Help desk
< February 16	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 18 >

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.

February 17

Truncating Cites

Can anyone tell me how to truncate sites? In other words, if I have a page were multiple cites throughout the arcticle are referring to one book, and multiple other cites are referring to another book, how do I get serveral cites pointing to the one book and vice versa? As it is, I have 24 cites listed at bottom of the article, but half are all the same thing... make sense? Carsonmc (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the <ref name="Name of ref">full citation.../> format where you only write out the full reference the first instance and in subsequent references to that source just type <ref name="Name of ref"/>. This results in in only one reference in the "reflist" section at the bootom of the page with individual numbers referring to those individual citations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertouch (talk • contribs)

I will try that. Thanks. Carsonmc (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAMEDREFS explains it. – ukexpat (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you cite the same page number of the book each time? If you want to cite the same book many times, but a different page number each time, you might consider shortened footnotes. --Teratornis (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article rating script not changing when rating is changed?

Some months ago, I enabled the metadata script, which has always worked fine until now. Shortly after I completed Francis M. Drexel School, I saw that someone had rated it as a stub. Today, the rating was changed to start, but the gadget still reads "A stub-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Any idea why the script isn't keeping pace with the rating? Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:PURGE will fix that. – ukexpat (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, it didn't; there's no real need to place the purge-this-page link on the article, so I've not tried that, but I've repeatedly tried the other processes without success. And yes, I've checked — it's still tagged as "start", so this isn't a matter of someone changing back the rating after I last looked. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I view the article the gadget shows "start", so it must be a purge or cache problem. – ukexpat (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes before dying

I once read enthsiastically a section on last quotes by celebrities right before their death. But I have lost the site. How can I find it?

Hagop Kassabian Dubai, UAE Email: <e-mail address redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.227.93 (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google is your friend. – ukexpat (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can a redirect be undone?

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a very new editor last summer I mistakenly created a redirect for the novel Here Be Dragons to the author's page at Sharon Kay Penman. Now I would like to create an article for the novel Here Be Dragons. Can the redirect be undone? If so, how? Thank you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply edit the redirect. If you keep going to the redirected page, you will find a link back to the redirect at the top of the page it redirected to. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't quite figure out how to get to that page, click here. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So easy! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

image licensing

Which license would apply to an image of commercial packaging that is my own work? NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 03:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the image that's your own work or the design of the packaging? – ukexpat (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a photograph of commercial packaging taken by myself. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 03:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:COM:CB discusses many cases of photographs of objects created by other people. Does your photograph show any art works copyrighted by anyone else, in more than a de minimis way? If so, then you may have created a derivative work, and you will need the original copyright holder to grant permission in writing (see Commons:COM:OTRS for the procedure in that case, and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission). Note that the Help desk does not provide legal advice, so the burden is on you to insure you have not violated anyone else's copyright. --Teratornis (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, that was not what I was asking. I was going to upload it under fair-use, but I didn't see a template that said commercial packaging on it. Would the generic fair-use be suitable for the image? NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 14:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody here knows, you could ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --Teratornis (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned abusers using Wikipedia to gain illegal access to Home Office by abusing Hotmail Facebook and Microsoft Products.

(removed request to publish the access logs for Wikipedia) -- kainaw ™ 03:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides what isn't good enough for Wikipedia?

Because too many cases of ignorance have occurred, especially the case with Kinuyo Yamashita who is one of the original composers of Castlevania, a 20+ year old video game series with 30+ titles. It's unfortunate the people calling the shots sometimes don't have the knowledge to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.220.114 (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of policies and guidelines on what is and isn't suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. To start, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not describes what types of content Wikipedia is not going to have, and Wikipedia:Notability describes what needs to be shown in an article to demonstrate the subject is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. --Mysdaao ^talk 04:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And be sure to understand the difference between a subject which is insufficiently notable, and an article that fails to demonstrate the notability of its subject. An article may fail unnecessarily, for example when a subject is sufficiently notable, but the article's editors failed to provide enough reliable sources to demonstrate notability. This is a very common error by new users. Intuitively, most people expect they can simply write whatever they know. That is how people ordinarily communicate, they just say what they know. Wikipedia requires a higher level of discipline than ordinary speech. Wikipedia already has articles on most topics that will be familiar to most people, so almost everything left to write about is likely to be obscure enough that most deletionists will not have heard of it. Therefore, they will check to see whether the article is well-sourced. Also note that many alternative outlets exist. Wikis that specialize in games cover their topic areas much more deeply than Wikipedia. I doubt there are many people who agree with all the deletions here, however. For example, I'm annoyed that Style over substance fallacy got chopped. Having articles that survive for a year or more and then vanish makes Wikipedia unreliable as a reference, and leads to internal link rot when links to deleted articles get redirected in ways that make no sense. --Teratornis (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the result of this rather complicated AfD discussion was delete. It seems like there weren't enough reliable sources to confirm the notability of the subject. You can bring additional concerns, if you have them, to the deleting administrator, identified at the top of the AfD discussion. PDCook (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogance with Britney singles and promos

It's not fair that both "Anticipating" and "That's Where You Take Me" are considered promos with cd singles and even the catalog number on page. A company will not spend money on making a promo look so commercialy good. Besides there are promos of "Toxic" and "Everytime" and any other single. They are on the web, people have to look for them but they exist. Are those not singles either? The problem is that both songs were release in a single country other than a continent, worldwide, or just the United States. Americans are the ones who say they aren't, but people from both France and the Philippines confirm both songs being singles. Do we have any contact with Jive Records or something so they can confirm or deny both songs. It's not fair to delete the article for a third time. I will post and post the same article until it is confirmed or denied.I put reliable sources but they delete them to justify the deletion. What can I do? Do I have a point? Help me make the articles better!--Avram44 (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is "the article"? Do not assume the people who read the Help desk are aware of something that occurred elsewhere on Wikipedia. Also, I suspect your link to Toxic should actually be to Toxic (song), but that still doesn't tell me what "the article" is. --Teratornis (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"They are on the web, people have to look for them but they exist. Are those not singles either?"???? Just because something exists, does not mean it is notable. Denying that the recordings are notable is not the same as denying that they exist. You need to do some follow-up at WP:N and WP:MUSIC. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki bots

What is the best place here on en.wiki to report a problem with interwiki bots? Is it Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard? Thanks! -- Basilicofresco (msg) 07:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. We would like WP:EIW#Bot to give a comprehensive list of all the help and discussion pages relating to bots. Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard looks like the most promising among those listed. That's what I'd recommend if nobody gives a better answer here. I suppose the worst that can happen is you don't get an answer or they tell you to try on another page. --Teratornis (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entrance exam

what is the date of phd entrance exam of osmania university —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.143.198 (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Miscellaneous reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

india vs china

gud day sir/madam

i feel badly a need of page which shows some of key differences between one of worlds fast growing economies India and China Please add a page about this . thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.71.75 (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the articles Sino-Indian relations and Chindia can help you? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lowercase articles produce errors

Why does the software not allow lowercase articles? It's complicated to add "{{lowercase}}" everytime and also that produces errors, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Touchscreen_portable_media_players, there is the IPad with capital 'I' and the IPod with capital 'I' but not listed in the capital 'I' section, but in the 'i' section with lowercase 'i'. Wouldn't it be better and easier to just have lowercase articles? That would remove all that strange errors... Regards -- Lexischemen (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice but I don't think it's a matter of just changing a software setting but rather it's a technical restriction of the software that would have to be solved by a developer. {{Lowercase}} (which I turned into a template link for you in your post) is a kludge and only affects the display of the article itself, when you see it. It will not change the way the page appears anywhere else, such as in a category, because the page actually persists at the uppercase title. If you want more information on why the technical issue is thorny to fix, someone else may have more insight.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just read that I'm not quite right. We can just change it apparently, but doing so leads to lots of other problems (the solution would be worse than the problem it causes). Specifically, it would break all existing lower-case links. See mw:Manual:$wgCapitalLinks. I also imagine it would allow all people creating pages that should start with a capital letter to start them with a lowercase, and as the default first letter uppercase is the correct title in the vast majority of cases, we would be left with vast numbers of pages everyday that would need to be moved to first letter uppercase titles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

iPod Touch is sorted under lowercase i in Category:Touchscreen portable media players because of the default sort key it has, not because of the lowercase title. iPad doesn't have any default sorting, so it is automatically sorted by the article title, which is still uppercase I. See Help:Category#Sort order. --Mysdaao ^talk 13:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unreplied discussion

I posted a message at Talk:CITV (TV channel) and there's been no replies since I posted could someone take a look at my post ASAP. Thanks Paul 2387 13:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that not many people watch that talkpage and you might have more luck posting your discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Regards, --Beloved Freak 13:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks to Categories

I recently tried to enter a wiki-link to: "Category:CSD warning templates". Like this:

>>>[[Category:CSD warning templates]]<<<

The words within the double square brackets and the brackets themselves disappeared, like this:

>>>[[Category:CSD warning templates]]<<<

(I just entered the link Category:CSD warning templates without the nowiki tag between the two sentinals; i.e., >>> and <<<.) Why does the wiki-software do that and how can I make it stop so that I can links to categories? Thanks. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A normal category link, like the one you just used, will be interpreted by the software as an attempt to categorise a page. If you want to link directly, you an use a colon prefix: Category:CSD warning templates or the category. Hope that helps, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. If anybody missed it, you can use: [[:Category:CSD warning templates]]. By the way, am I linking this help page to the category CSD warning templates? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears so. I've fixed it for you. TN X Man 14:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://search.wikimedia.org/ --- Wikimedia search service internal error. Backend failure.

needless to say, the subject line should suffice as far as why the message. for those who don't know, however, this is the backend link the built-in dictionary / wikipedia of apple/Macintosh computers use to access info directly from wikipedia database.

this isn't the first time when the servers were not available. just google this and you'll find out several incidents per year...

can someone work on this and figure out why the link is broken?

an entire Mac community (world wide, obviously) would be entirely grateful to have this fixed.

sincerely, a humble mac user. --Macradu (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been fixed, thanks for your report. --rainman (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights Problems: A Wikipedia page on FAO - GIPB Initiative

Dear Wikipedia Staff,

The GIPB (Global Partnership Initiative for Plant Breeding Capacity Building) is a multi-party initiative of knowledge and research institutions around the world that have a track record in supporting agricultural research and development, working in partnership with country programmes committed to developing stronger and more effective plant breeding capacity. The official website of the Initiative can be accessed through http://km.fao.org/gipb/.

The GIPB team is trying to create a Wikipedia page describing its objectives and activities under the Wikipedia account “LauraPa”. To this purpose, we would like to inform you that the GIPB Initiative is facilitated by FAO (the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) and that FAO holds the copyright of all material and pictures produced within this Initiative; therefore the images are used in conjunction with FAO, so please note that there is no copyright infringement for the following images:

Knowldge_and_information_sharing2.JPG Gipb logo.png

What kind of copyright licence do we have to select when we upload these images? Kindly illustrate us the procedure to follow in this case.

Best regards,

the GIPB Team —Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraPa (talk • contribs) 14:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of points: First the "GIPB team" has a conflict of interest and so should not be creating or editing the article. Articles for creation is the place to request that such an article be created. Second, the easiest way to make images available for use on Wikipedia articles is to upload them to Wikimedia Commons, with a license compatible with Commons licensing requirements, see Commons Licensing. – ukexpat (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thirdly, aren't team accounts against the rules? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they are. – ukexpat (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

full form

what is fulll form of BOFORS IN bofors gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.119.88 (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Bofors 40 mm and Bofors help? (and maybe a "please" next time?) – ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete iuvienna

Moving from talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE THE ARTICLE IUVIENNA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.168.187 (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2010

There is no article of that name so I assume that you mean International University Vienna. Any particular reason why? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP. Stop shouting - or is your shift-key jammed? If you want to continue playing your games, I would recommend WP:NPOVN, WP:DISPUTE, and WP:How to delete a page. →Alfie^±Talk 01:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is insulting . Nobody asked you for this, I am pleading since months and you did not hear it so whats the alternative to speaking , simply shouting because you did not hear 84.112.168.187 —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 17 February 2010. reorganizing text so its not embedded in someone elses statement

Again, I am assuming that you mean International University Vienna. The thing is, we don't delete pages without a good reason, see WP:DELETE. This article has been proposed for deletion before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International University Vienna); and since there were good reasons for keeping it, the delete proposal was unsuccessful. If you find the page insulting, the first question to ask is: does it satisfy Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV? If not, you could either edit the article so that it is neutral, remembering to follow other policies such as WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOR, or offer constructive suggestions on its talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you need a reason , I'll give you several reasons, first wikipedia is considered an encyclopedia and not some magazine that is chatting around speculations. IU is going to become accredited, but it needs time, so far you have to wait until you write a comment on IU. Second, if you want to make wikipedia a newspaper, which tells the socalled truth on the first day and revokes it on the other day you can surely do it but then the public will continue to consider wikipedia as an untrustful source, in which to doubt. And third, imagine yourself , someone writes an article about wikipwdia and its non-reliable content at msn encarta, would it please you to have the rest of the world reeading about wikipedia as an unreliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.59.100.138 (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of the article and the notability are two separate things. There is coverage of the subject seen in a quick google news search. It may or may not be enough so that might be something people wish to discuss. Others have provided you with almost all of the information you need, and you should follow the advice instead of trying to instill fear in others that this project will be considered unreliable. That isn't a good way to get what you want. Point out concerns with the article on the talk page. Ask editors for help if the information is incorrect or if certain aspects look like they are receiving undue weight. We cannot tell the future. Right now, the sources say it is not accredited. If anything, you should be happy that it isn't labeled as a diploma mill. Cptnono (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "Wikipedia is ... not some magazine that is chatting around speculations", and then you give us a speculation (that IU is going to become accredited). It may well be factual that IU is intending to get accredition, and is working toward this goal; and if these facts are referenced in a reliable source, they should be added to the article. But that it is going to be accredited is a prediction, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --ColinFine (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a metallic machine or so with a brain of polypropylen or so ? don't you have feelings? don't you understand rationally that the writing is inappropriete for students of the faculties and that nobody likes to be published like this? leave the university in freedom and give it a rest. you are the best:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.168.187 (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2010

IP 84.112.168.187, your contributions to the article are remarkable, see the last one. You truly must be the pride of that institution. --Wikiwatchers (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to write a Family history on Wikipedia?

How to put a family history on Wikipedia? How to write a bigraphy on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haripad (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is generally not the place to post a family history or a biography unless the family or the individual is notable, such as the Du Pont family - please take a look at WP:N and WP:BIO. Standard form message about creating articles follows:

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

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 with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite 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 Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at 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. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article. – ukexpat (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source question

excuse my ignorance but most of the family guy articles Seem to use the show as point of reference. For example to suport statement in the Meg Griffin Fic-bio "Also, perverted neighbor Glenn Quagmire has shown a repeated interest in her, mostly due to his very low standards, asking if she has reached the age of consent (which would be 16 in Rhode Island, but he always asks if she is 18, which is what many people assume is the nation-wide age of consent)." it uses the citation "The Thin White Line". Family Guy. Fox. 2001-11-07. No. 1, season 3. “Are you 18 yet?”" is this not a primary source? considering that so many one liners in the show where do you draw the line? Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PRIMARY. There may also be useful guidelines at WP:PASI and WP:WikiProject Television. User:LeadSongDog come howl 17:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links to my sites

Is it acceptable to put links into articles to direct people to pages of my sites that are relevant to the topic in question. I could incorporate a link on that page to return to the subject page in question. I would like to know in advance rather than risking upsetting anybody, you would like to view the pages and subject in question please just ask.

Peter MayburyQueensland-uk (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please use a descriptive title in future questions.

This would be a conflict of interest, so you shouldn't add an external link to your own site. This may be considered external link spamming by others. Instead, suggest the link on the article's talk page and let others decide whether it belongs or not. Please read Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest for more details. --Mysdaao ^talk 18:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]