Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 April 20

< Wikipedia:Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< April 19 << Mar | April | May >> April 21 >
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.


April 20

edit

Sharing Wikipedia Articles With Facebook Friends

edit

How can I share Wikipedia articles with my Facebook friends?

Ltchieh (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy the URL of the Wikipedia article and paste it into a status update; Facebook automatically converts this to a link with a short summary (the first few lines of the article lead) of the article. --Jayron32 02:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Sharebox is a script that reorders your toolbox. It adds new buttons that make it easier to mail, print or share an article on Facebook or another linksharing service. You must have an account to add Sharebox to the sidebar. See User:TheDJ/Sharebox for more information. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing pornographic spam

edit

There is highly objectionable pornographic spam here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rothenberg_propriety&action=history and I do not know how to remove it, as it is worked into the user's comment on their own edit Frank Zamjatin (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to the edit summary of this edit. Indeed such a pedophilic declaration is "[g]rossly insulting, degrading, or offensive", one of the criteria for revision deletion. I'll see if someone will delete the edit summary. Goodvac (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. --Jayron32 12:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coursework

edit

hallo am doing my geography coursework and i was wondering if u could please help me with,,,,,,the site and situation of eastleigh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.212.124.109 (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I have added a separate heading here for readability.) Wikipedia has several articles on places named Eastleigh: in England and in Kenya; those, and the references they include, may be useful to you. Unfortunately, Wikipedia editors are unable to complete your homework. If you have specific factual questions, you could try asking at the reference desk.--Kateshortforbob talk 08:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing the 'outdated' boxes at top of page

edit

I have updated the page 'Celador' but it still shows warning boxes at the top saying the page is outdated and needs updating - how do I get rid of these? Rachel Josephson (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

when you edit the article nearly on top the second template (begin with two { ) has to be removed since you already updated the article (although I don't know if this enough). mabdul 11:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But also, bear in mind the Wikipedia advice regarding WP:COI. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the {{update}} tag. The person who added it never bothered to explain what needed updating, but looking through the page history, I saw that the article's content had been updated and some out-of-date information had been removed, both subsequent to the addition of the tag but prior to Rachel Josephson's edits. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One single conductor in metal conduit

edit

Is there's a violation in putting one single conductor in a metal conduit, The conductor size is 800mm square for high voltage.

Thanks, Noel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.40.3 (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.5 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how to submit draft article for approval and consesnus

edit

hi,

please can you tell me how exactly, ie what are the steps involved, if as a newbie, i would like to submit my first article as a draft for approval and consensus by the community / moderators / editors etc so that the chance of page deletion is minimised

Johndoe561 (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard advice follows. I would strongly advise that you use the wizard and the option to create a draft in userspace. Then ask for a review at Requests for feedback:

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.
Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.
If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article. – ukexpat (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of movenotice and moverequest templates for an (in my opinion) uncontroversial page move

edit

I have proposed to move an article within the scope of WP:STARTREK to another title at the project page. As I think the move is uncontroversial, do I also have to use Template:Movenotice or Template:Requested move, or is it sufficient to reach consensus at WP:STARTREK? The proposal is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek#Move of article Hope class to Olympic class. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will simply wait if the discussion at WP:STARTREK shows any controversy and if not, I will simply perform the move, as (if I understand correctly) these templates are only for controversial moves. Since no such controversy has yet developed, I will wait and see what the discussion leads to. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page will not display after I hit save page

edit

Hello, I'm trying to make an edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroplane_racing, but when I make the change (which is just adding a link), then add the description and hit save page, I get a "page will not display screen." What's going on? Please help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjsharp (talk • contribs) 14:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing some errors too, probably a server problem. We will just have to wait it out.--ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just asked over in the #wikipedia IRC channel and there are server problems. The devs are working on it. – ukexpat (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am no longer seeing any problems, so I think it's been fixed. – ukexpat (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me, or are things working noticeably faster than they have been for the past few days? – ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many pages of each namespace pages

edit

How can I get the data about how many pages of each namespace on the English Wikipedia? For example, I would like to know how many article talk pages exist on the English Wikipedia. cooldenny (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The {{PAGESINNAMESPACE}} magic word isn't enabled on the wiki, but maybe one of the links at the statistics page would help. — Bility (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or Wikipedia:Database reports/Page count by namespace. — Bility (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bility cooldenny (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace drafts?

edit

how to make a userspace draft an article? Vratkalkar (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way is to use the Article creation wizard. Standard advice follows:

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.
Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.
If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article. – ukexpat (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Presuming you are referring to User:Vratkalkar/Enter your new article name here. You need to read above to ensure the subject meets notability, especially for a site that is two months old. The article needs in-text references. And some copyediting— frankly, I don't understand the intent of the subject. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also in mainspace at 33needs. Tagged for speedy deletion as I see no hint of importance or significance in its current form. – ukexpat (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing a name change

edit

How do I get changed the name of an article after a 7 day vote and discussion? See Talk:Toilet water#Move?. Thanks for taking care of this matter.--Doug Coldwell talk 21:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to catch the attention of a passing admin. If one doesn't spot your message here soon, WP:AN may be the place to ask. – ukexpat (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria to keep a template?

edit

What criteria must a template satisfy in order to be keepworthy? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Templates and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion may be instructive. The most important questions I woulds ask myself in considering whether a template should be kept is whether it is useful for users and if so, is the use to which it's put by users one that is good for the encyclopedia?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about this one: Template:Herta Muller. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is your concern? Category:Author templates is full of such navigation templates for the works of an author. See also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what if the majority of works in the template don't seem to be notable. To me this looks like WP:SOAP. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is off the top of my head, and exceptions can always be made::

  • Useful
  • Documented
  • Focused scope
  • Cannot use more characters to implement than if no template was used
  • Not redundant to a better template
  • Not a fork of another template with one or two other features that were rejected
  • Used after some time, other than on the creator's userspace
  • Does not violate style guidelines or policies
  • Navigation templates should have valid links to more than four useful and related articles
  • Not material that should be in article content
  • Not a specialized implementation of a general template

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think it may fall under WP:SOAP. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The templates only purpose seems to be to group the non notable works of the author. At least to me, this template seems inappropriate. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe the template might be appropriate, and the creator really simply wanted to group her works together. I should apply WP:AGF to my view of this. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However I would like to see the policy that allows lists or groups (such as this template) of non-notable works. I didn't know that the fact that the author is notable automatically makes all of that authors works notable, especially works that contain only one line and have no sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to keep discussion of the template and its content separate. If you find the article subjects to be non-notable, you can use WP:AFD. Until then the template itself is serving its purpose. If you manage to get all the articles deleted or merged into one or something, then the template could be considered. — Bility (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this template should be checked against WP:UNDUE. If most of those works fail to satisfy WP:NOTE and as such I think this template is not appropriate. Why should an article have a template grouping a bunch of non-notable topics together, even if they are related to the topic of said article? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore, the content of this template needs to be sourced, otherwise the whole content of this template falls under WP:OR. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This template is not similar to templates like Template:Stock market. The content of this template is a list of article content and therefore requires sources. As such, this template currently is a bunch of WP:OR. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments don't make sense to me. The only thing Template:Herta Muller claims is that Herta Müller wrote those books in those years. Are you saying this claim is WP:OR and the template should have inline sources verifying her as the author of each book? That would be absurd in my opinion. I checked a few of them and immediately found plenty of sources, and we don't use sources in navigation templates. You appear to be confusing the template with the articles it links to, and the articles it links to with the books they are about. A one-line stub may be about a notable topic and just require expansion. This is a standard navigation template for authors. The purpose is to link articles about their works for easy navigation. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates and Wikipedia:Navigation templates. If you think a book fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) then you can nominate it for deletion, but I expect opposition if you nominate a bunch of books by the 2009 Nobel Prize winner. Some may argue that the books are automatically notable per point 5 at Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. Anyway, as long as a book has an article, a link to the article belongs in the navigation template for the author. If the article is deleted then the title in the template may be unlinked or removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAV says: "If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them." Currently, there is no such establishment. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple of factors to consider here, and it seems to me that the problem is less with the template than with the articles, which are overall pretty lousy. :) (In fact, I've prodded one of them: The Absolute Wasteman. If somebody can find sources that verify that it exists, that would be great.) But I did a google search on a couple of them and found plentiful sourcing available. The problem is just that they haven't been given due care. If this were a musician and these were album articles, I would be redirecting them to the author's page because there is nothing more in these articles than a title, a date of publication, and a template...and the author's page includes all of that information. That's the recommended procedure at Wikipedia:Music. Wikipedia:Notability (books) does not, at least explicitly, recommend the same thing. The question is whether the substubs we have now will encourage expansion or discourage creation, I guess. I may fix up a few myself. This woman is definitely notable, and her work deserves better coverage than it's getting. Systemic bias does tend to weaken our coverage on non-English authors. :/
Beyond that, on the point of the template, so long as the articles exist, I suspect that the template would be deemed useful, although if I were a researcher of this woman I'd be pretty frustrated by some of those bluelinks. Our readers don't know which links are going to take them to articles that actually have something to say. But ultimately everything on Wikipedia comes down to consensus, and your best bet if you object to a template in itself is to take it up at an appropriate discussion point. If it were this template merely, that would be WP:TFD. If, as it seems, it's rather with the concept of the template (should an author have a template linking to substubs?), you may need to take that up someplace else. Hmm. Maybe beginning at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)? Again, WP:MUSIC says, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Maybe the book guideline should say something similar. If consensus supports that, then you might begin to address the question of author templates and how to maximize their benefit for readers. Of course, you could also dive into the template issue directly, but as currently there is nothing discouraging the creation of an article that says only "This book by that author was published then", it may be more difficult to nail down consensus against linking to such articles in templates. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As to the usefulness of this template: This template would be useful, if most of those books had established their notability and would contain more content than a couple of lines. Currently, the articles are in the following condition:
As it stands, only five of these articles have sources. Of these, one is a GA and the other four are stubs, with one of the stubs having a source that is questionable. Thus this templates groups articles, of which the majority could as good be redlinks. Yes, currently these articles exist, but how is an unreferenced one or two line stub better than no article? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not up to the "help desk" to determine. :) What we do here is answer questions about how Wikipedia works, not set or establish policies about how they work. If the problem is the specific template, WP:TFD is the place to get it. Again, though, I suspect that you're grappling with a larger issue which should be dealt with in the general principle rather than this specific manifestation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I underestimated this issue. Exactly what place on on Wikipedia would be considered the right place to bring this up? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said above, it depends on how you want to tackle the issue. :) If I were doing it, I would bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books), suggesting language something similar to Wikipedia:Music to turn book articles of that sort (not stubs, but single-line unreferenced articles) into redirects to the author. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will try that. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2011_April_20&oldid=1142597140"