Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 February 13

= February 13 =

Column summation
I have a table with a column which consists solely of numerical values. Is there any way to define a footer row which calculates the sum of that column's cells? Specifically, I wish to automatically calculate the sum for the "Minimum" and "Maximum" columns (respectively) in the Template:Project Chanology protests, February 10 2008 table. Thanks in advance! CounterFX (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One way would be to put the values in an array, so that they can be used for display and for computing the sum without putting them twice in the wikitext. Another way might be with JavaScript, like is used for sorting.--Patrick (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I was hoping for a predefined solution like for sorting, but I don't think there is one. Thanks. CounterFX (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And on second thoughts, I don't feel that the summation should be given for that particular table, since the entries only give figures for protests which the press happened to cover, and should not be taken as representing any "global total". CounterFX (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Direct find and replace function for Wikipedia editing
Is there any program anyone knows of that would allow me to do a find and replace function directly for Wikipedia articles using internet explorer? Sure, I can cut and paste text into an external editor but that intermediate step is a big time waster when you're trying to do somewhat robotic edits. To be clear, as an example, after I have disambiguated a movie title from "Name (film)" to "NAME ([year] film)", I want to be able to go to an article that pipes the link five times and in edit mode just replace all the "Name (film)" to "NAME ([year] film)". If no one knowns of scuh an add-on for Internet Explorer (which I'm pretty married to), can you tell me if any other browers allow you to do this directly? Thanks in advance.--68.237.2.101 (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe AutoWikiBrowser is what you're looking for. Of course, it will require you to create an account to use it. Good luck! GlassCobra 03:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the link but a new browser is not really what I'm after (if it exists). I just want to search and replace in my normal browser, just like ou would in word with the find and replace function. It seems like it should exist. All browsers have find, someone should be able to make an add-on to make it find and replace.--68.237.2.101 (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Firefox users can do this with wikEd. &mdash;Noah 04:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, AWB is not an entirely new web browser, it's a program that automates various Wikipedia processes in conjunction with Internet Explorer. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 05:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also see WP:EIW, WP:EIW, and WP:EIW. Unfortunately, a Web browser is a thin client by design, and typically has only a very simple built-in editor. This should eventually change as the Web 2.0 idea of mass collaboration catches on. (Wikipedia of course is a leading example of this.) The first 20 years of personal computing were all about companies like Microsoft making ever-thicker desktop applications with more more features, but they typically suck at sharing information with other people, so the common interchange format has traditionally been dead trees. Wikis are great for remote collaboration, but in the early going you have to give up the gazillion thick editor features many computer users take for granted now. I don't suppose fanatical Emacs users have this problem, since they can do everything in Emacs, including browse the Web. --Teratornis (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

part page transclusion
Is it possible to only transclude part of page, and not the whole page, for example to pull a sentence or two out of another article ? I have tried, for example,, but it still pulls in the whole page. Pee Tern (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you can't, although this isn't the first time it's been suggested as a feature (in fact, there might still be a similar query higher up on this page). What you can do is mark one part of the page to not appear when transcluded (by enclosing it in tags), and/or mark a part to not appear when you visit the actual template page (by enclosing it in  tags). Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 05:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes I am aware of the only/include tags but I wanted to have multiple different bits of text in an actual article transcluded, so they do not help unfortunatley.  Pee Tern (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

article sub pages
Are article subpages completely banned? I had just created one and it got deleted almost immediately (because someone thought I was testing by accident, and did not ask first, and has since apologised). I wanted to use it to create a separately editable block of material without a section heading by transcluding it back into the main page with its own edit link. So, is it okay to do this, and if so how do I stop it being deleted by enthusiastic people. I do not want to protect it because it needs to be "normally" editable? If not, is there another way to do it? Pee Tern (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As per Subpages, no you're not allowed to use subpages in article space. In fact, article subpages have been turned off in the software, so that (for example) OS/2 is an article entitled "OS/2", not subpage "2" of the article "OS". In your case, you're just going to have to let the material be directly included in the article. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 05:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Sorry, I should have read Subpages not so quickly!  C'est la vie. Pee Tern (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The page does ntot exist any more and I cannot find it referenced in the delete log. Is this normal? Pee Tern (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The only registered deleted edit by you is the creation of /othertermdefn which is in the deletion log: . I assume you wanted to use it for Law enforcement agency. If subpages were turned on in article space then it should have been at Law enforcement agency/othertermdefn to be a subpage. Page names starting with / are special. I used /othertermdefn to make a link here from Wikipedia space where subpages are turned on. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you only want to use a piece of text in one article then I see no good reason to create it on another page. If you want to use it in more than one article then you can make a template in template space (starting with Template: ). PrimeHunter (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Folks, Thanks.  Still learning the ropes I am.  I was searching the log using 'Law enforcement agency/othertermdefn' and 'Pee Tern'.  I am not sure how I created the page starting with a '/'.  I used /othertermdefn on the page Law enforcement agency and then followed the link.  I was trying to create a block of text with its own edit link that was not a section.  For what it is worth, have a look at User:Pee Tern/Sandbox where it seems to work exactly as expected. Cheers. Pee Tern (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Starting a link with / gives a subpage in your user space because subpages are turned on in user space. They are turned off in article space, so if you write /othertermdefn on an article like Law enforcement agency then "/othertermdefn" is simply the page name you get. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Album Cover Fair Use
I uploaded a copy of an album cover I own where the article had the picture missing and I have tried to understand what I have to do to show it as fair useage but have drawn a blank. Is there a simple step by step function I should be taking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmouk70 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Give WP:FAIRUSE a read through, perhaps? Hope it helps. Scarian Call me Pat  10:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Or maybe ask your question at the Image copyright help desk... you may be able to get a more detailed response? Scarian Call me Pat  10:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see User:Nanonic has added a pro forma fair use rationale. The only problem is that the image is at far too high a resolution for the rationale given to apply. You should reupload it at 300x300 px or so. Algebraist 12:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Quantity of edits and editors
We would like to know where we can view numbers of edits of each individual article. We would also like to know where it is possible to see the number of number of unique editors (number of individuals contributing to the editing process) of an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.47.89.75 (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Every article has a page history which is accessible by clicking on the button labeled "history" at the top of the page. Using the history, you can see every editor who has edited, the number of edits, and it allows you to look at how the article existed at every point in its history and what each person did by comparing diffs. There are also various tools which draw statistics out of this function which you might find easier to look at for a broad overview. Enter an article name at this site.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Linking to an image page
Hi, does anyone know the syntax to link to a wikipedia image page? I can do it with an "external" link to to the full Wikipedia URL, but I imagine that shouldn't be necessary. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surot (talk • contribs) 14:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For any page you can insert a colon at the beginning to have it appear as a link rather than as (e.g.) an image. This works for Images, Templates, Categories. So image:your image . Sbowers3 (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, that works just fine. Thanks for the quick response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surot (talk • contribs) 14:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Tomeraider 3 is shut down every time I look up words beginning with the letter "z"
Dear Sirs I visited your web site and downloaded wp-En-ppc-txt.tr3 (1.1 Gigabyte file) but I can’t look up words beginning with the letter “Z” because an error message emerges and the program is obligatorily shut down. The rest of the dictionary is usable but the above problem occurs when the words beginning with the letter “z” are entered to be looked up. Could you assist me solve this problem? Thank you for your hints. Sincerely yours M. Shamsara

my email address:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.26.81 (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over two 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.
 * However, I suggest that you may wish to visit the TomeRaider website for assistance. Thanks — Travis talk  16:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Help regarding merging an Article
I want to inquire something regarding merging an article. Previous month i proposed merging of the article Risalpur Airbase to Pakistan Air Force Academy. I stated the merge proposal here and added merge template to the article Risalpur Airbase. After about a month(24 days) was gone, i merged(Selective Merge) Risalpur Airbase into Pakistan Air Force Academy. And stated all that at the merge discussions. Now a user reverted all the merging and said "Note that you cannot merge if you don't get a response. You didnt place the merge on either of the pages to show that a merge has been proposed." and also issued me notice Uw-notvote. So i want to ask that what one should do after that much time  if still no one has responded to the merge proposal? -- S M S  Talk 16:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merging is just a kind of editing. You don't need permission to merge any more than for any other kind of editing. It is a good idea to discuss on the talk page before any editing that might be controversial - not just merges. It is common to suggest a change on the editing page, wait a bit to see if there any comments, then proceed with the proposed edit or, in this case, a merge. I would ask the other editor to explain why he thinks that your edits are wrong - not in terms of the procedure you followed but in terms of the content. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure! Thanks a lot! -- S M S  Talk 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Link
Suppose I had ===Swordmaster Style=== several times in one article, and I wanted to make a link on another page to the second occurence of this. How would I do that? Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The first occurrence is linked to in the traditional manner – simply specify the page name, a #, and the section name (all without intervening spaces). Example: List of most popular given names. To link to subsequent occurrences, use the same notation as above, but add the occurrence number after the section name (with an intervening space). Example: List of most popular given names for the second occurrence, List of most popular given names for the third, and so on. I would recommend you to use piping to make the links better presented. Hope this helps! CounterFX (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It does, thank you. But to remove ambiguity, would I be able to use List of most popular given names for the first occurrence as well? Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All section linking can be piped For example:
 * {|class="wikitable"

!What the code is !! What it gives
 * Foobar 1 || Foobar 1
 * Foobar 2 || Foobar 2
 * Foobar 3 || Foobar 3
 * }
 * ...and so on. Hope this helps! -- omtay 38  17:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Foobar 3 || Foobar 3
 * }
 * ...and so on. Hope this helps! -- omtay 38  17:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * From empirical tests, adding a 1 for the first occurrence (e.g. List of most popular given names) does not work. If you're familiar with HTML: Only one named anchor tag is generated for each header – in the case of the first occurrence, it is  ; for the second, it is  ; and so on. Since for several situations (think talk pages) the lower sections would have been added chronologically after those above them, changing the anchor name for the first section would cause links already established to it (without the 1) to break. If you wish to give a consistent appearance, you could use omtay38's recommendation for piping. CounterFX (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Link
Why is there a link to the Wikipedia page for "Say Anything (band)" at the top of my firebox browser? And a Log in/Create account? I don't want them there. I didn't think wikipedia was into that unclassy kind of internet bullying. Tell me how to get rid of it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.117.108 (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Under the default Wikipedia style there is always a link in the top-right corner to Log in / create account (unless you log in, of course!), but I have no idea why there should be a link to an article about some random band. When you say it's at the "top of" Firefox, do you mean at the top of the Wikipedia page, or on a toolbar or bookmarks bar? It's possible you've inadvertently dragged a page to the bookmarks bar and saved a link to it. Or maybe somebody else used your computer and bookmarked a page. If that's so and you want to get rid of it, right-click on it, and click 'Delete'. • Anakin  (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Violation of Wikipedia's policy on advertising and conflicts of interest on external links
For the past several days PoncaPortal has repeatedly posted an external link that violates Wikipedia's policy on advertising and conflicts of interest on external links.

What is the next step for handling this type of issue if it continues?

Best Regards,

Reservoirhill (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First you would warn the user following the instructions on that page. Then, if the behavior persists, fill a report at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Hope this helps! -- omtay 38  18:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the guidance. Reservoirhill (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Error
Every time when i logged into wikipedia I cant found my user page, instead of this i found:"Error, Setup.php must be included from the file scope, after DefaultSettings.php". If i not logged in, this time it also happens.But all other pages e.g. talk page, watchlist are okay.Everytime I've to purge. Without purging page is not showing. Clearing cache (both browser and server) is not solved the problem. What should i do? Tanvir che (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I had not heard of this error before. We can, but that finds nothing. We can search the entire Web:
 * which finds some mentions, but these all seem to involve people who get the error on their own wikis that they set up by installing MediaWiki themselves. I can browse to Tanvir che with no obvious problems. Are you sure are actually browsing to your user page on the English Wikipedia and not on some other wiki? Maybe someone else can give a better answer. --Teratornis (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I got that error a couple of times today. I am not sure what it is abour. I got it when I tried to edit user talkpages. I simply refreshed my browser (accepting the resubmittal of postdata) and it worked fine. You might want to ask your question over at the technical village pump. Regards. Woody (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I found another Wikipedia user who reported the problem:
 * User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough/wikierrors
 * so I guess it is possible to get this error from Wikipedia. The questioner mentions that the error also occurs regardless of being logged in. That seems to rule out any involvement from the user's Preferences. I have noticed that having an intermittent connection to the Internet can cause Wikipedia pages to download incompletely, and that can cause all sorts of weird problems, although I haven't seen this particular one myself. --Teratornis (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * so I guess it is possible to get this error from Wikipedia. The questioner mentions that the error also occurs regardless of being logged in. That seems to rule out any involvement from the user's Preferences. I have noticed that having an intermittent connection to the Internet can cause Wikipedia pages to download incompletely, and that can cause all sorts of weird problems, although I haven't seen this particular one myself. --Teratornis (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

More on inserting copyright
Thank you for your response to my earlier question, but it isn't the type of copyright that has me stumped so much as HOW to insert copyright information. I do not understand the use of the templates, and cannot see how to retro fit copyright info onto the finished Agriculture in the Classroom page. Thanks --Akaitc (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have had to delete an article you significantly contributed to, Agriculture in the Classroom. It was a violation of the copyrights of i.a. . Articles on Wikipedia have to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License. If you want to know how to release the now deleted content, please read WP:COPYREQ. A  ecis Brievenbus 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You should edit the image description pages, Image:AITC-IL-Germination.JPG for example, and insert the tag corresponding to the license you have been granted. --teb728 t c 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Question on verifiable sources.
My question is what TRULY consititutes a verifiable resource. It seems several people seem to ignore the "rules" on this when taking over pages. The idea that certain people are in charge of certain articles creates a cronyism that doesn't gel well with the concept of Wiki's. FOr example, I have been fighting an uphill battle with the folks over on the "BIG BROTHER 9" page who post things that haven't happened yet by using a "live feed" as a source... of course this is NOT VERIFIABLE, so they should be removed. However hte cronyism comes into play, and the people who claim this page win out. This is what will be the downfall of Wikipedia - when people stake claim on articles without thinking of the overall good. RMThompson (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We do have a guideline against ownership of articles - I'll take a look and issue a notice to the other editors if this is the problem. However, you are correct - live feeds are not verifiable or reliable sources. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 21:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the article (I didn't really know what Big Brother was until now), it seems the other editors do have a point. Since this is an upcoming show, information may appear that isn't immediately available on something that is considered reliable. I know the while The Amazing Race is running, the article will be updated several times before the end of the show, before the verifiable results are posted on the website. Once the show begins, more and more verifiable sources will be present, and you will be able to confirm the information currently present with those sources. As was explained on the talk page, that is the purpose of the blue ambox message. Whenever an ambox is present on a page, it's a notice to the reader that information may not be 100% reliable, due to an issue that either needs to be corrected or will be corrected in time (as it is in this case).
 * If you're still not sure about things, you may want to open a request for comment to get some other opinions on this. First, though, I'd recommend trying to talk it over with the other editors. If things get too heated, step back and calm down for a while. There's plenty of ways to get this sorted out. Don't worry about it too much. I hope this has helped some. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just feel that the live feeds aren't verifiable and therefore cannot be used. What's happening is that an editor is watching the LIVE FEEDS and then changing the information based on what they see. However CBS has changed information in the past, so until something AIRS, I don't think it should be considered reliable. Im not concerned with information that will be available, but information gotten early, from watching the live feeds, and then leaked onto the main page. The main page is about a TV SHOW and the live feeds are NOT a part of that show, they are an option. The show has started, its not an upcoming show... Your example was Amazing Race, well what if someone posted results that hadn't happened on the show yet and therefore were unreliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RMThompson (talk • contribs) 21:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Closing
Can someone point me in the direction of the closing templates so that in future i may close discussions? Simply south (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The template to use differs for the type of discussion. WP:DPR contains the code needed to close deletion discussions, although as you are not an admin, you should ideally only close snowball keeps, and also not close discussions in which you were involved. Allowing admins to close other discussions makes the process run a bit smoother. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 21:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not all discussions are deletion discussions. There are moving discussions discussions over issues etc. It is okay to do non-admin closures. What about closures where the person withdraws?


 * And thank you for that link. Simply south (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Creating an account; forgotten user name
I'm interested in becoming a contributer, so I looked into creating an account. However, I already have accounts on dozens of websites, and I figured I might have already created one here years in the past, but the standard way for me to check that is by entering my email address, and the website checking if there are any usernames connected to that email address. I found no such option on your site. What should one do if (s)he's forgotten his/her user name? I could create a new account, but OCD is causing me great worry over redundant accounts. Is it a problem to have multiple accounts? If so, or even if not, is there a way for me to regain info about an account (that is, username and password) using only the email address? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.147.221 (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can try Special:Listusers to see if you created an account. Enter a name and if it appears as an exact match, then it exists. Unfortunately, if you didn't set an e-mail for your account, you have to create another one. On Special:Userlogin, you can enter your username and click "E-mail new password", you can try that if you have in fact created an account here. X ENON 54 | talk 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Annoyingly it isn't possible to email a new password without knowing the user name. But I would say - try not to worry about it if you try a few names at Special:Listusers and still cannot find any old account. There are over six million registered user names, the vast and overwhelming majority of which have never been used (I reckon). Unused accounts are harmless and can be ignored, being nothing more than a name in a list. • Anakin  (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: I filed bugzilla:13015 earlier, asking for lost username retrieval as a new software feature. No guarantees on it being implemented, or how long it would take, but it's there. • Anakin  (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * that you for the quick response —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.147.221 (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Numeric accuracy
I've come up against an editor who is fixated on writing percentages with 4 digits of accuracy, which I think is ridiculous. For example:


 * Boris Tadić won 1,457,030 votes or 35.39% in the first round. In the second round on February 3 2008, he faced Tomislav Nikolić. According to final results Boris Tadić won the election with 50.57 % or 2,257,105 votes.

I think this is silly for an encyclopedia article, and rounded the percentages to three digits of accuracy (personally, I think two digits would be most suitable),


 * Boris Tadić received 1,457,030 votes (35.4%) in the first round. In the second round on February 3 2008, he faced Tomislav Nikolić and won the election with 2,257,105 votes (50.6%).

but this editor reverts my edits. Is there anything in Manual of Style about this? Other guidelines? Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The only policy I can find is at Manual_of_Style. I'd say either bring it up on the talk page, or just let it go. As long as the percentage is accurate, edit warring isn't needed over one digit. -- omtay 38  23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Not really. MOS:NUM states:

The number of decimal places should be consistent within a list or context (The response rates were 41.0 and 47.4 percent, respectively, not The response rates were 41 and 47.4 percent, respectively).
 * and that is all it really mentions about your problem. WP:WPE&R (WikiProject Elections & Referenda) does not have any standards when it comes to the number of decimal places. X ENON 54 | talk 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you who answered. OK, I'll just let it go. But he really does irritate me - in another article he had written


 * On January 20, 2008, Nikolić won the first round with 39.99% of the vote.

I changed that to


 * On January 20, 2008, Nikolić won the first round with 40% of the vote.

and he promptly reverted me. I think it looks crazy, and makes people wonder about Wikipedia. --RenniePet (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Scientifically, and simplifying a bit, the number of significant digits is determined by the accuracy or level of error in the measurement. If the count is believed to be accurate to within 100 votes out of 1,000,000 then the percentages can be plus/minus .01%, so 4 significant digits would seem to imply that the count was accurate to within 100 votes in every 1,000,000 counted.  If the count was only accurate to within 1000 votes in 1,000,000 then the the percentage should only be to .1%.  But yes I too would think nn.nn% is a bit over the top! Pee Tern (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)