Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 September 10

= September 10 =

Searching for template documentation
I ran across this template in an article:

which displays this:

Unencyclopedic

So I decided to look at the documentation to see if there are any other parameters other than "date=".

I searched for it using these search terms:

Unencyclopedic

Wikipedia:Unencyclopedic

Template:Unencyclopedic

None of which brought me to the documentation for the template.

I even looked in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AllPages&namespace=10 -- No luck.

Two questions: first, where is the documentation for this specific template? Second, what is the correct syntax for searching that will find anything with " " around it? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Unencyclopedic is a redirect, the actual template is at Template:NOT. Besides the "date" parameter, it also accepts the argument "section", which if included will change the text from "this article" to "this section".  -- Jayron  32  03:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Template:Unencyclopedic was the correct search term. It takes you to Template:NOT but at the top it says "(Redirected from Template:Unencyclopedic)" if you came from there. If you click the Edit tab at top of a page then the bottom of the window will show links to all transcluded pages such as templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you make it harder to tell you your search engine is broken?
I tried to search for "sweet", you know, the band. What I get is "sweetness".

Now about contacting you, I have now lost all respect! Everything I thought wikipedia (yeah that's lower case) was is gone. The bureaucrateese I witnessed just to get to this point kills my faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.203.173.71 (talk • contribs)

I have said my peace, now how do I send this?
 * At the top of the article is a line that reads ""Sweet" redirects here. For other uses, see Sweet (disambiguation). Click the blue words that say Sweet (disambiguation).  That should help you find what you want.  -- Jayron  32  03:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup, follow the link - we have an article, complete with glam-rock band photo, history of the band, and link to Sweet discography, which in turn brings back some old memories: "Wig-Wam Bam" etc... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You have sent it to the right place. Here are three ways to find the article you wanted via the search box:
 * 1) Enter Sweet in the search box, click "For other uses, see Sweet (disambiguation)", and then Sweet (band).
 * 2) Write "Sweet" in the search box but instead of pressing enter, click on Sweet (band) in the dropdown box below the search box.
 * 3) Write "Sweet" in the search box but instead of pressing enter, click on "containing... Sweet" at the bottom of the dropdown box, and then click on Sweet (band) in the search results.
 * PrimeHunter (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And (giving my age away), I recall that they were often referred to as The Sweet - which links straight to our platform-booted, dayglow-catsuited longhaired friends... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you had difficulty finding the Help Desk. If you have some suggestions to make it easier, please start a discussion at Talk:Help desk. --ColinFine (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies/rules/regulations
With Wikipedia:Ignore all rules claiming that there are rules and it stating elsewhere that there arent any rules, its confusing. A simpler way would be to have only 3 rules: mysterytrey  (talk)  04:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) If a policy prevents you from improving/maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.  Like WP:IAR, but changed to Wikipedia:Ignore all policies.
 * 2) Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
 * 3) Wikipedia is for the readers, not the editors.
 * Policies are rules. Otherwise, the only rules I follow are WP:IAR and WP:DBAD.  Everything else is a derivative of those two.  -- Jayron  32  04:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia give money for article
I want to know whether wikipedia gives money for article posting by users ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.190.228.38 (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No. -- Jayron  32  04:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * For more information, please see WP:VOLUNTEER.--Shantavira|feed me 08:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Chandler
Jeff Chandler - Personal Info - Esther Williams stated in her biography that he was a cross dresser. She later recanted this statement and said she did it to sell books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.208.247 (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Has the recantation been published anywhere? -- John of Reading (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Has the recantation been published anywhere? -- John of Reading (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Has the recantation been published anywhere? -- John of Reading (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixing common errors


Hi. I'm aware that AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes cleverly fixes common MOS-related errors.

I also imagine individual editors use AWB to fix their 'pet hates'.

But is there a place - similar to AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes - where one could add fixes to common grammatical faults, such that one can let AWB fix the errors as it goes, without further intervention by an individual editor? Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * AWB users can fix many typos and a few grammar errors by turning on a typo-fixing option which is configured at AutoWikiBrowser/Typos. You can make suggestions at the talk page. You can also add to the list at Lists of common misspellings/Grammar and Misc.


 * AWB users are required to check the proposed spelling fixes before saving; typo and grammar fixing is too subtle to be done blindly. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful reply. Over & out for this page. Trafford09 (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving section
How do you move a section and ensure that it's copyright status is okay? If I recall correctly you can't just copy/paste but more is required. I would like to move the Sea_turtle section into the article Cheloniidae whre it makes logical sense too be. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You are correct, you must provide proper attribution when copying material from one article to another. Copying within Wikipedia contains an explanation on how to do this. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (e/c) What you are doing is a merge of content from one article to another. See Help:Merging. The important part is that anyone looking at the page histories be able to follow where the content was merged to in the former, and merged from in the latter. So, upon you removal from Sea turtle, your edit summary should state what you are doing with a wikilink to the merge target, e.g.,  and when you add the section to Cheloniidae,  . Looking at Toshio's response above and rereading your question, I'm not clear whether you are removing the content or just copying it across, but you'll see it's the same in essence: noting where the content came from with a link so that there's clear attribution.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Web services
I've run into several listings in the DFW are for web design.

One was in Manila, the other in Illinois.

The "Don't Pay Me Anything Unless You Like It" demanded $500 up-front. His work justified that. Problem is, it wasn't his work.

Consider a caution at the top of the section, "WARNING:   those offering services may not be local,  investigate references thoroughly."

Thanks!


 * I guess "DFW are" means the Dallas–Fort Worth area. This is a help desk for the encyclopedia Wikipedia. Are you referring to a Wikipedia page? Please give a link to it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for Simplification
It would be nice if every wikipedia article had a section at the beginning which would give a short one or two sentence description of the definition of a complex thing in very simplistic language. So simple that even a complete novice could have some general idea what the object or thing being defined was. For example this article defines UEFI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_Interface

Perhaps a note at the top that said "This is a piece of hardware that allows a computer's operating system to talk to the rest of the computer's hardware. 86.174.58.17 (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Notice that some of the words in that first sentence are blue links to other Wikipedia articles. If a particular reader doesn't understand what the terms mean, a click or two will jump to the page where it is defined. If you register an account you can enable navigation popups in your preferences; with that turned on you will be able to see the first sentence of each linked article just by hovering over the blue link.
 * Notice that some of the words in that first sentence are blue links to other Wikipedia articles. If a particular reader doesn't understand what the terms mean, a click or two will jump to the page where it is defined. If you register an account you can enable navigation popups in your preferences; with that turned on you will be able to see the first sentence of each linked article just by hovering over the blue link.


 * That said, there are doubtless many articles here where the first sentences don't give a good introduction. If you find examples, you would be welcome to improve them yourself or to tag them with Context so that other editors are made aware of the problem. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Maren Jensen Page
Regarding Maren Jensen

I represent Maren Jensen for over 30 years now. She did not pose for Playboy Magazine or ever shoot a possible story or photos for Playboy. Whomever has added this entry is marketing for Playboy or has malicious intent. Please remove this content otherwise legal action will be sought pursued toward the author of the content.

Thank you, Tom Hahn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toptom27 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the sentence, as it was unsourced. Looking into the article history, there was a source cited for this at one time, but I doubt very much that it could be considered in any way 'reliable'. If you represent Jensen, you should probably read WP:COI before making any edits to the article yourself, though removal of unsourced negative content like this is probably acceptable. We cannot of cours prevent you taking legal action, but I suggest that you read WP:NLT too. If you need to raise such matters again, our Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is probably a better place to do so - it is likely to get dealt with more quickly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, looking at the 'source' cited, it referenced Wikipedia in turn, so obviously wasn't the originator of this rumour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The unsourced claims were originally added by a user only identified by their IP address. Thank you for notifying us of the problem. No legal threats is a policy against making legal threats in public at Wikipedia. Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) has a mail address you can use if you want to express legal concerns. The page says: "If you have specific legal concerns about the article, then please put Legal concerns in the subject line. Please note that this may delay response, as we may have to involve legal staff." But mails with legal threats are not required to get vandalism about living people removed. I will watch the article to check the vandalism isn't readded. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What edit summary should I use here?
I want to undo this addition. I wouldn't call it vandalism, but what should I then use for the edit summary? --Mortense (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just specify why you remove something so that other users understand it. In this case one example edit summary might be "remove as unsourced", since negative information about a living person has to be sourced. Regards  So Why  21:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the right place for this RFC?
RFC bot just added a discussion I started to Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture. I am not sure however if that is the right place for the discussion. Can someone take a look and is there perhaps a more appropriate place for this RFC? Would Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines be more appropriate? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think so yeah, I don't see anything related to entertainment in it. It might even be better to just post this as a normal discussion in Village pump (proposals)‎.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   22:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Rating Web Pages


Why doesn't the ratings section on the bottom of the page show other choices other than: Trustworthy, Objective, Complete and Well-written? Why isn't there choice like completely wrong, and other choices the show the ignorance of what was written. A prime example of this is the page titled: "Antisemitism and the New Testament", whoever wrote this propaganda had to have been deliberately trying to deceive people. It is written like Matthew, Mark and all the others were writing things against the Jewish people which is not anywhere near the truth. The anti-semitism in areas where the words that the Apostles wrote was changed at later dates to cause justification of anti-semitism, the only ones at the times they were changed were the only ones that was actually in "control" of the New Covenant books which was the catholic church (which is beside this point).

Also: "Thus, the term "Jews" in the Gospel represents those who deny the resurrection and believe that the disciples stole Jesus's corpse". This is a statement that only an anti-semite would make up. The term "Jews" solely indicated that the "Jewish" people that were left in the land of Israel were from the tribe of Judah. This is the ONLY recognized description of the term "Jews". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.59.86 (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Arguments on the neutrality of an article are resolved elsewhere. The Article Feedback Tool is a statistical quality assessment feature of all articles in Wikipedia and is not intended for that usage. Please try posting on the talk page of the article or the Interfaith work group of WikiProject Religion in which the article falls under.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   02:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The article feedback tool already provides the options you are asking for. You can use the one/two-star choices to give feedback that the article is not trustworthy, objective, and so on. For example, the first star under "Objective" has the description "Heavily biased". -- John of Reading (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Messed up move
Help! I don't know what I did wrong in trying to move Le Mont-Dore to Le Mont-Dore (New Caledonia). There should be two articles, Le Mont-Dore (France) and Le Mont-Dore (New Caledonia). Thanks in advance, Awien (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Le Mont-Dore (France) still exists, so your move didn't break anything. Both articles also have hatnotes that clarify the confusion.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   02:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see what you mean now. When moving a page, the old page automatically becomes a redirect to the new page, hence why Le Mont-Dore became a redirect to Le Mont-Dore (New Caledonia) instead of Le Mont-Dore (France). To avoid further confusion, I have turned the former redirect to a disambiguation page.--   Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   02:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Much better. Thanks! Awien (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the redirect from the talk page and added the WikiProject banner instead. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)