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.
An OTRS volunteer added an OTRS permission tag together with a non-free use tag at
File:Arnold Leibovit.jpg. Is this right? It seems a contradiction to me to combine OTRS permission with the non-permission of non-free use. —
teb728tc04:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I am not an expert on the subject, but if I read it correctly, the OTRS says that there is copyright release for Wikipedia to use the image, but there isn't a free use release for anyone to use it, and the Wikipedia policy is that for subjects such as living people it generally doesn't use non-free images. My interpretion of the OTRS permission is that the copyright holder has released it so that it could be used for a purpose in which Wikipedia allows non-free images. -
David Biddulph (
talk)
08:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
The OTRS ticket tag needs to say the specific kind of permission which was granted by the copyright holder. Otherwise it's misleading. If they didn't specify a compatible license, then the permission letter is invalid for keeping the image. See
Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. The most usual compatible free license is
CC-by-SA. Permission for use on Wkipedia only (or only for non-commercial purposes) is incompatible with our licensing and still makes the image non-free. As it is an image of a living person and therefore replaceable, it does not count as a valid fair use and should almost certainly be deleted.
File:PuppetoonMovie(2).jpg is another problematic one from the same user. At least it has a valid fair use rationale, but does not state who the copyright holder is and again, has a misleading OTRS tag.
Voceditenore (
talk)
11:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the
Wikipedia: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, select the relevant section, 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.
Singularity42 (
talk)
04:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
had a few 'citation needed' references. It is categorised as both
Articles needing additional references from February 2012
and
All articles needing additional references
This is why (I think) that a big box appears at the top of the article saying "This article needs additional citations for verification.". Now that I've added citations to the article neither this box nor the categories above are relevant any longer but I can't seem to remove them. They aren't in the body of the article like normal categories. How do I remove them? Or will they disappear once the citations have been accepted?
I have looked under
WP:TITLE and
WP:CAPS here, without much guidance. The trouble here is my natural instinct is to cap the T in Television, and I am not sure why, but it must have something to do with it starting with a number that somehow "3D" does not count as a word and so "Television" needs to be capped. I should appreciate views, or at least a better place to ask for them. The article is marked as requiring cleanup, which I shall do as best I can, but I should appreciate views on whether the T in Television should be capped. Thanks
Si Trew (
talk)
06:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
A very sensible argument. Somehow to me it just "looks" wrong. But probably best left stet, there is no good reason to move, especially since the WP search is now case insensitive. Thanks for your help. I am a bit busy this morning but then will get on doing the cleanup as best I can. I only have an old fashioned black and white telly that still picks up episodes of
Coronation Street from 1968, so you can guarantee an NPOV.
There is an error in the displayed set of bookshelves in the graphic illustrating the size of Wikipedia. This is hosted at
User:Tompw/bookshelf. Details reproduced below.
So I’m still left with my original questions regarding how to proceed (again, see detail below).
Is there another place I should seek consensus, or should I go ahead and make the edits in Tompw’s user space, move the code to another space (I’m thinking this should probably be a template), and fix it there, or...?
....
The display of "how big is Wiki in terms of printed books", which is included in several places (notably
Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia), appears to have a problem in the way it calculates the size of the display. For example, the current display computes the size as equivalent to 1634 volumes, but then displays that as approximately 7 1/6 full stacks (shelves of books), rather than the correct (approximately) 8 1/6th stacks. It appears to be a relatively simple miscalculation (rounding the result to nearest rather than rounding up, see description below).
Unfortunately Tompw appears to be inactive. They've made one edit since last July (in October), and they've not responded to my message in several days.
So I have two questions.
First, as a matter of etiquette, should I go ahead and fix the code under
User:Tompw/bookshelf?
Second, given the general use of these pages/images, should this be moved out of user space, and perhaps set up as a template?
-- Missing stack in
User:Tompw/bookshelf,
Wikipedia:Size in volumes etc. --
I believe the number of stacks in the various "how big is Wiki in printed books" graphics is missing a stack.
It's currently 1634 volumes, which should be eight full stacks, plus a partial ninth stack. It's displaying
seven full stacks plus a partial eighth. I believe the problem is with the calculation in
User:Tompw/bookshelf/stacks. It's currently:
{{ #expr: {{User:Tompw/bookshelf/volumes}}/200 round 0}}
It should probably be something like
{{ #expr: ceil({{User:Tompw/bookshelf/volumes}}/200)}}
(I think I did the conversion of braces correctly, but if the above has ended up with a missing or extra brace,
I apologize in advance.)
The round function is not what you'd really want. Round would convert 300-499 books (1.500 to 2.495 stacks) to
2, and 500-699 books (2.500 to 3.495 stacks) to 3. Ceil will get the next highest integer. Thus 1.005 through
2.000 (201-400 books) would get 2, but 2.005 through 3.000 (401-600 books) would get 3.
Likewise, the calculation in
User:Tompw/bookshelf/volumes, should probably be changed from:
{{#expr:({{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}}/(500*2*2*80*50/(6*562)) round 0) + 1}}
{{#expr:ceil({{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}}/(500*2*2*80*50/(6*562)))}}
Although that's only going to be off a book at worst.
I haven't quite traced through how the partial stack gets drawn, so I'm not sure if there's an impact there or not.
Rwessel (
talk)
21:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
If the stacks are reproduced outside his userspace, then I think it would be OK to correct it. If it's purely something he has had in his own userspace for his own enjoyment, it's fine to leave a note about it, but I would not alter it.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
10:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
See the example at
Help:Table#Width, height. Instead of | abc || def || ghi, just have | abc. Look in the source of this section to see how the following table is coded.
I've recently created
Template:Knots as a navbox for pages on individual knots. However, it's fairly large (it may actually warrant breaking down into individual boxes at some point) and I'd like it to display by default in its collapsed state when added to an article. What I can't seem to do is get persuade it to do so - I've tried changing the | state = parameter to collapsed, and I've even tried nesting it in <noinclude> tags, but it still shows in its expanded state when in article space (at present, I've only added it to one article,
Adjustable bend). Suggestions welcome - this is my first attempt at building a template, so I've probably cocked something up somewhere.
Yunshui雲
水09:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
It's working for me. When I go to
Adjustable bend, the navbox is automatically collapsed. Also, I
changed{{{state<includeonly>|collapsed</includeonly>}}} to <includeonly>collapsed</includeonly> because I don't think {{{state|collapsed}}} does anything useful in this context. According to
Help:Template#Handling parameters, "{{{1|unknown}}} will be replaced by the first unnamed parameter if there is one, or otherwise by the text 'unknown'." Since I'm assuming you want the template to be collapsed for all transclusions and since I don't think you're going to have parameters when using the template, the "state" parameter will not exist and "collapsed" will always be returned. If this isn't your intention and you want to make it customizable (e.g. choose whether to collapse by default or not), feel free to revert and have |state=autocollapse as a parameter of the template when you transclude it if you don't want it collapse by default.
Goodvac (
talk)
10:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Awesome, thanks for the fix. It still shows as expanded for me, so I guess my cache needs a spot of refreshment. Any other tweaks you want to make will be appreciated!
Yunshui雲
水10:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Help with random
This is a tough ask (or as I know).
Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge/RandomArticle, I created for the project, when you click on the merge icon it will link you to a page which links you to a random article needing merge. Can anyone format such that the icon directly links you to a random article needing merge. Thanks,
extra999 (
talk)
09:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Hi,
I forgot my log in password and when I click for new password its forwarded to my email id which is expired/closed long back, can wiki admin help me retrieve my password?
Regards,
Avinash Birambole — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
41.213.125.250 (
talk)
10:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
When I open any new page, a large white space comes up, which disappears after refreshing. I have been facing this problem since last week or so. I use updated version of chrome, thanks in advance for your help!
— Bill william comptonTalk13:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Thanks PrimeHunter, but the problem is not with revisionjumper, because it's already disabled. The space comes at the beginning of page, like someone has newlined whole text at bottom. Also, it doesn't appear always.
— Bill william comptonTalk12:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Links in References do not appear for editing, need to be changed
Someone inserted malicious links into my References section, but when I view Refs- there are no links listed.
Our competitors regularly go in and replace our company's links with links to their own websites, and I regularly go in and change them back, but am no longer able to do so.
Kathleenglica (
talk)
14:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
You need to click the edit tab at the top of the page so that the whole article is in edit mode, then you can edit the references where they appear in the article's text. Please also read
WP:COI and
WP:RS - at the moment the article relies almost exclusively the company's own website for references and that is not sufficient to demonstrate the required notability for Wikipedia purposes. –
ukexpat (
talk)
14:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
(e/c) The reason for this is that the References section
transcludes the information on references from the article text. The references are placed within the body of the article and the <references /> markup makes them appear in one place on the visible version. So that's why you can't see them.
The article is currently in dire need of better referencing (it currently relies entirely upon the company's own website), and it may be that the whole article meets our criteria for
deletion. In addition, you have repeatedly added inappropriate external links to the article, in violation of
our external links policy. Please read
the conflict of interest guidelines as well before editing any further.
Yunshui雲
水14:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Historians, &c.
I regularly edit in quiet corners of WP that are usually edited by historians or researchers. Accordingly, their writing styles are best suited for research journals or historical essays -- but not what would be called "encyclopedic". These articles usually contain generalities, assumptions, and weasel and peacock wording. Is there any essay or guideline I can reference when questioned about this? The only thing I could find was
WP:TONE (besides
WP:WEASEL and
WP:PEACOCK), but, while it is a good start, it doesn't necessarily touch on all of the points I hoped it would. Is there an all-in-one essay that helps when editing with historians, &c., maybe a "the difference between writing for a journal and an encyclopedia"? Rgrds. --
64.85.217.15 (
talk)
14:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
No, it's never been an issue with positing any agenda or anything. It's more of, how do I put this, an old guy telling the history of a town like he was reminiscing to his grandson. I guess what I am looking for is an easy way to explain the difference between the writing style you would expect from a historical society and an encyclopedia. Most of the time, these editors aren't WP-savvy at all, so they aren't the easiest types to template. I apologize for not being any more clear, I guess I'm more brainstorming than asking a direct question. Is there maybe a "instead of writing it like that, write it like this" help page? --
64.85.217.15 (
talk)
15:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
On second thought, maybe
WP:NPOV is what I'm looking for, or at least will lead me to it; I just wish there was something specific I could use with historians and researchers. Thanks. --
64.85.217.15 (
talk)
15:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Well, I was more concerned with helping the editors change their writing style. I usually clean up the articles rather than tag them, but the template did lead me to click on a few more links. The MOS doesn't really have a page on the actual writing style, it just dances around the topic. I guess the best I've found is
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, which ironically contains the
WP:WEASEL I linked to in my OP. Thanks for the links. --
64.85.217.15 (
talk)
17:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Louisiana Blues Hall of Fame
Hello,
I have been trying to get info on the Louisiana Blues Hall of Fame on Wikipedia. It was on for a while but was deleted.
What do I have to do to correct or add info to get it back on? Can you please help me. Gary Daigle — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Garydaigle (
talk •
contribs)
15:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
OK, so I've found the following strange text in two articles (and by in the articles I really mean inline text inside the main articles):
"INVALID BULGARIAN CHART ENTERED! Only the charts at www.bamp-bg.org are acceptable. Please link to an individual chart, and remember that the charts published at acharts.us are not acceptable"
I thought this was someone not knowing about using Talk pages to highlight problems, so I tried to delete the text from the article to move it to the talk page. However, I couldn't find it anywhere in the article's edit text - I assume it's some kind of template that is invisible. How can I find how this confusing text got here?
The article at the above URL is irrelevant. I was in this band and I made the article myself and inflated the band's importance so it wasn't removed. I did this so when people searched Phaethon (alternate spelling of Phaeton, mythical Greek figure) in Google, our band would be near the top of the list. The fact is, the band was never payed any attention and was more of a case of high schoolers screwing around recording together. I feel that the article is illegitimate and should not be in an encyclopedia that is supposed to be taken seriously, so in the interest of ridding wikipedia of inappropriate material, I felt I should notify the administrators. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.62.40.177 (
talk)
15:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Done I've tagged the article for deletion. While I'm not 100% sure of the IP's stated connection to the article, it's not necessary after looking at the article itself and judging it by its own merits, or lack thereof. --McDoobAU9315:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
and was preparing to add an unreffed article tag to it when I noticed a ref section at the end (but no inline refs).
Curious, especially because the reference is a whole chapter of the book: Muddyman, Dave. "A Basic Expression of Life". 2000. In Broughton, Simon and Ellingham, Mark with McConnachie, James and Duane, Orla (Ed.), World Music, Vol. 1: Africa, Europe and the Middle East, pp 567–578. Rough Guides Ltd, Penguin Books.
I went to check it at Google books (btw the ISBN in the article is wrong, it leads to Vol.2 of the same series).
Now the other day I could see pp567-568, the copyvio is obvious, it's just a conciser form of the text, with an occasionnal word changed or sections presented in a different order. But today I can only access from p569 onwards, but if you check the two the copyvio for the later sections of the article is obvious. As I said above, sometimes the info is presented in a different order but the wording is (almost) identical everywhere. Google books link, you need to scroll to page 569 and onwards for the relevant sections
But you could convert them to .jpg format and upload them - provided, of course, they are your diagrams, not ones you have copied from somewhere else, and you do not mind releasing the copyright.
Arjayay (
talk)
18:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Hello,I am Beril Tanriverdi and i made an information page for myself.I am a singer and student so i need to be seen on Wikipedia,people will need and look for me.All the sources are true,I just want to keep my page.Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Beriltanriverdi (
talk •
contribs)
17:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
If you intention is solely to promote yourself on Wikipedia anything you write is unlikely to survive. If you are notable some day someone should write an article on you, until then you should not write one yourself. Яehevkor✉17:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
You seem to confuse Wikipedia with social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a social networking site. —
teb728tc21:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Have you looked at the original poster's contributions? He has only made two edits thus far; neither one created an article about himself. They were both to the help desk, which is rather confusing.
Interchangeable|
talk to me18:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)reply
There is a Facebook page for my job from wiki that is confusing our workers. I need wiki creator of VAW 117 on Facebook to change their name from "VAW 117" to "VAW 117 Wikipedia". Our workers utilize this site and sometimes get confused thinking that is our Facebook page when it isn't. Do do i get wiki to chnage the name on Facebook? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
138.163.0.41 (
talk)
18:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Your question is a bit vague, but I believe your question is whether Wikipedia can change the way a Facebook page is displayed. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has no control over what happens on Facebook, so we cannot help you. Sorry about that. "
Pepper"@18:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Hello, an image was uploaded to the Bill Drummond page in November, but it has now disappeared - only the file name is visible. I tried to re-upload it, but am getting a message saying that it is a duplicate. Where did the image go?! It is the Penkiln Burn poster, under the section heading "the17". Thank you for any advice. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Katrinacrear (
talk •
contribs)
19:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Thank you very much teb728! The pdf does have permission to be there from the copyrighter - I just have to figure out how to make that clear - another job, another day. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Katrinacrear (
talk •
contribs)
11:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)reply
How in the world is this an advertisement??
I do not work for any party that has anything to do with "Hadoop". I found this article as a result of a Google search:
Why in the world did Wikipedia tag this article with a warning that it's an advertisement? On what planet could that possibly be true? I read the entire thing and I have no clue where there is any hint of an advertisement. In fact, this article pertains to an open source application which generally flies in the face of advertising!
What specific sentences lead you to believe it's an advertisement? This is exactly why no one takes Wikipedia seriously. End-users like myself look at articles and then move on and do more searches for better information.
Markjohnson52931 (
talk)
19:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
The article is written in a way that does not meet
WP:NEUTRAL 100% but is not bad enough to be speedily deleted. i.e it can be changed by an editor to meet the guidelines.
Hghyux (
talk)
19:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
The lede paragraphs, in particular, are just a little too breathless, with lots of sparkly "global" and "petabytes of data" sorts of bragging points. We strive for a more
neutral point of view and a more matter-of-fact tone. --
Orange Mike |
Talk20:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
The "advertisement" tag is warning you that the article may not give a true picture of the product. It reads like a product datasheet, in other words like something that could have been written by the producers of Hadoop to explain how wonderful their product is. Most of the references are to websites by the developers of Hadoop (Apache, Google, etc). There is a lack of independent analysis of the product: whether it works, how widely it is used, and whether there are better alternatives. Some of the claims of the product's benefits may be vague, meaningless or unsubstantiated. Many Wikipedia pages contain imperfect information, but at least we tell you that - if you go to other websites or blogs there is unlikely to be the same open process of self-criticism.
Also, you're wrong to say that it can't be an advertisement because it is open source. Many open source applications advertise, most prominently
Google Chrome.
[1][2] But the "advertising" tag does not mean paid promotion - it could equally well be support by fans, developers, or lazy writers recycling press releases. --
Colapeninsula (
talk)
09:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)reply
That tab only appears on articles with the Version 5 Article Feedback Tool. Clicking it brings up the tool in the middle of the page instead of you having to wait until you reach the bottom to rate it. -
Purplewowies (
talk)
18:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Is there any way to remove the "Improve this page" tab?
Is there any way to hide the "Improve this page" tab in the corner of the browser in articles with the Feedback version 5 tool? I find it intrusive and more than a little distracting. -
Purplewowies (
talk)
21:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Click on "my preferences" at the top of any page, then click on the "Appearance" tab, and under "Advanced options" check the box in front of "Don't show the Article feedback widget on pages" and click the "Save" button at the bottom of the page.
Deor (
talk)
21:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
That works, but I like the widget itself (particularly the one that's still being used on most pages), and I'd like to still be able to use it. I just don't like the little thing in the corner that, when clicked, brings up the new widget in the middle of the page. I guess I'll just have to live with it if there's no way to just remove that. :( -
Purplewowies (
talk)
21:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Image frame in a thumbnail
Why does this image have a white frame within the thumbnail?If you force the image size on the identical file, the white frame goes away.
The image right has a white frame around it within the thumbnail. The image file itself at commons does not have a whiteframe (it was removed three months ago
[3]) and the whiteframe does not show up on any of the other wikis. What's gone wrong? DrKiernan (
talk)
21:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
No. It's the white frame within the thumbnail I'm talking about not the light grey thumbnail frame itself. On the other wikis it's added as a thumbnail image but it doesn't have the old white frame around it. That only happens on the english wiki when it's added as a thumbnail. DrKiernan (
talk)
21:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I see a small line of white at the top of the image. Is it possible that the problem is that there's just still some white space in the picture? (I also see this white line on other WPs.) I don't see any other whitespace anywhere in the picture on any WP. -
Purplewowies (
talk)
21:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes, I see. I've just looked at it in firefox and the files look the same. However, I still see the old version of the image file from February 2011 on the unforced image in Explorer. DrKiernan (
talk)
22:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Right, I've cleared it by uploading another new version without the thin white line at the top. Must have been some sort of caching issue; although I do clear my cache every week so quite how it kept going for three months I don't know. DrKiernan (
talk)
22:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) If it's a caching issue it's unlikely that anyone else would see it unless they had viewed the image before you cropped out the white line. I've purged the image, does that resolve it for you? —
Bility (
talk)
22:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Hi I just found out from another user that the article for
iPad 3 is currently a redirect page that is fully protected. In light of the current press releases that show an Apple event on March 7th in which the iPad 3 is to be revealed I was wondering if a separate article with information on it be made. Would this be a good idea or would it be best to wait or not do this at all?
Hghyux (
talk)
21:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Appears that there is support for the creation of this page at
Talk:iPad. Don't see why some admins are still keeping this locked over what appears to be consensus to create it.--
JOJHutton22:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Because this is not a kindergarten class voting on what to name a kitten. We are expected to abide by our policies and procedures. Per
WP:CRYSTAL, we don't obsess over speculation and gossip; per
WP:V, we don't print mere rumors just because some folks rilly, rilly, rilly fer-shure just know that the March 7 event will announce an iPac 3, possibly with unicorns and rainbows. --
Orange Mike |
Talk22:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I've noticed this for a while now, but I haven't found it intrusive until today. If I'm on an article which has an italicized title (e.g. a movie or TV show), I see the HTML <i></i> tags displayed in the title. Also, starting today, on my watchlist, I see <span dir=auto>My Watchlist</span>. Any idea what would be causing this?--
Dudemanfellabra (
talk)
23:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Wait, nvm. I figured out how to do it. For anyone else wondering, there's a checkbox in options under "Search & Tagging" that says "Highlight recommended results." Uncheck that, and the problem is fixed.--
Dudemanfellabra (
talk)
23:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply