Help desk
< January 14	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 16 >

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.

January 15

Australia Day In Hindi

<copyvio Hindi text removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rekha Rajvanshi (talk • contribs) 01:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't copy and paste copyrighted text anywhere on Wikipedia. Please also note that you are at a help desk, at the English Wikipedia, where questions are asked about using Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what you were seeking by posting this content which contained no question, and in a language which few here are likely to speak. I will provide a machine translation of this message below in the event you do not speak English, though it may come out quite garbled, as machine translations often do.

नमस्कार. नकल करते कॉपीराइट पाठ विकिपीडिया पर कहीं भी पेस्ट करें और नहीं करें. कृपया यह भी ध्यान दें कि आप एक मदद डेस्क पर अंग्रेजी विकिपीडिया, जहाँ सवालों विकिपीडिया उपयोग के बारे में कहा जाता है पर, कर रहे हैं, तो मुझे यकीन है कि आप इस सामग्री जो कोई सवाल ही निहित पोस्टिंग से मांग रहे थे, और एक जो कुछ यहाँ भाषा में नहीं कर रहा हूँ से बात की संभावना है--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how is the Contents pages populated?

Hi, I'm wondering exactly how "Contents" pages are populated, for example Portal:Contents/Lists at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Contents/Lists . According to that page's discussion page, people seem to be just editing the contents themselves -- is this the case? Thanks, please redirect me if there's a better place for this question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.229.136 (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pages at Portal:Contents, like all pages on Wikipedia, are edited by editors, who can be anyone. The page you linked to, however, is protected because it is a highly visible page, so only logged in editors who are autoconfirmed can edit the page directly. If you would like to make a change without logging in, you can paste {{edit semi-protected}} above a description of the edit you wish to make and someone who is able to edit the page will decide whether your suggestion is appropriate or not. I hope this answered your question. --Danger (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: the description and the {{edit semi-protected}} need to go on the talk page, which is Portal Talk:Contents/Lists in this case. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it does answer it. A followup question: are there any pages besides Category pages that are auto-populated? (As I understand it, Categories are auto-populated in the sense that once an article is tagged with a certain Category, that article is automatically added to that Category's page.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.229.136 (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Various bots run in the background, and some of them populate pages. Two examples to be going on with: the Wikinews Importer Bot copies news item from Wikinews into pages that are then shown as part of Wikipedia pages such as Portal:Spaceflight; and the AlexNewArtBot scans all newly-created articles and updates various lists used by WikiProjects. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this info. My guess is that most visitors to the Wikipedia Portals, Categories and Lists pages assume that the contents therein are all updated automatically as the articles are added to Wikipedia. Yet most of their contents are entered manually or by specific bots following relatively narrowly-defined tasks! This suggests -- to me at least -- that these Portal pages are always likely incomplete (except for the Categories pages, insofar as articles are properly tagged with their categories). Interesting.99.240.229.136 (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some of the portals are months or years out of date. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New logo

Is the new logo of Wikipedia going to be permanent? Or is it for today (15/1/11) only? Sp33dyphil ^(Talk) ^{(Contributions)}^{(Feed back needed @ Talk page)} 04:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only for today. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sp33dyphil, If you wish to know how to get rid of it, or you just want a normal logo, instructions on how to replace the logo with a normal one are posted on this link. I've spoken with others who want rid of it, and felt the best action is to tell people how, since I've also done this. Barking Fish 13:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

flow chart for Wikipedia/how to window/hit meter

Three questions really -Is there a visual flow chart of the whole site with yes/no gates anywhere on WP ?

Is there a dialogue box where one can enter a help specific question and just get wikipage help results as listed answers ?i

s there information available to show how many hits one page has got ?-

is the record of the pages that a reader viewed kept for long and is it shared with any outside agency ?--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 06:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was four questions :-)

Not as far as I know. It would be enormous. The Portal:Contents page describes several different ways to navigate through the encyclopedia.
If you click the Help:search box magnifying glass with the search box left empty, you will arrive here. You can then enter a search term and click "Help and project pages" to search just those pages. Also, at the top of this Help Desk page there are boxes where you can search the "Help desk FAQ" and the "Help desk archives".
Yes. If you go to the History tab for any page, a couple of inches down you will find a line of links to tools. The last tool gives you "page view statistics".
See the Wikipedia:Privacy policy. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a few questions

1.I need further clarifications about what I've read at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations); do we need to type out the full names, aside from ones in the tables, of the subjects before placing the abbreviations after immediately after them? Or is it acceptable just to write the abbre?

Resolved

2.{| class="toccolours" border="1" cellpadding="5" style="border-collapse:collapse;text-align:center" <div style="text-align:center; line-height:1.3em; margin-top:4px"> What does "toccolours" do?
What does "cellpadding" do?
What does "border-collapse" do?
What does "line-height:1.3em" do?
What does "margin-top:4px" do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs) 10:08, 15 January 2011

These are all relevant to CSS, which is a much more general technology than Wikicode: see one of the references on the page I have linked. In brief, all but 'toccolours' are specific CSS properties which directly specify how material is to be displayed on an HTML page; 'toccolours' puts the relevant item in a CSS class, which will then direct which sets of CSS rules are to be applied to it. --ColinFine (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Sp33dyphil ^(Talk) ^{(Contributions)}^{(I love Wikipedia!)} 10:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Positioning of edit links

Can consideration be given to the positioning of the [edit] links on Wikipedia pages? At present the link is located at the start of each section. This seems counter-intuitive, as most new material will be placed at the end of sections. I suggest that the end of a section is a more logical place for the [edit] link. Otherwise it is all too easy to click on the [edit] link for the following section rather than the section one intends to edit. Ejwatson (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting idea. You would have to suggest this at MediaWiki, who write the software used by Wikipedia, before it could be offered as an option here. There are a couple of options already available at My Preferences - on the "Editing" tab there is an option to enable section editing by right-clicking on the section header, and near the bottom of the "Gadgets" tab is an option to move the "Edit" links so they are just to the right of the section header. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top and bottom would be even better! Bielle (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirecting

hello,

how do I add this redirect line like here, under the title, for example here, so that it displays: < User:GreatOrangePumpkin|archives. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a subpage the link below the title automatically points to the level above, so [[A/B/C]] points to [[A/B]]. It's nothing to do with redirecting. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you refer to the piped link to parent pages at the top of subpages. They have to be clicked so they are not redirects. The link is automatically created on subpages and always goes to the truncated page names without the slash and part after the slash. There is one link for each slash in the page name. The only way to change the link is to change the page name. Help:Archiving a talk page#Subpage archive method says:

Archive pages should be named as follows: take the name of the talk page, and add '/Archive #', where '#' is the number of the archive. Note that the word 'Archive' has a capital 'A', there is a space before the number, and there are no leading zeros.

To comply with this you should for example move User:GreatOrangePumpkin/archive1 to User talk:GreatOrangePumpkin/Archive 1. By the way, your archive pages are tiny. It's more practical to make them larger. An existing archive page can be expanded with new archived sections. There are bots able to automatically archive for you. See Help:Archiving a talk page#Automated archival. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know there are archivation bots, but I want to split the sections into months. Thank you everybody to help me.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Can someone do that for me, please? It would be great. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A 2 kB archive like User:GreatOrangePumpkin/archive3 seems impractical for editors (both you and others) searching for something. What advantage do you see in this? I guess you soon forget which month a discussion was. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with logging in

I can't log in. After I log in 'Log in successful' is shown but as soon as I try to look at a page I appear logged out again. How do I fix this?81.155.177.229 (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Logging in#Login issues and problems. It may work to clear your entire cache or use https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:Userlogin. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've experienced the same problem, but only when using Firefox 3.6.13 over the last couple of days. (Internet Explorer 8.0, on the other hand, has not had this problem.) Deleting Wikipedia cookies resolved the problem a couple of days ago in Firefox, but neither doing that nor clearing the cache helps in Firefox any more. (On the other hand, the secure login is currently working in Firefox.) Since it seems that a number of people are having this problem (judging from the information posted on the login page), is it possible there has been a change to the login procedure software which has caused this? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further note -- using Firefox 3.6.13, I am able to remain logged in on another computer, but not from my home computer. However, I still wonder if there may have been a change in the login procedure software recently. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can i improve my Wikopaedia entry please.More info in it..add if possible?

Can i extend my entry please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.205.55 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you referring to? If the article is about you or a company you are involved with, please read WP:COI as well as relevant FAQs such as WP:ASFAQ and WP:BFAQ.

How do I add a note in the Notes section of a particular article ?

I am trying to add a note in the Notes section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_Planet I see 18 notes already in the article, but if I click on edit, all I see is a line ==Notes== and the next line with the word Reflist surrounded by pairs of brackets. If I add a line of text below it and click on Show preview, I only see my text and not the other 18 notes in context. Thanks for any help! Robbi (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are inline references (sometimes the headers "Notes" and "References" are used interchangeably). Check out Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for more information.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use correct terminology

At talk:Docklands Light Railway rolling stock#Formation we're having a discussion that touches on whether we should use the same terminology relating to the vehicles that the system does, even though this is possibly different to how the same words are used on other British systems.

I have a feeling that we have a policy or guideline somewhere that states that we should use the official terminology of the subject of the article, but if we do I've been unable to find it. So, is there such a policy? If so where is it located? Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closest I can come up with is Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And see Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries. I suggest making a list of all terms that make up the "terminology relating to the vehicles". Depending on how many terms there are, you could define them in whatever way works best:

Parenthetically, in the article, at the first instance of each term.
In a separate glossary section in the article.
In a stand-alone glossary article for the whole subject area. Some exist:

If "the system" uses its own nomenclature, your glossary would list the system's terms alongside the "standard" terms where they differ. The article should use the terms likely to be understandable to the widest audience. If for example an airline company decided to call its aircraft "glorphs", our article about the airline would still call them aircraft, while noting somewhere that the airline calls them glorphs. --Teratornis (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do We Have A Section Template For {{inuniverse}}?

Do we have a section template for {{inuniverse}}? Or is there a parameter that will change "article" in the tag message to "section"? (see Template_talk:In-universe#Do_We_Have_A_Section_Template_For_This.3F)Bernolákovčina (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If not, it should be super easy for someone good with coding templates to create one. (That someone would decidedly NOT be me). --Jayron32 19:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{In-universe|section}} seems to work. see User:GB fan/Sandbox ~~ GB fan ~~ 20:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing without the human verification words

When I submit edits on my iPad the system cannot recognize me as human I keep on having to submit the two words smushed together over and over again ... Can you help me? seaniz (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from your contributions as seaniz, you haven't managed to log in properly on your iPad. Does anything at Help:Logging in help you? -- John of Reading (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your post here was your tenth edit at the English Wikipedia (after 6 years) so your account is now autoconfirmed and able to save external links without a CAPTCHA if that was your problem. Or do you have problems logging in at all? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

correct ref

hello,

correct ref 2,3 please. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit fixes a formatting problem. OK now? -- John of Reading (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article blurbs

Is there a place where I can view all the past featured article blurbs that have appeared in the main page?--141.155.143.65 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I asked this question is because I already visited that page and a few others and did not see any place where you can view past blurbs. Can you be more specific?--141.155.143.65 (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2011 an example of what you want? --Teratornis (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down to "Today's featured article archive" and make a selection. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrevertable vandalism at WP:FA University of Michigan

The WP:LEAD of WP:FA University of Michigan was vandalized and when ClueBot NG reverted it, the vanalism was still apparent. I can not figure out how to revert the problem correctly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could identify the vandalism that you think remains? I don't see it, but maybe I'm missing something.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I can't see a problem with that. What exactly is the vandalism that you are still seeing? --ColinFine (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bypass your cache if you don't see recent changes to a page. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]