem^Talk 15:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, as Ukexpat mentioned above, please review WP:COI for details on how to proceed when you have a potential Conflict of Interest. The short version is that you should not edit the article itself, but propose changes and text on the article's Talk Page (discussion tab), and let other uninvolved editors actually make the change once it has been discussed on the Talk page. Arakunem^Talk 15:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And one more caveat: information from the Schweppes archive is not acceptable for Wikipedia unless it has been published in a reliable source.--ColinFine (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if all this seems like obstacles put in your way. But the fact is that Wikipedia is absolutely not a suitable organ for what you have been asked to do, as any kind of promotion is fundamentally incompatible with the purposes and procedures of Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change Username

I would like to change my user name and password. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brizee59 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to do this at this page. I see you only have a handful of edits - it may be easier just to register a new username. TN X Man 16:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To change your password click on "My Preferences" in the upper right-hand corner of your screen. Scroll down a bit, you'll find the link to change your password right under the "Gender" option. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 19:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk

Resolved

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Resolved

– Message copied over to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#On orgasms and malicious computer code

Since Wikipedia talk:Reference desk is currently semi-protected I can't edit it, so could someone please copy the following over there for me, to the section titled On orgasms and malicious computer code;

Restricting responses to neutral, factual, sourced statements is exactly what the reference desk should be doing anyway. Is there really any need to tag specific questions with this message, since it's pretty much ref desks ethos? And it kinda gives the impression that any questions not tagged with the message are open for speculation, debates and non-factual guess work. I'd also like to say, neither of the example questions you've given were trolling imo. Someone asking for computer viruses and someone asking if they've had an orgasm, while not really questions for the Reference Desk, I don't see how they are trolling 82.44.54.25 (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. TN X Man 18:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks! 82.44.54.25 (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has been trolling those redundant and useless comments to various places. Why did you fall for it and copy it? There's a reason the RD talk page is semi-protected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to prove some diff links to back up your wild claims? I'm a regular at the desks and I like to comment on things the same as everyone else, and usually I do without issue. But in this rare case the Reference Desk talk page was protected yesterday by User:TenOfAllTrades because of Excessive sock puppetry. The protection was not directed at me, or cause by me, or anything to do with me. So please don't spread lies. 82.44.54.25 (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You posted this same item on at least two pages, the other being Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous, and your comments add nothing to the discussion that hasn't already been said, so stifle it, ya hear? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I first asked for help posting the comment on the Miscellaneous desk, but removed the section and asked here instead, since this is the more appropriate place to ask for help with such matters. You are not the judge of whether my comments add something to a discussion or not. 82.44.54.25 (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, your notion about the ref desks is dead wrong. Second, if you've got a complaint about the semi-protection, take it to the admin who did it, rather than forum-shopping. Third, if you want to get around the semi, you could always (GASP!) create an account. Then, for one thing, we won't know that you emanate from Light Current's realm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deliberately misinterpreting me? I don't have a problem with the semi-protection; it's obviously there for a good reason. I just wanted to post a comment, so I asked for assistance. That's hardly "forum-shopping". And creating an account would not solve the current issue, as even if I did make one I would have to wait four days before the account became autoconfirmed and could edit a semi-protected page, by which time the semi-protection would have expired anyway. 82.44.54.25 (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My question was resolved, so I'm archiving this. 82.44.54.25 (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Issue Not being Resolved

I wrote the article "Khetran". The article has been vandalized a couple of times before. Not putting much attention to it I have always reverted the changes.

This time I friend of mine reported that there is some misinformation in the article. When I checked out there were several problems with it. Racist remarks were present, Politicians were termed as beggars, false references were given, some references were removed and references to other articles were also removed.

I have been trying to look after this article for quite some time. But it gets vandalized quite frequently. I was hoping something permanent could be done about it, like putting it under semi protection

OmerKhetran (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good bit of IP vandalism, but it's infrequent. I'll watchlist the article, to be sure. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Placename detail

How much detail should we give when describing geographic locations? Consider these:

... [the subject of this article] is situated in Dulwich.
... [the subject of this article] is situated in Dulwich, south London.
... [the subject of this article] is situated in Dulwich, south London, England.
... [the subject of this article] is situated in Dulwich, south London, England, United Kingdom.

Where is the WP policy/guideline that helps choose between them? To me, no. 2 is best, because not everybody will have heard of Dulwich, but most people will know where London is. No. 4 is definite overkill. But, my preference being no. 2, would there be a reason for preferring no. 3? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Dulwich, England is probably best. We don't have absolutely rigid rules on this and I doubt we ever will. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think every article about a place should at least indicate what country it's in, so basically I agree with Orangemike. I continually see articles along the lines of "Wiggleswitham is a village 2 kilometers east of Uxbury-cum-Northspurlington" and wonder what a reader in Pakistan is supposed to make of that. Deor (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangemike: I wouldn't want to wikilink England, per WP:OVERLINK specifically "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including ... the names of major geographic features and locations".

@Deor: The articles in question (for there are several) are not about Dulwich the place; each is about one of the railway stations within Dulwich. I think that mentioning London helps to fix the approximate location (ie, helps the reader to eliminate the North, Midlands and West from their imagination). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bylines

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an official Wikipedia policy on bylines? In particular, I'm looking at the article for Sphaeromimus and noticed an edit at the VERY bottom of the page which says, "This page was written by Stephanie Loria, Sewanee: The University of the South and edited by Thomas Wesener, Field Museum of Natural History."

Now, either this falls under No Original Research, or it should just be removed. Edit history preserves the author of content, so there's no reason to put something like this in an article, right? Amit ► 20:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The section can and should be removed. This page also has relevant information. TN X Man 20:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:OWN, more specifically the section Use of signatures. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I knew there was official policy that I could link to for this. Amit ► 20:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Susan Bury - article

Resolved

– Redrose64 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I was trying to do was correct the birth and death dates of Mrs P S Bury from info in the DNB. In doing so I somehow wiped the illustration at the top of the article, which I certainly did not intend. I have tried to recover this, but seem to be making things worse. I've tried to follow your instructions but am becoming very confused and frustrated. Can you help? Hyjack7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Done you altered the image's filename. I have put it back to how it was, preserving your other changes (but you might like to have a look at MOS:DATE concerning date formats: we don't write "12.1.1799", etc.) --Redrose64 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Deleted Without My Notice

I recently submitted a revised article called "From Brush and Stone" and it was slated to be deleted next week. I stayed up late working very hard on this article to prove notability. I resubmitted it with questions and now it appears to be gone! This is truly upsetting if this is the case. This is my first article and I'm not feeling good about this situation. Please inform me of what happened and what my options are. Thanks.

Kenwaditty (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ken. From Brush and Stone was proposed for deletion on the basis of notability but was later deleted under section g11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, which refers to an article that appears to be blatantly promotional. The deletion log entry is here. You can speak to the administrator who deleted it, User:DGG, by posting to User talk:DGG talk page. However, I am providing the article content to you on a subpage in your userspace, User talk:Kenwaditty/From Brush and Stone, where you can work on the article until you are ready to go live again. In the meantime, there are a number of policies and guidelines I would recommend you read. Please read our policy on neutral point of view, verifiability and our guide to citing sources (there's also a beginner's version) and our policy forbidding original research. Note also WP:PEACOCK and WP:SPAM. Basically, if you turn this into a neutrally worded article that cites to reliable sources that verifies the information in it, it is very unlikely to be deleted. By the way, there's some very specific advice on writing articles on albums at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there is a perfectly clear notice (a couple actually) about this on your talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did receive these notices and I figured it pertained to the older version. Has anyone read the latest revision? I just want to know why the latest revision was rejected. Thanks. Kenwaditty (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has only been one version of an article deleted at From Brush and Stone, and the version at User talk:Kenwaditty/From Brush and Stone has not been substantially edited since Fuhghettaboutit moved it - can you clarify what you mean by "the latest revision"? Do you mean the changes you made after the article was proposed for deletion? Expanding the content was a good move, but the article still needs substantial work to cite sources and meet our manual of style. Do you have specific questions? Gonzonoir (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gonzonoir,

Thank you for the clarification. It appears you did read the latest revision. I understand more work needs to be done. I just wasn't sure why it was removed. Do you have any recommendations in addition to what was already stated above? Thanks. Kenwaditty (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]