Help desk
< November 23	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 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.

November 24

Page SS Kaiserin Auguste Victoria for merging Deletion

Resolved

I need help for merging page RMS Empress of Scotland (1906) with the page SS Kaiserin Auguste Victoria because I afraid that someone will argue with and then block me from editing Wikipedia. The page SS Kaiserin Auguste Victoria is shorter and has no references or sources. So I want you to redirect the page SS Kaiserin Auguste Victoria to the page RMS Empress of Scotland (1906)] and delete it. Please redirect and merge the page SS Kaiserin Auguste Victoria.

Generally speaking merging and redirecting can be done without deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are now merged. - 131.211.211.229 (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Username - same as real person

What can be done if a username is the same as a real person but that user hasn't made any controversial edits? I found one template that said that they'd be blocked but then another has a nicer "let's work this out" type message. I'm thinking specifically of User:Vickyvette. See Vicky Vette for the real person. Dismas|^(talk) 03:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is at Wikipedia:Username policy#Real names, which suggests that "Usernames that [are similar to a famous real person's] to the extent of being problematic are likely to be blocked, as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name." Such names should be reported to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention and it's generally polite to let the user know as well - in such cases, if it isn't the user's real name (i.e. they're impersonating the celebrity), the username is generally blocked but the user is allowed to get their account renamed an unblocked with no bad faith attached. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I posted to the notice board. Thanks. Dismas|^(talk) 05:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about use/creation of Hidden Categories

I just noticed that Category:Articles contradicting other articles has not been made a hidden category. Most, but not all, of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia cleanup categories are hidden categories, but I didn't want to make any changes to these categories because these are all administrative categories, and I am but a lowly Rollbacker.

So my questions are:

What specific criteria, if any, determines whether a category is (or should be) hidden? I know that most categories which are not self-references should not be hidden, but what beyond that? Is there any specific policy on this, beyond what little is mentioned at Wikipedia:Categorization#Maintenance_categories?
Should Category:Articles contradicting other articles be made a hidden category?

I eagerly await your guidance, because I am quite confused about this. --Eastlaw (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite late here I guess, because it looks like you already changed this category into a hidden one. I support the move. This category is for maintenance purpose, not very useful for the general Wikipedia readers. Anyway, I don't know anything more about hidden categories other than the info offered at Wikipedia:Categorization#Maintenance_categories - which you cited. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page broken template

It seems that there is a broken template shared by many talk pages. See: Talk:E. Urner Goodman, Talk:Edward Teller, Talk:Emma Goldman, Talk:Nancy Reagan, and Talk:Wesley Clark as examples.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is happening is that {{WPBiography}} (and some other project tags) assert DEFAULTSORT of the article title if the listas parameter is not given. This is a horrible idea especially for biographies because the title is almost always wrong, and it is the default anyway. —teb728 t c 09:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the Goodman talk page by deleting the DEFAULTSORT and adding listas. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal attacks the root of this problem. Algebraist 14:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't edit 'Apollonius of Tyre'

Hi,

I would be keen to try editing the article 'Apollonius of Tyre', but when I click on 'edit', the text doesn't appear on the edit page. I'm reluctant to lose the (admittedly small amount) of work already done, especially the links. I've tried clicking 'edit' on a random page, and that seemed to display properly. Apologies if you've answered this already, I couldn't find anything on this problem.

Thanks,

122.57.32.84 (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Gwan[reply]

It works just fine on my computer, the article is not protected so I do not know what to suggest sorry.--intraining ^{Jack In} 09:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to edit the lead (the part before the first "edit" link which is almost all of Apollonius of Tyre), then click the "edit this page" tab at top, or see Wikipedia:Lead section#Editing the lead section. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think the problem was I had been clicking 'edit' at the bottom of the page, not the top. 121.72.167.236 (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Gwan[reply]

Merge template

The talk page merge template says "If the merger is not completed promptly, <article> might be re-nominated for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page." How did that immediatism sneak in there? Material could be kept on the talk page while the article to be merged is redirected. I don't see how deletion is in policy when one of the arguments to avoid in deletion debates is "no one is working on it". - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you did not give a specific example and I have not dug through your contributions, I can only generalize. This message is usually seen when an article has been through the deletion process and the consensus was to not delete, but merge it to another article. Given this result, there should be time for a proper merge, but if no one does the merge in a timely manner, then the article might go back to AfD. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'm talking about {{Afd-mergeto}}. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.ogg file

I am wanting to remove the spoken audio version attached to An Inconvenient Truth which is a .ogg file. I have clicked edit this page on the article and I can't find it anywhere except under external links. The icon appears up on the top right hand corner of the page. The reason I want to remove it is that it is dated way back to 17 Nov 2006.--intraining ^{Jack In} 11:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the propriety of removal, the template {{Spoken Wikipedia}}, according to its documentation page, is supposed to be placed in the external links section. It is what places the icon in the top right hand corner of the page. There are many templates which display in a specific location of an article, unconnected to where they are placed in edit mode. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template it is in, and the file itself will specifically tell it is an old version and without a replacement, having that version there is useful for people who can't read the entry themselves. If you are really worried about this, I recommend asking the person who made the file to redo it. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sameera_Reddy

Resolved

– ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Birth Reference is contradictory.. Please Correct

-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenJDaniel (talk • contribs) 13:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already solved. You could've done it yourself, you know...- Mgm|^(talk) 13:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploading

I would like to insert the photo of the person that I found. File:Www.rviewer.com/images/Rogue Alexander.jpg or File:Http://www.rviewer.com/images/Rogue Alexander.jpg

Neither of them doesn't work. So, it seems to me that I had to upload the image, then? How? Please let me know asap. Thanks - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4freedom (talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to upload pictures, your account must be autoconfirmed, which simply means it has been active for four days and you have made at least ten edits. Once you've reached those thresholds, you can upload pictures. See WP:UPLOAD for instructions how how to do so. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 15:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind that in order to upload the images, they must comply with a compatible license. Images typically found on most websites are not suitable since they are not free. See this for more info. -- GateKeeper^(X) @ 16:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humanities Archives

I asked a question in the Humanities section. It apparently was before Nov 17. I only see Nov 17 and later questions and answers on the Humanities page. How do I see questions and answers that predate Nov 17? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.166.177 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 November 9#U.S. Federal Personal Income Tax Revenue. Algebraist 16:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the archives can also be found here, which includes links to all of the ref desks. TN‑X-Man 16:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading pictures

I want to upload some pictures for my Scientific evidence for Creationism article I hope to start soon. Plese could I know whether uploading a photo I have taken of something else is acceptable, and also if something I have created entirely myself, is acceptable for uploading please. And while I'm at it, how do I restrict access to my images, since I don't won't anyone using my work and messing around with it, and using it for their own purposes. Refreshments (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. You can't restrict access to anything you post here. Algebraist 18:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos you have taken or images you have created are generally acceptable; see Wikipedia:Image use policy for details.
You will need to freely release self-created images or photos, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.
I am curious as to which view of creationism you are referring to. I would think that this subject would be covered under theistic evolution.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or Creation science. Also the original poster should read WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:NPOV before they get too far into this. – ukexpat (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As well as WP:OWN, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CONTROVERSY. Refreshments, be aware that if you actually believe in Creation science, you are rejecting scientific consensus. While everyone is free to believe whatever they want, a person's beliefs may have consequences when they participate in various communities. The Wikipedia community is similar to the scientific community in that both are based on consensus. A person who is in the habit of ignoring consensus will probably have some tough sledding on Wikipedia. For a scientist to function in the scientific community, he or she must be familiar with all the details of scientific consensus as they apply to his or her discipline. A scientist who is simply unaware of what other scientists have done will not be a scientist at all, but rather a crank. Individual scientists may reject parts of the current scientific consensus, and on rare occasions a scientist achieves fame by shifting the consensus with new theories. However, for every person who successfully challenges the scientific consensus, there are vastly more who are not successful, typically because they made up their minds before they bothered to put in the years of work necessary to understand the current scientific consensus and the libraries full of evidence supporting it. Imagining that one has all the answers before studying what other people have done is a common approach to things that many people use in real life, but it is not the scientific way, and it is not the Wikipedia way. Wikipedia is unlike anything which most people have experienced before. Therefore, one should approach Wikipedia as flexibly as possible. Try to empty your mind of preconceptions about what Wikipedia is or how other Wikipedians will respond to your initial ambitions for Wikipedia. Instead, read the friendly manuals starting at Help:Contents and allow the novel concepts of Wikipedia to sink into your awareness. Once you understand more of what Wikipedia is and how it works, then you are in a better position to decide how you can help Wikipedia. (That's the first conceptual shift new users have to make, moving from the initial "Oh, I can use Wikipedia to advance my personal agenda in (some way)" to "Oh, I see what Wikipedia's agenda is, and I can advance it in (some way).") A number of current and former Wikipedians who reject scientific consensus found Wikipedia's consensus-driven approach inhospitable, and they started their own wikis such as Conservapedia and CreationWiki to get their POV on. If you actually believe there is scientific evidence for special creation, you may find editing on those sites to be more personally rewarding than Wikipedia. This is not to discourage you from giving Wikipedia a try, just a factual description of the hazards that may lurk in your path here. Because Wikipedia is a wiki, and anyone can edit anything you add to an article, the only way for your edits to "stick" is for you to "write for your opponents." That is, whatever you write must be acceptable to everyone who might disagree with you. This is often the first big shockeroo to new Wikipedia users, because few people have real-life experience with writing for their opponents. In real life, few people actually engage their opponents; instead, most people just talk past each other. That doesn't work on Wikipedia because we are all pushing our words through the same channel. Wikipedia is a MMORPG where the objective is to figure out what we can write that other people will not change. --Teratornis (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate a bit further, related to the notion of consensus is Consilience. Consilience refers to considering individual items of evidence in light of the collective weight of evidence. For example, suppose a man is married, and one day his wife does one thing which is not consistent with the hypothesis that she loves him. Should the man conclude, on the basis of this one lapse, that his wife does not love him? That would ignore the overwhelming number of other bits of evidence that say she does love him. If she does a thousand loving things and one unloving thing, it is more reasonable to look for other explanations for the exceptional data (perhaps she had a bad day, or she did not realize how the man would interpret what she did, etc.). This applies to science in that scientific data will always have some random exceptions. Weird stuff happens occasionally. Anyone who took a chemistry lab course probably experienced a failure to get the "right" results. If a student's experience doesn't turn out "right," should the student imagine he has discovered some new scientific breakthrough? It's possible, but extremely unlikely. For a new scientific theory to have any chance, it must not only explain some new data, but it must also explain all the existing data, at least as well as the existing scientific theories do. How this applies to your original question: if you have some pictures which you believe constitute "scientific evidence for creationism," other Wikipedia editors who understand the notion of consilience will ask you to explain how your evidence overturns all the other accumulated evidence for the current scientific consensus. You can no more overturn all that evidence with a few new bits of evidence than you could build a case for the unloving wife based on one isolated lapse. At best you could say you have found some evidence that the current scientific consensus does not yet adequately explain, if you actually know enough of the scientific consensus to authoritatively declare what it explains or doesn't explain. In the Middle Ages, scientists (if we could consider some people of the time to be scientists) could not explain many things which today we know more about, such as how bats manage to fly around in the dark without hitting things. In the Middle Ages, the only explanation for bats was to suppose they were possessed by demons. Similarly, we might imagine that 500 years from now, science might be able to explain a few things which seem mysterious today. Anyone with an awareness of history therefore hesitates to put limits on the future explanatory power of science - science may have some ultimate explanatory limits, but no one can pretend to know what they are. See God of the gaps. Note that I'm not trying to change your beliefs about anything, I'm just describing some of the things that other Wikipedians know, and how their knowledge may inform their editing of your contributions. Someone who is aware of the role of consilience in the inductive sciences may challenge your "evidence" on that basis. Forewarned is forearmed and all that. --Teratornis (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input. Ill make sure to present plenty of scientific evidence, so thanks for the concern. I'm also quite aware of the theory of evolution. I'm going to start the article on my user page, so any one who wants to give a few tips once I've started it are free to do so. Scientist consensus for one age, is not the same for the next. In other words, it changes depending on evidence. And at the moment evidence is pointing towards a Creator, and a specific point of Creation. Some wikis don't believe me, so they'll just have to wait for the article... Refreshments (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CITING AS A REFERENCE PAGE!

I was wondering how would I site Wikipedia, as a reference? I'm using a direct definition from this site.

See Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP issue

So I've been having this problem for some days now: WP is always so slow, I'd need to reclick the page for it to truly load, most of the times it just loads half. I'm using Portable Firefox which loads off a PC (because actually I had problems with browser slowness when it was on a stick). Also, this only happens to WP (to my dismay) - other sites load normally. -- Menti sock 18:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this... when I run PFF off my USB stick again WP isn't slow anymore... but the browser is slow. What could possibly be making specifically WP slow on PFF running off a HD? -- Menti sock 19:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps certain javascript code is running in one case but not the other. I have found that certain scripts will "get stuck" (requesting data from somewhere?) causing the page load to block temporarily. Also, it should be noted that requests to wikipedia servers has been up in the last month so it is quite possible the lagginess is due to server overload. —Noah 19:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suppose if it's lagging for everyone then there'd be more complaints about it since the kind of lag I experienced was extreme, though it stopped after loading FF off a stick again so I think it's more likely that that isn't it. But what kind of javascript could be loading? It's exactly the same configuration just copied off the stick and vice versa that I'm loading, with the same WP account, so I'd assume the JS would be the same as well. -- Menti sock 19:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Namespace operator

Is there any problems in using Namespace operator (:) in the title of an article? Anything to bypass that?--Abhishek Jacob (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK as long as the stuff before the colon is not a namespace or interwiki name or abbreviation. Algebraist 18:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be a problem. See Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 18:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a problem with Wikipedia - The Missing Manual, as the actual book title is Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, and Wikipedia: happens to be a namespace on Wikipedia. Thus the article title had to substitute a hyphen for the colon. --Teratornis (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot :)--Abhishek Jacob (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]