Help desk
< December 27	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 29 >

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.

December 28

Date and Time format

Is there a way to get times to appear like 4:00 pm instead of 16:00? I don't think about time that way, and it is annoying to have to translate times.

Nathan Dobson 03:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translate? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Never Ending Debate

Um yes. In all essence, it is a trivial one, but must be addressed anyway. Within the games of the Sonic the Hedgehog series, there is a feature called "Super Transformation". It is simply a character power up that often changes the character's appearance. All "super" power-ups play the exact same, despite there being different in-universe levels. Anyway, in one particular game, Sonic Heroes, the main team of characters uses the Super transformation move. As expected, they all play the exact same way "super" characters always do. From what I've seen, the debate lies solely on appearance.

Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles have all used Super Transformation in past games. The transformations were called "Super" (character). The very root of the issue is "Super" Sonic looks virtually the same in Sonic Heroes as he did in Sonic the Hedgehog 3. There are noticeable differences, but only fans would care to spot them. "Super" Tails, and "Super" Knuckles on the other hand look quite different between the two games. In addition, they look noticeably different from "Super" Sonic in the Heroes game, instead using the style of Super Transformation that was used in Sonic Adventure. It is because of this that is is argued that the latter characters are not "super" at all, even though the game treats them just like any other Super Transformation.

Now get this, holders of each viewpoint (Super or not super) are very stubborn, and demand the other to provide official explicit citation from the game makers to prove their viewpoint. (Read: They want Sega to flatly say whether they are "Super" or not) However, Sega has not done so, and therefore, there is no verifiable source to prove either viewpoint. In addition, there has never been a true consensus on the issue. The holders of the "not super" viewpoint just insist that they are right and leave.

The debate itself, is for the most part, over in-universe details. While I have tried my damndest to express the situation in an out of universe matter, other editors insist on adding in-universe details, and stating the situation in ways that violate many Wiki polices such as speculation, fancruft, and weasel words. I will now explain both sides of the issue which includes various in and out of universe details.

"Are Super"

They control exactly like established "super" characters down to the very last detail
The visual style used was actually used in an earlier game and established as "Super"
The new "Super" forms are intended to replace the ones of old.
The power to transform comes from the Chaos Emeralds, regardless of who distributes it.
They have ALL of the abilities that established "Super" characters do.
In the PC version of the game, a user can view the animation files for the characters. The animations for each of the three characters are called "s(first letter of character's name)". "Super Sonic" is the only one with his own model file (due to a drastic appearance change), there it is shown that the "s" in his case is "Super".
the game is targeted at children, as such, the differences between "super" and not super characters would be much more than mere looks.
They cannot have the same effects as Sonic because he is the title character.

"Are not Super"

They don't look exactly like the previous incarnations of the characters
They don't use special effects similar to "super" sonic in that particular game. The fact that the effects they use is identical to the previous game is apparently irrelevant.
The power to transform was Sonic's, even though the second time this was done created "super" characters with similar effects as Sonic.
Sonic apparently gave them the powers of a "Super" form, thus resulting in the similar gameplay
The old "Super" versions of the two characters were apparently retconned out of existence
The "s" in the filenames may either represent the Team name, or possibly be different in the case of the two. Sonic's may mean "Super", but the other two may be "Shield". The latter is based on the fact that the visual effects of the latter two consist of a flaming ball which is similar to the "shield" or "barrier" power-ups. These are also balls but a flaming one hasn't been used in over ten years.
The game is targeted at children, so something as simple as looks should be sufficient.

There exists a contradiction in the latter side of the argument. As it is based solely on appearance, it's holders demand citation to prove the characters as "super". However, a newer character has also transformed in the series and because he looks similar to the newer style transformation, he is accepted as "super" even though there is no citation for it. The only caveat to this is that another character who used the transformation and had a similar appearance was called "burning". This was also a source of debate as they felt it should be called "super". However, there is verifiable citation to prove that it is in fact "burning". Through that logic alone, no names can be assumed as there is a chance they might be different.

Here is where you come in. This debate has been the source of many edit wars here on Wikipedia. There is actually glaring evidence in favor of the "are super" side, but little of it has been explicitly stated and would be rendered as speculation. There is no explicitly stated evidence in favor of the "not super" claim as it truly lies on looks alone and is subject to being called speculation by opposers. Both sides know that there is no explicit citation to support the claims of either side, and insist that their side should be upheld until one is made.

The debate exists entirely within the Sonic fanbase. In addition, it appears that the only way to address both sides of the issue is through use of weasel words and speculation. So the question I pose to you all is, is it acceptable according to Wikipedia standards to not state a solid fact and address both sides of the debate, even though it will involve the use of weasel words and speculation? Otherwise, how should it be dealt with? Also, should the other character, "Silver", be treated in the exact same manner as the other two, as there is no explicit citation for his "super" status?

This debate is actually years old, and it'd be nice to have the true encyclopedic stance on the matter. Thanks for reading.GrandMasterGalvatron 05:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it sounds like a difference of interpretation to me. If hard citations cannot be found for either side (but they're in the games, of course), I would address both "points of view" in the article, with the former argument "is-super" the main one, and the "not sonic" the secondary (as it seems the game intends the viewer to assume them to be Super). --W o o ty Woot? contribs 05:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If there have been edit wars for years on this topic, and there is no clear support for either side, it would seem that the issue is both important enough to mention, and debatable enough that it needs to be addressed from both sides. Although I would probably show both arguments with the same weight, and let the reader draw the conclusion that "is-super" is what the creators intended, as there is no specific reason to support one over the other. -- Sir Escher ^talk 11:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Subpages

Is there a special page or some other way where I can see all of the subpages associated with my user account? John Reaves 08:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Special:Allpages and make the appropriate selection at the top to get your userpage, the subpages will be displayed straight after that one. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image vandalism

How come we still get image vandalism on articles when we have the image blaklist that restricts the use of certain images to a restricted few pages? Are vandals reuploading? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)`[reply]

WP:BEANS. ;) You're in the right direction, though. Luna Santin 11:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway to change a username?

When creating my username, I created LinuxTHeKid, intending to create LinuxTheKid, but I mistyped. Is there anyway to change the caps of a letter? If not, could a sysop change my account? I have not made any edits or page creations under this account.

The place to ask for a name change is here Wikipedia:Changing username, but as you have not made many edits you could just try creating the desired account instead, and get on with it. Cheers Lethaniol 12:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous sockpuppet finding

There has been a finding that DP1976 is a sockpuppet of mine. This is an erroneous finding. It is a shared IP address belonging to not just DP1976 and I, but several thousand other employees of a corporation scattered at five sites throughout the Great Lakes region. [1]

1. Farmington Hills, Michigan;
2. South Bend, Indiana (where the server is located);
3. Hoffman Estates, Illinois;
4. Mt. Prospect, Illinois; and
5. Broadview, Illinois.

How do I get this ruling reconsidered or appealed? -- BryanFromPalatine 12:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been told on your talk page, I suggest you follow the links there. And please remember you have been accused on Sockpuppetry not because you have the same IP address (that is just extra evidence) but because you edit the same articles in the same/similar way. Lethaniol 13:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template bug

I got a problem with the images, headings and subheadings when I use this template. For example in Tournai, edit buttons of headings are misplaced, same for the pictures. Can anyone help? David Descamps 12:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should work now. I moved the images down to a gallery at the bottom. The article isn't really long enough to have three images in the text and having them together can cause problems - see WP:BUNCH. I altered the start of the template to copy {{Infobox Country}}. I don't think this has broken the template in some other way, but you might like to check. I don't think that actually affected anything (it was something I tried before moving the images around) so feel free to revert that if you like. --Cherry blossom tree 15:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting Editors

Hi,

Is there any way I can obtain username Niall1798 email? I am currently in charge of updating the Moog, Inc. website of Wikipedia and I see this person has made a brief introduction to our company. I tried the search you recommend to find a user's email and I came up with nothing. It would be benefital for me to know if this is a person in our company or not, so I can contact them and maybe work together. Any information would be most helpful-thanks!

Emily Clark --Emmzz22 15:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Username: Emmzz22--Emmzz22 15:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC) email: eclark@...[reply]

Hello. You can email user's who have supplied their email addresses through Wikipedia, but User:Niall1798 has not done so. If you wish to contact him then the usual way is to edit his talk page (follow this link.) He will see this the next time he uses Wikipedia, whenever that is. Also, no Wikipedia editor has more right to control the content of an article than others. Any user can edit the article on your company. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 15:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you may want to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which is a guideline pertaining to editing an article on (for example) your company. You should avoid doing so, in case you should inadvertently insert any bias into the article. You can voice any concerns you may have on the article on its talk page. Thank you for your understanding, Prodego ^talk 16:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

getting clarification on a specific article

Since there is no specific author, how do I ask for clarification on a specific article?

What kind of clarification do you need? Its best to ask on the talk page of the article. People who have watchlisted the article can reply to you — Lost^(talk) 16:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the talk page is best for that sort of thing; talk pages are there for editors to collaborate on and communicate about an article in a way that does not require the formal tone of the encyclopedia article proper. Now, some articles do not get much attention and you may not get a response for some time depending on the popularity of the article.

What you can do if there is a problem of some sort with the article is look for a template to add to the article. Most templates will put articles in a category indicating the article needs some specific type of attention, which may get the issue looked at faster than mentioning it on the talk page. For example, if an article has a section that doesn't make sense, I would view Wikipedia:Template messages, choose its Cleanup subpage from the grid, and see that {{cleanup-confusing|December 2006}} is the tag for that type of problem. Put the tag on the article, mention the tag being used in the edit summary, and that's all there is to it. The article would have a notice on it and it would be listed in Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification, in this example. It's often helpful to leave a note on the talk page describing the problem anyways when putting a template on the article itself.

If that's all a little too confusing, feel free to ask a follow-up question. BigNate37_(T) 18:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gallery rendering?

is it just me, or is the gallery at 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake#Retreat and rise cycle not showing the first two of four images? 24.209.70.181 16:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess its just you. I can see all images. Try purging the page — Lost^(talk) 16:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purging didn't fix it. I'm not too fussed though. I can see them fine at full size when I cut and paste the image names into the search field. 24.209.70.181 17:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclide

I have just added a new lemma "Nuclide" to the English Wikipedia.

I have added a link to the German "Nuklid" but that does not work.

Can you help?

Best regards,HPaul 17:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To add an interwiki link to de follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Interwikimedia link - but basically you need to add [[de:Nuklid]] to the page, note that interwiki link to german pages uses "de" not "ge".

Also with this article you need to show why it is needed - is Nuclide not just another name for Isotope and hence should WP:REDIRECT there like it was doing? cheers Lethaniol 17:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lethaniol, for finding my stupid mistake!

As for the need for the article: Nuclide is NOT just another name for isotope, though many people will say isotope when they should say nuclide. The difference is explained in the middle of the article. Should I make it more explicit? Incidentally, my article follows the German original, so I am not alone with my definitions HPaul 19:32, 28 December 2006

(UTC)

The distinction is also given in the article "Isotope" in the Wikipedia.HPaul 19:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indicating Translations

How do I properly indicate that an article I am submitting is a translation from a foreign-language Wikipedia article?

Good place to start is Wikipedia:Translation, specifically Wikipedia:Translation/*/How-to where they explain what to do once a page has been translated and how to get it proof read. Hope that helps, if not come back and ask again Lethaniol 17:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist

On my watchlist there is some sort of point system in between the page name and the name of the user who edited it. For example...

North Andover High School‎; 13:55 . . (-89) . . Delta759 (Talk | contribs) (rv vandalism)

What does the "(-89)" mean? Thanks! Delta 18:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the article became 89 bytes shorter as a result of the edit. --ais523 18:02, 28 December 2006 (U T C)

See Wikipedia:Watchlist#What do the colored numbers mean? -- Kesh 18:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can my article be reviewed before it is saved?

I am a first time user of Wikipedia, and I want to post an article. Is there a way to have my acticle reviewed before I save it so I don't run into copy right issues, or any other issue I might be missing? Please include any link that might guide me in this process. Thanks EMC630 18:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can preview how the article will look for yourself by pressing the "show preview" button before you hit save page. Beyond that, just make sure the article is not a violation of copyright, covers a notable subject, and does not fall into any of the categories listed at What Wikipedia is not and you should be fine. --Nebular110 18:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the article checked before it's submitted, you could use the (somewhat slow) Articles for Creation process. However, just writing the article and saving will automatically add it to the new-page list where it will almost certainly be checked for obvious problems. You can avoid copyright infringement by writing the article yourself rather than by using another's words. The biggest common mistakes are not giving your sources (please write down the sources you use in the article somewhere, to show it's verifiable) and writing about something that isn't notable. --ais523 18:30, 28 December 2006 (U T C)

Actually, Articles for Creation is only for anonymous users, who aren't allowed to create pages. If you want people to look over your first draft, or if you just want to make sure you can look over it one more time before submitting it to the main article space, I'd suggest making a subpage of your own userspace like this: go to an article such as, say, User:EMC630/Random article and create the article text there. Then, you'd probably want to contact a relevant WikiProject to get people to check it out, and if there are no major problems with it, just move it into article space (and, if you so choose, pop {{db-author}} on the old redirect left behind in your user space). Confusing Manifestation 13:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, AfC also accepts submissions from newly-created usernames. The wizard is useful even if you subsequently create the article using a different method. --ais523 13:29, 30 December 2006 (U T C)

Yu-Gi-Oh disputes

I apologize if this matter could be taken elsewhere, but after coming to blows and edit wars with an administrator for the past year, I feel the best way to solve this is to bring the matter to you myself.

AMIB and I have argued many times over various pages related to Yu-Gi-Oh! and Yu-Gi-Oh! GX. He removes various information from articles for lacking sources and has deleted about a dozen more pages. I understand and respect that articles need sources, and agree that fansites vary in their reliability and cannot be totally trusted. However, for Yu-Gi-Oh! GX, the official sites are insufficient for providing information.

The official site link is as follows: [2]. If you do not have time to search the site yourself, I shall summarize: it offers tips for the Trading Card Game related to the anime (which holds little importance for the show itself) and various game and music activities, but has virtually no information for the actual show itself beyond listing the main characters. This information is not enough to write to write an article about the show itself, much less one for each character. As it is, the site is horribly outdated, and many important characters are not mentioned, and in my personal opinion, it is not at all reliable despite being the official site.

ow, I can supply on-line links to media sites where each episode of Yu-Gi-OH! GX can be watched and information taken. I have been told about Wikipedia's policies on direct observation and why personal bias and point-of-views make such sources unreliable as well. But for this particular case, direct observation is the only true source there is beyond fansites, which I agree cannot be considered 100% reliable either.

I'm not asking for a lot. I simply feel that the sourcing policies cannot apply entirely in this situation due to a lack of information from the official sites. Thus I merely ask that direct observation be allowed on a count of there simply being no other good source. If not then the Yu-Gi-Oh! GX pages should, by the sourcing policies, be deleted, which would be simply put, ridiculous. I ask that you have an open mind about this, if I could provide a better official source I would, but there is none, so what more can be done?

Thanks you for your time. Drake Clawfang 07:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An official source is not necessarily a reliable source. The episodes themselves are primary sources and as such are not capable of supporting a good article—if the only sources are primary sources, care must be taken to only make descriptive points about the topic. Since this seems to be the case in the area you discuss, it justifies vigilance in removing content. Secondary sources are preferred, since they allow for encyclopedic commentary within the bounds of the no original research and neutral point of view policies, and without them most Yu-Gi-Oh articles would never grow past stubs.

To summarise, yes you can use the episodes and official site as sources, but you would not be able to write more than a stub without using reliable secondary sources or introducing serious WP:NPOV and WP:OR problems. BigNate37_(T) 19:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the episodes would be primary sources, and a site like TV Guide or YTV (both of which give episode summaries and similar info) would be considered secondary sources?

That would be my interpretation, yes. If you can find a print article, even a TV Guide listing, which mentions that character, you could then cite that magazine/newspaper/site as a source. Reviews are best, but a listing should suffice so long as it's verifiable by other Wikipedians. -- Kesh 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. If there's analysis in print or if there exist transcripts of YTV reviews, then the analysis could be used to write about the episode in our article. I'm not sure if a TV show that reviews the article subject can be directly cited as a source, since it is next to impossible to verify. BigNate37_(T) 23:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. I was under the impression the episodes couldn't be counted at all. Thanks for your help with this. Drake Clawfang 05:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Free use?

I have looked through the help section on images, but I still do not undersatd what tags I have to lael a photgraph I took, I do not know whether to dual list it or self made or releasing into public domain, any help will be greatly appreciated. (Fethroesforia 19:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

You may release the photo to the public domain i.e. {{PD-self}}, under the GFDL license i.e. {{GFDL-self}}, or under a Creative Commons license i.e. {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, any of which are compatible with Wikipedia (there may be others I am missing). Be careful not to use "educational use only" or "non-commercial use only" images, which are not compatible with Wikipedia. BigNate37_(T) 19:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally a fan of CC-BY-SA. GFDL requires people using the image to publish a three-page license with the image, which is horrible. With Creative Commons, people only need to publish credit to you.

In my view, the easiest way to licence your pics is to do this tag {{PD-user|Fethroesforia|date=December 2006}} , which is what I do. It comes out like this:

This image has been (or is hereby) released into the public domain by its author, Fethroesforia. This applies worldwide.

In case this is not legally possible, the author grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. This release is irrevocable (if placed after November 5, 2017).

Be aware that anyone can then alter the pic or publish it (maybe for gain) without asking you. I don't mind that, I like to think of my pics being used (and they often email me for permission, in any case). Then you need not bother about what CC-BY-SA and GDFL mean (I don't know exactly what they mean). PD is so simple!

- Adrian Pingstone 10:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

accidentally erasing underlined dates etc.

Help! When I save, I notice that my computer erases all underlined dates, and that include ISBN numbers etc. This has created some problems obviously and I and others have had to go over things again to repair. What is causing this?Brosi 19:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a look at your edits to Werner Seligmann, the dates look fine, both before and after replacement, in fact they look exactly the same. Could you be more specific about what the problem. What do you mean by underlines dates exactly? Dates should not normally be underlines in Wikipedia. Cheers Lethaniol 19:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also happened with Cathedral architecture of Western Europe. on the history page if you go to

(cur) (last) 14:20, 22 December 2006 Brosi (Talk | contribs) (a clarification about the cathederal of Rome)

you can see the dates and ISBN numbers that were deleted somehow. Amandajm was nice enough to point this out and put the info back in. I didnlt notice it when doing the edits but when I saved the document, they disappeared. You are right. the dates are not underlined. that was in the cur-last paages. I tried inputting on another computer and this does not happen, so it is something in the computer, but I would like to be able to use MY computer.

I think now that it has something to do with Firefox. Dates like 1320-1340 are underlined in red. When I click on it, it thinks that it is a telephone number! and thanks me for installing fire-fox telephone software. So I switched to Netscape.Brosi 21:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/move questions

Before I start--yes I've read the Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages and Wikipedia:Proposed mergers instructions & their talk pages but my question(s) are not answered there and the poor souls who post questions there often don't seem to get a response (on Wikipedia talk:Proposed mergers there were only 2 posts this year & neither got answered! On Wikipedia talk:Merging and moving pages many more questions and, yes, more answers, but still too few) and I want to get on with my life ;-). So, if I can get some immediate answer here I promise to follow-up and raise this matter in a formal way at those pages--soon. I definitely want a revision of the Help page instructions to make the steps complete and clear.

But one reason I don't think things are so clear is that I thought if I followed through on a successful merge I wouldn't have to bother the busy admins. So, when I came across the request above (Dec 26th : Merged, need help) where an editor asked for help, got an answer and everything is okay, I thought my questions would be answered. Now I'm not so sure:

There is a double re-direct: Merchant Marine-->Merchant marine-->Merchant Navy
The talk pages point to different articles: Talk:Merchant Marine-->Talk:United States Merchant Marine (this was done in 2003! And, that talk page has 2 contributions from 2003/2004 and then jumps to May 2006--curious)
"Merchant marine" is still categorized & has full history (but edit summary only has: "(redirected page)" and no mention of the merge)

I think I may have missed some other aspects. Also, I have not contacted that editor yet because I don't/won't know what to say before I have my answers!

So, if I may, I'd like to present my questions as specifically as possible and will accept a reply in kind (actually, any reply that answers the questions will be cheerfully accepted--beggers can't be choosers!): The following questions refer to the "full-content"/"selective" "paste merger" instructions:

The instructions say "cut/paste ... from the source page into the destination page". I take this to mean "cut from the source & paste into the destination".
1. In the case of "full content" nothing is left over so we have a blanked page. Should normally leave a redirect to the page where info has been merged into
2. But, in a "selective" we still have material on the page. Is that remaining content supposed to be deleted/blanked? if not needed then delete and add redirect
Categories on the source page should also be removed, correct? yes
If we're "merging" and then "re-directing" from the source page what, explicitly, is done with the Source page Talk page contents?:
1. Are they left as is ? Information left and required info COPY and PASTED
2. Are they copy/pased to the Destination Talk page or cut/pasted? (&, in either case, where on that page?)
You'll note that the instructions say to remove the "Mergefrom" tag from the destination page:
1. "Mergefrom" is only one of the possible tags used on the destination page, surely, whichever tag was applied needs to be removed? yes of course
2. No mention is made of what to do with the tag(s) on the source page(s)! Again, it would seem that whichever merge tag was used is now removed? once merging has been discussed and enacted ALL tags are removed.

Again, I will follow-up elsewhere, and I'll also contact the other editor above since we seem to have had some anxiety in common (unless an admin is going to do so). Thanks for reading this far --RCEberwein | Talk 20:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered some of the questions above (in italics), need to check up on merging talk pages. Lethaniol 20:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages - again you need to COPY (not cut) and paste any information that is required. Leave the information on the merged from talk page on the merge proposal discussion.

The double redirect has been fixed by someone. When merging a page - always check (on the merge from article), in the toolbox (left hand side on sidebar) WHAT LINKS HERE. Make sure any redirects are directed to new page and if possible any important wikilinks to the page are also moved. I think that answers all the questions. Lethaniol 20:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The double redirect is massively unfixed. Merchant Marine-->Merchant marine-->Merchant Navy, just as is complained of above. In addition, Talk:Merchant Marine redirects -- to Talk:United States Merchant Marine! What in the world is going on? (I was going to fix the double redirect myself, but I decided to go to the talk page of Merchant Marine to see what discussion there had been before, and found the weird anomalous talk page redirect.) --Tkynerd 21:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right have gone and sorted the double redirect and the incorrect talk direct. Why the double redirect did not show up on the Double Redirect Special page I do not know. Anyway I think that is sorted. Cheers Lethaniol 00:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of this. I could have done it, but having come across the talk page redirect, I wasn't entirely sure where Merchant Marine should really redirect. --Tkynerd 15:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange talk page I found

While I was searching around and looking up things about Destroy All Humans!, I happened to do a search for Destroy All Humans 3. I came across this: Talk:Destroy all humans 3. Note there is no article, only the talk page. I wasn't sure to nom for speedy, or AFD, or prod or MFD or what, so I bring it here and I'm sure you guys can figure it out. Very strange, I wonder how it went unnoticed. Dooms Day349 21:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G8 applies to talk pages with no accompanying article. Not all talk pages qualify, but the one you found seems to. Feel free to tag it with {{db-g8}}. BigNate37_(T) 22:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Dooms Day349 22:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second glance, it was created by an anonymous user. Since anons can't create articles, this user may have created it with the intention of writing the article. Still looks like it qualifies for speedy, though. BigNate37_(T) 22:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a page but the name is wrong, how do I change it?

I needed it to be upper case... and for some reason it put the last two words in lower case, the first word in upper.

Example: "The Company Name" is how I need it, but the page is listed as "The company name"

ANY Info mucho appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fctoma (talk • contribs) 18:19, December 28, 2006

Use the move tab at the top of the page, and you get to specify the name of where it is being moved to. Just be sure to capitalize it correctly, and it will effectively rename the article for you. Be sure there isn't already an article created with the correct capitalization or your move can cause problems! -- Kesh 23:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's lowercase it is because someone named the article that way. When posting articles make sure you have the capitalization correct to prevent this kind of headaches. - 87.209.70.231 00:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]