Help desk
< April 10	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

April 11

Putting a dot on a map

I would appreciate greatly help concerning a technical issue. I'm trying to make infoboxes on windmills, but I've got the problem that even if I have the coordinates I don't know how to place it on a map of Norfolk incorcopated in the infobox. See Lambridge Mill. The awnser is obviously fulling indications map_locator_x and map_locator_y. Could somebody help me explaining the nature of the process, possibly with practical illustrations (I can be quite dense when it comes to technical issues)? Thanks in advance for any help that can be provided!--Aldux (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the instructions at Template:Geobox/legend#Maps? --Teratornis (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even after losing my mind on it, I hadn't been able to find it; I've found this: "Semi-automated locator dot. The map field contains background map, whereas locator_x and locator_y contain relative coordinates of the locator dot (as a percent of the map width, inserted without the % symbol), this system can be used when the map is not (or cannnot be) calibrated for the automated locator dot." Unfortunately, I don't get how the latitude and longitude I know translates in a 1-100 x number and a 1-100 y number. I tried to simply put lat and long numbers in its place, but the mill ends well in the Atlantic Ocean; and I don't think it's a coordinates problem, as the grid sends me just a few metres from the item in question. I just don't get how to materialize the words "relative location dot position in percent of the map width, without the "%" symbol". Any ideas?--Aldux (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to file request to have current content removed?

Silly question perhaps as im not one to complain, but i really need this answered so i can bring awareness to the fact that there is a picture of a suicide scene( which is real, and was released as the cover of a bootleg cd of the band "Mayhem") and thought that would widely be considered unnacceptable for such a website... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelk1992 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dawn of the Black Hearts already has some discussion of this issue. I was shocked to see that some of it is rather incivil as I would expect only collegial behavior from death metal fans (right?). See WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NOSEE. While I cannot predict the outcome of a particular discussion on Wikipedia, I can tell you that Wikipedia displays a number of images that are exceedingly offensive to large numbers of people (for example, our Depictions of Muhammad). This does not mean anything goes; a particular offensive image must have some sort of encyclopedic value to remain here. Since almost all album covers are under copyright, one possible (longshot) way to remove this image (and almost all other album covers) would be to persuade the English Wikipedia to adopt the no fair-use images policy of Wikimedia Commons. However, that debate has been raging for years so it would probably be hard to shift the present consensus. Depending on how motivated you are to pursue this, see WP:EIW#Dispute for lots of links to documents that describe the dispute-resolution machinery on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has lots of arguments about lots of things, so I wouldn't underestimate the possible complexity of getting the outcome you want here. --Teratornis (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silly image use quesiton

Resolved

– tempodivalse [☎] 16:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has received permission from a photographer to use a picture on Wikipedia but nowhere else. I have looked around the image and copyright pages but cannot find if this is OK and if so what the correct tag(s). Any help or even just pointing me to another page for this question is much appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not silly; it goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is all about. Restricting re-use of images uploaded to Wikipedia is contrary to Wikipedia's mission to be a source of free content. Wikipedia gets mirrored and redistributed widely. The Wikimedia Foundation and its commercial partners republish Wikipedia's content in several forms, for example as low-cost CDs and DVDs for use in low-income areas where Internet access is scarce (for example, much of Africa). Placing arbitrary restrictions on content uploaded to Wikipedia interferes with Wikipedia's mission, which is to (eventually) make a free encyclopedia available to every person in their own language, and not every person has Internet access. It would be much better for the photographer to release the photo under a free license such as CC-BY-SA. See File:BD-propagande-2 (en).jpg for the cartoon version of the above information. --Teratornis (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And see Wikipedia:Non-free content if the photographer will not release the image under a free license. --Teratornis (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the assistance!Cptnono (talk) 07:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbs

Hi help desk, I have been reading about Plants, when I got to this article I noticed it has a tag that was placed on it way back in 2007. Is this tag still nessesary? And should it be updated?--Slateglass (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the tag is still necessary because the reference section doesn't have any sources yet. SeeWP:REFERENCE. Zoo Fari 01:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it useful to blank a page before it gets deleted?

Resolved

– Zoo Fari 07:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the articles that are created daily do not meet our criteria of notability; therefore, a user places a tag, after which an administrator removes the article. Until then, however, the article is part of Wikipedia, and as such it can be read by people, and ultimately confuse them. Since users like me cannot delete these articles, but only request deletion by putting the appropriate tag, I was wondering if blanking such articles is (a) allowed, and (b) useful. --Pgecaj (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. If you are the creator of the article, you can just blank it or request speedy deletion by the author using {{db-g7}}. However, blanking pages that were made by other users aren't appropriate. Not blanking helps keep the data as evidence that it supports the speedy tag. Zoo Fari 03:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer ZooFari! --Pgecaj (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Zoo Fari 04:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional input:

Copyvios and attack pages should be blanked. The documentation for {{db-g10}} details this, whereas {{db-g12}} does not but the same rationale of minimizing the viewing of legally actionable bad content applies.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Copyrighted}} does tell the user to blank. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finding it impossible to add a (properly formatted) Radio show infobox to an article

Hi,
I'm working on This Sporting Life (radio program) and have twice tried adding a Radio show infobox at the top (of which I copied one example from From our own Correspondent) but the formatting keeps coming out wrong (although the mark-up looks exactly the same to me). (I also tried another infobox from a different radion show.) Could anyone please help?
Thanks very much!--Tyranny Sue (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find a diff of your attempts in the history. Equendil Talk 09:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the last sentence in the opening content related to article about India

Resolved

– This was an instance of vandalism, thanks for pointing it out, has been removed. tempodivalse [☎] 14:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "India is a filthy, scavenging, third world little shit hole, its an extremely POOR country and will forever be" should be removedPnkj80 (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for pointing that out. Tra (Talk) 10:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most accessed Wikipedia Articles

Resolved

– tempodivalse [☎] 15:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a place where I can see the most accessed wikipedia articles? --Demertius840 (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template creation

Resolved

– Anti venin 12:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti venin 12:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I create my own templates with generic messages (for the Help Desk, for example) even though that template might not ever be used by anyone except me? If so, should I create these 'personal' templates in the Template namespace, or can I create it in my userspace or something? Anti venin 14:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the template is not likely to fill a hole and be useful for many users then yes, you can and should create it as a subpage of your userspace rather than in the template space. Each template has to be made as a separate page. You simply create an intuitively named subpage, create the text, and then can place it using {{User:Antivenin/name}}. Though you listed it only as an example, note some existing templates for the help desk at {{Help desk templates}}. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG! You are teh coolness. =D +10 points for you. Anti venin 15:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User subpages are a handy way to test templates while you are developing them. That way if you get stuck for a long time before you get a template to work, it is unlikely to get deleted, as a broken template in the Template: namespace might. To test a template you are developing, you generally need two subpages: one subpage for the template itself, and another "sandbox" subpage in which you transclude the template to see how it is working. --Teratornis (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assistance. =) Anti venin 12:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Language Sources

Hi, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I was wondering how I would go about citing non-English sources. WP:NONENG states that editors should avoid using non-English sources, but it doesn't mention anything about how to cite them when necessary. Should I use the best English translation possible for the title and author, or should I simply just leave the title and author in the original language? --Ecruos (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend citing both. Just make two footnotes at the same location in the body text of the article, one for the original source, and the other for the translation. Depending on how motivated you are to look for a more "definitive" answer, WP:EIW#Citesource lists lots of links to Wikipedia's internal documenation about citations, and you can search the Wikipedia talk:Verifiability archive for "foreign". However, I doubt anyone would complain if you cited both sources in separate footnotes. I've done something similar when I cited a scholarly work which featured in a popular press account. I cited the news article and the original paper in two separate footnotes. That way the citation becomes more robust against link rot. --Teratornis (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have misunderstood the poster, but it's probably worth clarifying: If the source you want to use is only available in another language, then of course you cite its title and author in the original language. If the original language uses a non-Latin script such as Chinese or Cyrillic, then you can use the original script, a standard transcription into Latin letters, or both. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I probably misread the question. I kind of stopped at "best English translation possible". Obviously, not every non-English source has a complete translation into English of its content. This illustrates one of Pournelle's Laws, namely that you can never provide too many examples. --Teratornis (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keeping or making the port green

my question is that i live in the developing world and people have no idea or no interest in keeping the world environmentally clean.i had been working in re-cycling industry in saudi arabia .the first of its kind in this part of the world and got fasinated with this job . i feel it is agreat job and help humanity because the effect of environmental clean or decrease the green house effect is cumulative.my effort or our effort helps humanity in improving the condition by small proportion but it is better than doing nothing or doing something bad.i am in a position to change the environmemnt condition of one of the port in the arabian sea area and if success ful might be able to change the condition in three major ports.i want to give slogan --GO GREEN- TO PORT ACTIVITY-.I NEED A CHECK LIST OF ALL THE THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE TO KEEP PORT GREEN AND ENVIRONMENT FRIENDLY AND CARRY LITTE BIT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE PORT AND PORT AREA NOTE-I AM EX GRADUATE OF FORT RUCKER ALABAMA AND LEARN HELICOPTER FLYING FROM THERE AND HAVE GREAT HOPES FROM THE REAL AMERICAN PEOPLE AND NOT POLITICIANS.PLEASE HELP ME EX -CAPT KHALID HELICOPTER PILOT FRM HANCHEY ..-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.103.234.30 (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Science reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Anti venin 15:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email address removed as per policy. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

permanent link for running Reference Desk threads

Resolved

– Sundardas (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there permanent links for unarchived/running threads on WP:RD? Sundardas (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the question: Go to the WP:RD, click on history, pick a version that contains a desired thread, click in the TOC on the thread you want to link to ... and the pera-link will be in your address bar. — Ched : ? 16:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

questions/doubts on the article...where??

where do i ask questions on any particular article or a topic? more importantly, who do i ask them? is there any sort of a forum or discussion panel here? the questions we ask here are supposed to be technical questions, isnt it? or can i ask content related queries here too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustbite (talk • contribs) 16:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This desk is for questions about using Wikipedia. If you have a content question, the reference desk is the best place to ask. If you have a technical question about Wikipedia that cannot be answered here, check out the village pump. TN X Man 16:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally your best bet is the talk (or discussion) tab on the page you're interested in. As Tnxman mentions, this particular page is more for asking general questions on how wikipedia in general works. Since some topic pages may be a little stagnant, and on occasion you may even find the talk page completely barren - I often found help by going to a users talk page that most recently edited that topic. If the topic falls into a certain category, you may also find some assistance on a related Wikipedia:WikiProject. example: Dale Earnhardt would be a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR — Ched : ? 17:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each article has a discussion page for commenting/debating the merits of the article. Just look near the top of the page for the "discussion" tab, click on it, click "create new section", title your comment and type away!--Levalley (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for rules about what is and isn't allowed on talk pages. If you tell us the article you have in mind, we can tell you where the relevant discussions might be. If the article's subject matter is complex or specialized, it's good to read all the related articles on the topic, and read all the past discussions about the topic, before starting a new discussion. You can find related articles by following links from the article, and looking at the categories the article is in. Some articles (such as Barack Obama, Depictions of Muhammad, Global warming) are controversial, and their talk pages tend to get cluttered with repetitive comments from relatively new users who haven't read the previous discussions. When you see an issue and you want to comment on it, it's good to know whether other people have already discussed it. It's also good to look at the article's history - an article which gets few edits is very different than an article which gets an edit every few minutes. In general, the more active an article is, the more likely you are to run into other editors who are actively watching it, and the more you have to understand about what they are doing to avoid getting into conflicts with them. --Teratornis (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tryna delete user & disc pages but stalker keep reverting

I am trying to delete my userpage and discussion page. Everytime I do I am reverted then blocked with the reason being vandalism. This WP:UP#OWN says I am allowed to do delete my pages. Please help. 70.108.68.176 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking for help with the ongoing dispute at User_talk:70.108.93.13 and User talk:Lilkunta? --Teratornis (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is about 70.108.93.13& my previous ips. No it isnt about lilkunta. A bunch of editors have banded 2gether 2 abuse me & have accused me of being lilkunta. I asked for evidence & still they havent provided it. Instead they just block. Im tired of it all. So Im tryna delete but they come after & revert. 70.108.68.176 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned a userpage; which userpage are you asking about? Neither 70.108.68.176 nor 70.108.93.13 has a userpage. —teb728 t c 20:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about User talk:70.108.68.176, -- User talk:70.108.93.13, -- User talk:70.108.118.234, -- User talk:70.108.102.252,
-- User talk:70.108.79.147, -- User talk:70.108.110.22, -- User talk:70.108.74.81, -- User talk:70.108.119.213, -- User talk:70.108.70.62.
. . . 70.108.109.242 (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about proper use of pictures

Resolved

Hi. I am trying to figure out if I did something wrong or if someone was overzealous in undoing my edit. On the Wally Cox article, it was noted that contrary to his public persona, he was adventuresome and athletic. I put a picture of him from the Mission: Impossible pilot in as a thumbnail that helped validate that point. My edit was reverted with note "rv gf edit: it's not even recognizably Cox". I guess I understand the point of the person who reverted my edit. But before I shrug and walk away, I figured I'd run it up the flagpole and see if anyone agrees with me on this point or I just get a bigger beatdown on this. ;-) Thanks in advance for the help. BillFromDDTDigest (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images are intended to enhance the content, not to prove a point. I have to agree with the other editor: my first guess would have been Woody Allen. --Gadget850 (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The truth hurts, but the Woody Allen reference softened the blow. Thanks for the help. BillFromDDTDigest (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

overhead line

Dear, my query is simple.I would like to know in long distance transmission line,AC or DC is using higher size of conductor size? please explain with reasons Rajesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajesharyadevan (talk • contribs) 18:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the Science section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. TN X Man 18:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a school or college test question and we don't do your homework for you. – ukexpat (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a pretty good High-voltage direct current article, which contains an important clue, but since this smells like homework I will let you read the article and find the clue yourself. --Teratornis (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External link formatting problem

Resolved

– Tomaterols (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

On my user page I have a short "article" under the heading "When Facts--Aren't!" In the article there is a link to the Cathedral Church of St. Luke that I just can't make look right. The link functions perfectly, but the icon (the little square with the diagonal upward arrow) that usually appears after the link name is not there and there are several additional spaces in the text I can't remove. I've spent and hour or two fiddling with this, recreaating the link, adding and deleting spaces before and after the link, etc. and nothing seems to work. If anybody could look at it and tell me what I've done wrong I'd really appreciate it. All of the links I've created seem to be fine. --Tomaterols (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears fine to me. hmmm.... - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link seems to be all right to me as well -- the diagonal arrow indicating an external link is there, and there doesn't seem to be any spacing problems. Is this perhaps a browser display error? tempodivalse [☎] 20:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a "browser display error" does that mean it looks O.K. to everybody else? Does everyone else see the problem or is it only me? As I say, all my other links, internal and external look and work fine.--Tomaterols (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It' the browser. I just opend the page with Firefox (vs. Internet Explorer) and it looks fine. Thanks for the tip.--Tomaterols (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which speedy deletion tag should I use?

Hello, today I came across two different pages that needed to be speedy deleted, however I didn't know which CSD tag to use.

The first one was for a videogame that already had an article, except that the new article title had a spelling mistake. So I needed a tag that says something like "duplicate article".
The second one was for a non-notable martial arts, i.e. an article that falls under WP:MADEUP.

So which CSD tags should I use for this kind of articles? Any suggestions? Thanks! Laurent (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that are duplicates of existing ones and only differ by a spelling error are usually redirected. Whether an martial artist is non-notable is usually a matter of opinion. They could fall under CSD A7 for people, but it's usually a better idea to get community feedback. The same goes for made up people. Unless their non-existence is blatantly obvious to the majority of readers (which would be CSD G3), a stint on AFD to make absolutely sure that's the case is the better option. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many views does the Main Page get each day?

I tried searching internally, and found the FAQ that the page counter had been disabled for performance reasons. I tried the excellent Wikirank but it doesn't recognise terms such as "main page". I want to know about how many people see the main page on an average day, and how many click through to the main article (and, ideally, how many click through to subsidiary articles such as the day's anniversaries). Any ideas if this information is available? BrainyBabe (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The data is available here. If you want to see page view statistics for other pages, you can obtain them by going to the history tab of the page you're interested in and clicking on the 'Page view statistics' link. Tra (Talk) 21:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me to that tool. It answers part of the first question, but it doesn't seem to give me any information about click-throughs, so I've removed the "resolved" template for now. It would be interesting to see the spike caused by an article becoming the featured one of the day, and for how long that spike-effect lasts. Of course I could look them up individually, but I wonder if anyone has compiled this information somehow? The other point is the first question. The tools seem to indicate the number of page views. If I understand correctly, this could be by the same person returning several times to the main page in one session or one day -- I know I do. Is there somehow a more precise way of measuring how many people see the main page on an average day? Newspapers have a formula, whereby they multiply sold copies by the number of people their research tells them will read each copy (e.g. 1.3). Does anything like that exist for Wikipedia? BrainyBabe (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether the information you seek exists in written form. Here is a possible way to look for it:

Read all the links under WP:EIW#Main. Then you have all the documentation about the Main Page that the editors of the Editor's index were aware of.
If the answer is not in the above links, you'll have to widen the search. Review all of Wikipedia's articles relating to Click-through rate, for example you can Search Wikipedia with Google for: click through. This will give you a list of jargon terms to use as search keywords, which other editors may have used when discussing the information you seek.
If you still don't find the answer, look at the history of pages like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-09/Dispatches which discuss the Main Page. (That page mentions a spike in edits to the featured article of the day, including spikes in editors making their first edit to the article, and in vandal edits. There may be some correlation between the spike in edits and the click-through data you want. For example, the ratio of readers to editors might be something like 100 to 1 or maybe 1000 to 1.) Users who are heavily involved in the Main Page are probably the best experts in issues relating to it. And see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-09/Dispatches.
If it turns out you want data that nobody has collected, then see the links under WP:EIW#Research.
If you cannot find any way to get the information you need, the next step is to clarify why you want the information, and look for another way to reach your (unstated) goal without requiring this information.

P.S. I have to say it: brainy babes are the best kind. --Teratornis (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) For information about clickthroughs, there was an experiment performed last July. What happened was many of the links on the main page were replaced by redirects. You can see how the page was altered here. For example, the link to Portal:Arts was replaced by a link to Wikipedia:Main_Page/Portal:Arts which redirected to Portal:Arts. That way, between 6-12 July 2008, anyone clicking through to the arts portal from the main page would have their hit logged as a hit to Wikipedia:Main_Page/Portal:Arts.

This means that if you view the page view statistics for the Wikipedia:Main_Page/______ style redirects for 6-12 July 2008, you'll see how many people clicked through to each page from the main page. For example, there were about 4000 hits per day to Portal:Arts that were referred from the Main Page and about 400 hits per day from elsewhere.

Unfortunately, the server recording hits failed for half of July, so the graphs look a bit strange. Also, data is only available for the period when the experiment was carried out, but hopefully it should be useful.

Regarding your question about finding the number of unique visitors, any logs of people's ip addresses that are stored would probably not be made available for privacy reasons, so you wouldn't be able to answer your question from Wikipedia's data alone. You might be able to use data from external sites to help you work out the average number of page views per visitor. It's also worth pointing out that the number of page views includes various bots, and although this may make only a small difference to pages like the main page that have a lot of views, if you look at statistics for lesser viewed pages, this sort of thing would have a larger effect. Tra (Talk) 19:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only read the original question and not the discussion afterwards. But Henrik's counter is very helpful. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all! The main page counter is a useful tool, and the other suggestions are helpful too. I'll leave this question open, to see if anyone else has ideas on other experiments that have run, or findings that have been written up. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]