Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 February 21

= February 21 =

Persondata
Is there a way to find person articles needing meta templates? Mjpresson (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not that I can find. A good start would be a category that lists all articles whose talk pages have the |needs-persondata = yes parameter set in WPBiography. Any chance that a template expert can edit that template to automatically populate a new Category:Biography articles without persondata category? – ukexpat (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked and, lo and behold, a Category:Biography articles without persondata has just been added to the template. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, now that's collaboration! – ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Downtime?
I was unable to access any Wikimedia websites starting at about 01:20 UTC, recieving only Wikimedia Foundation error messages or perpetual "Waiting for en.wikipedia.org" from Firefox. Did anyone else have this problem, and if so know what the cause was? Xenon54 (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The server admin log has some technospeak that suggests everything was down. Algebraist 02:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a file server problem. Log on to #wikipedia on IRC next time for updates! P retzels Talk! 04:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * hmmm... interesting reading. Guess Brion had an event filled evening. ;) Oh well, a little wiki-withdraw never hurt anyone I guess .. lulz — Ched (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What does Wikipedia say about periods at the end of caption-sentences?
Is there a general rule whether or not captions of images should be placed a period at the end. I actually noted that many articles are inconsistent, meaning some pictures have the period, some don't&mdash;even within the same articles. Since I plan to do some clean-up tonight, I thought I'd ask which is preferred (period or no period?). I don't know if I stated this clearly! --Pgecaj (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends on whether the caption contains a complete sentence. See MOS:CAPTIONS. — TKD:: Talk  04:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A question for template hackers
Is there any way to strip the square brackets from the values in a parameter?

So why am I asking. I was using #titleparts: for passing a string array, which is a great hack for numbers or plain text but it doesn't like square brackets for some reason. So it's pretty useless for general purposes.

If this is the wrong place to axe, can someone point me in the direction where the guys hang out that enjoy such things?-J JMesserly (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not even a pointer? There must be some user pages somewhere that people chat about his sort of thing.  Mediawiki is too specific to particular functions.  I need a place to ask the general question because I have no idea which if any wikitext feature I could use to do this.  -J JMesserly (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:VPT, maybe? I don't think this is possible though. Algebraist 02:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Templates can do some intricate things, but in terms of string processing, MediaWiki's template syntax has disappointed me in the past. It seems far below the capabilities of any popular scripting language such as Perl or Python or even any Unix shell (how far can anyone get without regular expression search and replace?). If you are asking about templates on Wikipedia, there are further disappointments as Wikipedia does not have all possible string-processing extensions installed (too demanding of the servers, I guess). As far as where the template gurus hang out, I agree that WP:VPT would be a better bet than the Help desk. Be sure to set aside several months to read everything linked from WP:EIW. There is a WikiProject Templates, hopefully some template experts are active there. --Teratornis (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer, I'll take it up with them. No pressing need- I just keep stumbling over this problem.  You are correct- in addition, from what I read from the discussions on the matter, apparently the string function extensions that exist on some wikimedia sites did not meet technical quality standards for foundation wikis.  In case you are interested, you could vote for 6455.  The fallback position is always Bots, of course.  But then what you wind up is multiple parameters, and less readable wikitext for human editors.  Nonetheless I agree with the conservative approach of the tech staff.  Proceed extremely cautiously with additions of further program functions.  Better that we have fast servers and a stable system for all until it there are some extremely compelling reasons for adding the functionality and the risk of negative consequences for general users is extremely low.  There were some lovely Lisp and Smalltalk based object oriented knowledgebases back in the 80s and 90s, but they required big machines and still ran very very slowly.  We really don't need to go there.  Regards, -J JMesserly (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are probably aware of Semantic MediaWiki, but if not, there's the link. As to my wishlist for fancy toys, I'll be happy if we can get a tool that makes it possible to add footnote citations with just a click on the page you want to cite. Currently it takes about a dozen browser tab swaps to copy and paste everything to fill out a citation template, so the majority of Wikipedia users refuse to use them, opting for the simplest possible "bare" citation. Google scholar cite is great when it works, but it only works occasionally. --Teratornis (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

probe selection.
1. what is the factor consider in probe selection? 2. in manual conventional ut, only 70 deg, 60 deg, 45 deg and 0 deg. TR and normal. why not other degree like 50 deg or other?
 * This help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. You might want to try asking your question at the reference desk. If you do, make sure you provide enough context for people to know what in God's name you're talking about. Algebraist 10:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Objection to Subcategory of Category:Indian fascists
I strongly object the inclusion of a popular Indian political party in:

Category:Indian fascists Subcategories This category has only the following subcategory. [+] Bharatiya Janata Party politicians (1)
 * I've removed Category:Indian fascists from the Category:Bharatiya Janata Party politicians page. That should take care of it. Deor (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

About Semiconductor memories
Can you send me a complete 6hours lecture note on semiconductor memories for Engineering third year level? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kajis (talk • contribs)
 * Hello Kajis. I have removed your personal informaiton, please do not include email or other contact details, as announced at the top of this page. We do not reply by email to posts made here. As for your question, no, sorry, we are an encyclopedia, not a place to ask for classroom notes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

wier-tapping
I was recorded with what was said to be an answering machine, the recording was eddited from the other woman and certain words I said. Admitted in Court before playing that it had been transfered TWICE, yet the Judge allowed it to be played, I was given a Protection from Abuse Order against me. A severly handicaped woman of 58 years old. what are my options, I already appealed the judge wrote against me by referring to the tape that the transcripts never picked up. Nancy
 * This page is for help with using Wikipedia. I recommend you ask an expert. Lots of countries have places that offer free legal advice from people who actually know what they're talking about. Don't trust a random stranger on the internet to give a true answer, especially when they don't know the entire story. - Mgm|(talk) 11:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We aren't allowed to give legal advice here, even if we had someone who knows what they are talking about. Xenon54 (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was telling the poster about actual organizations that give free legal advise. They can do it. - Mgm|(talk) 16:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

King's College London Coat of Arms
The quality of the King's College Coat of Arms is really bugging me. The image is of poor quality compared to other university arms, such as Royal Holloway, Cambridge, Glasgow etc. I was wondering how this image could be improved. I had a quick look on the King's College Corporate identity webiste, but could not find a high quality version of the arms. Could somebody knock up an SVG perhaps? I would have a go, but frankly paint is about my limit. 79.75.221.27 (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As a member of WP:HV, I can tell you that copyright on such arms is usually fairly complicated, because of several factors, and lower-quality images are used in order to satisfy fair use. As is stated on the current image's page:"This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law." So no-one creates them for fear of breaching that, which they would. Some universities do release their 'logos' into the public domain, but that's their choice. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Copying text from another article and preserving the GFDL terms
If I want to copy a paragraph, sentence, etc. from another article, I presume I should put something in the edit summary -- is just a wikilink to the other article and a statement that the text comes from that article sufficient? I've looked for guidance about this several times and never found any. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is considered sufficient by Wikipedia. Help:Merging and moving pages mentions the edit summary "merge content from article name". PrimeHunter (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was hoping it would be enough. I wouldn't have thought of looking at a page on merging. Any suggestions as to any other pages where it might appropriately be added? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For the opposite of merging, Splitting mentions the edit summary "split content from article name". I don't know whether it's mentioned elsewhere or where it would be relevant to mention it. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I usually go to the history, and copy the link to the specific revision of the article that i took the copied text from. That is the most accurate that you can get, and if anyone ever reads trough the history in say 10 years to find something specific, he might even have a chance of succeeding. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 22:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Change and rename the title of my article
Having made a mistake when creating this page, I would like to change and rename the title of my article. Could you give me the best way forward to change and rename the title of this page. Thank you in advance for your help.--Paulzabouri (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Much of your article, currently at User:Paulzabouri, is directly copied, with only minimal changes, from this PDF document and the ICMM Web site. It won't be ready to be renamed by moving it into article space until it's completely rewritten in a nonplagiaristic manner. I suggest that you work on it some more, by which time you will have made enough edits (10) to be able to move it to article space yourself, by using the "move" tab that will appear at the top of User:Paulzabouri. Deor (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Copyvios are not permitted even in user space. I have tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyvio. – ukexpat (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Primary page & disambiguation
Hello! I'm trying to decide on an appropriate course of action for disambiguating the abbreviation SYK. At this instance, the abbreviation leads to page on an enzyme called Spleen tyrosine kinase. In Finland, on the other hand, the abbreviation is a well-known reference to an educational institution. I find a number of problems to be fixed here: (1) The name of the enzyme article is its abbreviation, not the name of the enzyme itself; (2) the reference to the educational institution seems to qualify as the primary article, since it is commonly recognized in Finland and used consistently by the media, whereas the enzyme article requires sophistication; (3) there must be plenty of subjects in Wikipedia that have reference to this abbreviation. It seems to me that the name of the enzyme article should be changed and a disambiguation page created. Am I correct?  m a s quer a i d  15:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A disambiguation page is not needed when there are only two articles. I have added hatnotes to Syk and Helsingin Suomalainen Yhteiskoulu, and redirected SYK to the latter. If you want to change the name of the enzyme article then see Requested moves. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't fully agree. The key issue is what English speaking people would do as this is the English Wikipedia. The enzyme doesn't require sophistication. It's called Syk because it's encoded by a SYK gene. Helsingin Suomalainen Yhteiskoulu gives no indication where the K comes from. Also the enzyme is called Syk while the institution is called SYK. There shouldn't be a problem to begin with. - Mgm|(talk) 15:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it masqueraid or my edits you don't agree with? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * masqueraid. Your solution seems the most elegant. - Mgm|(talk) 16:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your solution is good, PrimeHunter. But Mgm, let me clarify the issue at hand here, because I think there's a misunderstanding: before the changes made by PrimeHunter, people searching for the school with its abbreviation would have not found their way to the article they were looking for. Both articles absolutely have grounds to be connected to the abbreviation, and I don’t think it is fair to say that its connection to the school would be of smaller significance since the origin of the ‘K’ is not obvious or since the name of the school is in Finnish. In fact, anybody acquainted with the major educational institutions of Finland would primarily know this school by its abbreviation, just as anyone familiar with the enzyme would know both its full name and its abbreviation. The school and the enzyme are equal as articles that both have a full name corresponding to the same abbreviation; as such, there is no reason for one taking precedence over the other.  m a s quer a i d  16:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary for new sections
When using the "new section" command that appears on talk pages, is it possible to change the default edit summary? Thanks in advance. MartinMsgj 15:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No. If you want another edit summary then edit the whole page or the last section, add the heading inside == ... ==, and write an edit summary. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After you hit the New Section button, it is technically possible for you to overwrite the prefilled text that appears in the edit summary box with something else. But this is not desirable because the section pointer (the small right arrow that precedes the section name in the edit history) will no longer be linked to the section you just created. See Help:Edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect you are confusing the automatic "new section" edit summary with the editable prefilled edit summary when clicking "edit" to the right of a section. There is no edit summary box when you click "new section" like in . PrimeHunter (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right. A whole different issue! EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I read somewhere a while back about a tool/script that allowed users (maybe adminz only - I don't know) to edit actual edit summaries. I didn't bookmark it, cause I figure if I want to change something - it's just as easy to do a null edit, and post an edit summary - that way I'm not messing with history. — Ched (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See meta:Help:Edit summary and Help:Import. It appears this cannot be used to change edit summaries in Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Why post rumors?
Dear, Mr.Wales or whomeever

Why do you post rumors? I just curious, if John Cena were engaged it would be mentioned on WWE.Com, WWE Magazine, it would have come from him himself, and it would be in People Magazine, US Magazine, it would be on ET, Access Hollywood, Eonline the legit entertainment news channels it is just a rumor that is so all over the internet he has been quoted that he has no time for a realationship being that he is in a different city everynight, so he is currently single and again if it were true, then he would would have made a public announcement and it would be on the offical site for all things WWE and their roaster, just like the Undertaker is dating Michelle Mcool, yeah don't think so, so you might want to stop reporting false information and rumors because some of your knowledge is misinfomend and untrue and not printed correctly, heck you screwed up a story on Thomas Edison so your just another rumor mill web site, he should sue!


 * Are you referring to John Cena which says: "In an interview with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Cena is currently engaged and intends to marry later in the year. "?


 * Seattle Post-Intelligencer is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia, and the article there says: Cena's engaged and said: "I'm gonna get married this year."
 * Do you have a current source saying he is single? I'm not American, have never heard of him, and don't know whether so many sources would report on his status. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article specifically said that it was mentioned in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. If it turns out not to be true, that is something for the editors of the article to discuss. Newspapers can make mistakes too (just like what you call the legit entertainment newschannels by the way). You'd have to come with better proof. By the way, suing someone for inaccurately reporting your engagement would be ridiculous; you'd suffer no reasonable emotional or financial damage. 0- Mgm|(talk) 16:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) - I would be more inclined to put more faith in the "news" articles. WWE.com is more of a promotional site for their entertainment shows.  They often will write their articles to reflect the various kayfabe the story-lines are proceeding along.  Wikipedia articles reflect a more "real life" thing.  I don't know about the actual events since I haven't followed that stuff since Cena was doing that rap thing though. — Ched (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note many of wwe employees carry their kayfabe story-lines beyond the ring. I remember when Andy Kaughman and Jerry Lawler had everyone going with a skit they perpetuated - even through some of the late-night talk shows.  It's entertainment, and often difficult to distinguish fact from fiction in this genre. I'd also doubt Cena would be interested in any legal actions, if anything - he'd probably be glad for any media attention that he'd get. — Ched (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

plz solve my problem
Good evening sir,

iam pavan from hyderabad sir iam a regular reader of ur website..... sir ihave a problem with the website www.te.wikipedia.org iam  not able to see the telugu words....after u have given instructions to see the script  in telugu but after all the download and instructions  followed by us....iam not able to see the website can u help me plz....... plz reply me to my EMAIL : [email removed to prevent spam]

thank u sir,

pavan


 * The top of http://www.te.wikipedia.org says: "Not able to view the Telugu script? Click Here". See also Help:Multilingual support (Indic). Does that help? If not then what is your browser and version? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

you guys dont have a good idea
why do you guys let people edit your stuff i think its a dumb idea because people can add untrue things and other people who come here are being penalized for that you guys disgust me and i will make sure no one i know comes here anymore!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.97.128 (talk)


 * See Replies to common objections. Criticism of Wikipedia and Reliability of Wikipedia may also be of interest. If you want full control of what you write then write it on your own website. Is there something in a specific article that has upset you? We may be able to help with that. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, people who come here to read articles won't be penalized unless they copy the text for an essay or something without doing the proper checks on where the information came from. You should not trust stuff you read blindly - that goes for any website (and book and newspaper and magazine) including Wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 21:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to how the original poster plans to "make sure no one i know comes here anymore." Even the Chinese government can only make Wikipedia somewhat less convenient to access. Making the would-be censor's job even harder, Wikipedia's content gets mirrored and copied on many sites, including in Google search results. It would be pretty tough to shield the tender eyes of any Internet user from all traces of our nefarious site, and it keeps getting tougher as the Wikipedia juggernaut continues to roll and grow. --Teratornis (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Tag for article with non-encyclopedic lists
According to WP:NOTDIR, wikipedia articles shouldn't have gratuitous lists. If a page has offensive lists, what tag should I place at the top of the article to identify it for cleanup? Thanks, Inasilentway (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can find a suitable template on: Template messages/Lists or Template messages/Maintenance. You may want to put wikipedia template messages on your user page for handy reference when you want to look up a template message to slap on an article. If you have a problem with a specific article, you could discuss it on the article's talk page. Template messages tend to be general, and may not provide enough details about your complaint to guide other editors on how to fix it. After all, if other people could recognize and understand the problem, they would have already fixed it. If the template you add does not describe the problem clearly enough for someone who has never heard of the issue before, add more explanation on the talk page. --Teratornis (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See also Category:List cleanup maintenance templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * An offensive list? Now I'm curious. I can't think of any offensive lists that don't have a useful purpose. - Mgm|(talk) 21:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind Wikipedia is not censored. - Mgm|(talk) 21:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Inasilentway simply meant "offensive to the sensibilities of anyone who thinks that WP:TRIVIA should be respected." Deor (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen multiple lists that some consider trivial yet are totally acceptable in the Wikipedia sense because we cover more than traditional encyclopedias. Without a title we have nothing to go on. - Mgm|(talk) 11:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

check me
Someone want to check me on this. I didn't rv. as vandalism, cause it may have been AGF edit. I moved to talk page with note - are there better links to use than ones I cited on talk page. Original edit appears to be new user - I dropped welcome template, and was going to drop a note on the edit I did with links. Thx. — Ched (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What you did looks fine to me. It might have been a good faith confusion with another William Hanson, who wrote a guide to coming out for gay men, but since that was first published in 1991 (when this article's Hanson was c.two years old) it can't be the same guy. Or it might have been vandalism. In any case, BLP means everything in the article should be cited; since that wasn't, I think you did quite right to remove it. Links you included seem fine too. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I know BLP issues are serious, and there's even a bold text about not moving to talk page about contentious statements. I'm not even sure if saying someone is gay is considered contentious.  I guess some are proud of it their sexuality.  Appreciate you taking the time to check my edits. — Ched (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC) (rephrased) — Ched (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess contention's always in the eye of the beholder, so maybe it's just my personal mores that mean I see the claim as less than eyeopening ;) Still, as a hunch, this edit was plausible enough and innocuous enough to be tolerable on the talkpage: there's also the grounds for possible legit confusion given the other Hanson, so I'd say it's harmless enough where it is. Gonzonoir (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Printing
I am using XP and IE 7 Sometimes when I go to print an article some of the pages come out blank and the flow of text is missing. I have been using your printable version option as well as the print option in IE itself

Can I overcome this?


 * See . It does not happen with IE8RC1, FireFox or Chrome. I see it with IE7 and have not been able to find a fix. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  22:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) :Somebody reported a very similar problem earlier this week, in a section above: Help_desk. As an interim solution, creating a PDF of the article was suggested. But perhaps the editor who helped out with that could help you here too. Gonzonoir (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! You were that previous helpful editor. Thanks, Gadget. Gonzonoir (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See for the solution. --——  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  12:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)