Can someone make a script that works like Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js, but works on all XfDs? The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Daktari Wildlife Orphanage in South Africa is seeking volunteers for the project to assist in educating under-privileged rural children. We use orphaned wild animals as a medium for this education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daktari123 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

rofl, are you sure you're using the right media? Wandalstouring (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if there was anything out there, perhaps MOS, that discouraged the linking of units of height or weight in infoboxes.Londo06 14:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I get somebody with a bit more experience in this area to leave some comments over here. I've reached my limit of what to do or where to direct them. Q ^{T C} 05:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind heh. Q ^{T C} 05:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

SMK Tinggi Batu Pahat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is frequently edited by some users, one of whom (Kuebu (talk · contribs)) is a vandal along with some other editors (probably students from that school itself). A few editors (including myself) have been trying to revert vandalism there but in fact, our efforts were reverted back again. As there are many edit recently, I'm getting confused of which edit to revert or what to remove.
I think that a deletion (redirect - see WP:SCL section 5) might be appopriate if cleanups and blocking won't help, adding the fact that the article has no references. — Yurei-eggtart 05:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, almost all high schools tend to be considered notable when put up for deletion, so that's probably not really the best approach. I just went through and cleaned up the majority of the vandalism and nonsense that I could find, which left the article a little spotty; I've got it watched, and warned the most recent perpetrator. If it goes nuts with IP vandalism. I can protect it. More eyes are always good on any article, especially schools... Tony Fox (arf!) 16:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your help there, but the vandalisms are getting more and more chaotic. I've been reverting a few times and I hope I won't break the 3-revert rule thingy (I'm not quite sure how it works). Can a drastic measure be taken against those vandals? People are adding more and more "infos" that I'm getting unsure which is a vandalism and which is a constructive edit - though my brain is processing in the way of assuming the following editors' edits = VANDALISM:

• • • Kuebu (talk · contribs)
    • Hsdynamite (talk · contribs)

HALP! ~Merry go round~ @@ — Yurei-eggtart 08:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The best way to handle 3RR issues with respect to vandalism is to assume that if it's not obvious vandalism (blanking the page, adding obscenities, deleting sourced text), then don't use the vandalism exception for 3RR; count it as one of your reverts. That can be frustrating, but if there aren't other editors paying attention to the page, it probably isn't getting a lot of viewing traffic anyway. Asking other editors to help is also a good solution. Deletion of the article, as noted above, is not. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the article's really quiet now cuz the vandals stopped after receiving 3rd warning - defamation (and yeah they apologised too). It's completely resolved now so thanks for your concern ^^ — Yurei-eggtart 06:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor SvNH has redirected the page Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits (which was an essay) to the guideline Wikipedia:Transclusion, saying that the latter "covers all important aspects of the subject. The rest is mere speculation and probably wrong.". Given the relative obscurity of the essay, I'd appreciate if other editors would take a look.

In particular, I note that the version just prior to the redirect, the section "How transclusion works" is indeed in the guideline. But the rest of essay is not, as far as I can tell, part of the guideline (including several diagrams), nor (as far as I can tell) part of any other page.

So: (a) leave the situation as is, or (b) move some of the content from the essay to the guideline, but leave the redirect in place, or (c) reverse the redirect and leave the essay in place, or (d) something else? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say, please reverse the redirect. Effectively, SvNH has unilaterally decided to delete a page without taking it to WP:MfD, nor has visibly attempted to garner any consensus. Besides which I had read it before and found it very informative. Even if its content is not quite as "important" as Wikipedia:Transclusion, that's no reason to get rid of it. So option (c). • Anakin ^(talk) 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say WP:BRD. SvNH was bold, there's disagreement over whether the redirect was appropriate, so revert it and welcome discussion. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 01:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: SvNH has posted a notice about it at Wikipedia talk:Transclusion costs and benefits#Redirect. I did the "BRD" thing that Confusing Manifestation suggested. But SvNH has now posted that he's left the project, so it's unclear whether there will be any more discussion. • Anakin ^(talk) 17:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we did a good job by developing Template:Externalimages to help with images wikicommons doesn't have available. So far the small echo has been positive and other users did apply it to different articles. All in all, I'm searching for a prominent place so that more users are aware of its existence. Does someone have an idea? Wandalstouring (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Write an article about it for the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost; go the the Wikipedia:Community Portal and detail it at the Community bulletin board.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Wandalstouring (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: While the tongue is firmly in-cheek, the request for volunteers is earnest.) Do you possess unfathomable consensus-building powers? Do you know the mystical secrets of ending brutal bitter battles? Do you have a keen fashion sense? The Mediation Cabal needs you! (Regardless of its nonexistence.) Volunteers should be professional, familiar with dispute-ending solutions and all-knowing. Previous cabal experience desired. Most importantly, prospective cabalists must simply want to help keep things frosty. :o) Vassyana (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Random article link rewarded me today with Thoughts Without a Thinker. </sarcasm>. The article as written today appears to be just WRONG to be in Wikipedia, but I'm not sure what to do with it. I don't think AfD is right because the book in question might be deserving of an article. On the other hand, the article is so full of opinions and uncited material that it's clearly not Wikipedia-worthy.
Should it be run through the AfD process, or is there a better alternative for a case like this? PKT (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

On a summary look over it, there appears to be nothing in the article worth keeping, and in two years, never has been. Maybe the book does deserve an article, but it deserves a better one than that. If nobody is interested in rewriting it properly after all that time then I'd reckon WP:AfD is the way to go. • Anakin ^(talk) 19:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

i recently finished a stub article named Battle of Lodz (1939). originally, there was only 2 sentences and a box to the right with some additional information. the remaining information shown on the article is my work. i am wondering if someone could revise the article for me, make sure i met the wikipedia guidlines, and if the article is good enough to not be classified as a stub. any help would be greatly appreciated. the link below will direct you to my article. thanks!

[[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessielbutt (talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This was cross-posted to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#just finished a previous stub. • Anakin ^(talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The {{e}} template is widely used to display values in scientific notation. For example: 2.4×10⁻⁸. However, this format does not conform to the Manual of Style entry for the multiplication symbol. The template is protected and so your average editor is unable to fix the problem. The issue has been mentioned on the talk page, but no action has been taken or reponse given. Can somebody address this concern? It would save having to strip out the "e" template from scientific articles in order to get them through the FAC. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Patrick (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an article Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand that has two lead pictures of the same size, located left and right. The opening text of the lead paragraph squeezes very uncomfortably between these two pictures, forming a narrow nearly unreadable gutter of text.

How can I get the two pictures to be at the top of the article as they now are, but have the lead paragraph text start below these two images?

Thanks! Loren.wilton (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. It may be an unreadable gutter at your resolution, but it's most of the screen width at 1280x800, and it would look terrible as whitespace. Why not just put both pictures on the right, one below the other? Algebraist 14:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The text between the two pictures looks OK in my browser. Another alternative would be to set the size of the photos smaller (eg, try 150px). But don't leave whitespace in the article. PKT (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why force the two pictures there? Put them one below the other and at default thumb resolution so the user can use their desired size. For that matter, there is empty space by the table of contents, so also consider putting one photo at the end of the intro section so for most people it will appear next to the contents. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a concern about the "pronunciation" inserts provided at the top of many pages. Most of these do not have references, so I can't check them. Many use Unicode characters, which makes them unreadable (to many) and therefore useless. I tried to tag one of them with a {{Fact}} tag but had it reverted with a "huh? we're citing pronunciations now?" message.

As an example, the Earth article has the following:

(pronounced /ˈɜrθ/)

This has no reference and no means of checking. All I have is some editors opinion on this. Fine, I changed it to the following:

(pronounced ˈərth^[1])

(after removing the {{pronEng}} template after the first revert). This has a reputable source, Merriam-Webster. It was deleted with a "inverted e (IPA) and th (not IPA) are incompatible". Eh? Maybe so, but again this is an editor's opinion and no citation is provided. This is wholly unsatisfactory for a FA'd page.

I keep seeing the pronunciations flopping about with no regard to citing sources. My cited edits keep getting reverted based on an editor's opinion without any regard to citations needed to back it up. This seems illogical and unhelpful to me. What do you think?—RJH (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It might help if you read up on the International Phonetic Alphabet and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation). Indeed "ərth" is not valid IPA, which Wikipedia uses. I'm not sure if we're supposed to cite pronunciations. One the one hand we're supposed to cite everything; on the other, the pronunciation of Earth has probably never been disputed, and in the first example there, the word "pronunciation" links to the table explaining it. Note that the Wiktionary entry for Earth gives two versions of the pronunciation, one for Received Pronunciation and one for American. The WP version is pretty generic, so I really don't think the lack of a source is a big deal. Any source used would have to give the IPA though. • Anakin ^(talk) 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)• Anakin ^(talk) 23:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry but I'm dissatisfied by this. My point is a general one, not specifically for the Earth article. I have seen pronunciations frequently flip-flop about (in some cases more frequently than the remainder of the article) and the source of origin is unclear. So, to me, that becomes a point where citation is essential.

Whether or not the pronunciation is in dispute isn't my concern. I want to be able to check that the listed pronunciation rule is correct. So this applies to the Earth article too. Perhaps this seems pedantic to some, but Wikipedia:Citing sources says that: attribution is required for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." So I'm challenging somebody to show that these pronunciations are correct. I can access the Merriam-Webster source, so that seems a more than suitable place to check. Just removing my attempts to resolve the problem on this one page isn't helpful in this regard. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Manual of Style recommends the use of IPA for pronunciations. Apparently {{IPA}} forces IE to be sensible and so the characters should be readable by most users, even with unicode. I agree that pronunciations should in general be sourced; 'Earth' might not be contentious, but many are. Algebraist 00:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. If these pronunciations are being manually converted to IPA from a non-IPA dictionary (as I now somewhat suspect), then that could be considered OR. I'd like to at least see the original reference and a note to say it was converted per IPA guidelines.—RJH (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I use the OED for pronunciations (it's available online to subscribers, which includes all members of UK libraries). Other online IPA-users include Cambridge dictionaries. Algebraist 15:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay great. It looks like the online Cambridge dictionary should work for me then. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Stirring the pot some more, I asked for clarification of the MoS page regarding pronunciation entries. Your input at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (pronunciation)#Referencing would be appreciated.—RJH (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have an article I am working on: I think I would like to make a diagrame like the one here. I have the basic code for the image template, but how do I go about designing the actual structure of the diagram?Richiar (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The diagram on that page is actually an image. You can make your diagram using any image editor, and then upload your image to Wikipedia commons using the "upload file" link in the "toolbox" box in the lefthand column. (Make sure you fill in the appropriate copyright information: in your case, you will assert that you own the copyright and that you license it under the GFDL.) The specific example you show is a good one: it uses the SVG format. If you do not already have a preferred SVG editor, you can use Inkscape. You can downloca Inkscape for free in less than 5 minutes. You can learn to use Inkscape in less than 15 minutes. -Arch dude (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I think I'll check out that app.—RJH (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to know how wiki links on a picture can be created. A good example is the Blank Map of Europe in Europe page. i.e When I see the blank map of europe (the second pic in europe page) I see there are links to different countries. But when I go to the edit page, I can't see them. Can someone tell me how to create/ change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.204.100 (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

See Template:Europe Labelled Map for the source of the pic. Visit me at Ftbhrygvn (Talk|Contribs|Log|Userboxes) 15:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is that time of year again with the next full revision of the Wikipedia for Schools DVD due around April. There is a list of all currently proposed article updates, additions and deletions at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_CD_Selection/additions_and_updates most of which are off-wiki proposals. The Schools DVD gets a lot of use around the place, with even the 2006 version still getting 3000-4000 unique IP users a day, so helping (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_CD_Selection/How_to_help is a good chance to make a lasting influence. )--BozMo talk 15:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a citation to my post in the form of an url and when I saved the post there was a comment added in blue superscript saying "(citation needed)". How does that "citation needed" comment go away? Can you cite a source in such a way that the "citation needed" comment isn't automatically added? wclay1@lycos.com posting on "lugs" about "ear lugs" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wclay (talk • contribs) 17:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I corrected it. You just added your cited comment in the middle of another comment ending in a cite tag that's all. --BozMo talk 17:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Could I get some additional opinions on this? There are a couple of staunch defenders of the status quo, claiming clear consensus but I see no evidence one exists and there is a guideline on top of that (which comes with its own consensus) against how they want the disputed parts of the article.--Crossmr (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I know we have a page to request photographs, but is there anyplace where I can connect with our resident artists to request an illustration be made for an article? Specifically, I'd like a thematic drawing for The Maid Freed from the Gallows capturing the elements of a maiden positioned to be hanged, stalling the executioner until someone can arrive with a bribe with which to free her. I searched the Commons and other likely PD sources but have found nothing suitable. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requested pictures which even has a dedicated section for diagrams. See also {{Diagram needed}}, {{Reqdiagram}}, Category:Wikipedia requested diagram images and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't call it a "diagram" exactly, but I suppose that will have to do. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:70.237.206.144, a new user, insists on inserting "Bates said" when sourcing Tom Bates military service, even though his military service was sourced in his official Berkeley Mayor Biography and an SF Chronicle article which is noted in the footnotes. The user has good intentions and is not a vandal. I asked for a third opinion already. Maybe some more comments on the talk page will help resolve this matter. What is the standard procedure?User:calbear22 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a statement to Talk:Tom Bates, supporting your position. The Chronicle story is a pretty clear source. Darkspots (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the helpdesk covers this, but how do I stack userboxes to the right? Most people do that. I need help!!--Editor510 (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:UBX#Grouping userboxes. I use {{boxboxtop}} and {{boxboxbottom}} on my page. Go to a user page and edit it to see how they did theirs. It is impolite to save changes to their page, but absolutely fine to look at the source code. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to read the source of my user page. Visit me at Ftbhrygvn (Talk|Contribs|Log|Userboxes) 02:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We need Sources for Westside (Los Angeles County). Can you help? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

One very useful tool for finding sources, among others, is Google books. I searched for "West Los Angeles" and immediately found this on the first search results page. Using the various names of the area in separate searches should reveal much more. There are many resources provided at the book excerpt page for finding out the information then necessary to properly fill out a {{Cite book}} template for use with a footnoted citation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This URL is a mirror of Thiruvanaikaval but provides no reference to Wikipedia. Where do I report this? Kingturtle (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:FORK might be what you're after. Algebraist 20:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Kingturtle (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to do, if you really want action is the {{sofixit}} way: complain to the site yourself, and if that doesn't work, go to the ISP. I have done this twice, and both times the site itself removed the content, or added a link (see requirements) There are instructions for this at the aforementioned WP:FORK. That site seems to have a contact form. Prodego ^talk 22:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Recently, every time I close my main browser, Firefox and reopen it, my Wikipedia account keeps getting logged off. When I test logging in, the "Remember Me" box is checked at the login page, and cookie options are set to accept and be kept until they expire, but it still acts like this. My other browsers, IE and Opera, doesn't have these problems (and I'm sure that there are no Wikipedia cookies being used for either browser when I test Firefox). Anyone have any idea what's wrong? --FlyingPenguins (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The same recently started happening to me. A hard refresh (ctrl-shift-R) fixes it, but it's annoying and happens every time. --NE2 23:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem in both Safari and Firefox. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Me too on Safari and Firefox. --hydnjo talk 21:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Check "Remember me" on the log in page.(Not sure it work in Firefox) Or see Help:Logging in#Log_in_problems —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftbhrygvn (talk • contribs) 14:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I always check "remember me", and my cookies are enabled. But when I start a new browser session lately, I find myself logged out again. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least I know that I'm not the only one having this problem after seeing your replies. Also, someone asked something similar in the technical assistance section of the Village Pump as well. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's been happening to me a few times lately. It's really odd, has never happened before, and I haven't changed anything. Hmm... нмŵוτнτ 20:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You are not actually being logged off, just refresh the page or browse to a different WP page and the logged in bar will mysteriously appear. Seems it doesn't see your cookie the first time. Dsergeant (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, we've all found work-arounds but that doesn't address the "what happened" question. Whatever it was should be repaired and not be dependent on our "creativity" at this moment. :-( hydnjo talk 21:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Being logged out, Wikipedia:Help desk#Logging in, Wikipedia:Help desk#Interesting log in problem, Wikipedia:Help desk#Logging out everytime I close my Browser, Wikipedia:Help desk#Frequent Logouts, and others I'm sure. --hydnjo talk 21:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just log back in. It's not too much of a hassle. But, if we could find out the root cause somehow, it'd be wonderful! нмŵוτнτ 21:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, this happens with IE also, not just other browsers. Definitely new behaviour as of about yesterday or the day before. Loren.wilton (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This started happening to me too just after having updated Firefox to v2.0.0.12 a few days ago Jackaranga (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jackaranga, I don't think that this problem that we're all having has anything to do with your update (Geesh - I hope not!). --hydnjo talk 19:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem in IE. At first I thought it was a "security enhancement" on my PC, but after reading this section I'm not so sure.—RJH (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Bob, be damned sure - it ain't you (again, Geesh - I hope not!). --hydnjo talk 20:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, this was interesting. When I opened my browser and clicked on the sign in link, it had my username in the first box as per usual but it also said I had messages waiting. When I clicked on the messages link it signed me in without my having to enter a password. Hmm...—RJH (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm getting the same problem. Someone's changed the default expiry time on the four cookies the site sets to 60 minutes. Anyone know why the devs made the change? Caknuck (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh wow I'm glad to see so many people having the same problem as me (because I'm not alone). Yeah it happens in IE too. Per Dsergeant, it seems that only WP main page shows me being logged off. Browsing into another article will automatically have me signed in. Maybe we can look into the main page itself? — Yurei-eggtart 07:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yea I'm having the exact same problem with firefox where it seems the computer isn't reading my cookies right away. Its not a big deal, but its just a little annoying that it says I'm not logged in on the main page and I then get magically logged in when I go to the log in page. It seems like its a technical problem with Wikipedia since the same problem is occurring when I use Internet explorers and I can log in fine with Uncyclopedia. Does anyone know what is causing this?Noneforall (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems someone fixed the problem on Wikipedia since for the last two days I've been automatically logged on when I view the main page. --Noneforall (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am qualified to write an article about a company called Vectrix Business Solutions, which was a player in the Dot-com bubble from 1994 to 2002. The company received $45 M in venture caplital from HM Capital in 2000, and owned a product, EdgeWorkX, that was selected as the best Internet development software by Byte magazine in 1996. The company received major advertising and business development assistance from Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1999/may99/vectrixmspr.mspx).

I will write this article if you think it is relevant. I don't want to waste the effort if it is not. Please let me know what you think I should do. Jarhed (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to view the pages that I have created only, not edited or added to my watchlist. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You have created 27 articles wihich are listed here. Visit me at Ftbhrygvn (Talk|Contribs|Log|Userboxes) 04:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Onlyw orks for pages less than a month old. Viridae^Talk 04:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

user:Interiot used to run a tool on m:toolserver that would produce a report of pages created (on request). He is mostly inactive now and may or may not still be responding to requests. I'm in the process of getting a toolserver account and hope to be able to run this tool (among others), perhaps within a few weeks. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How many references are too many? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say one or two is more than sufficient. Note that both links 77 and 84 are dead, and can be safely removed in any case. Unless something is highly controversial, it shouldn't need more than one reference, and this does not seem to be a controversial statement. Parsecboy (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Back from a one year hiatus. As such, I would like to know if there have been any major new policy changes/developments/features that I've missed out on and need to be informed of. Thanks in advance.--TBC!?! 05:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Our article at 555 95472 is a copy of the Peanuts Wikia article at http://peanuts.wikia.com/wiki/555. One is copying the other, I'm not sure which came first, but whichever, neither one credits the other. If the Wikia is copying our article, they're violating our copyright. If our article is copying them, it's a copyright violation. What should be done? Corvus cornix_talk 05:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It was dropped into Wikia in this edit [2] and already existed on Wikipedia prior to that [3] in the same (?) form. So I'd say its Wikia copying Wikipedia. But I don't know the GFDL implications. MBisanz ^talk 06:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikia is GFDL compliant, but I may be wrong on that, but regardless, it still needs to identify that it came from Wikipedia. Corvus cornix_talk 20:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikia does have its content licensed under the GFDL. I've tried adding the template Wikia suggests to its article, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be working correctly. Tra (Talk) 23:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the template is showing up fine on the Peanuts Wikia page. There shouldn't be any further issue here, unless someone at the Wikia removes the template. Parsecboy (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see "[Template fetch failed for http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Wikipedia?action=render; sorry]", no template, and nothing there to indicate that this article was copied from Wikipedia. Corvus cornix_talk 19:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's rather odd. When I made my previous comment earlier, the template was showing up just fine, but now I have the same error message stated by Corvus cornix. Strange. Parsecboy (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, interwiki transcluding can be buggy. Mr.Z-man 20:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay, looks find now, thanks to all. Corvus cornix_talk 22:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't resist the little bit of humor in the thread title :)

In all seriousness, however, I wanted to bring up the issue of notability in regard to on-air DJs on American radio stations.

I've had this dispute with several different editors on several different articles and, quite frankly, I'm getting sick of it. What constitues a notable individual, for the purposes of inclusion their respective radio station articles?

In my opinion, part-time DJs and support staff (traffic reporters, news reporters on non-News/Talk stations, "sidekicks" on certain shows, and speciality show staff such as mixshow mixers/DJs) do not meet WP:Notable and should not be included. However, I've run into several instances where editors have overruled me on this issue (please see WDVD as an example).

Typically, in radio station articles that I have created or that I watch, I include DJs using the following basic template:

"As of February 24, 2008, the full-time on-air personalities were:

• Mornings: Zippy, Skippy, and Dutch
• Middays: Suzy Gossiphound
• Afternoons: Tad Pole
• Nights: Terry Tunespinner"

I do not include an overnight DJ, unless it is a syndicated product such as Danny Wright (country stations), Blair Garner (country stations), Romeo's Playhouse (top 40 stations), etc. I almost never include weekend DJs, unless - again - it is a syndicated product such as American Top 40 with Ryan Seacrest.

All of that being said, can we please adopt an official Wikipedia policy in regard to the listing of radio DJs?

For the purpose of simplicity, I would suggest using the reasoning that if the individual is listed on the station's official website, they may be listed here on Wikipedia, so long as it is a name listing only and does not contain biographical information.

--InDeBiz1 (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:N only applies to article subjects not the content within articles. As long as the info is verifiable using reliable sources, relevant to the article, and not presented like an advertisement, it should be fine. Mr.Z-man 08:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

So you would agree, then, that my recent edit to KSLZ is allowable, under the reasoning that you have noted?--InDeBiz1 (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a problem to me. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 12:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In printing the Six Sigma article The Six Sigma symbol on page 1 prints as a solid black square. One year ago (12/12/2006) it printed correctly. I tried both paper and two different PDF writers. All gave the same result.

Has anyone else seen this sort of problem? Is there a workaround?

Bread2u (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems fine in my browser. Perhaps you're having a problem with SVG rendering?—RJH (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you get a new printer or install new printer or camera software? Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 19:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the page on Kuwait and I've noticed that it has been vandalised. I have trawled through the help pages trying to find out how to report the vandalism but I get lost on all the coding and stuff (not an expert user, here!)

Can anyone tell me how to go about reporting vandalism?

Are there specific forums where vandalism should be reported?

How easy would it be to add a "Report Vandalism" link to the navigation bar on the left?

I understand that this is a community site and, as such, is maintained by the community but I do feel that there could be a way of being able to inform those more able to remove vandalism of where to look, should users become aware of any. Please excuse my ignorance if such a system is already in place. If it does, perhaps it could be made more visible (eg the link as I've mentioned, or even a link on each page which can alert admins to review a site for vandalism?)

Just some thoughts . . .

Thank you! PongoPilot (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If there's a specific user committing the vandalism, you can warn them to stop, and if they continue being disruptive, you can report them at WP:AIV. If it's general vandalism in an article, something that might have been buried by subsequent edits that missed it, you can always just point it out on the article's talk page, if you're uncomfortable with fixing it yourself. That way, someone who might be more familiar with the topic can remedy the situation. I hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Because anyone can edit, Wikipedia is open to undesirable edits but most of these are corrected by other editors within a very short time. We have a "recent changes" page that allows users to check edits as they happen, and "watch lists" that allow logged-in editors to closely monitor pages they are interested in. In extreme cases we can "lock" pages from receiving edits for a while, but generally the page can be reopened for editing after a short time as most edits we receive improve our articles. You are welcome to revert vandalism yourself (see Help:Reverting); in fact, we highly encourage it. Mr.Z-man 20:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems someone has already edited the vandalism out - thanks again!PongoPilot (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You should also warn the vandal, using the templates found at WP:VANDAL. They help other editors to see whether the vandal has shown a pattern of stupidity, and if so the warnings can/should become more harsh, possibly leading to blocking the user from editing. PKT (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

For cases of ongoing fiction, or even ongoing real events, there are acases where an editor feels a need to tag on 'The character's status is currently unknown', usually referring to the serialized story's most recent available installment (show or comic book issue, for example) being a cliffhanger. What's the right policy to refer an editor to for this overly dramatic, unencyclopedic sort of thing? ThuranX (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What happened here? The listing is not showing up like it should. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything seems to be in order now--the AfD shows up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 27. Let us know if it's working for you. Darkspots (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody have an idea what that special character is that has started appearing at the end of the cite journal template? For example:

Last, First. "Example". None.

To me it just looks like an empty rectangle, so I probably don't have that character in my font. At any rate it looks untidy. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is unicode 0x200a, a Hair space, also described at fileformat.info. JackSchmidt (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason it is there is quite technical, but described at the talk page. JackSchmidt (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. Yet another wikipedia innovation that won't render correctly on most browsers. ;-) Thank you for the explanation.—RJH (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should use it if it doesn't work on old browsers. Providing information is far more important that having professional typesetting. • Anakin ^(talk) 14:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had an run-in with a user that has taken it upon themselves to decide who has removed other editors entries in a Dispute Resolution page. What should be done about something like that? The original user has had problems in the past but is taking steps to become a better editor. Now, they try and use the dispute resolution process like they are supposed to and someone just removes their request! What should be done in a case like this? Padillah (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The user doing the removals should be adequately warned, and if they continue to act disruptively, you can report them to WP:AIV, at which point they will likely be blocked. Could you provide some diffs to show exactly what's going on here? Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion is only one (and the smallest) of several dispute resolution projects. I replied to Padillah on User talk:Athaenara#WP:3O and posted the pertinent diffs and edit summaries on Wikipedia talk:Third opinion#Athaenara's removal of WP:3O Request. — Athaenara ✉ 17:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how this justifies you to circumvent another editors efforts. If you feel 3O isn't the place for his efforts talk with him and place a comments under the 3O entry. If you feel 3O is too little and think the dispute needs to move to another form of DR then post a comment to this effect and apply efforts at the next DR stage. But I don't see any of that effort, all I see is persecution of an editor that looks like he's trying to comply (editor history not withstanding). Padillah (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My post here was for information only, intended to aid any impartial uninvolved editors who wish to address your concerns, which I see as valid, BTW. There's a small discussion of a related matter on User talk:Callmebc#Puzzled. — Athaenara ✉ 19:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I have a question about these articles for example: Episode six (Ashes To Ashes) and Season 1 (Friends). Shouldn't the TV show name come first, viz Ashes to Ashes (Episode six), and Friends (Season One). Thanks all for the help. – ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For seasons, it generally is "Show Name (season number)" (as to distinguish it from the show's name), however, for episode names, if it needs disambiguation from other names, it should be "Episode name (Show Name)", otherwise the episode name alone is used. --MASEM 20:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There a discussion happening amongst regulars an wp:Good article nominations about how to encourage more reviewers. Presently, we're concerned that the instruction block at the top of main nominations page appears too daunting and is turning away potential new reviewers—but as we are all familiar with the system, we have no way of knowing if that's really the case.

With that in mind, I was wondering if someone unfamiliar with the GAN process could spare a few minutes to take a look at our instruction block, pretend they were someone interested in maybe doing their first review, and then giving us some feedback on 1) how daunting/unclear the instructions are, and 2) any advice on how we might improve them.

Thanks in advance! --jwanders^Talk 00:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's not about being too daunting but about the lack of any explicit solicitation for reviewers. The only thing close is:

If you are interested in reviewing good article nominations regularly, please add yourself to the list of participants, listing your special interests if you wish to do so.

which describes rather than supplicates, and I think it may give an unintended impression to the possibly interested that if they are not willing to obligate themselves to doing so regularly, they shouldn't bother. It could also give the impression that only those on that list of regular reviewers are authorized to review. While this is belied by the later statement: "When you nominate an article, please consider also choosing another article from the list to review," that instruction appears later, is unconnected, and appears as an afterthought. To bring this to a head, I think you should define expressly and up front the lack of special dispensation needed to review articles, state the need for more reviewers, and ask people to do so rather than just describe how to.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If a regular editor wanted to help with the backlog, should he or she just go to WP:BACKLOG, pick a random topic and start working on it? Are there some sections that need more help than others? I've been mostly doing 3O and RCP work as of late, but it looks like other sections could use a hand... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 07:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, there are plenty of things that need as much help as possible. If you prefer "manual labor" work that doesn't require searching for sources, you might want to try Category:Orphaned articles or Category:Articles that need to be wikified. If you'd rather do research for articles, there are of course Category:Articles lacking sources and Category:Articles with unsourced statements. If article writing is more your forte, you can try your hand at Category:All articles to be expanded All of the categories are in dire need of assistance, being backlogged for over a year or with more than 10,000 articles within them. Or you can pick one of the sub-categories; it's really up to whatever you feel like doing. Parsecboy (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

While not, I believe, marked as being backlogged, there's a lot of fun to be had if you read up on the Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline and then head over to CAT:DFUI. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The main table in List of autonomous areas by country is exhibiting an intermittent problem in Firefox 2.0.0.12 on WinXP. The fault is that the table borders disappear in the top half of the table, per the illustration on the right. The fault is intermittent in two senses: on some loads, all borders show; and the point at which the border picks up alters ... a half hour ago, it was picking up again around South Korea. now it's picking up at Papua New Guinea. The main page author reckons it's an issue with firefox CSS handling. Would anyone care to venture a second opinion, to be on the safe side? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a random problem I have with tables in Firefox. --Golbez (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a limit on user signatures? On my talk page, there's a signature that's incredibly long, and makes it hard to read the thread. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You're allowed to re-factor user sigs that are on your talk page. Especially stupid fucking annoying ones like the one I suspect you mention. Keep the username and link correct though. Dan Beale-Cocks 22:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I've done that, makes it easier to follow now. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been accused of being a sockpuppet. I rather think my usage pattern does not match the one whom I'm accused of being... 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The matter has been taken care of at User talk:132.205.44.5; among other things, this is a school IP address. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that it's unacceptable when I write "President George W. Bush's blog says the Iraq war would end soon" and then provide links to show that - (1) the blog really features the quote; (2) that the blog is really Mr. Bush's; and (3) provide a book cite, written by Mr. Bush to go with it? It is a direct quote, and it should be attributable to first party sources. Can someone help with this strange interpretation of WP:SPS? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No answer! At the very least, can some one tell me what's the guideline on citing direct quotes? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It sounds okay to me, from an WP:SPS point of view. Not sure how relevant it is to an article though. Wikipedia:Quotations may be of interest too. • Anakin ^(talk) 14:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So, the phrasing of law is more important than the spirit and sensibility? Why would a direct quote not be attributable the a first party source? In reality first party sources should be more reliable than the third party sources when it comes to attributing direct quotes. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume that the blog you mention is hypothetical, since President Bush has no such blog, and never has had one. And yes, per WP:V, you can use a primary source for an article. But there are a lot of other reasons why such a quote would not be acceptable - which is why I wish you'd used an actual edit of yours, not a hypothetical. For example, is it clear that the blog really does belong to the person? And is the quotation relevant? For example, in an article about (say) a political columnist, it may well be irrelevant - columnists express opinions about lots of things, and per WP:NOT we shouldn't include most of them in an article. And is the person expressing an opinion considered an expert? For example, if the article is about the Iraq War, it's not acceptable to quote a blog of (say) a musician who thought the war would end soon; a musician wouldn't be considered an expert.

In short, there are a lot of different reasons why citing a blog might not be okay; we really need a specific example to comment on. And, quite frankly, you should discuss specific examples on the talk page of the article in question, not here. Only after you fail to get a satisfactory answer (if that should be the case) is this the right place to bring questions about content disputes. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got my answer already, i.e. there's nothing wrong with primary sources when citing direct quotes, unless the source itself is a problem. Specific examples are tend to narrow down the focus of the discussion as people steer clearly away from the general problem and start dissecting the example. If I am not wrong, almost none of the Wikipedia guidelines and policies use specific examples to support a point (I guess for very similar reasons). Thanks for the clarification (and, oh, I did discuss this on the specific articles talk page, only to meet with silence and arrogance). Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)