Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive 3

Better pic for Template:Conflict Analysis and Resolution Project?
Can anyone think of a better pic to use for Template:Conflict Analysis and Resolution Project? I haven't been able to find anything... Thanks, Sarsaparilla 04:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Very Confused
I am very much a newbie at Wikipedia, but have been editing some pages. I'm fairly sure I'm doing stuff wrong or that is frowned upon. In an effort to improve my contributions, I sought out Help and Forums. Help is OK, but seems very specific and limited. What I mostly got out of it is to be "bold," which may be bad advice to someone like me. Are there any forums or newsgroups where people are complaining about how other Wikipedia editors are behaving? I could learn a lot about community expectations in a place like that.

I came to this forum with a specific question. I clicked on the link at the top of the page for Wikipedia:Ask a question, and was taken to a personal user page that seemed to have nothing to do with it. There was no mention there of even asking a question, much less any instructions on how to do it.

My question is, when I edited the page Egyptian cobra, the reference I created did not appear properly on the page. I asked why on the Talk Page, but no one has responded (big surprise). I can see no difference in what I wrote there, and other references I have written that worked properly. Can anyone tell me what I did wrong?

Apologies if I'm posting this in the wrong place, or am wasting your time. Prignillius 14:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The reference doesn't show up because there was no reference tag on the page. In general, ref tags are collected and displayed wherever the —  Wen li  (reply here) 04:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy on television character pages
I am currently engaged in the discussion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ernie (Family Guy), which is a four time gag character on Family Guy.


 * 1) When is a reoccurring television character notable enough or reoccurring enough to make a wikipage on?
 * 2) What are the wiki guidelines on television character pages? I can't find them. The closest I can find it television series guidelines. Odessaukrain (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You might look at Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters to get a better understanding of the bigger picture. --Jack Merridew 14:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I changed my vote to merge, based on the deletion policy I found while researching characters. Odessaukrain (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a discussion, not a vote. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Image thumbnails (SVG) do not show up in article
Hello. I don't know if the problem is only on my computer (even tought I tried both browsers I have) but the article Rouïba District, to which I added two images (maps) do not show up, I only get a transparent space, but if I click on the empty spaces, I can normally see those maps. Can someone fix this? BTW: I noticed that all articles using Template:Infobox Algerian District have this problem, which they didn't have before, probably it's because of the template? TIA. --ESCON DITES  15:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen that happen as well, but I'm not sure why. Sometimes when I drill down to see the SVG image, it then shows up when I return to the article page and do a refresh. So perhaps there is a bug with the browser?&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've noticed "blank" images too, sometimes. I don't know what causes this. Maybe try Village pump (techincal) instead? SharkD (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. Sorry guys, I fixed it, the problem was that I changed the infobox without changing the syntax of the articles. --ESCON DITES  12:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

admins gone wild
How do I go about getting some help reining in an admin gone wild? I just had a page I created deleted within seconds of creation when it was pretty obvious that what was intended for the talk page had been pasted to the article page. The admin tagged it and waited no more than a heartbeat before removing the article. I'm all for cleaning out the cruft from the articles but common sense is a good thing too.

Looking at this admin's talk page, other users have had issues with this admin's bravado. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtphokie (talk • contribs) 14:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have not looked at the specifics in your case, but do have some general information for you about handling such events. The first step is to approach the admin civilly to discuss your issues—this is true whether you want to dispute the deletion or question the use of the admin tools. For disputes of the handling of the deletion process, if the admin is not open to discussion, you may pursue deletion review. After talking to the admin about them, questions of admin abuse can be handled through the Dispute resolution and requests for comment procedures. You may make an open, informal complaint about admin abuse at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but it is always recommended that you approach the admin first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. I've approached both the person who tagged the article and the admin.  The tagger has appologized and I'm waiting for a response from the admin.  My concern here is that admins and editors, while well meaning in the cleanup activities, need to slow down and think a little more sometimes.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please consider this from the admin's viewpoint: Studying CSDs in detail might (say) double the amount of time that these deletions take, and there are literally thousands per day. If there is (say) a 1% error rate, it's easy enough for an admin to put the article back, and that's still a lot less work. And yes, that means a bit more work for editors, but it's not an unreasonable tradeoff to make. (I also think you'll get a better reaction if you acknowledge that (a) another editor thought this was CSD material and (b) because of your mistake - pasting talk page info to the article - that it is understandable that someone might not catch the mistake, so (c) would the admin put things where there should be?) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm an admin, and i think we could study them in detail, at least in those cases where it wasnt totally obvious. There are 1,400 admins, and there is almost never a substantial backlog at CSD, none that lasts more than a few hours. Saying we delete 1000 articles a day, there is enough time to do it carefully and properly. (there are backlogs at other processes, but not at CSD--though there were frequent ones a year ago--we have more admins now). People make mistakes, and new comers particularly should not be blamed for them. The continued growth, even the survival,  of WP depends on recruiting new people and not discouraging them.   DGG (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

List of companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange
I'm in the process of fleshing out this list - obviously, the nature of a list like that is that it will always be in flux, but it was wildly incomplete. I'd done some clean-up work already on the similar list for the New York Stock Exchange, which is far more complete.

The two lists have different formats - the TSX list is all on one page, while the NYSE list is sub-divided into multiple alphabetical pages. I'm wondering which would be the preferred format? If the sub-divided approach is preferred, I'm wondering if I can ask for some help in making that change? I'm still pretty new at this and, while I'm confident in doing the things I've been doing - adding companies to the list, checking for existing articles on the companies and piping links accordingly, including the lookup template for the stock symbols, etc. - something that big would be a little out of my comfort zone right now.

Thanks in advance, Mlaffs (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Following the example of Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange (A) and similar articles, it is better if you remove 'List of' from the title of the article. ('List of companies listed..' sounds awkward). Also, not every company name needs to be wikilinked. The NYSE list has a number of black-print (un-linked) companies in cases where a separate article is unlikely to be written. Your approach has been to wikilink every separately-named offering of iShares, for example, even though nearly all of them are redirects to iShares. Why not signal to the reader that there is no separate article in these cases, so they don't waste time clicking? EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, and thanks for the advice. Actually, the NYSE lists need similar pruning - a few my fault, but the vast majority from before I got there. Most of the blank-print companies there are ones with multiple stock symbols. Mlaffs (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Irshmun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshmun (talk • contribs) 23:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Where does the "?" char come from in displayed pages ???
Hey Wikiwizards ..

I could use some assistance. I can't seem to find the magic to make my Wiki behave. At issue: when I enter the following text on a page I get an annoying "$" symbol at the end of some words:

After the script variables are set, the script executes a 'change directory' or 'cd' to set the CWD (current working directory) to the value of $BaseDir. The script then uses the $LockFile variable to check for the presence of a processing 'lockfile'. If a lockfile is found, the script assumes that another copy of the script is running, and it will exit and report the contents of the $LockFile by writing that value to a log

RESULTS in: After the script variables are set, the script executes a 'change directory' or 'cd' to set the CWD (current working directory) to the value of $BaseDir?. The script then uses the $LockFile? variable to check for the presence of a processing 'lockfile'. If a lockfile is found, the script assumes that another copy of the script is running, and it will exit and report the contents of the $LockFile? by writing that value to a log

If I remove the leading $ - I still get a trailing "?" char. I am guessing it must be something upstream, but can't seem to find any references to what may be causing this. Any ideas ??

Thanks a lot -

Irshmun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshmun (talk • contribs) 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I recommend you ask at mw:Project:Support desk. This page is for asking for assistance on Wikipedia only, while the MediaWiki support desk is just for asking for help with the technical aspects of the MediaWiki software, so you'll get more specific help there. Pyrospirit  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NDT and Molniya (explosive trap)
Question: Is the huge warning on the page really appropriate? It's not a template, exactly, but it seems to be headed in that direction. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Removal is warranted. That's all covered by General disclaimer, at the bottom of every page, and the information that one shouldn't attempt to disarm old munitions on your own can be integrated into the article without an explicit disclaimer. - BanyanTree 05:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I got rid of the disclaimer stuff and partly worked it into the article. Pyrospirit  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 21:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Folkestone Academy
Please could you create Folkestone Academy as a redirect to The Folkestone Academy. I can 't, as I don't want to create an account. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.254.193 (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Done DTGardner (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion of Special Pages
Is there any way to transclude Special:Watchlist onto another page. I know you can do it with other special pages, such as Special:Newpages, but it doesn't work with Special:Watchlist. Any help would be appreciated. Billscottbob (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Some special pages can be transcluded; some can't. Unfortunately, Special:Watchlist is in the latter category. Grace notes T § 04:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with an AOL vandal
My talk page and articles I've edited (even this request) have been getting hit by the dynamic IPs of a determined AOL vandal lately, and I've been searching for a solution that doesn't involve the collateral damage of a range block. Any suggestions? Nufy8 (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Range block it is. Let me see here... Prodego  talk  00:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * hmm. Did it stop? Prodego  talk  00:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. Nufy8 (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you email me. Prodego  talk  01:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't AOL and Wikipedia begun collaboration so that AOL can find out the offender and turn them in to Wikipedia? I think the name, address, phone number, and credit report isn't turned over but enough information is turned over so that Wikipedia can seek retribution.Archtransit (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Copying content from other Wikipedia articles
I have noticed that many Wikipedia articles copy information and sources directly from other Wikipedia articles. Is this permitted or is it against Wikipedia policy? -- Doug —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougTrumbell (talk • contribs) 05:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A certain amount of redundancy is acceptable, but copying large chunks of text and footnotes generally is not. Summary style sections is one way to address this problem. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 15:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Essays: Notability/Precedent and Admin Abuses/Errors

 * I may be opening a can of worms here, but I would like to solicit assistance and additional help in touching up, expanding, and enhancing two essays I have been working on.


 * Other Stuff Exists is designed to address precedent within Wikipedia and its proper use through accurate and legitimate comparisons as well as the current tendancy to immediately (and often erroneously) dismiss without thought any sort of "these types of articles are already here...) type of rationales.
 * User:VigilancePrime/Admin Abuse is designed to document reasonably clear cases of Admins who overuse their "authority", usually accompanied with a statement such as "those saying Keep were ignored" (which has happened). The purpose here is not to attack or embarrass, but to edify, document/track, and provide new and established admins alike (and prospective admins too!) a centralized page to see situations where others perhaps erred. The article goes to great lengths to assert that many times these are simply Good Faith mistakes.
 * Any assistance on these two pages would be greatly appreciated by anyone who finds they are the same as or similar to their viewpoints (there are opposite essays for the opposing views already). Many thanks! VigilancePrime (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC) :-)
 * "those saying Keep were ignored" has no meaning, since "those saying keep" may not be following policy.  Corvus cornix  talk  07:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's the attitude of "just ignoring" users. If closings were to say "Policies not cited, and other arguments not sufficient", that is a lot different from "I decided to ignore half the contributors to the debate." (On top of that, in one example, the Delete camp neither used policy, leading to a disparate ignoring.) If you read the two pages, I think it'll make more sense the actual intent; it's hard to sum it up in one paragraph. Thank you! VigilancePrime (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be a bit careful on the Other Stuff Exists. Two reasons: first, content can be created a lot faster than it can be (reasonably consenented to) deleted; while we have the new New Pages feature to help police new articles, it is still possible to create new content at a rapid rate.  We should be promoting more "think first, then create".  Now sure, this is meant towards deletion arguments, but you may want to make that clear.   Second, there needs to be some mention of reasonable expectation, that one is comparing articles of similar nature.  Your example is a good one, that if there are episode articles for every Trek excluding Enterprise, it is reasonably expected that such can be created and accepted in the same fashion.  Similarly, if both South Park and the Simpsons have such, I would expected many modern cartoons to have the same.  However, I cannot use that same argument to justify that if South Park has episode articles, so should Scooby-Doo, Where Are You!.  Additionally, such by-examples are not a firm response that such will exist, it just helps to state that there will likely be enough information at some point to support notability, which eventually needs to be added, but shouldn't be swiftly removed; however, if good efforts fails to find notability, then the articles should be merged or moved appropriately. --M ASEM  17:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And I agree with the South Park and Simpsons rationale. The problem is these are denied on smaller scales by many who blindly point to a minor section of an essay and then belittle (well, I have been at least) for explaining the reasoning behind the precedent-set. For instance, if there was a seperate article for each model year of the Ford Taurus and a seperate article for each model year of the Toyota Camry, and on and on, and so someone went and created a seperate article for each model year of the Hundai Santa Fe, that would be following in precedent, even though those may not seem as major, referencable, or well-known as television. But it would be a perfectly legitimate, precedent-based article series. (Of course, I think individual model year articles would be ridiculous, which is why I used that as an example.) If Knight Rider has an article for every character listed in opening credits, then The A-Team should as well. The concept is transferrable across Wikipedia. But simply to say "Delete: You can't claim Other Stuff Exists" is ridiculous and cowardly. That's the point, and that's what I want to get in the WP:OSE article. I would appreciate any help in making it sound right and be written better. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On the first page, I have to go with WP:POVFORK (in spirit; it was written about articles) and WP:NOT. If you don't believe WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS actually represents consensus then work to change it at or remove it from WP:AADD (I've already argued there strongly against forking the other-stuff-exist issue into a separate page, for reasons that to me should be obvious to most Wikipedians, and especially to editors of AADD, the entire purpose of which is to consolidate the formerly splintered collective wisdom on what does and does not make a logically- and policy-valid XfD argument.  Yes, there are essays that seem to contradict other essays/guidelines/policies here (cf. WP:ABF and a Wiktionary screed somewhere about "do bite the newbies, among others), but they make a tongue-in-cheek and sometimes even self-deprecating point, and are generally not truly diametrically opposed to established consensus but are meant to be taken with a grain of salt.  Please see Notability/Historical's archival of the "WP:NN" proposal that was not only rejected but was confirmed as rejected by the ArbCom, and its authors sanctioned for disruptive behavior in trying to competitively campaign against consensus (among other things like editwarring and personal attacks). PS: Regardless of the validity of the Other stuff exists page, the name has to change, since it overlaps 100% with the shortcut of its opposite (I again point to the ill-fated WP:NN, which unwisely attempted to co-opt and reverse the meaning of the established WP:N-supportive usage of "NN". I.e. bad idea). Should it be kept, I would suggest Other stuff does exist or Comparisons of material at XfD or something, but keeping it is wrongheaded to begin with.  Just go fix AADD by building consensus there for the points you are trying to make, which are in fact quite valid.
 * On the second page, I have to abstain from much of an consistent opinional comment for now due to a conflict of interest (and frankly of mentality). The quasi-short explanation being that I do believe in admin accountability, and note that sometimes admin powers are abused, but also that we already have the WP:DRV and WP:ANI processes, among others, but am not entirely convinced they are working properly, due to an unbelievable AfD-and-DRv goat-&lt;ahem>roping I've been a flabbergasted party to recently that blatantly violates at least three policies and four guidelines, compounded by a failure to simply read plain-English sentences, so my present take on the matter would be schizophrenically biased between astounded and pissed off on the one hand, and calm and long-viewed on the other. :-/ —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 22:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)