Help desk
< June 23	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 25 >

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.

June 24

Assitant Manager

i want to now how to be a good assistant maneger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.148.209 (talk) 24 June 2009

This page is only for help on using Wikipedia. I'm afraid we can't answer questions like this. Besides, this is something that will require quite a bit of learning and not something that can be explained by a short answer. Chamal ^talk 04:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

final words in a news column

My Aunt Katie has died and I want to write the final Ore City news column for our small county newspaper in her name, ending with the words which indicate that this is the last column. I know there is such a phrase, but I cannot remember it. She did this column for more than fifty years, reporting comings and goings in our small town. I would like to end her column with these words, but I do not know them, although I know I have seen them in the past. Can you help? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.168.55 (talk) 24 June 2009

The best place to ask this is the language reference desk. I suggest you try there. Chamal ^talk 04:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you perhaps mean –30– ? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC) proud son of a newsman, occasional journo himself[reply]

Auto formatting of dates

Is the pissing match over the linking of dates for autoformatting over? Who won? WP:MOSNUM doesn't say that the battle is still raging but then it didn't a few months ago either when I de-linked some dates and subsequently got thrown into an arbitration case. So is MOSNUM right? Is linking for the sake of autoformatting again deprecated? Dismas|^(talk) 04:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll get different answers depending on who you answer. Personally, I don't understand why you can't autoformat without any additional code. It would be just a personal preference setting that doesn't affect anyone else. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

question?

how and where i can ask a question about a topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanak3 (talk • contribs) 24 June 2009

If the question is about how to edit Wikipedia, you're already in the right place. If you're looking for a general sort of factual question, then the Reference Desk is the place for you. Dismas|^(talk) 06:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can't open wikipedia

New computer behaviour...when I try to open a wikipedia entry in IE 8 I get an error message saying that windows does not recognize this MIME type.

HOw do I fix this? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.83.152 (talk) 24 June 2009

this at the msdn blog may be of some help. The items listed there suggest:

Register for an account
Remove Google desktop
Clear the cache

If those items fail to resolve the problem, you may find some more knowledgeable assistance over at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing section if that fails. Best of luck. — Ched : ? 07:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

How can I create an infobox? ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 09:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what article? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean an infobox template ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 09:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{infobox}} as a meta-template— many infoboxes are based on it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give it a shot! ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 10:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked Category:Infobox templates to make sure that one fitting your situation does not already exist? – ukexpat (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speed?

Is it just me, or has Wikipedia been slower the past few days? I'll be glad to know it's not just me. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't noticed a difference, what web browser do you use? ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 10:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Explorer. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One strange and possibly related thing I noticed was that when I pressed "Yes" on "Restore all default settings" in "My preferences", the speed seemed to pick up, although it's since slowed down a little again. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I despise IE, you have to get Mozilla Firefox it's free and very up to date. you can download it here from the official website. Plus, most internet providers aren't really compatible with IE ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 10:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having the same problem under Firefox, but I thought it was something on my end. Try disabling addons, or if you use a skin other than Monobook, switch and see if that helps. You might also want to notify those at WP:VPT and see if they can offer any more assistance. Xenon54 (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image reversal

Unresolved

(See also: [1])

Not long ago, I downloaded an image, reversed it, and then uploaded it to Wikipedia Commons. I did this because the person in the image was facing right, and the image was on the right of the page. It's almost always better to have the person in an image facing into the page rather than out from the page. And this was a situation in which the image was in the lead and had to be on the right. I have searched the FAQ and other Help pages, and it appears that the MediaWiki software does not allow a simple reversal of an image by placing some kind of reversal command or code within an image file link on an article page. I'm wondering if I've just overlooked it, or does a new reversed image have to be uploaded each time a "perspective" problem is found? ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 10:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm am not an expert, but that may be violating copyrights depending on the photo, I never really notice where the photo is pointing, Freddy Krueger's is come to think of it. I never would go through that much effort ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 10:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you've never uploaded an image before, do you need help? If so I'd be more than happy to give you a walkthrough ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 10:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright's not the problem. A reversed image holds the same copyright as the original unreversed image. What I'm looking for is a command or code that can be simply added to the {{File:(image name.jpg)|thumb|right . . .}} on any given article page that will reverse the image, instead of having to download, reverse, upload each time an image needs reversed. ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 11:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This can't be done AFAIK. You'll just have to upload the image again as you did. Alternatively you can change the alignment of the image (left or right) so that the subject faces the text. WP:IMAGES gives pretty much everything about images, if you need it. Chamal ^talk 11:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's called Wikimedia Commons and not Wikipedia Commons. This must be about File:Benjamin Franklin by Joseph Siffred Duplessis.jpg and the reverted File:Benjamin Franklin by Joseph Siffred Duplessis left.jpg. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images which speaks against image reversal for layout reasons. I also dislike this kind of image manipulation and think it's practically falsification. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the 'practically' there. Algebraist 12:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just now I've seen the image reverted. I reversed it in good faith, and I hope you believe that there was never any desire to promote falsification. The deed was entirely for the benefit of the reader. An outward perspective, as it is now, tends to lead the reader's eyes away from the page, whereas an inward perspective leads the reader's eyes into the page. I promise you that this was my only objective! ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 14:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I was certain you did it in good faith. I was just expressing my general view of image reversal in connection with the linked guideline and not as a comment about you. If you disagree with the guideline then you can suggest a change at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. As long as the guideline is at it is, I don't think you should add reversed images to articles for layout reasons. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, as I'm the one who replaced the image with the unflopped one in Benjamin Franklin: The inadvertent flopping of an image in a print publication (a not infrequent occurrence) is considered an error; and deliberately floppiing an image does indeed constitute misrepresentation, like manipulating a direct quotation to make it imply something that the author did not intend. I see no reason for Wikipedia to have lower standards than such publications in this regard. Deor (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, as I'm the one who originally replaced the image with the "flopped" one in Benjamin Franklin: Before you finalize your "error" and "misrepresentation" stand, you might want to take a look at the US 5 cent postage stamp of 1847 that you will find in Commons. It appears to be the very same portrait "flopped" on the postage stamp! ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 06:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://robertasiegel.net/804/intros/1847.htm agrees with you, but Wikipedia doesn't work by 1847 stamp design standards. They also flipped George Washington and he was facing left. Maybe the designer just found it easier to copy the image as it was and ignore that the stamping reverts the engraving. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2PrimeHunter: Thank you for your kind words. If I read the guideline correctly, the advice is to place Ben Franklin's photo on the left of the page. However, I don't see that working very well either. For some reason, it seems rather odd to see Ben's body pointing away from the page, as if he doesn't agree with what is written there and is "turning his back on it". Oh well, I guess Ben's past caring, and soon, so shall I be. ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 05:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I fail to grasp the importance of which way a person in a photo is looking. If a photo appears at the top of an article, should the subject be looking down? If the photo is at the bottom, should the subject be looking up? And should the subject be pointing as well with an index finger? This might be akin to breaking the fourth wall, i.e. depicting people who seem to be aware of their depiction. There's nothing wrong with breaking the fourth wall, it's a common theatrical and cinematic device, usually to convey irony or humor. However, I'm trying to understand what sort of reader needs to be told where to find the text on the screen. It usually seems apparent to me. --Teratornis (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Don't reverse images. That is taught in Basic Journalism 101 or Basic Photography 1A. It is dishonest. If the layout allows, you can switch the image from the right to the left side of the page so the guy or gal faces into the page (taught in most good journalism schools). It's a matter of holding the page together. Very psychological. Your pal, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC) (Later) I deleted one usage from the English Wiki and one from the German, then I went to Wiki Commons and proposed to delete the image. See here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has brought out some interesting points about image reversal. And I cede to all wishes.

2Teratornis: To answer your wish to grasp the importance of which way a person in a photo is looking, Teratornis, check out the next billboard or magazine ad you see with a person to the side. In advertising, the objective is to get people to focus upon the pitch in the center of the billboard or magazine page. A photo of a person whose perspective is toward the center of the page very simply focuses the reader toward the page rather than away from the page. It's an old, old advertising technique.

2GeorgeLouis: It might be taken to a different level of dishonesty when one realizes that even an UNreversed photo or painted portrait can be construed as never really truthfully depicting the subject. However, the thing with Wikipedia is that TOC's almost invariably go on the left side of a page, while infoboxes together with images almost invariably go on the right. So, as in the case of Ben Franklin, the portrait has to be on the right side of the page, and it has to situate Ben's body pointing away from the page, thus, as you say "very psychological"ly, sending the reader's focus off into oblivion, rather than focusing the reader into the lead of the article. However, if everybody's okay with that, then who am I to object? ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 05:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't selling anything and doesn't have to copy advertising tricks. If you do want to object to the guideline against image reversal then as mentioned, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style is the place. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was provide an explanation to Teratornis who was trying to grasp the importance of perspective and perceptual sensitivity. The orientation of Ben Franklin as it stands now is not conducive to focusing readers on the article. It has nothing to do with whether or not Wikipedia is selling something or copying tricks. It has everything to do with focusing the attention of readers and the improvement of Wikipedia. I'm not necessarily advocating image reversal itself, as it is a misrepresentation of sorts. When I flipped ol' Ben, I actually wondered if anyone would notice the buttons. Men's buttons are always on the right and connect into the holes on the left, whereas ladies' blouses are always reversed. At any rate, I believe it's a perceptual challenge and I'm not sure just what the answer is. ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 04:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check link [Resolved]

Resolved

– Kateshort forbob 11:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing a bit of preliminary tidying of a new article, A J Dalton, which contains an external link to here. Unfortunately it's blocked by my corporate firewall :-( - would anyone be able to check whether this is the author's website or something else, as I don't want to save the article with a mislabelled link, and I won't have access to a free computer for some time. Thanks --Kateshort forbob 11:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a blog, which appears to be owned by "Adam Dalton" (At least that is the user posting article's) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - thanks for the quick reply! So possibly safe to list as an external link for the author, then? From what little I can see on the Google excerpt, it looks like the WP article is quoting directly from another page on that blog, which probably won't do, though. (the firewall is your friend, the firewall is your friend) Thanks again --Kateshort forbob 11:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is pretty safe to list the blog as such - it has every indication sign of a personal blog. As for the literal quoting, i cannot seem to find it in that page. I even tried finding single words that might be copied, but it seems to be a legit text :) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I probably shouldn't rely on cached Google excerpts for these things! It may be a moot point, however, as the sentence has now been removed and the page prodded... --Kateshort forbob 11:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this article not speedily deleted? I cannot see any shred of importance or significance. In any event, clearly fails WP:BIO. – ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy (A7) was declined, I suspect because the article sort of asserted notability at the time (it's been changed since), although you'd have to ask the decliner to be sure. I was giving it the benefit of the doubt, and didn't discover it was a self-publishing job til I'd posted here. It's on a prod now, so we'll see what happens in a week --Kateshort forbob 15:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was declined, my question was why. In any event it has been A7 speedied now. – ukexpat (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon affecting Vietnam between 8-1-1971 thru 12-26-1971

PTSD (post tramatic syndrom disorder)

The cities of Hue and Fubi Vietnam

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our roughly three million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside involvement on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where the asking of knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.. – ukexpat (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Hi - I'm not sure whether you have a Wikipedia-related question or not. Perhaps you could rephrase? Our article on the 1971 Pacific typhoon season may be of some use, and there are a number of candidates whose duration coincides with the period you mention, although not all of them may have affected Vietnam. Our article on Huế doesn't mention a typhoon, and I haven't yet been able to find an article on a city called "Fubi" (Vietnamese apparently does not use the letter 'F'). You may have more success with your question(s) at one of the Reference Desks, where people answer general knowledge questions. Make sure to give as much detail as you can when asking there. --Kateshort forbob 14:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English Content

Sorry if this isn't the correct place to ask, but I can't find any information. How should non-English language pages in en.wiki be treated? I would add a speedy deletion tag but it's not in the criteria. Any help is appreciated, the article is Gastropunkt. ReformatMe (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag it as "needs translation", which has been done. (It's also been tagged for speedy, but because the group is not notable.) Xenon54 (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Place {{NotEnglish}} on the page that needs translation, and follow the instructions on the template once you saved it. If the article is present on another language wikipedia (Read: it has been literally copied over) you should tag it as a DB-A2. Keep in mind that some users are attempting to translate article's in place, so it might be a good idea to wait for some time to see if the user actively translates it. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

musical lirics

an excentric is giving away prizes to his vault for anyone who knows what artist did the song with 2 lines of the following lyrics,WELL NOW IT'S TOO LATE FOR TALKING,WE CAN TALK LATER ON.LET THE SAXOPHONE PLAY US UNTIL THE CHORUS OF DAWN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.146.120 (talk) 24 June 2009

I'm sorry, but this desk is for asking questions about using Wikipedia. You may be better served by Googling the lyrics to see to which song they belong. TN X Man 15:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oo, oo, I know this one (I think): Angel of Mercy by Dire Straits, from Communiqué. – ukexpat (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or try Wikipedia:Reference desk ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 13:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't talk to a user reversing my changes

I'm having a problem attempting to add a EL to the orangutan page/entry. MrOllie keeps reversing my edit and although I know there may be a valid reason for him doing so, I can't "talk" to him to find out why. I've been told (by another member) I should ask the question here. His page doesn't seem to provide me with the ability to edit his talk page and I have no idea how to communicate with him. For more details you can see my talk page that has some correspondence with another member. EscapedApe (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:MrOllie is semi-protected due to vandalism so it can only be edited by autoconfirmed users. Your account happened to become autoconfirmed when you made this post so you should be able to edit User talk:MrOllie now. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with article content and editor disagreement [Resolved]

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the article on SS Orduna, another editor added a largish (for the article) section on one particular journey of the ship by Robert Baden-Powell and Scouting leaders. I removed it, leaving a summary sentence, but then the other editor just undid it. I have left a comment on Talk:SS_Orduna explaining that I feel it should be included under the Baden-Powell or the Scouting pages - surely the article should be just about the ship? How do I get someone else to look at it and decide if I'm wrong or not - and if I'm wrong, to explain why? PhantomSteve (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you - that long section does unbalance the article and raises the question, "What about the other cruises?". If this particular cruise is worthy or more in-depth coverage, it should be in the Baden-Powell or Scouting articles, where its importance lies. You have begun the right way by opening a discussion on the article's talk page. Have you invited the other editor to participate in that discussion? If they have not watchlisted the page they may not know about it. – ukexpat (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a reply from him, and given a reply of my own. I was about to invite him to contribute, but when I checked my watchlist, he'd replied! He still thinks I'm wrong, so I'm not sure! PhantomSteve (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought. I am sure the folks over at the Ships Project would have useful input, so a message on the project's talk page asking for participation on the article's talk page may give rise to some additional responses. – ukexpat (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Ukexpat. I have put a message on the project's talk page, and I'll leave those more knowledgeable in the project to make the decision! PhantomSteve (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help - marking as resolved. – ukexpat (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability a must on new articles, but those with no sources are permitted?

Hello,

Although the instructions in WP:FIRST are fine in creating an article, very often a new article created is deleted as soon as possible, unless it meets the notability criteria + other rules and instructions.

I'm however, wondering, that why do some pages exist which do not have any kinds of sources cited? Since if every article is required to have some show of notability in order to avoid it getting deleted, why does a huge amount of articles pass this criteria, despite of having no sources to verify the content from?

Thanks for your time,

~Iceshark7 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because this is such a huge project that we just haven't got around to working on them yet, whether that be finding sources or nominating for deletion. – ukexpat (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are prefered but not essential: for most new pages, however, verifiablility and notability may hinge on sources, but it isn't a absolute requirement. Sources may exist in other forms, such as external links. The fact that an article lacks sources is not usually a reason for deletion per se, it is another requirement that may rely at least partly on sources. This is my understanding. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some subjects are obviously notable, such as well-known geographical locations. Everybody knows Mount Everest exists, so there is no need to assert its notability. Such an article could hang around for a long time with inadequate sources, and not necessarily get deleted, because it is obvious that sources are available and someone needs to get around to putting them in. Even fairly obscure topics can be fairly resistant to deletion when their notability is unlikely to be an issue. See for example List of crossings of the Ohio River. As the Ohio is a major waterway, every single crossing of it is a major engineering work and is undoubtedly notable. Whenever any bridge or dam gets built on a major river, there will surely be published sources about it, the bridge or dam will have a specific name, etc. As we go upstream on the tributaries, eventually the bridges get too small to have names and become less likely to be notable. If you wanted to write an article about some culvert on a tiny stream, you would have to demonstrate its notability. Similarly, an article about some obscure musical act needs to assert notability because few Wikipedia users will have heard of it, and the existence of reliable sources is far from certain. --Teratornis (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't agree, Teratornis. While it may be obvious to some, the whole point of wikipedia is to provide info for the people who don't know and make sure everything in the article is accurate. There are plenty of articles that claim a subject is notable but have nothing to back it up. - 131.211.210.124 (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone finds such a page, the choices according to WP:UNSOURCED include (a) improve it, by finding and adding sources; (b) challenging claims that ought to be sourced using {{fact}} or similar templates; (c) removing unsourced material, particularly where there are living people involved; (d) if these routes fail, or leave nothing worth preserving, nominating the article for deletion either with a prod template (for deletions that are unlikely to be contentious) or at a deletion discussion. Deletion of an unsourced article on sight is rarely appropriate purely for lack of sources. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News article

I'd like to suggest a news article for wikinews. The doctors in South Africa have been on strike since monday the 22nd on July. You can find more information on news24 or on ewn.co.za as well as other south african news websites. I don't know how to add news articles. Thanks Claudia

This is Wikipedia Wikinews is over there. Algebraist 16:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews is a separate project but you can head over to their breaking news page and make your request. – ukexpat (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA category question

Which GA category would you suggest I add this article to? Aditya ^α _ß 16:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of them really seem suitable do they? I'd say the safest bet is the Miscellaneous category, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's my only option. I don't see which other section the article would fit in. Aditya ^α _ß 17:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "category"? "Category" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. Transport in India is already in several categories, and Talk:Transport in India is in several more. If you are asking where to list the article on the WP:GA page, there is a WP:GA#Transport heading. If you are asking about subcategories of Category:GA-Class articles, note that these subcategories do not contain articles, but rather article talk pages, and the categorization comes from templates. Talk:Transport in India is in Category:Engineering and technology good articles, Category:GA-Class India articles, and Category:GA-Class India articles of Top-importance, among others. --Teratornis (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking about subcategories of Category:Wikipedia good articles, look at some other good articles under WP:GA#Transport and see what categories they are in. --Teratornis (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again in the case of Category:Wikipedia good articles, the categorization appears to come from templates on article talk pages, and Talk:Transport in India is in Category:Engineering and technology good articles already. I may not understand your question. --Teratornis (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed the question was in relation to the categories detailed at WP:GAN, under the section "Nomination categories" Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll clarify this. Once I upgrade an article to GA class, I've got to add it to a section on the WP:GA page. However no section seems appropriate for Transport in India. The Transport section does not have an adequate place for it, nor does Engineering and Technology. See? Aditya ^α _ß 15:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Bot for resolved items?

I don't know if it's possible, but would it be useful to have a bot which looks through the help areas and/or talk pages, and if it finds the {{resolved}} tag, to add [Resolved] in the section title, so this reflects in the Table of Contents for the page? Then at a glance, people can see what has been resolved, and won't need to look at those items! As an example, I hand coded the ones on this page, to show in the ToC which items have been resolved. PhantomSteve (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a good idea, I can think of one minor problem, which is that any links to that section would then be broken, but then, they would be when the page is archived anyway, and once it is resolved there would not be much need for the links Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider the section link breakage problem to be a bit worse than minor, but we already have the same problem when talk pages get archived. It would be nice if the archiving bots would find all the incoming section links and fix them too.
How about marking the unresolved items as "Unresolved"? Then readers can search directly for those items with a Ctrl+F search. It's inefficient to throw technology at marking up the resolved items when the result is still inferior to being able to search for unresolved items directly. That's like giving someone road directions by listing all the turns they should not make, the inverse of what you really want.
The practice of marking questions as "resolved" is somewhat dubious. To say that something is "resolved" is to declare that no one else on the planet has anything worthwhile to add. Even if the person who asked the question considers him/herself fully satisfied with the answers thus far, a better answer might still be possible. It's hard to say when a question is "resolved", but much easier to say we really know that someone is unresolved. Something is unresolved as long as the person who asked a question isn't satisfied yet.

These are just my opinions, which may not reflect consensus, reality, what you should do, or anything else. --Teratornis (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, Teratornis, but surely in that case we shouldn't have a resolved tag! If the originator feels that it's not been resolved, they can always removed the tag and comment that they aren't satisfied! PhantomSteve (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is "that case" in your first sentence? I'm not sure which of my sentences you are commenting on. Let me try to clarify what I'm saying, since it may go against the way most of us have been conditioned to think about marking topics as resolved:

As long as the original poster feels a topic is unresolved, it would be useful to explicitly mark it as "Unresolved" so other readers can search directly for it. The original poster is fully qualified to tell us when he or she feels an issue is unresolved, and most other users would probably want to search efficiently for unresolved topics.
Marking topics as "Resolved" is less practically useful, because (probably) nobody wants to search for resolved topics, and nobody is qualified to declare that no further useful information is possible. At best we might know that the original poster feels satisfied with the answers thus far, but the original poster may not be in a good position to know whether those answers are the best possible answers. There is often more than one way to solve a given problem, and since the original poster doesn't know about any of those ways initially, he or she can hardly know whether the first answer that appears is the best possible answer.

So yes, it would be fair to say that I'm having trouble understanding why we mark topics as "Resolved" when we can more confidently and more usefully mark unresolved topics as "Unresolved". "Unresolved" would indicate the original poster definitely still needs help, whereas "Resolved" at best might indicate "There is no urgent need for further comment, but we cannot rule out the possibility of additional useful comment." The "Resolved" template seems useless as a search target, so I don't really understand why we have it, when we should rather have an "Unresolved" template. Perhaps the people who thought it up didn't really think it through. If my thinking is incorrect I invite correction. Obviously, there is so much momentum in favor of using the {{Resolved}} template that I don't anticipate being able to turn that battleship around, even if it's not the best way to classify questions. I'm just pointing out some problems with our current marking custom, and showing how the elaborate fix you have in mind would not be at all necessary if people used the more logical strategy of marking unresolved questions with the searchable text "Unresolved" (which they could then remove when the first workable solution to a question appears). That way we would call readers' attention to the questions obviously in need of help, while not prematurely closing off discussion on questions that might yet admit a better answer. --Teratornis (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bot already knows how to discern between resolved sections and unresolved sections. See Wikipedia:Coordination/noticeboards, which lists only the unresolved sections and not the resolved ones. —harej (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to use <span id="foo"></span> to keep a section anchor working if a section header is renamed. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected article - 'blank suggestions'

My article 'Days of the Week according to the Hindu calendar' was rejected by reviewer as it had 'blank suggestions'. What are 'suggestions'. How do I fill these up? Bless10 (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't submit an article, you just submitted a title with no accompanying content. If you want to write an article on the topic, go ahead and write it. If you want someone else to write it, then the place to request this is WP:RA, not WP:AFC. Algebraist 18:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading an Article

I would like to place in Wikipedia an article entitled What is Rothbart Proprioceptive Therapy, a therapy I invented that is known world wide. How can I do this?

Professor Rothbart <contact details redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorRothbart (talk • contribs) 19:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may follow the instructions at WP:AFC and/or add to Proprioception, but please be aware of WP:AB. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. – ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Rothbart, I would just point out that Wikipedia is not an advertising forum for your treatment and/or publications and/or insoles. If you can present an objective, scientific article which does not just advocate buying product(s), and with verifiable citations, then following the advice above would enable your article to be created. Also the title would need to just be Rothbart Proprioceptive Therapy, without the 'What is' prefix! PhantomSteve (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA_World_Rankings vandalism

Someone has vandalized the http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings page. I don't edit WIKI pages, so maybe someone else can repair it. Thanks 68.112.180.25 (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to have been fixed, and User:J.delanoy has protected the page. If you would like some information on how to revert vandalism (it really isn't hard, I encourage you to try), there's information at WP:VAND. And plenty of people happy to help. Thanks and best wishes, --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can I ask for a review for a sub page?

Resolved

This is the URL http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Shipinoza/Sandbox I just don't know how to wikilink it. Thanks in advance! --Shipinoza (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You link it like this: [[User:Shipinoza/Sandbox]].

See Wikipedia:Peer review. I took a quick look— don't go there yet. The article is written like an advertisement; I hope none of the text is copied from the company's website or other documentation. You need to check the image, as it is tagged for no copyright status. If you are connected to the company, please read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Shipinoza (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also take a look at WP:COI, WP:SPAM and WP:YFA. – ukexpat (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a definition

As a Customer Service Expert, I "coined" a new word “customertunity .” I would like to submitt this word for consideration to be added to Wikipedia. please provide me with the instructionto do so.

Appreciative SB

See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging one's accounts

How can I find my old account, and merge my new one into it? I just created the new one so I could edit, but I think I already had one. I couldn't find my old user name, though.

Accounts cannot be merged. Algebraist 23:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]