Help desk
< February 10	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 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.

February 11

Categorically a problem

User:James.d.mccollum has a category he created listed on his page. However, that makes him a US Army unit stationed in Europe. I tried adding a colon before Category, but that screws up the list formatting. What's the answer? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That really shouldn't happen. A workaround would be nice, but the real answer is to go to Bugzilla and get this fixed. Algebraist 02:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using raw html works. How horrible. Algebraist 03:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just do [1]. No need for bugzilla. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, my above edit [2] was logged the minute after the signature time! I have noticed that once before. It can happen for edits close to a new minute. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, it looks like I'm too tired to be competent. What was that at the beginning of that line, anyway? Algebraist 03:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I copied it between these quotes: "‎". I actually don't know what it is. Maybe somebody else can say. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A left-to-right mark. Buggy browsers sometimes insert random unicode into input. For some reason, it's always a left-to-right mark :/ Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does 'buggy browsers' mean IE, or what? Algebraist 04:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent): No... not really. It sort of happens a bit in all browsers, I suspect is has more to do with a faulty internet connection. Perhaps someone else can explain... Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy from DVD and upload to Wikipedia?

Is it possible to copy some public domain stuff from a DVD and upload it to Wikipedia? What software can do it, and can such a file be used by Wikipedia? Bubba73 (talk), 03:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, theoretically. There are "DVD ripping" programs that will give you a video file of a DVD, which you can convert to OGG and upload. Do note, however, that Digital rights management laws make it illegal. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 03:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This material is from NASA and is in the public domain. Bubba73 (talk), 03:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The DVD is from NASA? I suppose, then, if you can get a hold of the aforementioned ripping software, it would be legal (although it's technically supposed to be impossible :D). Alternatively, you could record a screencast of the DVD playing on your computer. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NASA is the source of the material, but the DVD is from a company. But the material is in the public domain. In one case it will be over 30 minutes. Can something that big be uploaded to WP? The DVDs are region 0, does that have any bearing on whether they can be copied? Bubba73 (talk), 04:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Region 0 simply states that it can be viewed on a DVD player anywhere. It has nothing to do with DRM, unfortunately. Using a screencast of the DVD, although technically piracy (which is actually OK since it's public domain), would probably be best here. Just record with a screencast-maker the bit you want to upload, convert that to Ogg using some tool (there are web services that do this, I think), then upload. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 05:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I would consider breaking that 30 minute segment into shorter segments. People don't want to sit through 30 minutes of NASA. Cut to the good stuff, and upload that. I would say a max of 5 minutes (there is, I believe, a file upload limit set to prevent you from crashing the servers. Anything above a couple minutes is likely to go over that limit) Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 05:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I do it, I will break it up. But the 30+ minute shot shows the flag on the Moon not waving for the entire time period. Bubba73 (talk), 05:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not waving like this? The Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories article discusses the belief you apparently want to refute. If this is the only reason why you want to upload the video, as long as it is available to the public, you can simply cite it with {{Cite video}}. Uploading 30 minutes of video just to prove the flag did not wave seems to strain the WP:INDISCRIMINATE guideline a bit. --Teratornis (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) commons:Help:Converting video might have something you'll find useful. --Teratornis (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Woods

Jmaes Woods also appeared in the movie, Immediate Family, with Glenn Close, 2003. This is'nt included in the movie list for him on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.237.174 (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The film is from 1989 according to http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097567/ and many other sources. I have added it.[3] It's a red link because Wikipedia has no article about it. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many incoming links in Special:WhatLinksHere/Immediate Family and Special:WhatLinksHere/Immediate Family (film), and one more in Special:WhatLinksHere/Immediate Family (1989 film). Somebody (said the lazy editor) ought to make at least a stub and a redirect to it. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, user skill follows a Pareto distribution (fewer and fewer editors at each higher level of skill), so the number of users who know how to create stubs vastly outweighs the number of users who know how to improve the same stubs. This can lead to an accumulation of stubs that take a long time to improve enough to be useful to the reader. I'm not sure how a stub is better than a red link. In some ways, stubs might be worse, since they mask the function of the red link, which is to indicate the need to develop an article at the link destination. It might be interesting if we color-coded all of our links according to the quality of the destination article, with intermediate colors to range from stub to featured. Then it would be much clearer how many of the articles linked from a given article need improvement. Currently, we color a link to a stub the same as a link to a featured article, which I think is a bit misleading. --Teratornis (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there only was a one sentence substub at Immediate Family (film) saying "Immediate Family is a 1989 drama film with James Woods and Glenn Close", then a red link might be preferable. But I just examined some stubs in Category:1980s drama film stubs and most of them seem significantly better than a red link to me. Adding an article to a stub category is also a way to indicate work is wanted. Many readers and new editors are probably intimidated at the thought of creating an article but don't mind adding to existing articles. (There are also many poor article creators who ought to be more intimidated but that's another matter). PrimeHunter (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and created Immediate Family (film). PrimeHunter (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need assistance correcting infobox template

So, if you look at Template:Infobox Non-profit the documentation contains a "mission" parameter. But if you look at the code for the template (editing the page) it doesn't look like it's included. I also just added a Non-profit info box and the content for the mission isn't appearing (see Recovery International). -- Scarpy (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "mission" parameter was added to the documenation in [4] by an inexperienced editor who has no template edits and probably didn't know you have to edit the template to add parameters. I have reverted the edit.[5] PrimeHunter (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the Title of my Article

How can I change my article title from "David bredehoft" to "David Bredehoft"? Slingermr (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Moving a page. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is not autoconfirmed yet so I moved it for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! Slingermr (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discography on RuPaul

Somehow I pooped up the discography box on RuPaul, and I dont want to revert my edit because of all the other changes I made. Can someone fix this and explain to me what was incorrect, because I cannot figure it out! CouplandForever (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In [6] you removed some cells about Supermodel 2006 but left an initial cell (not displayed in the diff) which spanned two rows although it should only have spanned one row after your edit. I fixed it in [7]. Was it intentional to remove Supermodel 2006? PrimeHunter (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are rowspan examples at Help:Table. rowspan was used for 2006 in the table in [8] before your edit, because there were two entries for 2006. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Miguel de Cervantes

It's been vandalized by a series of IP's, but not easily undo-able due to various edits including some putting it right. Anybody who can fix it? Pbackstrom (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted to the last good version. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category query (Severe weather and convection)

I was looking at the article Thermal and found the category was Category:Severe weather and convection. This category seems too restrictive. 'Severe weather' I could just understand as a category for hurricanes, but a lot of convection is benign. Obviously convection is a source of weather, but I suggest the cat is just called severe weather. JMcC (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Severe weather. Algebraist 12:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it just a short way of writing "Sever weather and severe convection"? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

serious matter

My name is edafe I was born in April 9 1897. What is my horoscope? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.27 (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we can't help you with that. This page is only for help on using Wikipedia. Anyway, so you are 111 years old? Wow :D Chamal ^talk 12:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting an online museum to wikipedia

What are the steps, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.19.181 (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify your query, please? I am not sure what it is that you want to do. — Jake Wartenberg 13:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may have wanted to create a new virtual museum article? Jay (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to add an article, the first step is to create an account. After that, read this guide. TN X Man 14:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Error?

On the Article, Tyrants of the Rising Sun I am seeing the following error at the bottom of the page: "Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found" but, I see only one reference in the article code, and it appears to have an ending tag. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the error message stated, the problem was not the lack of a </ref> tag, but the lack of a <references/> tag (which creates the reflist). I've added one. Algebraist 14:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the new Help:Cite errors. I have a proposal on the talk page there to link the error messages to the help page. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I always simply used {{reflist}}. Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding UK village

I don't really know how to go about requesting this but could you put some information in Wikipedia about Orcheston. It is a small village on Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire, England, United Kingdom. It has only around 65 houses but is featured in the Domesday Book due to its Orcheston Long Grass and the Great Flood that wiped half of it out. It is a very interesting village and needs recognising in Wikipedia.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katys1982 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this would be a great opportunity for you to contribute to Wikipedia! It seems like you already know a good deal about the village and have some reliable sources in mind. You can work on the article in your user space or you could check out this guide to publish the article right away. If you have questions, I'd be happy to help you get started. Best, TN X Man 15:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started Orcheston. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logging in

I forgot my password and requested it be sent to me. However, although it keeps advising me that it has been sent, I am not receiving it. I tried to open a new account, but it says that the name is similar to an existing name (obviously mine). How can I get my account straightened out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.83.45.122 (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that your email account is rejecting the new-password message. Have you checked whatever spam protection you have? Algebraist 17:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Title

I created a page today from a search and then clicked "Create This Page." I did not realize until I saved the page that I typed one word in lowercase in my intial search - which then created the title of the page. I would just like to change the lowercase "f" to an uppercase "F".

--Mhlwest (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that ukexpat has moved the page for you. You can now find it at the correct capitalization. TN X Man 18:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ability to write around embedded images

Hi

How can we embed an image, and then write text to wrap around it, or insert text to the right or left of the image?

Regards, CM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.45.19.49 (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you add an image to an article, the text should automatically flow around it. Is there a particular article where you are having a problem with this? – ukexpat (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can also caption the picture by adding a caption parameter. See WP:CAPTION for more. TN X Man 19:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For more information about image and text layout, see Help:Image, Help:Table, WP:BUNCH, and WP:GALLERY. --Teratornis (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what they mean is that if you use the right, left, and/or thumb qualifier with an image, the text will wrap around it. Without those qualifiers the image is inserted in the middle of the line and the next line begins under the image. —teb728 t c 05:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I speed up the "confirm" process?

I'm trying to edit an article which includes adding suitable images to it. Apparently I need to be "autoconfirmed" to be able to upload images - but this process apparently takes up to 4 days and 10 edits to occur. Is there a way I can force an early confirmation?

MonkeyFishZX (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading WP:AUTOCONFIRM, I don't think there is a way to speed up the process. The access is granted automatically by the software once the thresholds have been met. TN X Man 19:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the images are under a compatible free licence they can be added to Wikimedia Commons. You may need to register a new account there, but I'm sure the 4 days and 10 edits rule does not apply there.

Alternatively, (for example) if the images are available on Flickr or another similar image hosting site, and are under a compatible free licence, you could post a link here and invite an autoconfirmed editor to upload them. Personally I would recommend the Commons. -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 20:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is certainly preferable if they are compatible, and Commons has no autoconfirmation requirements. – ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Vandalism

I try to revert vandalism but other users like User:ClueBot beat me to it...sometimes I revert vandalism on the exact same moment that someone else does it and I don't get a edit conflict notice. I wish someone could give me time to revert :( Filper01 (Chat, My contribs) 20:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the vandalism is reverted, that's all that matters, is it not? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cluebot is a bot account that reverts vandalism automatically. You can do it manually, but a tool like Huggle makes the task much easier. – ukexpat (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict x2) Sorry. Trying to beat the bots is usually a losing battle, but don't let that stop you. There's plenty of vandalism to revert. If you find someone keeps beating you to it, leave it alone for a bit. Go off and create an article or improve an existing one. It does wonders for me. Best, TN X Man 20:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

Resolved

– Chamal ^talk 01:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have Twinkle in my Preferences but I can't revert in Twinkle. Why is this? Filper01 (Chat, My contribs) 20:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What browser do you use? Opera, Mozilla Firefox, Internet Explorer? It doesn't work in IE. Queenie ^Talk 20:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot that it dosen't work in IE, which is my browser. Does Huggle work in IE? Filper01 (Chat, My contribs) 20:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle is a standalone Windows application and is not browser dependent. – ukexpat (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Yes, I have IE and I use Huggle every day. Queenie ^Talk 21:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dosen't matter about Twinkle anymore. As I am using Firefox, I have Twinkle. Filper01 (Chat, My contribs) 21:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Watchlist?

Resolved

– ukexpat (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On my watchlist I see: (diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia:Help desk‎; 21:25 . . (+353) . . Filper01 (Talk | contribs) (→Twinkle: nm)

What does the (+353) indicate? 31415926A (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the number of bytes added or subtracted by the previous edit. For example, (+253) means a net total of 253 bytes were added by the last edit. TN X Man 21:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...ok, thank you. 31415926A (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fonts for signature

Where can I find a list of all the fonts that are available for customizing a signature? Thanks in advance. Keepscases (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any font should work. You could test a couple out in your choice of word processor (Microsoft Office, OpenOffice, etc.) and then use that font name in your signature. Some might not work, most should. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 22:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...but isn't there somewhere here I can look them up? Keepscases (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has more to do with what HTML and your browser will let you do than Wikipedia... we don't regulate what fonts you can and can't use, your browser does. I found this webpage that claims to have a list of fonts that will work in all browsers. Try using one of those. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 22:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks again. Keepscases (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Before you head off to your preferences, keep in mind: While you are unlimited in what fonts you can pick, you should really try to pick a font like one of the Core fonts for the Web that most users will have installed on their system. Please, PLEASE don't pick a disgusting font. Disgusting is defined here as the likes of Jokerman or Harlow Solid Italic, both of which I have seen used in signatures. Some are really bad when it comes to signatures. Finally, please remember (if you are adding colour) to keep code to ~~four~~ two lines or less as well as to close your tags. Xenon54 (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ye gods, four lines?(!) Link to your talk page and maybe your user page. It's enough. Anything more than 120 characters is a wasteful nuisance. The point of a sig is to put a name to a comment, and to allow other editors to easily contact you should they so desire. Every extra bit of frippery in your signature wastes the bandwidth of thousands of other editors. More obnoxiously, long signatures make it difficult to edit in substantial discussion threads. (It won't inconvenience you, just the people who come after your sprawling sig.)

If you want people to recognize your name then write interesting, sensible, constructive things — don't try to rely on a flashy but utterly superficial sig. If you want to be unique and creative, do it on your user page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it was two lines of code. (It's been a long time since I read WP:SIG.) Xenon54 (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many people are needed to support Wikipedia?

How many people does it take to support the day to day operaions of Wikipedia? 22:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johns412 (talk • contribs)

I don't think anyone really knows how many are needed, but estimates of how many there are range from a couple hundred to several thousand active "editors". If you mean "day to day operations" as in corporate matters, the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization behind Wikipedia employs a little over 20 full time employees. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 22:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 23 paid employees of the Wikimedia foundation, and 75,000 active contributors. Tan | 39 22:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meta's staff list is terribly out of date then... or maybe I just counted wrong. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 22:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right, 22 employees. Tan | 39 22:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, Meta's list doesn't include the new employee they hired for the Stanton usability project thing. It is 23. Use wmf:Staff. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 22:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the real answer is, How many people does it take to raise $6,000,000 in donations?---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 22:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be the real question? Special:RecentChanges shows who has edited recently. As I am checking just now, the most recent 50 changes are all within the past minute. If we assume each editor keeps the edit window open for a few minutes on average, there must be hundreds of users editing something right now. It's not clear what the original poster means by "support." Some people edit on Wikipedia, some people contribute financially, others put in a good word for Wikipedia with their friends, some of us just pretend to look good without convincing anyone (waves hand), etc. Even just reading Wikipedia supports the project, because having lots of viewers boosts credibility with large charitable donors and so on (Wikipedia is the world's fifth-most popular Web property). To determine how many people Wikipedia needs, one must clarify some goals, whether one refers to just keeping Wikipedia in its current form trundling along, or whether one wants something on Wikipedia to improve. Wikipedia has an almost incomprehensibe number of tasks left to complete. For example, we have 6,912,223 articles, but only 2,420 are featured articles (articles of our highest quality). To get all our articles up to featured quality, using the current methods, would probably require many more users than we currently have, but in particular many more of the relatively few users who learn Wikipedia in depth. Wikipedia has 48,279,473 registered user accounts, but the vast majority have done little more than dabble yet. (I say "yet" because they could always learn more, that is the ones who are still alive.) Hopefully Wikipedia's tools will continue to improve, possibly allowing the users we have to do a lot more. --Teratornis (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]