Search the frequently asked questions

Search the help desk archives and other help pages

May 6

When people edit or create articles, they behave like little atoms trying to put their point across, so we can only hope that logic wins as opposed to conflict. In essence, so called moderators of wikipedia can prevent an article or edit being made just as much as another person who edits or creates an article can make a change, we can only hope that logic wins.

Just found this page again where I posted a proposal some time ago: WP:IB/Proposed. Is this page still actively used or maintained? At least to me, this page appears nearly abandoned. So what exactly is the benefit of posting an infobox proposal there? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page was last updated on May 5th from when I checked. I don't know if people are just posting infobox templates on there and not getting any reply, but it seems to still be used...? FUTURI (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why was category List_of_fictional_characters_who_can_manipulate_wind deleted? 2. Should The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency_(TV_series) be listed in List_of_dramatic_television_series_with_LGBT_characters because BK a main character is gay: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ladies/characters/bk.shtml Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as #1, you can see it's listed twice in the logs here. Oh, and there's a difference between a category and list. Dismas|^(talk) 02:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody actually created Category:List of fictional characters who can manipulate wind. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 5#Category:List of fictional characters who can manipulate wind and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 14#Fictional characters by power. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional characters by power

1. Can Fictional characters by power be created again? I think it's relevent. 2. Should The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency_(TV_series) be listed in List_of_dramatic_television_series_with_LGBT_characters because BK a main character is gay: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ladies/characters/bk.shtml Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your #1 is referring to. As for #2, you can be bold and add the show to the LGBT character list. If you did, and there was a disagreement with another user, it would be best to discuss it on the user's or article's talk page, and then if that doesn't work you could WP:3O or WP:DR CTJF83 07:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the future you may get better results if you create separate sections for unrelated questions. That way it will be clearer to responders whether all your questions have been addressed. —teb728 t c 12:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have a message in red on my talk page - "This template should be substituted on the article talk page" and I am unsure what it means. I have tried to submit but when I try to submit the article it shows the previuos page which needed lots of work, which I have since corrected as advised.

How do I progress from here please.

brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian water dodd (talk • contribs) 05:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably substituting a template that is meant for talk pages. Some templates have namespace detection and will transclude a warning if you're in the wrong one. Which template did you use? — Bility (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a peer review and yes, a WP:PR needs to go on the articles talk page. CTJF83 07:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why this article is delected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.49.60.246 (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to here, there isn't enough to indicate the topic is important enough for an article. CTJF83 07:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone have a look at Template talk:Unreferenced section#Possible improvement and tell me if this would make sense? Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. CTJF83 07:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I commented to your response. Your argument there doesn't seem to make sense to me. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have that page on my watchlist, so we can continue back and forth there. CTJF83 07:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I AM TRYING TO FIND OUT ABOUT OLD GARDEN PLANTERS CALLED ARVECT PRODUCTS WITH A CARVED OWL IN THE BOTTOM LORRAINE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorrylap (talk • contribs) 10:39, 6 May 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. CaptRik (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A complaint and not a question due to the article posted on this website titled suicide methods a very special person has died due to reading this article. The information about suffication and all other methods is a disgrace and should not be avaliable for people to read. I have always been a fan of this website but never again will i use it and will be telling everyone not to use this website ever. You should be disgusted in putting such an article on your website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackc4trocks (talk • contribs) 10:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for your loss. I do have to say though no one has died because they read an article on Wikipedia. No one has even killed themselves because they read an article on wikipedia. All the information in that article is freely available on the web in multiple locations and if someone is going to commit suicide they will find the information they need to do it. GB fan (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out that people have been hanging, gassing, poisoning, suffocating and otherwise killing themselves for hundreds of years, using well-established techniques, and none of these people felt it necessary to await the invention of the World Wide Web or the creation of a Wikipedia article on the subject to carry out the act. Captain Screebo (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia is not censored. BurtAlert (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some pictures from Popular Science and Popular Mechanics of a model car made only for a 1955 GM car show. I put them in an article I wrote up on the Sunmobile. Are these pictures properly used (uploaded) in Fair Use of a historical item that no longer exists?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it verifiably does not exist and is not just off in some GM archives next to the Ark of the Covenant, I think you could get away with [[File:Sunmobile 15 inch model.jpg]]. I don't think you could justify three images like that. The rationale looked OK on that. I would do licensing similar to here, that is a much better tag, of course change all the names.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the License to the different Fair Use tag. Does that now look like what you had in mind?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently thumbnails are alright according to this court ruling.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! I can't tell you about thumbnails, all I know is hard and fast experience from being around here. I should note, however, that Wikimedia's servers in Florida are not in the Ninth Circuit ...--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would this article called The Seventh Coin be considered a stub? Neptunekh2 (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of the film grading scheme is that it is more than a stub. I have removed the stub templates and reassessed on the talk page to start class. GB fan (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And delete this userspace page:

user:Captain Screebo/External links spamming by City Journal

I had just created it when I realised that the use of by is a bit inflammatory as all the spam was for City Journal articles but we have no proof that the person concerned worked for them (some chance!).

I have moved it to here, I guess the deletion will automatically rub out the redirect?

Thanks. Captain Screebo (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be removed shortly. Meph^talk 14:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother, got it. I have to keep my tool count up.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough, I wanted to keep the content of the page and have it under User:Captain_Screebo/External_links_spamming_concerning_City_Journal and just get rid of the original page title and the redirect, can you fix this for me? Next time, I will pay more attention to naming the pages correctly in the first place, btw I have removed the {{resolved}} template for the moment. Please bring my page back, hangs head in shame ;-) Captain Screebo (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I think. Let me know if I missed anything. TNXMan 15:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's perfect. Captain Screebo (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! Deleting pages is like eating pistachio nuts, it's hard to keep it to one.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, all's well that ends well. Captain Screebo (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can use {{db-u1}} next time you want to delete one of your userpages. This isn't really the right place to request admin assistance. — Bility (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, noted for next time but it wasn't as simple as that, I had moved the page to its new title but this was simply a redirect from the original page, I didn't want to lose the content I had created, just the first title. This is a help page, is it not? Captain Screebo (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please close proposed move of Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I'm not an admin, but admins aren't required to close requested moves, and more importantly it has only been going on for 2 days, and it should be listed for 7. CTJF83 17:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it is snowing. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is true...if someone else wants to close it, I have no problem with that. CTJF83 17:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is going to be closed now it will need to be done by an admin, since it will take admin rights to complete the move. GB fan (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... Hence the heading. Meanwhile non-admins can contribute their penny-worth. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure. I drafted much of the current language but with input from multiple editors. If you think the admin closing instructions are too strict (I think so), proposing new language would be good at WT:RM.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is an article's discussion page the correct place to make WP:3RR claims, as is done here? If not, is it permitted to remove these comments if they are not one's own? ThatSaved (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:AN3 is the correct place to report 3RR violations. See WP:TPO for when you should edit other's comments. It's over 4 years old, so there is really no reason to remove it. It would be better to WP:ARCHIVE it. CTJF83 17:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am facinated by Wikipedia and would like to write about indian topics and people and share it with the world. But uunfortunately i am not able to find the right place to talk about it.\

I would also like you to tell me that what is to be done to be a translator.

Kindly see to it.

Karan Arora A/c name: k.arora.bk —Preceding unsigned comment added by K.arora.bk (talk • contribs) 17:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barring a specific question, you might find Help:Contents/Getting started, Wikipedia:Translation, and Wikipedia:WikiProject India useful. If you have a specific question, please feel free to respond here. CTJF83 17:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start small and learn. Each of us made our first edit here once, nothing stops you from doing the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

k.arora.bk, please sign your comments with four tildes. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make a lo res version of File:Comedy Death-Ray Radio.jpg (source) but it sucks. I only have access to the Paint program that comes with Windows XP. Can someone help me by creating a better lo res version? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a little cleaner now? — Bility (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll still get those compression artifacts on the article though, since it's being displayed at 250px. You could either change the image width to 300px in the infobox or I can reupload at 250px if you want. — Bility (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. If you don't mind, would you please reupload at 250px? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done! — Bility (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! The Hero of This Nation (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be easier to convert a high res version of the JPG file to SVG format? Then it can be scaled much more easily by the Mediawiki software. – ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even converting to PNG would probably get rid of the artifacts from scaling, and SVG would be even better, but I wouldn't say it's easy (for whoever has to do it). They take requests at the Graphic Lab, but I'm not sure if anyone would care to work on a non-free image. — Bility (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also non-free, so we don't want to host a high resolution image. Buddy431 (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help media to recover windows mediaplayer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.40.167 (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Computing reference desk. They specialize in answering computer questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to add a 'status' line to the WindSeeker pages info box. When ever I try to add it, it never works. Is there something that I'm doing wrong... and is there a way that I can add it to the page? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom497 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can only use the parameters documented at {{Infobox attraction}}. I see you have attempted to edit the template documentation at Template:Infobox attraction/doc. If you want other parameters then you have to edit the template itself with the Edit tab at Template:Infobox attraction, but it's complicated and I'm not sure a status parameter is worth the extra complication. Editors often have to make due with the available parameters in infoboxes which are used in many articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a few things I would like add in Holly_Marie_Combs article. According to tv tome, Holly's mother, has worked as an actress and a singer. Her stepfather is a musician. Mother and daughter lived near the beach in San Diego until Holly was eight. and According to this website: http://hollymcombspiperhalliwell.webs.com/hollysfunfactsquotes.htm She was a vegetarian for seven years. Can that be added in her article? And according to NNDB and IMDB Eli Wallach is Polish Jewish descent. And can you tell User:Nymf to stop deleting my edits? He/she is so annoying! Neptunekh2 (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, these things cannot be added unless properly sourced and User:Nymf was right to revert your edits; please see reliable sources, the whole article, and, more specifically, the section I have linked to. IMDB is mentioned as an unreliable source so I do not think that "Fun facts about Holly" is likely to make the grade either.

If you are confused, please see verifiability and concerning living people's biographies. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 00:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am on the classic skin and I have IE 8 and a few days ago when I looked tried to Edit something I looked at Difference between revisions and it dose not show the Differnce all the text is Black Jena (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having the same problem. I assumed it was going to be fixed. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't experienced it myself. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Edit view problem says: "This'll be the same problem as #No colour shading on diffs above; there are some edge cases or something that are still being worked out. --brion (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a similar problem and just posted about it...see below (May 8) ~~redjme —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redjme (talk • contribs) 03:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 7

A "simplify/Detailed" toggle button on every page is needed.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.18.3 (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for easy-to-understand articles, try the Simple English Wikipedia. It's articles are written in simple english. Here is the main page. Chamal ^T•C 06:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of achieving this is the "Introduction" articles that are available for some complex topics, such as Introduction to evolution and Introduction to quantum mechanics. Zakhalesh (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we use British or American English when editing? --Michaelphillipr (talk) 09:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either, depending on various matters. See WP:ENGVAR. -ColinFine (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a long break. The new editing bar has some advantages, but I'm used to the old one. I'd like it back so I can get back up to speed. Are there any disadvantages I don't know about that I could bump into after disabling the new edit bar? -- Mgm|^(talk) 11:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use the old one and it still works fine. Sumsum2010·T·C 20:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to write an article about an actor called John Bell, but unfortunately, there is already an article for actor by the same name. What is the preferred characteristic to make the second disambiguation. Do you choose nationality, birth date or something completely different? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Bell is a disambiguation page, where it says John Bell (actor) is an actor from Australia. You could edit the disambiguation page and change John Bell (actor) to John Bell (Australian actor) and then add a new wikilink for the second actor under John Bell (??? actor), where you would replace ??? with the nationality of the actor you would like to add. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just wanted to make sure that was the most suitable method. I'll use the one you described. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, actually its not that simple, because you have to be careful not to break the wikilink to the existing article. You can use a piped wikilink however, like [[John Bell (actor)|John Bell (Australian actor)]], which would read as John Bell (Australian actor), but wikilink to John Bell (actor). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I have admin abilities, so as long as I keep the links up to date, I can move the existing article to a new location. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. :) Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hoe moet ik een nieuw afrtikel opsturen? ik zie door de bomen het bos niet meer

maarten manson

(Redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leestwie (talk • contribs) 13:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are asking, I tried google translate and it translated it as:

How do I send a new afrtikel? I see the trees for the forest anymore

GB fan (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Maarten. Read Wikipedia:Getting started to learn the basics. Information on how to start an article is in there too. Did you know there is a Dutch-language Wikipedia as well? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few articles to Wikipedia, and have tried to add a photo, but no luck. This site is not easy to use. There is a lot of information on how to do things, but none of it is really practical. All I want to do is to get copyright permission for a photo that I took (that I own) to put with my article. This shouldn't be that complicated. Is there anyone who can help me? I'm not even sure how to send this messgae, as there is no submit button! so I'm going to select Save Page. Pm2726 (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can help. As you took the photo yourself, you control the copyright. While you are welcome to upload the image to Wikipedia, it is considered more appropriate to upload it to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons, which will make the image more readily available to more people. So go to this page, and fill out the form, selecting an appropriate "free" license at your preference. This will upload the file and make it available for use on Wikipedia. If this doesn't help as much as I hoped, please feel free to ask another question or come to my talk page. By the way, Save Page is the way to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript format is not accepted in Wikimedia Commons (why not?). I converted my picture to .pdf, .png and .svg using convert command and GIMP but the results are not good. See Landau-damp.png in the Commons. Conversion to .svg produces a huge file. What do you recommend? Rwbest (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see anything wrong with the png file on the Commons. Can you tell us what options you chose to use in the conversions? - Mgm|^(talk) 18:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I increased the resolution to 400 dpi when importing the .ps file in GIMP. The saved .png file looks good on my screen using evince Doc Viewer, but in Wikipedia the lines are very thin and broken when zoomed in. The original .ps picture can be zoomed in much better. Why does Commons not accept postscript? Rwbest (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist error. gadget 850 needed. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what "gadget 850 needed" means, but I've added the missing '>' to a ref, and removed the superfluous <references />. --ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they are referring to our very knowledgeable editor and help desk regular Gadget 850. doomgaze (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That issue is documented on the help page linked in the error message. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Wikipedia currently has articles for some local National Weather Service offices. But, not all of them have their own. So, I was suggesting for anyone here at Wikipedia to start those articles. There are currently 122 weather service offices in the United States, and like I said not all of them have their own. Here is the link to the category page regarding the ones that already do. It's time to expand.

The link: Category:National_Weather_Service_Forecast_Offices

Thank you. Billim1 (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do this! Be Bold! mabdul 17:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying at the moment to remove (all) ibid tags by searching the history where a user/ip add the ibid reference. At the Museology article I found out that a user who isn't active any longer made this change. Can somebody explain me this constellation? There is a reference 1, and 13 (which is ibid"ded") - ok clear, but what about "ibid-reference 2"? there is nothing that fits... mabdul 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In footnote 3, "Ibid., 2" probably means "page 2 of the Peter Vergo work mentioned in footnote 1". But that's the problem with "ibid" references - without a copy of the original texts, it's impossible to be certain. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, again I found a op cit reference at Indo-Scythians. These were added at January 2007 with a merge of another article. These references were already in the first (initial) creation of the article. Can somebody explain me/confirm that this is related to reference #37 "Kshatrapasa pra Kharaostasa Artasa putrasa; Political History of Ancient India, 1996, p 398, Dr H. C. Raychaudhury, Dr B. N. Mukerjee."? mabdul 23:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to confirm this with Google Books and such like, without success. Note 30 seems to refer to three books, and my guess is that the first of these was intended to be a reference to "Political History of Ancient India", since note 7 also mentions page number 693. But this is only a guess. I think your best course is to post on the article talk page. Perhaps there is an expert watching the article who will have copies of the relevant books. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone give me a step by step guide on how to add a parameter to the attraction template. I've been trying to add a 'status' parameter but it hasn't been working. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom497 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Example attraction
Ride statistics
Status	whatever

{{Infobox attraction}} supports up to 8 "custom" fields. You could use these to display the "status" if only one or two articles are going to need it. Something like this:

{{Infobox attraction|name=Example attraction|custom_label_1=Status|custom_value_1=whatever}}

-- John of Reading (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I provided all the links and resources needed to prove the validity of my wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_J_Medeiros and still "looming" above it is a warning sign that the entry may not be reliable. It's a little embarrassing- there still are plenty of secondary sources listed. Though I feel I could search for yet even more- it may be fruitless seeing that Wiki is not picking up on the perfectly useful ones there now.

Can you help? Can it take less the 3 years to get this straight- It seems like a LARGE number of your "musician pages" suffer from this oversight, causing this site as a whole to look a little sloppy and disinterested in "artists" who haven't sold 8million records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjmedeiros (talk • contribs) 19:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tags on articles are not removed automatically: they may be removed by any editor who considers that the matter described by the tag has been resolved; however, I would counsel against your removing that tag, since you would appear by your user name to have a conflict of interest and would be better to leave it to somebody else.

This is the right page to appeal for people to review the article, and perhaps there are people here who will be moved to do so. I am less than enrolled by your way of asking. I observe, however, that though the article now has plenty of references it is immediately obvious that many of them are not reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I see a couple of good sources in there, but others leave a lot to be desired. You might want to read up on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Also I've seen a couple of references in the middle of a sentence. Unless it is particularly long, it is customary to add references at the end of a line. You can also read Wikipedia:Autobiography to find out what caused the template to be placed there to begin with (it is strongly discouraged to write about yourself because it is a conflict of interest). The thing is, this sort of thing is done by editors and the sheer number of pages around here, make it nearly impossible to keep up to speed on everything you edit. You can search in the page's edit history who placed it and try to start a dialog on their user talk page, or head over to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians to get some feedback from people who frequently edit articles like this one. If enough of them think it has reached a proper standard, one of them will remove the notice. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you very much for your wonderful, most respectable, historically correct, and free reference that has ever graced the Internet.

My name is not important. I own the above painting, which is listed on your website; however, it has a question mark where it indicates what medium was used. It was oil paint. The original is an object to behold. Unfortunately, one of the donated pictures of a cleaned-recreation destroys and is an insult to the beauty, i.e., richness of color used by Mr. Jeanniot in this painting. I would love to send you a photo of the original; but, I am not a contributor, nor member of this website. Is that necessary?

In any event, I inherited the painting from Mr. Pablo Picasso, who was my grandmother's lover in the years 1894-1900. I do not know any other way to describe their relationship, as my grandmother, when she spoke to me of Mr. Picasso, spoke almost entirely of their relationship in this forum.

I also own 4 picasso's, 1 of which I have deliberately not ever had listed, photographed, revealed to the public, nor will it be until my death, at which time my will states it is to be released, along with 5 pages of a witnessed, hand-written manuscript by Mr. Picasso, which will blow the lid off the interpretations of what the experts(?) say he was painting, or trying to say. He gave these sealed to my Grandmother, who opened them after his death, shared them with me before her death, then we resealed them and they are stored in Switzerland, where they will stay until my death is reported to the keeper, who will then send the contents to the Smithsonian, where they will be opened publically, and will only be allowed to be studied in the open, where the public can watch the entire study, so that there is no swapping of them, as so many painters' documentations have. There is a reason to hide the content of Mr. Picasso's 5 pages, as it will reveal a secret about him and the members (nearly all of them) of a secret association, which the world is facinated by. Yes, Picasso was a Free Mason, and his writings will bring the value of his paintings to those of the World's Greatest Masters.

If you would be so kind as to note that the medium used for this painting was oil paint, I would be greatful.

CR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.215.233 (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Georges Jeanniot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looking at the other paintings in the list, I think the question mark was supposed to signify that the year was unknown. I have edited the article.

Since Pierre-Georges Jeanniot died in 1934, I believe the copyright on his pictures has expired. If that is the case (other volunteers here please correct me if necessary), then you are most welcome to upload photos to WikiMedia Commons using this form. You will need to register a user name first, but that is very easy. Good-quality pictures of famous artworks would be an excellent addition to the project. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the key point in determining copyright expiration for the painting is the year of the painting, not the year of Jeanniot's death. Assuming the painting was "published" in 1904, the copyright (at least in the U.S.) expired.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion of copyright as it applies to French paintings specifically at Commons:Licensing#Country-specific laws.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an easy way to create a book from a List page that included all of the pages that are linked to the list? I want to make a book using the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_castles The pages that are linked to this list are also List pages which then link to individual pages. Is it necessary to go to each of the linked pages to create the book? I have read the instructions for using Categories, but that does not appear to work for what I need to do.

Thanks for the help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by N8oay (talk • contribs) 21:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 8

Wikipedia advice on reliable sources states: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature...

Not all material which is "advertorial" in nature is clearly identified as such by the publisher. One editor of a page in which I have an interest frequently adds material citing sources which are clearly puff pieces, advertorial in nature, constructed largely or completely from company press releases and/or by a journalist aiming to promote the company. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery and [[1]])

If the source cited does not identify itself as advertorial, how can I persuade this rather aggressive editor that it is not a reliable source? I do not wish to get into a POV argument but it only discredits wikipedia when advertorial genres are given the same status as academic research or serious journalism.

I would be most grateful for any advice Floccinauci (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried posting specifics at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? That might be a good place to start. What we want are not just reliable sources but reliable, independent, third party sources. It sounds to me like it may be that you've confronted this editor full tilt on reliability when that may not be the issue or nor the heart of the issue, but rather that the sources are primary or really primary sources because they parrot press releases but have a surface gloss of being presented as secondary sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do I open a new language?--Ebaali (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking to start a new language Wikipedia, see m:Requests for new languages but check first whether the Wikipedia version you seek to start doesn't already exists. If you are looking for another language's version of s specific article, look at the links on the left hand side of the page listing other languages. If you are looking to translate an article from another language into English, see Wikipedia:Translation. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have an old scrapbook from the early 1900's with pictures of many old circus and vaudeville acts of people that are listed on wikipedia, but don't know if I can post them. The pictures are old and don't know if there would be any problem with copyright laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.147.229 (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be ok, but you might like to post your query here where the image copyright experts hang out -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 02:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the United States items published before 1923 are in the Public Domain (no problem there). Was this scrapbook created by a relative of yours? If it is, you're probably in the clear. If you bought it, I'm afraid you'll have to do some more digging. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI House was not the "most watched" show of 2008. That very ambiguous claim is even refuted in it's own article. As this is a featured article it can not be changed on the Wiki main page. I already deleted the claim in the regular article. Please correct this propaganda. I thought featured articles were checked for accuracy... Hop to it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.202.75.36 (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to provide a reliable source to back up your claim. Your edit was reverted by another editor since you didn't provide any explanation there. The existing reference for this fact was dead, so I have added a new one. Chamal ^T•C 02:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where precisely do you see it refuted? It's supported by House (TV series)#Distribution with an inline reference. See the whole story at [2]. Talk:Main Page says: "Main Page Errors: To report a problem about the current content on the Main Page." But you may need a source to get referenced information removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead section of an article (especially a featured one) is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. Therefore references are included further down. Can someone remind me of the name of the service to store backup copies of references? - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WebCite or Wayback Machine. You'll find instructions and links on those pages. Chamal ^T•C 08:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am on Wikipedia every day, however 2 days ago, when I opened pages the format of the page was different than usual. When I open a page now, the font is Times New Roman, where previously it was Ariel. The wikipedia logo in the upper left is gone and the navigation menu on the left part of the screen apprears at the bottom. Every heading and subheading also now has a link that is "{edit]". When I go to another page and go back to the first page, the format is "correct" (wiki logo in upper left, font is ariel, navigation menu is on left0). The "incorrect" format looks like a webpage build in 1994 :).

I am using IE9 on Win7 and have not consciously changed any OS or browser settings.

Does anyone know why the display of the format has changed? can someone please help me get back to the "correct"/"usual" format.

I would be happy to send/post screenshots if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redjme (talk • contribs) 03:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're yet another victim of the display errors that have been occurring in the past few days :) Please see the question below. Chamal ^T•C 04:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the past few days, especially in the last two, I have been having some trouble viewing diffs. Around 90 percent of the time when comparing two revisions, any changes are difficult for me to detect because I am not seeing any colored areas – no green, yellow, or gray shading – nor any red text indicating added or removed material. All I am seeing is regular black text on a white background.

I have not made any changes to my computer's hardware or settings lately nor have I added any new software. My operating system is Windows XP and my browser is Internet Explorer 8.

Thanks for any help or suggestions! --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several users have reported problems with the way wikipedia pages are being displayed in the past few days, both here at the help desk and at the technical village pump. It looks like nobody has figured out exactly what's causing them, though. See the discussions here, here and here. Chamal ^T•C 04:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diff's are working ok for me. It's the page backgrounds that aren't right on my computer (they are light blue). Sumsum2010·T·C 05:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to read the discussions going on at WP:VPT (posts 23, 27, 31), all of these issues are related to people using Internet Explorer, so if you have the option use a different browser until this is resolved. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Chamal, for the information. I continue to experience the issue, so I ask those responsible for the upkeep of Wikipedia's internal workings -- those who place the oil on the gears, so to say -- for as quick a resolution to this issue as possible. My contributions to Wikipedia will be far less without being able to check diffs easily, not to mention the 300+ pages on my watchlist I'm having to ignore for the time being. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These two formulae currently appear inline with article text in Shadow zone: √((k+((4/3u)))/p) and √(u/p) I think they might look better using the math markup, but I've never had need to use it before. How do I convert these formulae? And does the math markup support inline formulae, or do I need to break up the paragraph and put each formula on a separate line? Astronaut (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MATH for help on how to display math formulas. You can use <math>\sqrt{{k+\frac{4}{3}u}\over p}</math>, which displays as
${\displaystyle {\sqrt {{k+{\frac {4}{3}}u} \over p}}}$. You don't have to put everything on a single line. Everything between <math> </math> is regarded as one formula. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your second formula would be converted analogously to the first example. I hope this example makes everything clear. If you need further help with the formulas, please don't hesitate to ask here again. You can also ask me directly on my talk page. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Thank you. Astronaut (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that quite a few articles marked as stubs are past that stage. Are there any rules-of-thumb, for example maybe any article with more than 5 refs can be deemed no longer a stub ? Penbat (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Quality_scale, shows how to assess articles. The other projects have the same kind of criteria. GB fan (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't believe the number of references determines whether an article is a stub. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a free website domain name with a root domain name of .co.cc, unfortunately I am unable to place a vital link to a manual there.

I might be wrong but for some reason I think that .co.cc is blocked.

Can someone please confirm this. Also is it posible to allow my site which is on this root domain?

Who can do this?

how?

Who do I contact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petervis (talk • contribs) 13:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the entry "\b.co\.cc\b" at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist prevents the addition of any external link to a page ending with ".co.cc". According to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log#November_2009, this was blocked because it is a redirect service.

You could ask for this to be undone by following the procedures described at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist, but I don't think it is worth the effort. According to the Wikipedia content guideline on external links, a link to a manual would not usually be an acceptable addition to a Wikipedia article. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I own a small business and want to know if I can list it on Wikipedia? Thanks, Crafty Monkeys (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Show us some links to independently published material about the business, such as news articles. Most small businesses will have received little press coverage, which usually means there are few or no reliable sources we can use to verify factual claims in an article about the business that would appear here. See also Wikipedia:No original research - we can't just write what we know, or what we believe, we can only write what has been published, and attribute each potentially disputable claim to its source. Reliable sources are central to everything we do on Wikipedia, and we arguably don't do a good enough job of making this obvious to new users who want to write new articles. --Teratornis (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to edit a page that's been flagged for deletion but the edits are being rejected. what do i do?

I am trying to add the relevant citations and links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manayer (talk • contribs) 13:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SAKHR Software Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This recent edit was undone by XLinkBot, an automated software process, because the edit added links to YouTube. Such links are rarely appropriate in Wikipedia articles; see WP:YOUTUBE and User:XLinkBot/FAQ. You are welcome to restore the rest of the material. I'm not sure I can safely do this for you because the article has been edited since. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What combination of nautical flags gives the meaning "Permission granted to lay alongside"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.72.63 (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the Miscellaneous section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.Template:Z38 Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google is your friend. According to this page, the answer is K-U-Z-I-G-Y -- John of Reading (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please would somebody help me get this article right. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can post something at the talk page of WikiProject Biography in order to draw the attention of other editors to this article. The project seems to have quite a number of active participants. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the source in the public domain? as at the moment it is a direct copy of the source [3] so the content should probably be deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book was apparently written in 1882 and would therefore be in the public domain in the U.S.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, perhaps the original book should have been referenced rather than an e-book. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The e-book or Google Books or something else that has online information about it should be okay if anyone can make heads or tails of it. I would think that to cite the book itself, you'd have to have a copy, no? Of course, the article would have to be put in sentence structure rather than the gobbledygook (sorry, Kitty) it has now, but, personally, I don't feel able to read and interpret what I'm reading to do it, or I would. BTW, is the guy sufficiently notable to include in the first instance?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an MP, yes. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess MPs are automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN, Point #1 (national office).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automatically is a bad word. "Presumed" is a better word, as it "it is presumed that the sources exist, even if not currently cited in the article". Automatically implies that they could be considered a proper article subject without having to obey the basic rules of the WP:GNG. Presumed is better because it makes it clear that there are certain class of subjects where sources are more likely than other. For example, an MP is likely to have more reliable sources than a plumber would. Not every MP, nor every plumber, but on the balance the average MP is likely to have enough quality sources to work from, while the average plumber does not. --Jayron32 19:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the average plumber is more useful than the average MP? :-) Thanks for the clarification.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a discussion (or is such a discussion going on) regarding the implementation of Liquid threads? Has consensus been reached over whether to implement this at all (and if so where)? If not, is it planned to run this as a trial first, or will the foundation simply make this transition anyway without prior consensus? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The software is not yet mature enough to be implemented on the English Wikipedia. Questions of its implementation (or not) will probably be dealt with once it is. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 17:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My opinion is we should try to avoid reproducing some of the problems Pending changes had or is having in the first place. (With problems I refer to the confusion of trial run and actual implementation). Just some preemptive comments from me. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of amusement rides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Why is this page so categorised? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a list. The biggest problem is its formatting is such a mess. I think it needs an image gallery at the bottom rather than the "stack" of images it has now.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The help page is not an amusement ride. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment. In any event, I added an image gallery (a lot of work) and cleaned up some templates. The article at least looks much better.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look right in front of you and adjust downwards slightly you will see that this page has among its categories "Amusement parks by name". It seems odd.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Bbb23! DMacks (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I completely misunderstood Kitty's question. The reason this page (the Help forum) has the category is because of the use of the Infobox attraction template on May 7 (see above). It will go away when this page is archived. At least I improved the article that Kitty wasn't even referring to. Hanging my head here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Won't the archive page then be in the category "Amusement rides by name"? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed here. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pity, that, we could use better recreation facilities around the Wiki.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Outstanding, thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 and any other editors wanting to have some wonderful wikifun, while you were all pondering if Kittybrewster was suffering from wiki-burnout, I wandered over to the article, had a quick edit and posted my observations on the talk page, anybody feel up to the challenge? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got sick on the tilt-a-whirl.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serves you right. You were the one who told me to tilt my head and look at the bottom of the Help page. I gave it a whirl and discovered, to my chagrin, that you were correct. Why should I be the only one who got sick from this thread?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am trying to correctly add an article in Spanish (es.wikipedia.org). I am trying to change the main title of the article currently it reads, "WT:Articles for creation/Servicio de Seguridad Diplomatica (EE.UU)".

I would like it to read, "Servicio de Seguridad Diplomática (EE.UU.)". I am also trying to link "Diplomatic Security Service" and "Servicio de Seguridad Diplomática (EE.UU.)", even though one is in English and the other in Spanish.

Help. BadTie

We have no control over the Spanish Wikipedia. Have you tried the help desk there?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you may know how to make the change on the english version and I'd do the same for the Spanish.

It's not a bad idea. What do you mean by "linking" the two? Do you want them to show as articles about the same subject matter in different languages?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably referring to an interlanguage link. Now that es:Servicio de Seguridad Diplomática (Estados Unidos) has been published you can add [[es:Servicio de Seguridad Diplomática (Estados Unidos)]] near the bottom of Diplomatic Security Service. I believe a bot will then insert back links in the Spanish article. —teb728 t c 23:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC) I did it with this edit. —teb728 t c 23:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. When Sullivan told Costello that Queenan & the undercover cop are inside a building, did Sullivan know beforehand that Queenan was going to die?

2. Is Sullivan glad that Queenan died? (70.235.225.86 (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Entertainment reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. CTJF83 20:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I flew with the 37th Aerospace Rescue & Recovery Squadron at Da Nang in 1971 & 1972. I received two Distinguished Flying Crosses for Combat Missions in Spring 1972. One for Heroism and 1 Oak Leaf Cluster.

Would like to be added to this list.

Thank you, David W Young, MSgt Ret. USAF Pararescue 1969-1997 (Redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.165.72.95 (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your service. I believe you must be talking about, Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross (United States). The only people who are on that list are people who are notable as defined by Wikipedia (see WP:BIO) and have an article. Not everyone who was awarded the DFC is notable according to those standards. For someone to meet those standards they would need to have significant coverage in reliable sources. If you have any questions please ask. GB fan (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a couple questions about this character: Shouldn't articles that start with "I ♥" be moved (if they haven't already) to "I Love" in accordance with some sort of WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS guidelines? I also noticed a couple of redirects (I ♥ Tirana and I ♥ Skanderbeg) that don't lead to any "I Love" article, but, rather, normal articles on people or places. Shouldn't these be tagged R3 as implausible typos? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the implausible redirects - one was to a 15th century noble? TNXMan 22:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unless there's some 15th century bumper sticker I'm not aware of, the redirect seemed rather ... weird. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

Several months ago, all wikipedia pages on 3 of our PCs, began displaying in a narrow, small sans-serif font (? the Agency FB True-Type Microsoft provided font). This font change makes reading and editing pages very difficult, without markedly changing the browsers image size, font size, display resolution, or some combination of these.

This has been a major annoyance and lead to our both utilizing wikipedia much less often and contributing edits (much less new pages) much less often and is new since we first started using and contributing to wikipedia in 2004.

These 3 PCs are all running Windows XP Pro and using Internet Explorer, Version 8.0.6001.18702IC to display web pages, including wikipedia.

We have not had font problems on any other of a great many web pages we commonly utilize and suspect that a code change made within all wikipedia web pages, combined with the behavior of Windows XP OS and IE8 methods of selecting which installed fonts to utilize is responsible.

We have found several other people on the internet who have been struggling with the same issue and a few selected work-arounds, none very effective, appealing or addressing the underlying issue, despite this working against the effectiveness of wikipedia's usefulness and appeal.

Please help me, and all the other users similarly affected, better understand how to correct this problem with viewing wikipedia pages by creating a wikipedia page which helps users and contributors correct this font display problem on whatever operating systems and browsers they utilize to interact with the wikipedia servers. If possible, please also email me and add a section to “My talk” page on wikipedia.

While this issue might have been addressed somewhere else on the wikipedia site, I was not able to locate it.

Starting a more general wikipedia page on wikipedia web page display/presentation issues might be a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MAlvis (talk • contribs)

Go into your preferences and test out the different skins in the Appearance tab. If none of those are to your liking, you can also set your browser's font size. Lastly, if you only need bigger text on Wikipedia, you can try adding custom code to your CSS or just magnify the page by pressing Ctrl++ or hold Ctrl and scroll your mousewheel. — Bility (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please fix (or explain how to fix) the text overlapping the image in the History section of Houston Ship Channel? I've played with it a little bit but it has me buffaloed. Thanks, RadioBroadcast (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I "fixed" it. The problem really is too many images, some very large, in too little space. I moved things around, shortened one very long caption, and added templates to give white space. Beyond that, the only thing I know of to do is to reduce the size of the images, particularly the one with the inset, or eliminate the images - or, of course, write more material. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also, {{clear}}. — Bility (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! RadioBroadcast (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TITLEFORMAT says not to use quotations in the title, when using Template:DISPLAYTITLE, but it says italics is ok....why? CTJF83 02:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say not use quotes with DISPLAYTITLE? DISPLAYTITLE won't add quotes anyway… — Bility (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some article titles are supposed to use italics. For example, articles on ships have the ship's name in italics (see USS Iowa (BB-61), USS Mississippi (BB-41) etc). Chamal ^T•C 04:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok...I guess I'm just curious as to why we italicize show titles in the top article name, like The Simpsons, but don't put episodes in quotations, like Homer's Phobia CTJF83 11:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is technically not possible— DISPLAYTITLE does not support quotes. You can test this in the sandbox. WP:TITLEFORMAT says to not create an article name with quotes, as opposed to the display name. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<removed draft article> Anitaraja (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if you want to create an article, see "Your first article" -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 09:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please move to Alexander Leslie-Melville, 7th Earl of Leven over redirect. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requested moves? Though of course, if an admin reads this and it's not controversial... --Obsidi♠n^Soul 14:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontroversial. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as this article Amina Bokhary controversy is all about living people and about a controversial topic I wanted to add a template to the talkpage Talk:Amina Bokhary controversy reminding users about BLP and suchlike and to automatically NOINDEX the talkpage but as its not actually a biography this template seems wrong , {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes}} is there something better in such situations? Off2riorob (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This template, {{BLP others}}, is probably what you are looking for, not sure if it does the noindex though. GB fan (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looked closer it does noindex the page. GB fan (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats the one, many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can come back to the desks days later and would read the same pages until I refresh. It's not happened before but now happens every visit. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need to know how to rename a page that was created by someone who died. The article was created when the person didn't know quite how to use Wikipedia, so the title of the page appears incorrectly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Acbush/Eddie_Bush_%28musician%29&action=edit

The title includes "User:Acbush" and I need to know how to get that removed -- either that or have the whole page removed so that it can be re-created from scratch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.213.126.39 (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you create an account, you can move it yourself to the correct name, see Help:How to move a page. If you don't wish to create an account, you can file a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. It looks the the article in question was started as a userspace draft, see Help:Userspace draft, so before moving it be absolutely certain that the article is in a state to "go live", see Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft for an explanation of how and when a draft is ready to "go live" as an article. --Jayron32 16:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the above information. At the moment, my concern is that while it may not be 'live', it still comes up in Google searches. So in a sense, it is public, even if not a live article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.213.126.39 (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also - If I was not the creator of the Userspace draft, will I be able to edit it and then have it moved (re-titled) when I've edited it sufficiently to go live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.213.126.39 (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I googled and this particular page didn't seem to come up in the first three pages of results. I see no problem with you editing the draft. The user in question hasn't been online for over a year and that page was their only contribution. However, if you want to "go live" please make an account so it can be attributed to you. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Assuming what you say is true (that the creator of the page has died), I don't see why not. Users don't own any page, even in the userspace, and if what you do makes Wikipedia better, go for it. Alternately, if you want to create an article from scratch on the same subject, you could do that too, again keeping in mind that not every subject is appropriate for a Wikipedia article (see Wikipedia:Notability). You might want to read Wikipedia:Why create an account? for information on the benefits of creating an account, if you do you can create your own userspace draft to work on such an article on your own time... --Jayron32 16:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The execution is very slow --80.142.206.59 (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like many areas of Wikipedia, there is a backlog. They're processed by volunteers, just like you or me. They need checking by hand - because some might not be appropriate to move (due to licencing), others are the subject of a current deletion discussion, and suchlike.

If you like, you could help us - we need all the help we can get. See Wikipedia:Why create an account?.

If there are some specific images you'd like moved, please tell us the names.  Chzz  ►  18:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a stub article about an American economist at Harvard Dwight Heald Perkins (1934- &bsp;). An article already exists about an American architect with the same name Dwight H. Perkins (1867-1941). For now, Dwight Heald Perkins is a redirect page. What shall I name the new article?

One option would be to change the name of the existing article to Dwight H. Perkins (architect) and then to name the new article Dwight H. Perkins (economist). Is there a better approach to this problem? If so, what? Why? Where should I have known to look for a good answer to this kind of question?

What shall I do with the current redirect? Shall I re-work it as a disambiguation page? --Tenmei (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a disambiguation page if there are only two relevant articles. I would leave the current article as is, but edit the redirect page to replace the redirect code with your article, then use an appropriate hatnote on each page to direct stray readers to the other article. – ukexpat (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered Tenmei to help with moving the page once he/she finished a userspace draft of the proposed article. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the new article is going to be at Dwight Heald Perkins, there won't be any need for a page move, just a copy and paste in place of the current redirect code.  – ukexpat (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• They both have the same name so both the full name and the one with just the H. initial could be a suitable query for both articles. I would definitely make a hatnote, but I think renaming with a disambiguated title is in order to avoid confusion. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]