Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 September 6

= September 6 =

Deleting Articles
How do you nominate an article for deletion, or just delete it? Rj1020 (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You have to be an admin to delete an article. Normal users can tag the article if it qualifies for speedy deletion criteria. If it doesn't qualify for CSD, but you think that it's not suitable, you can propose for deletion of the aricle. You can find how to tag articles for CSD or nominate it for deletion from these pages. Check the deletion policy and Articles for deletion for more details. Hope this helps. Cheers. Chamal    Talk 01:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image Technical Difficulties - Wesley College, Melbourne
Hi, The article: Wesley College, Melbourne has just been reviewd to become an GA article unfortunately the reviewer has has some techincal difficulties with the images on the article.

S/he wrote: "Image placement causes problems on my screen, whichever of my two available browsers I use. On Mozilla Firefox, the subsection edit links become displaced, and all bunch together around the Sport section On Internet Explorer that problem doesn't arise, but instead a huge white space appears under the Facilties heading. I tried solving the problem by some experimental image placements, but this didn't work. I wonder if either of these problems occur on your screen? Whether they do or not, it's something that needs fixing, and I don't know how to do this. I suggest you take the problem to WP:Help."

If anyone has any ideas, suggestions or solutions on fixing this issue please help by leaving advice on the article's talk page!!

Thanks in advance! Sheepunderscore (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've arranged one of the problematic groups of articles into a gallery. How does it look? Calvin 1998 (t-c) 04:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Solutions for the edit link bunching are listed at WP:BUNCH. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  10:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Can an article be closed to editing?
Can someone make an order prohibiting anyone from making edits? The Detroit article isn't page protected but there is a warning saying the article is "mature" and tells people not to edit the history section. (Polite way of saying "fuck off"). Is this improper? Isn't every article open to editing as long as it is constructive, in good faith, and hopefully referenced?
 * Someone could protect the article, but that would likely be seen as abuse, as, like you said, every article is open to constructive editing, and no article is perfect. However, some people have emotional attachment to their version of the article, not realizing that further edits can only improve. I would discourage them from doing so, but it isn't against any policy per se, I think. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 03:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What s/he is talking about is the hidden comment under the "History" section in the article Detroit, Michigan. It says "PLEASE MAKE FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO "HISTORY OF DETROIT" DAUGHTER ARTICLE for stuff older than 2008.  THIS SECTION IS MATURE up to September 5, 2008."  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs) @  '' 03:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, as in a request to have edits placed on a forked-off article? That's OK... Calvin 1998 (t·c) 04:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The comment originates from this edit and should not be interpreted as an order prohibiting anyone from making edits. Detroit, Michigan is a summary section for History of Detroit, Michigan. Some editors keep piling stuff on summary sections instead of editing the corresponding full article and this sounds like a reaction to that. The summary section already looks long and probably shouldn't be extended with more things from the history of Detroit, but changing other details might be OK. I don't know enough about Detroit to say whether some existing things could reasonably be removed to make space for other things, but it's a featured article so you should probably be careful and maybe discuss on the talk page if you want to remove things. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've re-worded the comment for clarity (and lower-cased it for accessibility). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 13:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work. The previous version did, unintentionally, convey an unnecessary "fuck off" message. Yours is far better. AndyJones (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As an article improves, progressively fewer Wikipedia editors have the skills and knowledge to improve it further. When an article reaches featured status, there may only be a handful of editors who could still improve it. Think of a community art project, where everybody gets to throw paint at a wall. At first, lots of people could "improve" a blank wall, but once some real art starts to take shape, eventually only a few really good artists could make it better. As an article on Wikipedia gets better, one way or another it has to get a lot less welcoming for all but the best editors, if the article is to maintain its quality. Fortunately, on Wikipedia only a tiny percentage of articles are that good yet. There are enough backlogged tasks to keep editors at every skill level busy for years. Less fortunately, it seems lots of people are more interested in editing particular topics (whose articles may or may not need help) than in directing their efforts to Wikipedia's areas of greatest need. The popularity of various articles probably follows something like a power law or Pareto distribution, with a few popular articles getting lots of attention, and at the other end we have vast numbers of obscure articles which get few views or edits. Incidentally, if anyone is tired of edit warring and wants to see their work "stick," try editing the most obscure, initially low-quality articles you can find. (Check an article's history; look for articles that have languished a long time with few edits.) It's usually easy to improve a poor-quality article, and if it is also a neglected article, your edits are more likely to stick. --Teratornis (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello
I am testing at the sandbox and I keep getting lots of edit conflicts. Can anyone specify A quieter time? 89.242.19.188 (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sadly, that will always happen with the sandbox, since thousands of people use it. You can always just make test editson your own talk page though, and no one will conflict with you there.  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs) @  '' 04:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec, ironically) Or you can make your changes in the sandbox's edit window, but click show preview to see how the page would look but not save the edit. You'll never get an edit conflict that way.  W ODU P  08:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps welcome messages should include a link to /sandbox, so that each user has their own? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 13:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

New pages in a category
Is there any way to find out the new added pages of a certain category or several categories in recent days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.73.153.32 (talk) 08:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See Help:Category. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  11:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Signature problems
Hi,

I'm trying to get a new signature that links to the WP:SIMPLE and WP:P&G pages automatically, in a clever and aesthetic way. I'm getting the error message when I try to save "Invalid raw signature; check HTML tags." The text I'm using is:

WLU (talk) Wiki's simple rulesWiki's complex rules

Which shows up as:WLU (talk) Wiki's simple rulesWiki's complex rules

but when I test it, I get what's showing up here. Any suggestions? I've tried checking and unchecking the Raw signature box, for naught. WLU (talk) Wiki's simple rulesWiki's complex rules 12:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Try this, with the tags inside the links.


 * WLU (talk) Wiki's simple rulesWiki's complex rules


 * It's probably because of the tags being outside the wikilinks. Chamal    Talk 12:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, that causes all sorts of trouble. All tags have to be inside the wikilinks or they don't work (as I know from experience with my signature!!) --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here ) 13:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Lovely, thanks. Is it just me, or does that completely contradict this?  I'll test in a bit.  &#91;&#91;User:WLU&#124;WLU&#93;&#93; &#91;&#91;User talk:WLU&#124;(talk)&#93;&#93; &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;&#91;&#91;WP:SIMPLE&#124;Wiki&#39;s simple rules&#93;&#93;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&#91;&#91;WP:P&amp;G&#124;Wiki&#39;s complex rules&#93;&#93;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, some tags can be placed outside. It's probably preferable, but I leave them inside to be sure they'll work. Also, make sure you check the box below your signature in your preferences, or it won't view it as a raw signature. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here ) 02:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've finally, after several hours of trying, managed to get it to work. From a WHOLE BUNCH of testing and fiddling, the problem seemed to be the  &  in the WP:P&G link I tried to include. Moved the markup tags inside, outside of the tags, I changed the link and that was the only thing that let me save my raw preferences. So, for what it's worth, don't include any punctuation if you want a fancy signature. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules simple / complex 02:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Sometimes I wonder how much better Wikipedia could be if all the millions of hours of labor that has gone into fiddling with signatures (which only has the effect of wasting yet more labor by making talk page comments that much harder to decipher) instead went into improving the encyclopedia. --Teratornis (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't argue with you there, but my signature has a message. Take that vandals, now you've got no excuse!
 * My other excuse is "how else would I have learned what a hex triplet is"? WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules  (simplified)  03:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

JMU, Rankings, Forbes.com
Forbes.com ranks JMU 22nd in the nation among public colleges. I am trying to cite this. If I had an email address for an editor I could forward the Forbes article from the August 2008 edition. Can you give me an email address to forward this to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockx (talk • contribs) 13:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have set an e-mail address in your User preferences, you can exchange e-mails with other users through the Wikipedia user interface. To do that, visit your correspondent's user page and follow the "E-mail this user" link in the "toolbox" on the left-side navigation menu. The e-mail address you entered in your user preferences will appear as the "From" address of the mail, so the recipient will be able to reply.
 * However, why don't you simply use the hyperlink to that article?
 * Cheers mate!
 * &Lambda; u  α  (Operibus anteire) 14:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, what the other editor's fact is asking for is a citation to the Forbes article in the JMU article. —teb728 t c 17:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Especially since Forbes seems to be ranking it at 195. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  19:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Linking User Pages
I've made my account global, recently, and I don't feel like making tons of other user wikis. Is it possible to just link my name to my Wikipedia user page? Specifically my Commons one? I haven't made a Commons user page yet. But also not just signatures, like in the information of images I've uploaded. Thanks for helping. Helixer (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't (as yet) make your contributions on Commons link directly to your en.wiki userpage, but you can link to it from your Commons userpage. You could use commons:Template:Notify me, for example. Algebraist 18:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want you can do as I've done on other wikis and use the Softredirect template on each user page outside of your main one. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try the soft redirect for know. Thanks! Helixer  (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * After I figured out how to use it, it works really well. Thanks again! Helixer  (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Any way to change the default search language at www.wikipedia.org main page?
It seems that the top page (www.wikipedia.org) defaults the language of my search to my local language (Finnish), based on my IP I guess...

I rarely use the Finnish Wikipedia and the new feature is really a major annoyance for a long time user. It just seems impossible for me to learn a new way to enter English Wikipedia by going directly to en.wikipedia.org. :/ Is there any way to default the search to English Wikipedia instead of the local language? Couldn't find any information about this by searching.

Turre (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Try bookmarking en.wikipedia.org instead of www.wikipedia.org. —teb728 t c 18:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple suggestion, but I'm looking for some other way to do this. I prefer not to use bookmarks. Turre (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if that works, but did you try altering the language in your preferences ? Equendil Talk 19:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried that, but it only affects the language of en.wikipedia.org Turre (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that just typing in en.wikipedia.org will work because on holiday in Greece I was able to access the en.wiki from there internet cafes so I dont see why it shouldnt work. If it doesnt then your best bet is to go onto google and search for it, google will then take you onto en.wikipedia without any questions asked at all. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I know going directly to en.wikipedia.org works, but I'm looking for a way to default all searches from www.wikipedia.org to English Wikipedia. I guess there is no simple way to do that... I wish there was a cookie or something that would remember the last setting used. Turre (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why go to www.wikipedia.org or en.wikipedia.org at all, if all you want to do is search? You could install the en.wikipedia search bar directly in your browser, or use a bookmark that allows you to do the same thing in the address bar (this is in FF; I don't know about other browsers). Algebraist 21:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What if you browse through a proxy server based in an English-speaking country (England, US, Canada, etc)? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Why don't you like bookmarks? What browser are you using? --Teratornis (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing Leeds
Evening Wikipedia,

FANtastic job on wikipedia but there's a really specific thing I need to know and here goes.

On the page 'Leeds', I'd love to be able to change the population so that it says

Primary Urban Area: 457,247 Metropolitan: 761,100 Urban: 1,499,465 Leeds City Region: 2,125,000

I can provide evidence for all these if needed. I just don't know how. Every time I've tried to do it, it's always been deleted.

Please get back to me on (redacted)

I'm so untrained in Wikipedia talk.

Yours sincerely

Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubs uk (talk • contribs) 19:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tom - thanks for the message. I've removed your email address (this page is quite visible on the internet, so you don't want to be posting your personal email all over it). Whereabouts it your source for this information? Can you post a link either here, on my talk page or on your talk page? GbT/c 19:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Some Wiki Browser
I read something on a Wikipedia page about a special browser for browsing Wikipedia where did I read it? --Melab±1 19:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Gollum browser? --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  19:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Or AutoWikiBrowser for editing (user authorisation required)? – ukexpat (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Look on the Editor's index, for example WP:EIW. You can also search the Wikipedia: namespace with Google custom:
 * which finds a bunch of pages that the Editor's index already lists, but sometimes a Google search finds more stuff. --Teratornis (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * which finds a bunch of pages that the Editor's index already lists, but sometimes a Google search finds more stuff. --Teratornis (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How do I execute JS
How do I execute Javascript in my monobook.js page? It says if it is a .js page it will be executed. --Melab±1 19:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you tried Bypassing your cashe?
 * Cheers mate!
 * &Lambda; u  α  (Operibus anteire) 20:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything in your monobook.js will be executed as javascript when viewing any page on en.wikipedia with the monobook (default) skin enabled. At a quick glance (and as someone who doesn't know javascript), you seem to have a bunch of functions and nothing telling them to execute. Algebraist 20:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the MD5 hash js. -- Melab±1 22:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Article count
The top of the Main Page of the English Wikipedia says that there are 2,406,797 articles! The bottom of the page says there are 2,544,785 articles. Which is right? Both link to the statistics pages, which lists the figure at the top? Did you really delete over 100,000 articles?SPNic (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That number is given using the magic word which looks like this: . For some reason there is a difference on the main page but it seems the later is correct. Scottydude review 21:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The number at the top uses Actual number of articles which subtracts disambiguation pages to give a more accurate number. The bottom number is just all articles given by the magic word stated above. Hope this helps. Scottydude review 21:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * also subtracts 1 for the main page. Unfortunately, the subtraction of disambigs uses PAGESINCATEGORY, which is unreliable. Algebraist 21:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Recovering an account / username
I had a username that I really liked, User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris, but made the password too secure and didn't have email enabled. Is there any way to revive it? That account name was openly associated with my RL identity (as is my present account), so I can verify that I'm the actual owner of that account in case it matters. I think this is a long shot but thought I'd ask. Thanks - Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid nothing can be done. Algebraist 22:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I guessed that would be the case. Is there any way I could create a very similar username with a slight variation of punctuation or capitalization, say Short Brigade Harvester "Boris" or something like that? Usually the system kicks out usernames that are too close to existing names but WP:ACC suggests it might be possible. Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, any admin can bypass that feature, and you can request that this be done at WP:ACC. Or you could request that your current account be renamed at WP:CHU. Algebraist 22:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)