i'm editing translation version of one topic, can i link the photo in the orginial version into the translation? and because my page have several english words, eg "cat", how can i link en.wiki/cat instead of linking to a page not existing in zh.wiki?
i'm editing translation version of one topic, can i link the photo in the orginial version into the translation one? and because my page have several english words, eg "cat", how can i link toen.wiki/cat instead of linking to a page that's not existing in zh.wiki? thz!
Why can't I no longer view deleted edits of articles?
When I go to [1], there is a link there called "View 12 deleted edits?". I know this link worked a few days ago, why has this functionality been removed? What can be gained by removing people the right to view just the history of old articles and the reasons why? Peter S.00:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are still able to view deleted articles, both the content and the edit summaries. We will just have to hope the 750 or so admins we have won't abuse any information they find there. — JIP | Talk11:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can we leave notes on talk pages citing that talk pages are for serious discussion of changes of the article only or are the users free to talk about anything they like on talk pages (related to the article?) - Andrew Northall02:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can put something like {{Talkheader}} at the top of the page. You can find a semi-uptodate list of templates at WP:TM. Discussion should be about the article, not the subject. Keeping WP:BITE in mind, though, unaggressive OT discussion rarely causes problems. You could maybe leave a gentle reminder on the discussers' talk pages. pfctdayelise02:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that reference desk type question on the article's subject are also a good thing on article talk pages if the questioner wants a response from people who worked on the article instead of the big ref desk mass. - Mgm|(talk)10:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Donation notice
You know about that donation notice at the top of the screen? The one that says that I can give the gift of knowledge? I do not like that notice there. I would like to remove it. I tried adding this code to my monobook.css file:
"...do not erase..." Really? So, if I make a series of blunders or get particularly heated over an idea and devolve into childish edit warring, I have to bear the mark on my user page forever? TheLimbicOne18:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's considered a bit secretive to quietly edit away negative comments, but it's not something you'd be shot by the community for unless you were patently playing silly buggers (like removing successive level-4 vandal warnings repeatedly on the same day). It might be a good time to tactfully archive the page, though ;-) Shimgray | talk | 19:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After the flames die down–give it at least a few days, if not weeks–then you can archive your talk page. Though you don't have to bear the edit war or administrator warnings on your current talk page forever, it does make it much easier for other editors to understand the course of a conflict (and hopefully to aid in its resolution) if blocks of comments and warnings haven't disappeared. Good editors make occasional errors in judgement; having an embarrassing exchange on our talk page tends to remind us that we need to take care. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Users have made 34,031,641 edits, an average of 11.51 per page, since July 2002.<-From the number of pages link on the main page. Also, I think someone asked a question that had those cats in them. When the question is taken care off, the cats will go away. If not, it's to tell the users what language this page uses.--Rayc05:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the policy on redundant categories? Is having an observatory in Astronomical observatories in Nebraska and then adding the category Astronomical observatories redundant, or helpful? What if it isn't an exact tree, like having Category:University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Category:Lincoln, Nebraska? Thanks!--Rayc05:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I dealt with this earlier, and you shouldnt have an article link redundantly. for example, we put rapping in elements of hip hop culture, but not in hip hop(which contains elements of hip hop culture cat). so yeah, weird rule but it seems to be good. try to stick to it but dont go OCD.
If you want to insert the picture, edit the page you want it to appear on and type this:
[[Image:Nightstallion-sig1-white.png]]
If you want to insert a link to it, type this:
[[:Image:Nightstallion-sig1-white.png]]
Note the leading colon (:) that stops the image actually showing up. Also note the Image: prefix that is required when linking to all images. Also note you can insert various parameters such as left/right, thumbnail or frame, as well as a caption, when displaying the image. See WP:EIS (Extended image syntax) for help on this. pfctdayelise09:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If by "link to a page" you mean that you want to have a person's browser take them to your user page when they click on the image, that isn't allowed. Something to do with the GFDL license as I recall. This has been asked before, you might want to check the other questions on this page or the archives for the specifics. Dismas|(talk)09:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. Would it still be discouraged in this case, where I'm only trying to avoid having lots of question marks show up for users who don't have one of the few appropriate fonts installed? ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ✉10:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I can't really get it to work when it's in a paragraph of normal text: {{Click||image = Nightstallion-sig1-black.png|link = User:Nightstallion|width = 100px|height = 14px}}, entered like this, results in a rather page-breaking link in the very upper left corner of the page. I can only get it to work properly when it's in its very own line, which makes it rather unusable for signatures. I suspect this can't be fixed easily; if this is the case, then I'll simply have a link to my userpage separate from the image in my signature. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ✉12:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know wiki has special markup for dates, so they show up according to local settings.
I recenly merged a page with a big number like 20000. Written in that way, it didn't look so good. I know it's 20,000 in english and american locale settings but for us this number is a round 20.
Is there a way to write numbers so they are adapted to user locale like dates?
Ouch. I see this is getting too much involved for me (I've dropped a note on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)) but I guess I'll just carry on with "hardwriting" the numbers. I'm not well aware of how to point this out to the staff, I hope this is the right thing to do.
Thank you very much for your quick response! MaxDZ818:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Change to edit links
Long articles get broken up with headings that allow a user to edit just a small portion of text. That's great, unless I want to change something in the first paragraph (intro section with no edit link). In that case, I have to use the "edit this page" tab and wait for the entire page to load so that I can make minor edit (like avoiding a redirect) in the first sentence. Is there some way that we can get an "edit" link to show up for the introduction of an article if it's broken into sections? TheLimbicOne19:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, at the moment there is no link like this however one maybe included in future releases of media-wiki (the program that makes wikipedia work) prehaps someone could suggest this to the programmers. Lcarsdata19:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(after section edit conflict) See`user scripts where there is a user script you cna add that puts a section edit link for section 0 (the section above the first heading) on all pages you display. DES(talk)19:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Thank you very much (I love how fast this help section gets results). Is there any plans add the 0th section function to the main wiki engine? TheLimbicOne19:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The user scripts page gives a bunch of info about the scripts but I don't see anywhere that tells a person where to put the script. What am I missing? I would think the instructions would be there as well... Dismas|(talk)20:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Go yo your user page, create a sub-page called monobook.js and paste the script there. Once you save it, there will be instructions at the top of the page explaining how to refresh your browser cache. Follow them and the script should be active. --GraemeL(talk)20:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was taken out last year because it interferes with the floating boxes and images that people insist on putting everywhere. :) --Brion20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the proper solution there have been to change the floating boxes and images, rather than functionality? I'm one who had to go hunting the edit top script, because i thought this wasn't technically possible for whatever reason. Now I find out it's a stylistic issue? Bah. -- nae'blis(talk)23:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm reading this wrong but I just put in the first script in that list and there is no issue with formatting of the pages or moving of images. There is simply an extra tab at the top of the articles next to the "edit this page" link that reads "0". Dismas|(talk)23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove move template once moved?
I was looking through Category:Requested_moves and noted that many have already been moved. Can the move template be removed once a page has been renamed/moved? Thanks! --Lox (t,c) 20:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear what you're looking for. "NoMultiLicensePD" seems contradictory. You can only license works that you could copyright for. If something is in the public domain, it means no one (or maybe, everyone equally) owns the copyright to it. So no one can restrict its use through any type of license. pfctdayelise05:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I often keep an eye on the Battlefield 2 article, as it grows very quickly because of the game's high popularity, and often the information added is not appropriate (eg. a recent section was made to promote an amateur league, which I reverted, then later found the same user had vandalised the article in response). Thankfully most people dont worry about me taking out what I would consider trivial or fluff content, but the 'External links' section is a bit harder. A lot of people who run or use Battlefield 2 sites add their respective links, and obviously dont like it when I remove them because they are not notable or do not really contribute to the article. I am certain that if nobody cut the list down from time to time, it would be full of links to people who just want to promote their site, even if they didnt come close to being included in an encyclopedia article. What are the guidelines that I should be using to tell if a link really warrants a place in the article? Thanks :) Remy B07:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How do I link an entry in English on the en.wikipedia.org site to a German entry on de.wikipedia.org
Thanks
Michael
Edit the article on en.wikipedia.org and add [[de:GermanArticleName]] at the bottom, e.g. for Imagism, [[de:Imagismus]]. I think that's it! Hope that helps! --Lox (t,c) 09:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That will add the interlanguage-wikipedia link to the box which may or may not already exist, below the toolbox on the bottom left (in the default skin). So you should do that for articles which are on the same topic. Those type of links are kind of like category links, in that you can put them anywhere in the page but they always end up in the same place at the end.
If you want to provide a link within an en:w: article to a de:w: article, you do the same thing but with a leading colon (:), ie. [[:de:Imagismus]] --> de:Imagismus. (You can get rid of the de: prefix by using a trailing pipe | .) But this is usually discouraged, although right now I can't really think why - I guess because it is inappropriate to assume anything about the language knowledge of the reader. pfctdayelise14:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can I vandalize my own Userpage?
Hi, I couldn't find anything on this in the documentation, so I ask here: Can I vandalize my own userpage (or its discussion page)? That is, if there is something on the userpage (or its discussion page) I just don't like, can I just remove it or do I have to use the usual process? For example, does 3RR apply to myself on my own userpage (or its discussion page)? Thanks in advance --Yooden
You can't do whatever you want to your talk (discussion) page, however. You may not delete others' comments, unless they are personal attacks. You may archive your talk page once it gets particularly long, but you are a ways away from that. WAvegetarian(talk)(email)(contribs)12:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, the userpage is solely mine, the talk page adheres to the usual talk page rules, right? Thanks! --Yooden
Actually, I don't think there's any clearcut policy about that. User pages don't normally fall under the 3RR rule, but if you put insulting comments about a user on it and someone removed them, you might well find yourself blocked for violating 3RR. With regard to user talk pages, a fairly-new admin recently posted a warning about something on a user's talk page. The user removed the message four times, and the admin blocked him. The block was undone by a more experienced admin. I don't think there's policy on it, though. To play safe, if you're a user, don't revert your talk page four times. If you're an admin, don't block for it. Maybe you should post the question here. It would be nice to have a discussion that would lead to some kind of agreed policy. AnnH(talk)15:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guessed that this would be already explained somewhere, thanks for pointing it out!
Note that my user page only served as an example, as did 3RR. I think my user page is fine as it is. --Yooden
"Proposed merger" request deletion
If I (or someone else) has merged two articles that were listed on the Wikipedia:Proposed mergers page, should I delete the proposal for deltion, or give a reply that I have merged it? -- Mac Davisญƛ.
It's best to just remove merged articles from the list and leave an edit summary to the effect of rm foo and bar - merged or something similar - that way, everyone knows what's happened, and the list is not unnecessarily cluttered -- Ferkelparadeπ11:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What do I do after tagging sock puppet? I tried to figure out what action we should take, but only guideline I found (this one) says I should present the case to ArbCom. Now, did I get that right or can I ask some admin to inspect the evidence and block sock puppets? I mean, if the evidence is obvious, why going through such a complicated procedure as ArbCom? --Dijxtra13:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Usually it's best to ask a member of the arbcom to confirm your suspicions as soon as possible. They use time sensitive info in their checks. - Mgm|(talk)17:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
command to see system configuration utility in windows 2000 server
i want to see system configuration utility in windows 2000 server by using command in run of startbar
No, as long as it's relevant to the project or your work on it, you can pretty much store anything there (except copyvio material and personal attacks). It's download times that can cause problems if you put it all on one page and don't use subpages. - Mgm|(talk)17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My question was whether there is a limit as to how much data one can store, not what kinds of data.
I'm not sure if I should create an account on Wikipedia.
I'm always thinking "What's the catch? Is it like BSB Weird World Fan Club membership, where you have to pay money to keep the membership?"
Tell me, what IS the catch?
Misoka
There's no catch. The only downside I can think of is that editing Wikipedia can be addictive, and creating an account makes editing (and thus giving in to editing) easier. Wikipedia is entirely free and creating an account has numerous benefits for you. In fact, it will obscure your IP address and make you more anonymous in a way, which is a good thing if you worry about privacy. - Mgm|(talk)21:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are no fees or "catches" of that sort. If you create an account, and use it, other people can see what edits you have made. On the other hand, Your IP address is not publicly visible, so this can actually increase your privacy. Edits from logged in users are given greater respect by many people. You will get a user page and a user talk page, so it will be easier for other people on the project to communicate with you. You will be able to create pages and move pages, and edit semi-protected pages, none of which can be done without logging in. You don't even have to provide an email address, although you may chose to. You get to set various display and editing preferences. Please register. DES(talk)21:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks! I was just worried that there were hidden fees. thank you very much! Happy New Year 2006! -Misoka
Underscoring
I just did an edit (a minor change to d20 System in case it matters) and now all of a sudden all internal links are underscored rather than simply being a different colour from the surrounding text. I do not want them underlined; I think it's ugly and distracting. I certainly did not knowingly make any such change. How did this happen, and how can I undo it? PurplePlatypus21:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. Whatever was doing this, it just stopped, as suddenly as it began. An explanation would still be nice, if anyone has one. PurplePlatypus
It's been an intermittent issue for the last few weeks although with most it was that the underscores were now gone. Clearing your cache or closing out the program has been fixing it in the past. Don't know why it does it though, sorry. Dismas|(talk)21:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The slightly longer answer: not only is it free, it's a lot easier than on many other Web sites, such as the average message board. Wikipedia asks for much less information than most other sites. PurplePlatypus23:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Upon signing up, you must pay a staggering 12,500% (twelve thousand five hundred percent) of the registration fee as tax. The registration fee is $0 US, or €0, or £0. — JIP | Talk17:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean there's no tax? --anon
I just said there is a tax, and a rather large one at that: 12,500%. When signing up, the actual amount of money you have to pay as tax is $0 US, or €0, or £0. — JIP | Talk14:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What JIP is trying to say that signing up is free without tax. However, this is as close as I could get to translating whatever language he is speaking into plain, normal, understandable English. JIP, you are welcome to help me "translate" for anon. --Misoka
So to sum up: yes, getting a username is free. There is absolutely no charge or tax (but you can donate if you want to to help keep the site running). Getting a username is also very quick and easy, and should take you about 20 seconds - just fill in the four boxes on Special:Userlogin. --Kwekubo20:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
is there any way to keep for example a serial killer from gaining knowledge about a specific group of people he wishes to target. does wikipedia have any systems of that nature.
It's not clear what you're looking for. "NoMultiLicensePD" seems contradictory. You can only license works that you could copyright for. If something is in the public domain, it means no one (or maybe, everyone equally) owns the copyright to it. So no one can restrict its use through any type of license. pfctdayelise05:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried several times to post a photo from my collection to Wiki's bio entry for Lucy, Lady Duff Gordon. It is a JPEG at 72 dpi. After submitting each time, I am informed it is not a "recommended file" type.
If the image has just been 'renamed' to a JPEG (from, say, BMP) then Special:Upload will reject it. Otherwise, it's pretty weird. Can you upload the image to somewhere else on the web (eg putfile) so we can have a look at it? pfctdayelise03:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
December 31
Serial Codes
hi, what are serial codes exactly? are they the code you enter in the program to unlock it? and also, what are those sites that give you serial codes? are the codes random, or could someone else use them, so multiple people could use it that they could be tracked?
1.serial codes, in the context of software refers to the codes required to unlock the program, which can either be cracked (illegal), or bought from the company (legal). the sites that give you serial codes will usually give your computer viruses and cookies, the only relatively safe way to get serial codes (aside from in person from someone you know) is to get them from file sharing software like emule in the form of text files.
2.The codes are sometimes random, and sometimes based on specific variables in your computer, and sometimes universally set for everyone. unless the program uses the internet, you cannot be tracked (although illegal downloads can be). Don't break the laws of your country, by the way. This is only information, and you should support good programs by buying them.--Urthogie01:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I'm clumsy and forget to put in an edit summary despite making a great edit. Is there any way to tweak my wikipedia interface to somehow make it force me to not enter a blank edit summary. Much thanks, --Urthogie01:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a user script that add this functionality. Take a look at the list here to find it. Go to your user page, create a sub-page called monobook.js and paste the script there. Once you save it, there will be instructions at the top of the page explaining how to refresh your browser cache. Follow them and the script should be active. --GraemeL(talk)01:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I joined Wikipedia in April or May of this year. I've enjoyed helping others with grammar and style, and was rewarded in September with a Featured Article, Dogpatch USA, one that I edited extensively in collaboration with a fellow Wikipedian who researched and wrote the bulk of the article. In October I began writing my first article, titled Adelle Davis, and imported a picture that I found on two websites, which I included in the article. To make a long story short, it was removed a few days ago by Admins, and I have no idea how to 1) find the copyright holder, 2) determine if it is in the public domain, or 3) get it placed in the public domain if I find an owner. Adelle Davis died more than 30 years ago. I need help. --RogerK04:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Firstly, congratulations on your work in the 'pedia so far. The learning processes continues evermore, no?
Looking at the article history, I found the image was Image:ADAVIS1.jpg. By going to the logs (at Special:Log, and searching for this filename, I found that the image was deleted by User:CLW with the reason given being: Unconfirmed copyright status for over a week. So far, so good.
Have a look at Wikipedia:Image use policy. WP can only use images that are compatible with the GFDL (such as: public domain, GFDL and Creative Commons licenses) *OR* are being used under the terms of fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and Wikipedia:Fair use. Unless you specifically read that an image is PD, or have good reason to suspect so (eg it is very old - 30 years is not old enough), chances are it is under copyright. In that case, WP can only use it under a fair use rationale. Please read the pages on fair use, and then you upload an image provide it with a tag from WP:ICT to avoid it being deleted. HTH. pfctdayelise05:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. The image was circa 1925, and I found it initially on the the website "The Adelle Davis Foundation". My attempts to contact them were unsuccessful, as the site appears to be in disrepair. Adelle Davis is survived, perhaps, by two adopted children, but I know of no way to find them. So I've run into a deadend. I want to upload the image again, re-introduce it to the article, and tag it properly. What tag should I use? --RogerK22:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not only for the tallest, highest, longest...
I seem to recall reading a nice section somewhere in the WP: namespace, about how "boring" things are worth writing about too. Like, not just the presidents, but also the vice presidents. Not everything needs a superlative to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. (I'm not an inclusionist, but I believe this is true.) But reading over WP:NOT, I can't find this section. Does anyone recall it, or where I can find it? TIA, pfctdayelise05:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alphabetizing categories
In the article on Leonard Peikoff, should the category "20th century philosophers" go after "1933 births" (because it's a number) or after "Objectivists" (because of how "twentieth" is spelled)? --zenohockey06:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, instruction creep is one thing the category system is in no danger of...but I won't get into that now. Thanks for the tips. --zenohockey04:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if by a "profile" you mean your user page simply click your user ID at the top of any page, or go to User:MarkFreedom. Create the page as you would any new page, and edit it as you might any page. Many users put some information about themselves, wikipedia and non-wikipedia projects that they are intersted in, and their views and viewpoints on their user pages. Many use the "Userbox" tempaltes to indicate their langauge skills or other preferences. But short of slander, copyright violation, or obviousl policy violation, you can pretty much put whatever you want on your user page. DES(talk)06:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
adding a image in wikipedia problem
I was in the sandbox, I tried creating an article. I tried to upload an image but I get an upload warning messing. It is said Upload warning, "." is not a recommended image file format. I tried uploading as GiFF and JPEG file format and I still get the same message. Moreover, I previously uploaded this image outside of the sandbox, it did not get an error message.
Since, I previously uploaded the image, is there a way to link this image to the new article. Or do I have to create the article and use the File:Image name... first and then upload the image. If I did this I can work around the problem mentioned
in the previous paragrah.
Also, another problem is that I have two identical pictures that were uploaded. Is there a way to delete it.
Thank you.
Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~).
To insert the image into an article, edit the article and type
To have one deleted, edit its description page and put {{deletebecause|redundant to image FOO.jpg}} (but of course you would insert the name of the other image).
I'm a member of a site that hosts quizzes on a wide range of subjects and categories. Now considering the fact that wikipedia serves to spread information, I was wondering if under the External Links section, a link to the relevant category could be added and whether this would be permissible. For example, in the Harry Potter fandom page,or in a similiar page, a link to a category containing quizzes on Harry Potter could be added. Would appreciate a bit of clarification in this regard from those better acquainted with wiki policy,
Regards Kaushik twin08:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines regarding external links can be found at WP:EL. This link sounds like it is more promotional than informative, however. Only links which will add the the encyclopedic value of the article should be added. You might also want to check out WP:NOT. --WAvegetarian(talk)(email)(contribs)08:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where did my rollback button go?
Just today when I tried to use it, I found that it's gone! Was it removed in the recent software upgrade or what? I still have admin powers, and can protect, unprotect and delete pages (or at least the buttons are there). Only thing missing is rollback. -- МиборовскийU|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!10:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's back now... probably some browser SNAFU... But I swear it wasn't there when I looked at my own contribs! Oh well, back to normal. Sorry for wasting everyone's time! Heh. -- МиборовскийU|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a new contributor, and I'm attempting to put an image into an article. The trouble is that it seems that there are two different images titled Henry_Purcell.jpg, one on Wikipedia and one on Wikimedia commons. I'd like to use the one on the commons, but the one on Wikipedia seems to trump it. Thanks for any help you can give me. Makemi18:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If they're meant to be the same, the one here should be deleted. In the case where both have the same name and they're different, the local one (not the commons one) has precedence, and there is no way to show the commons one as an inline image. image:Henry_Purcell.jpg links to the one here. commons:image:Henry_Purcell.jpg links to the one on the commons. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, would it be appropriate to change the name of one or both of them (eg Henry_Purcell 001, Henry_Purcell 002), or somehow move the commons one to Wikipedia? (don't know how to do it, but if one can I can figure it out. maybe.)Thanks. Makemi22:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the solution is to rename the one here, but this may require re-uploading it to the new name and then deleting the existing one. I've asked someone who knows more about images if it's possible to rename without re-uploading. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded it to commons under the name commons:image:Henry_Purcell_001.jpg, and nominated it for deletion here. So far so good. I haven't moved any of the links yet because the original hasn't been decided on for deletion. Should I move them anyway? Makemi20:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a subtle bug in the code that attempts to "fix up" HTML included in wikimarkup. If you delete the <p> at the end of the last line of the first paragraph it seems to work. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does wikipedia get better
Is there a page that asks and to some degree answers the question of "does wikipedia get better?" I understand that individual articles get better over time, but does this improvement exceed the ratio of crappy new articles made while theyre being improved? That is to say, will wikipedia become more professional as time goes by, or less? There are many aspects to this and related questions, and i'm wondering if theres a page devoted to answering with statistics and the like. Thanks --Urthogie19:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Time, frequency of npov tags, and cleanup tags, number of edits, etc. I'm not asking for statistics or even objectivity, I was just wondering if there are opinions on this that approach it without bias, as a logic/math problem.--Urthogie01:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a feature is going to be introduced soon, called "m:article validation" (although I think that's a crap name for it) where editors (and anon users?) can "rate" each version of an article. Like, out of 5. So once this feature has been used for a while, you will have a bunch of stats to work with. pfctdayelise03:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the addition of crappy articles may bring down the average quality for Wikipedia articles, it doesn't bring down the quality of already-good articles. Indeed, most crappy articles added aren't noticed in any big way for quite a while. jnothmantalk03:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One phenomenon you may have noticed is that it is possible for a good article to be degraded. Look at many of the high-traffic articles and you will see that a significant portion of the edits are insertions and removal of small, poor-quality edits. These are well-intentioned and not vandalism, but are either misinformation or do not represent an improvement to the article when inserted there for a variety of reasons. While poor article can improve over time, I suspect that good ones can be entropically degraded if not defended by knowledgeable editors. alteripse15:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit + thingy
How do you add the + to the edit thingy for a given page. For example, the help desk doesn't have one, but the click here to ask a question link does the same thing. Thank you--Urthogie19:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
well i know you can do things like make it so the TOC isn't generated, so I was wondering if you could control the "+" in the same way.--Urthogie01:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the HD one was removed to try and force people to actually read the intro before adding questions. If you scroll past the fluff, you'll see Click here to ask your question about using Wikipedia, and that does the same as the little "+". pfctdayelise03:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to reset my forgotten password for my original account (Heywood), but I'm not seeing the email in any of my accounts. Could an admin tell me just the domain of the address to help me track down the account, or would that require pleading to a dev? Thanks--
Heywood22:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is a summary redirect? I recently merged Ardas with Ardās, and I installed a redirect at Ardas. I quickly received a message asking to enter a summary redirect but it wasn't specified how. Crisco 149223:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's especially important to indicate when you're making a merge or redirect in an edit summary, for people who have that page on their watchlist. If you leave it blank, or even worse mark it as a minor edit, they have no real way of knowing that they're now watching a page that's probably not going to change again. All the editing action, which is what they're interested in, is now going on at some new page that they're probably completely unaware of. pfctdayelise04:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
January 1
what are slogans on saving earth?
Please read the prominent text at the top of this page that explains that this page is for asking questions about using and editing Wikipedia. Happy New Year. pfctdayelise03:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Random selection
Hey; I was just wondering how I can use the choose/option tags in Wikipedia. It works in Uncyclopedia, as you can see here. These tags would pick some text randomly from a list and then use that text. A simple example of how they would be used:
<choose>
<option weight=1>This is one option.</option>
<option weight=1>This is another option.</option>
<option weight=3>This will happen more likely than something else.</option>
</choose>
So, there you have it. Can somebody please help me?
I can't see them in action in that link. It just looks like a regular stub template. Are you wanting this functionality for the main namespace or user namespace or something else? pfctdayelise03:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a cleanup template once that said something to the degree of "This article strays from its stated topic. If you can help to eliminate the divergent sections, please do so." This is not listed on the cleanup template list. Anyone have any idea if it exists or if I was having a wikidream? Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this. -Scm83x10:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is just what I was thinking of. I probably saw it on TfD, as that is on my watchlist. Too bad it may be gone soon. Thanks -Scm83x23:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Afd or not to Afd
(Sigh) I have stumbled across an article for WNEP-TV in the Wilkes-Barre-Scranton area of North-Central Pennsylvania. I found it by looking at the Afd page for today (January 1, 2006) where there was an Afd for WNEP-TV Anchors article. Here is the problem, as best I can state it:
I grew up in North Central Pennsylvania and I am shocked to find an article on a minor local television station in the middle of nowhere (for people who don't live in NCPA). I don't find WNEP-TV Channel 16 to be notable in the least, and certainly not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia entry. I would not undertake to write an article, for example, on Channel 28 news in Wilkes-Barre-Scranton, even though the news anchor was my Battalion Commander many years ago.
I can see from looking at the article that someone has put a large amount of effort into creating the article. It's quite long, and someone before me commented on the talk page that a local station didn't need an article this long and extensive. I agree, if any case could be made that we even need an article on WNEP-TV in Wilkes-Barre-Scranton PA, we certainly don't need anything that long or elaborate.
I am conflicted about this. I don't want to move it afd because of the amount of work that someone has put into this article, but in my mind, it's first, a non-notable subject, and second it's probably close to an advertizement for the television station. And yet again, another voice (yes, I took my medicine today) says, "What's the harm?" in having this article, even if it's non-notable, if it's otherwise well written and formatted?
According to Wikipedia:Notability (broadcasting), which states "All stations with a four letter call sign, with no numbers, may be included.", it is worthy of an article. Though I agree, it's rather detailed and will more than likely become rather inaccurate fairly quickly since newscasters can come and go so rapidly and schedules can change as well. Dismas|(talk)19:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I don't yet know where to find all of these documents. Even though it's a proposed guideline, I'll abide. I do note that WNEP has over the years originated some of it's own programming. As to the detail, my feeling is that it had to have been written by someone who works there. Again, thanks; I'll move on to other battles. GestaltG00:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On some pages, such as Venus, there is a star next to one or several other languages that the article is also written in. What does this star mean? When is it given? Where is the meta-data page for it (like the one for all general images)? If anybody knows and would like to post, I would appreciate it. Thank you for your help.
Don't know. I just know this was asked before and that was the answer given. After a bit of clicking around, if you click on the interlanguage link for "Suomi" (I don't speak the language so I don't know what language that is) you can see the star listed next to the English version of the article. So it seems some languages do have this feature, not just the English version. Also, if you go to the English talk page, it says that it was a featured article in four other languages. The first two are Czech and German. Those are the first two that are "starred" in the interlanguage list. Dismas|(talk)20:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A newbie friend entered some lines including a long asterisk line ("*************") used as a separator.
On Windows it showed a multi-bulletted indentation, but on the Mac it looked fine, and so he entered these lines into the wiki. Why was he seeing it differently than expected? Should he be aborting the Mac browser if he wants to wiki? Gil_mo21:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what this code should do, but I assume it should not be used. To make a separator use "----". "****" appears as nothing in Opera and Firefox as far as I can tell. jnothmantalk03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Drowning in the many google lookups for this search, what is the easiest method to convert an MS DOC file (or, HTML) into wiki markup? esp. for tables and other hard-to-format stuff. Gil_mo21:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A wiki site I've installed at work is searching in a case-sensitive manner. How can it be configured to ignore the case? Gil_mo21:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My user page toolbox contains a link to "What links here." What is the purpose of these links? How are they created? How can they be used by me or anyone else? Halcatalyst22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears for every page, not just your user page. Indeed, it is not very useful on your user page as it will just indicate where you have commented plus a few. But it is very useful for articles, templates, images, etc. It tells you what other articles and pages have links to the selected page, and thus may tell you where a template is used, or gives a rough list of related articles for a given article; it's necessary also with administrative tasks like moving and deleting pages. Does that answer your question? jnothmantalk02:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does, thanks. I just wondered whether it had any value in that specific context. For me, it doesn't, which means I can get on to something else. :P Halcatalyst04:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can one possibly use the help archives for trying to locate a previously asked question? I even suspect that archive questions don't even show in the Wikipedia search... Gil_mo22:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you know approximately when the question was asked, you can search for keywords in the archive(s) selected by date. Indeed, if you know who asked the question, you can simply go to the help desk history and search through a few thousand edits for the relevant username or topic title. Finally, and most flexibly, if the question has been archived for long enough, you should be able to find it through google: Search for "site:en.wikipedia.org intitle:"help desk/archive"" and add any keywords/user names after this. jnothmantalk02:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just wish this was written anywhere near the archives.. that would make it more useful and maybe reduce the amount of questions in the help desk.Gil_mo08:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, i've been getting into vandelism fighting for a day or two now and theres this one problem that keeps bugging me. Alot of vandelism I see is where a user blanks a part of an article but replaces it with someone positive relating to the article for example a user would blank John Kerry and replace it with "OMG JOHN KERRY ROX". When reverted should the user be given a {{test1}} warning or a {{test2a}} warning? Thanks. - iGod23:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather a matter of judgement, based on the content and the vandalism. Personally I very rarely warn an anon-vandal on the first occurance, as so many anon-vandals are one-shot vandals - and I'm concerned that my warning will just annoy an innocent user of the same IP later, and won't be seen by the vandal (who dropped his little turd and fled). So if that was the first recent vandalism coming from that account I'd generally revert it and not warn. If the vandal did another vandalism I'd then warn them. There's a big difference between blanking and leaving nonsense (like this) and just adding an otherwise inoffensive nonsense. In the former case I'd jump straight to a test2 warning, but for the former I'd consider going with a test1. The content of the vandalism (profanity etc.) helps me decide which is the more appropriate. I try to be gentle with first-contact vandals, and most just stop (and a few apologise and stop) and escalate promptly as vandalism continues. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk23:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons for the warnings, though, is that they tell other fighters that you've made the warning... So unless the vandal-fighter checks the vandal's contribs (which they should, but don't always), they can't tell that this is the first or second time... And therefore it may be worthwhile to mark for {{test}} even on the first time. jnothmantalk02:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What happens when two people try to edit an article at the same time? Say person A opens the edit window, then person B opens an edit window on the same article, they both change stuff, then one saves the page, then the other. What happens?
The second person to save sees an edit conflict warning. The page shows the current text/code in one text box and their text/code in a second text box. The second person can then manually merge the two if they want or just go with the other person's if they were fixing the same things. This is why using section editing is helpful, i.e. the little blue edit link next to section headers. WAvegetarian(talk)(email)(contribs)00:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
January 2
deleting parts of talk page not considered vandalism?
Is deleting parts of talk page considered vandalism? If yes, where can I find that written down (as I don't seem to find it)? If not, why? --Dijxtra00:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and get those things on your meberpage that tells you if your a partrll person ect?
madcowpoo
Question 1: You edit the person's talk page. This can be found by goingto the person's User (member) page and clicking on the discussion tab. Then click on the + tab. Question 2: I think you are referring to userboxes. You simply add the code for the box you want to your user page.
Get to a user page, or talk page where you see something you really like & want on your page.
Edit section it is in, but not change anything.
Copy/Paste the code that created the whatever to wherever on your page where you want it.
User:AlMac|(talk) 10:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Also a person can set their preferences to permit people to send e-mail to them. When someone acts on this, the recipient now sees the e-mail address of who sent it, and can opt not to reply that way, in which case their e-mail address is still private. User:AlMac|(talk)03:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploads don't show!
I have my own wiki and for a couple of week, I uploaded my pictures with no problem. But recently I've been having some problem. I upload the fil, but after I uploaded it, the pictures do not appear in either the image page or the page I embedded the image in. What should I do? --(Aytakin) | Talk01:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had a mistake in the link (fixed now). I don't know the answer to your problem, so no I can't really tell you. As for that picture, the original file seems to have been deleted from the server: http://www.iranclub.ca/wiki/images/c/ca/Flag_of_Iran.svg . When you ask for help elsewhere, you might want to point out that the only other images that have done this are Art.jpg and Iran_ethnoreligious_distribution_2004.jpg (at least as far as I can see). jnothmantalk05:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth it appears the directory the image was stored in doesn't exist. There is a directory called cf, but no ca. Pehaps it got put somewhere else by mistake. You could go to the images directory and then drill down for it, but the problem may be in the configuration of your wiki and that's something I don't know anything about.--◀Pucktalk▶07:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Source of Templates
Hi
How do I find out what the origin and purpose of a specific template is?
Specifically the following template is the one in question
{{education}} looks like it is just intended to use as a navigational guide for education-related topics. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Education rather confirms this. It looks confusing because someone has added a {{limitedgeographicscope}} to the template itself, so it's kinda doubling up. I don't think it's really appropriate, so I'm going to remove it and start a discussion on the Talk page about how to improve it.
Or for articles that are too specific to one country when in fact they should be talking about other views too. You can't assume the reader is in the same country as you, so you need to make clear what country an article refers to and if possible you need to include its occurance in other places. For example an article on Approval voting shouldn't only use examples from American politics. Approval voting is also used in Australia and Europe for example. - 131.211.210.1110:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
could you please try to find out this company back ground because one person called Mr. Charles Benson, Firector International Transacton offering jobs for collection of their invoice amounts from clients. Their address :
Nigerian address info removed
Dear Jawaid Iqbal, please read the information at the top of this page regarding its purpose. Also, some of us are female. cheers, pfctdayelise10:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a complete newcomer to wikipedia and I am trying to set up a page on my local area, which is called Carra (near Bonniconlon, Ireland). I went to "Help:Starting a New Page", typed "Carra" and clicked "Create a new page". However, the page already exists. It is a Redirect to an article on Raffaella Carrà (an Italian actress). Can I just delete the redirect and write my own article, or should I create a link to the Carrà article, or change the name of my article to "Carra, Bonniconlon" or something. Thanks. Baoilleach11:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Baoilleach[reply]
Simply edit Carra and change it from a redirect to your new article. at the top include a note (in italics) that reads "This is an articel about the Irish locality. For the Italian actress, see Raffaella Carrà." I hope that helps. DES(talk)11:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I screenshotteed some pictures of a DVD with my laptop and wish to upload them onto Wikipedia. First, is that fair use, and secondly, their bitmap images, and they won't get loaded onto Wikipedia. How can this be fixed? --D-Day14:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. The laptop images can be utilized under fair use (and some copyright). Concerning your query regarding the images simply re-save the image you wish to upload under a JPEG classification, allowing you to upload it. -MegamanZero|Talk14:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(alternative response after edit conflict) Not all images captured from a DVD can be used under fair use, and certainly not in all contexts. See Wikipedia:Fair use#Images. You also need to save them as JPEGs: this can be dome in recent versions of the Paint program that comes with Windows XP, etc. Open the image in that and go to Save As. There you can choose to save the file as a JPEG. I hope that helps. jnothmantalk14:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MMZ, I had already written my answer and (1) was not going to remove a little redundant info just because of edit conflict (2) feel my specifying how to convert to JPEG was not redundant. jnothmantalk14:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What edit conflict..? The dates clearly depict that I wrote my comment 2 minutes before yours. But I'm not trying to start anything, just wanted to clarify. It's all good. :) -MegamanZero|Talk15:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the fair use, I forgot to mention, these pictures are from a concert. Does that still qualify, sorry about the confusion. --D-Day14:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you posted your comment five minutes before. I could claim something like I went and did research, or that it is late at night and I am slow. Either way, I should learn to click the [edit] button after I do my research =) (Often though, I open up to reply to multiple responses in different tabs at the same time.) jnothmantalk15:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I perfectly understand; I have the same habbit of opening up multiple tabs and multi-tasking. I, However, still am victorious by a paltry 5 miutes, my friend. :) -MegamanZero|Talk15:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, an edit conflic occurs if user A hits edit, user B saves and user A saves, in that order, but independent of time. And, friend, I think your "victory" is paltry if the question can be answered more thoroughly. jnothmantalk15:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I, however, did not encounter an edit conflict on my PC, and the date located on our headers were somewhat too far apart to warrent an "edit conflict". Regarding the elaboration on answers, I believe you did excellent in the area, and I did not call foul on you because of it. Finally, if you wish to respond, continue this conversation on my talkpage. Thanks, -MegamanZero|Talk15:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I assume you meant "sending", not "ending".) Why would you want to advertise your user page? We are here to build an encyclopedia, without personal motive for fame. If you are here for a different reason, please consider if it is compatible with our goals. See Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia. pfctdayelise21:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just user your watchlist? It might be worth adding a template like {{helpnotify|user}}, though. Please suggest this at the village pump.--Urthogie18:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting that people answer questions on the asker's talk page instead of here where they asked them... is that right?
I think it's not a bad idea, but if they are here where everyone can see them, sometimes you can learn something by reading other answers. In fact I have learned lots of things by "eavesdropping" in this way. But for efficiency, yeah, I don't think this is the best format. (Another thing to consider is that this is the easiest way for answerers, so there may be resistance to moving to a more time-consuming format.) pfctdayelise21:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more time consuming and frustrating. First the user would actually have to sign their question (which some don't) then you'd have to go to that talk page, write your comments, come back here, and explain that you answered the question. You'd have to make two edits (with possible edit conflicts) and visit two different pages which for people on dial up connections that could really take some time. And the person asking the question may end up with two or even three different sections on their talk page related to the same question. I'd be happy to stay with the current system. You only have to edit one page and the answer would be here, not on some talk page that may or may not have been archived. Dismas|(talk)22:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, resistance. Even if a user doesn't sign their post, the information is available from the page history. The current system is set up for the ease of the answerers. I have doubts as to its efficiency for the askers, that's all. pfctdayelise09:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason many of us enjoy answering help desk questions is that we learn from them. We learn about what people want and expect in user-interface; we learn by researching answers; we learn by reading other peoples' answers. Everyone has their own tips and tricks, so there is no single set of answers, and this is the great advantage of a discussion page like this over a single-response method. Definitely, writing on a talk page is a hassle. On the other hand, leaving a note on the talk page to say that an answer has been given is possible, if nice, but reduces efficiency of those responding: Indeed, I have done this a number of times when I have been suspicious that an individual might not check for an answer. jnothmantalk23:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it is great for us, but how great is it for the frustrated newbies? This page moves very quickly - coming back to find a question you asked even a day earlier is not always an easy task, especially if you are not familiar with in-page text searching, and possibly didn't sign your comment, and may not remember your exact wording. In fact, a question I myself asked is languishing half-way up this page, because it just got swamped by easier questions that got answered. It is true that a question can have multiple answers, but there is nothing stopping multiple editors leaving their answer on a Talk page. Answering on a Talk page at least gives a user a big hint (the "you have new messages" bar) that someone has responded.
But I also dislike guidelines that create unnecessary manual work for editors. So clearly this calls for a User script. It could be installed just by people interested in helping answer questions here. Rightclicking on a username/IP giving an "Answer this question" option, whereupon one is automatically taken to the user's talk page. At the same time a tag is left on the HD, "A message was left on X's Talk page". This would require vigilant use of {{unsigned}}, but that's not so hard. pfctdayelise09:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, after i answer a question her I sometimes copy the thread to the user's talk page -- particularly if the user seems to be a newcommer. DES(talk)00:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do something similar, as noted above. I think, Brianna, that there might be some merit in creating a script to notify the user of a reply... I could posssibly do that, only you'd have to reenter the username... At least the section link would be right for a few days. jnothmantalk11:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be useful to have some variation on the "click" up top the editng box to dos something that has been mouse wipe highlighted.
Answer the question like always.
highlight the user-id that posted the question (if they did the 4 tildes, or someone else added from the history, who they were.
click on the new thing at the top of the edit box.
this has 2 effects
a bot goes to the talk page of the user-id in question and posts notification that there has been a reply to their question at .... and it gives link to the section where the question is, and the title that the user had assigned to the question
a small chunk of text goes here, to say that the person who posted the question here has been notified by this method.
Greetings. This stub ↓ contains nothing but a piece of incorrect information. I don't know what to do with it. Please help. – b_jonas18:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that article for deletion at WP:AFD, or trying improving and/or expanding the article so it depicts correct information and conforms to a higher standard of quality. -MegamanZero|Talk20:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
questions
1.is "subst:" a namespace? if so, whats it do?
2.where could i find a template i could put in revert summaries that would be like {{revert|user1|user2}} and as edit summary, would print: rv of edits by user1 to user2, or something like that. if that exists id like to know about it.
--Urthogie18:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your first question, "subst:" is not a namespace. It is used to causes replace a template link with the full template content. This reduces the load on the servers because it doesn't require two pages to be accessed to load the one using the template. For more information, see Wikipedia:Template substitution.
Um my answer to 2 is that templates don't work in edit summaries, they show up just the way you typed them. There is a tool that will let you rollback edits and automatically fill in the edit summary, it's called "god mode light" or something. Kappa20:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This message is not a question about using Wikipedia. Advertising for WikiProject members is not going to go down too well, anywhere except on the Talk pages of related articles. So I suggest you take your advertising there. Leave a message on the Talk pages of people who edit related articles. You will have much better success than spamming us question anwerers. Why don't you check out Wikipedia:Clueless newbies (don't take the name too seriously - we were all clueless once!) and see if you can get someone who will help make your Wikijourney to knowledge more smooth. cheers, pfctdayelise21:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I have two Wikis for my self and I want to move some files from one to another. Can you tell me how I can do that?
Thanks --(Aytakin) | Talk22:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yup that was it. thanks for copying my HTML out and displaying it to me so I could find my error ! lol, and thanks for the reminder that it's the <quote> <nowiki;rt </quote> tag. PeregrineAY00:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
more
im setting up a project but can't work out ow to make those user boxes that tell you that you belong to my project have short cuts or appear on the template for prjects page how do you do it?
--Madcowpoo22:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So to say that most users answering questions here are not admins. Administratorship only gives users the power to do things like (un)delete pages, protect pages and edit protected pages. On the other hand, "administratorship should be no big deal" and is the sort of thing conferred upon someone if they are sufficiently trusted by the community and know its policies. jnothmantalk23:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have just seen a few alternatives acted out: WAvegetarian substed the template and changed the links internal to the Georgia article, noting that the same happened for seal as for flag. PeregrineAY, I'm not sure exactly what you did. In the end I have used optional template arguments, so that if no seallink or flaglink arguments are given, the infobox shows normally, while if they are, it will use the given text and link. This fixes the seal, and allows us to remove the flaglink parameter where it is unnecessary. jnothmantalk00:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)</nowiki>[reply]
oh ok. optional template arguments makes more sense. I added the changed parameter for the link for the flag from "[[Flag of {{{name}}}]]" to "{{{flaglink}}}" PeregrineAY00:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I made the assumption that when someone typed in the parameter for flaglink, they would make it [[Flag of Georgia (US state)|Flag of Georgia]]. Your method will ensure, no matter what the writer puts in flaglink, what shows up is still "Flag of {{{name}}}" Good work. PeregrineAY00:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to cite a book in an article and the book is listed as one of the sources. Is there a way to put a link at the end of a sentance in an article, and have the link point to a section of that same article? thanks. Banana0413100:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article Chandrasekharendra Saraswati contains a redirect to the article Kanchi Mahaswamigal. Chandrasekharendra Saraswati is the personal name of the 68th Shankaracharya of Kanchi, as well as 7 other pontiffs. Kanchi Mahaswamigal is an honorific title bestowed upon him. The question I have is whether the pontiff should be listed by his personal name or his honorific. I note that Roman Catholic pontiffs assume a new name upon becoming pontiff, e.g. Pope John Paul II. and they are listed under their new name. However, I'm not sure that this rule applies. Kanchi Mahaswamigal is not so much a name as a description. Kanchi a location, similar to the Vatican. Maha means great and Swamigal is a title of respect for a holy teacher. An argument in the opposite direction is that the use of the pontiff's personal name is disrespectful of his high position. However, books written by the Pontiff appear in English using his personal name together with honorifics. Please express your opinion regarding the appropriate main article. Thank-you --BostonMA02:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do I find an image that can be used for a story. Specifically the story I wrote about Evo Moreles cutting his pay in half?
I am learning this. Where are some example pages that can be viewed to see how stories are written?
Someone left a message in my talk area. How do I respond?
Thanks for the help.
I don't know much about image use and can't tell you really where people find them, except by looking through categories at Wikipedia commons and the images used in related articles. I also don't know which story you are mentioning about Evo Moreles. Your contributions only list your question here.
These should tell you something about beginning to write articles and the standard styles for Wikipedia.
Finally, there are a couple of conventions for talk pages. Again I don't see aything on the talk page (unless you had been logged into an account and got logged out somehow). The most common is to reply on the talk page of the person who sent you the message. That is, go to their page, and if there is no section for it already, add a new section by clicking the "+" at the top of the page and write your reply. jnothmantalk04:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The user might have one of those "rotating"-style IPs assigned to them. AOL at work? I don't know how you can track down the previous IPs, unfortunately. I've seen them at work on pages where you have multiple vandalous edits all in row, say a dozen in 5 minutes, and they're obviously the work of the same person, but the IP address is different. Not one each, but maybe six for one and six for a different one. pfctdayelise09:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To oversimplify: Finding an illustration is a problem. Almost every image you can find, anywhere, is copyright. That means, in general, it can't be used in Wikipedia unless you get permission to use it from the owner. The owner needs to give a special permission, allowing their image to be used by anyone, anywhere, including making money for other people. So they may not do this. So, unless you have a photo that you took with your camera, which you are prepared to give to the world, you may not get an illustration. This does mean that most articles will never have suitable illustrations. Unfortunately, many people just search the internet for something, copy it and use it. This puts other wikipedians to a lot of trouble, to make sure these get tracked down and deleted before Wikipedia is sued. Notinasnaid16:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, if someone at Wikipedia were to develop a modicum of common sense and permit the use of a license which allowed free use on Wikipedia but no commercial use anywhere, there would be far more images available. This is, apparently, too obvious a solution. Sbz580917:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We take being a 'free' encyclopedia seriously. Wikipedia is free to use, free to edit, free to distribute; by virtue of its licensing terms it remains free in derivative works. Using non-free images would interfere with that goal. It's obviously a philosophical point and a philosophical disagreement you might have with the project—but for Wikipedia, noncommercial use only images would be a problem and not a solution. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why, given that Wikipedia is allegedly a non-commercial undertaking? If it's free, and that freedom is intended to cascade to copies, it should permit only non-commercial use. A license that permits free use, for non-commercial purposes only, is surely closer to the stated aims than one which allows commercial use. Saying that "by virtue of its licensing terms it remains free in derivative works" misses the point that although derivative works may use Wikipedia content free of charge, such works are simultaneously able to benefit from it. Sbz580918:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Free is free is free is free. What if we want to one day put WP on CDs to sell cheaply as fundraisers? de: has already done this. What if other org's want to do that and distribute them cheaply to schools that don't have internet access? Do we want to discourage that? Yes, derivative works can benefit from it. That's an inherent part of the GFDL. pfctdayelise23:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please nail those goalposts down so they don't move again. "Free is free is free is free. What if we want to one day put WP on CDs to sell cheaply as fundraisers?" Did you not notice the contradiction there (free vs cheap)? So now, as well as derivative works using freely-provided Wikipedia content for commercial purposes, Wikipedia itself can do so. Sbz580909:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Sbz; I was unnecessarily curt. I understand your frustration, but the fact is that de: has already sold a CD, as I mentioned. Jimbo himself personally disallowed the use of nc or Wikipedia-only images, so I consider the issue closed. pfctdayelise10:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
operational skills required to realize a design(interior designer's point of view)
I see you've asked an admin to delete your images, which is actually an ideal way to have your images deleted. Which pages did you want deleted? pfctdayelise12:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in the future, when you see images that you need to delete (weather yours or another users) please go to Wikipedia:Images for deletion and put them there. This also allows others to input their concensus regarding their reasons why or why not they may want them to deleted, as well is a good opurtunity to meet more wikipedians. :) -MegamanZero|Talk13:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rawsigniture
what are they?
can you show me one?
how do i make one?
--Madcow 13:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
In order:
rawsignitures are your "custom" signures that appear when you type four ~ on the pages. You can customize it to show a link to your talkpage and/or other links with your sigs as well. It is located in your preferences section.
my son is in the lewis complex i have no idea when i can see him i sent all my paper work and no answer yet is there a phnone nmbr i cn hv —the preceding unsigned comment is by70.190.82.155 (talk • contribs) 18:21, January 3, 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that in certain contexts ISBN numbers are linked, and users can set up preferences about what to do with these links. I wanted to link one in an article I'm working on, but I can't quite figure it out. From the publisher's site the "number" is ISBN13: 9780195111712 . The problem is that it seems that ISBNs only link when:
There is no weird prefix like 13
There are dashes in the number
But I think that if you change either of those things it changes what the ISBN refers to. I've looked at the wiki help on ISBN, but it seems to be referring to some template that doesn't work or exist on Wikipedia, and says nothing about the prefix issue or how to add dashes without going to graduate school for that purpose. Thanks for any guidance. Makemi20:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dashes shouldn't matter. That 13 isn't part of the ISBN - it means it's a 13 digit ISBN. ISBN 9780195111712 should work, but as it doesn't, someone has mistyped I suggest you search for the book (by title, author etc) some other place, and use the ISBN that gives you. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk20:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've got it: Can't have a colon between ISBN and the number, and if it's a 13 digit number it works (at least in US) if you remove the first three digits. Makemi20:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those first three digits where added to allow for more ISBN numbers a while back. Removing them could cause problems for some books. Make sure the 10 number ISBN is allowed for that particular book. - 82.172.14.10821:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked all the ones I've done so far, and they seem to work fine. Maybe just Amazon doesn't care about the 13-digit ones, and with other book vendors the 13-digit one would work? I don't know, but I'll continue to check in the future, thanks to your word of caution. Makemi23:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Links Here (Phantom Link?)
I've been redirecting all of the internal links going to the Jim O'Rourke disambiguation page and though it worked fine for the majority of the articles, the one on Steve Shelley continues to show up on the what links here page. I've tried editing it and, though I may be being completely blind the link on the Steve Shelley article seems to link to the right place. Am I missing something obvious? I know it's a very silly problem but having cleared the what links here of masses of other pages it'd be nice to have it empty. Thanks in advance. Jellypuzzle | Talk21:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you fixed the link in {{Sonic Youth}}, but not directly in the article itself. For whatever annoying technical reasons, this does not update the What Links Here and the categories for the articles containing the template. And yet it is easy to fix that: just edit the article (Steve, I mean), make no changes, and click save. I've done it and now your whatlinkshere page is nice and clean. jnothmantalk23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I thought that might perhaps be the case but also thought that if it wasn't and I edited the article with no changes people could think I was getting Editcountitis or something. Thanks again. P.S - I hope people don't mind me removing my link to the O'Rourke DAB in my question above (that makes it even more clear. Wonderfulness. I think it's time for that sleep stuff now). Jellypuzzle | Talk23:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I go to find a list of all MetaWiki, Wikipedia, and other Wiki tags, e.g., POV, speedy deletion, cite, etc.? normxxx22:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. You have added immeasurably to my store of knowledge of Wikipedia, and helped to build my "Starter Page for Newbys," which latter page I will make available shortly (it will, of course, never be completed...) normxxx17:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How to make a title over an outside site link
I know how to make a different name over an internal link, for example, a country. What I'd like to find out is how to, for example, make a link to www.google.com but have that link actually say "a site" to the person who reads it. Flea11023:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you want to use the <nowiki> tag. It will stop it from automatically converting to a wikilink. So put <nowiki> and </nowiki> around whatever text you want to stay exactly the same. pfctdayelise00:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't think there's a way to use <nowiki> to do this. You can do it, though, if you don't use fullurl: [url=<nowiki>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/</nowiki>{{FULLPAGENAME}}] gives [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help desk] jnothmantalk00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are people more properly referred to as English or British?
There's an article at Jenny Powell. She's an actress who was born in England. There's also another actress named Jenny Powell who was born in the U.S. What I want to do is to move Jenny Powell to either "Jenny Powell (English actress)" or "... (British actress)" but I don't know which is preferred. So what should it be, English or British? Dismas|(talk)01:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I'd say British. There are a few cases where English would be called for - where there was also a Welsh Jenny Powell, or where Jenny Powell had played football for England (or done somethere else where the difference between the UK's member nations is still apparent). Birth is a poor indicator of Englishness, Scottishness, etc., and there is no legal distinction whatever (it's a cultural, and not a legal, artifact). The sports unions which differentiate use fairly wishy-washy criteria for distinguishing one "nationality" from another. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk01:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that IMDb lists all two other actress Jenny Powells, both having only one movie each; if that's the case, I'd contend that the British Jenny Powell is very likely the person sought by someone entering her name in search, and so should probably be plain Jenny Powell, with the other two (who, unfortunately, are both likely to be Americans) disambiguated some other way. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk01:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with British as well. English is just a part of Britain, and whether someone identifies themselves as being English, Welsh or Scottish really depends on a lot of factors. You have no such problems when you say they're British. - 131.211.210.1108:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, templates don't work in edit summaries. But most web browsers can be configured so that it's easy to insert a standard comment into any input box. jnothmantalk03:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A User script might be able to help. Have you seen it appear in other people's edits? It might be worth asking them if they type it out each time, or if it's automated somehow. pfctdayelise09:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a bookmarklet would do the job: if you save a bookmark/favourite with the following URL:
javascript:void(document.getElementById('wpSummary').value+='Bad link repair ([[Wikipedia:Bad links|You can help!]])');
and then put a copy of the bookmarklet on your browser toolbar, you could just click it to add the message to the edit summary! Thanks for the idea Brianna! jnothmantalk10:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
d00d... that is sweet as. I'd never even used a bookmarklet until just then. How can I find out the names of other Elements (like wpSummary), would I be able to add something in a similar fashion to the edit box?
To TheLimbicOne: If you use Firefox, adding the bookmarklet will be pretty straightforward. Then open up whatever page you're editing and make your changes. Then clicking the bookmarklet will simply fill in your edit summary, no page reload or nothin'. It's quite brilliant. pfctdayelise12:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as things have ids, they're easy to deal with. If not, it can get slightly harder. To find ids, I'm sure there are tools but otherwise open up the edit page source and search for id=" and you'll find more. Maybe too many more. The edit form has id "editform". This should probably be explained in detail at Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Techniques, but of course it's bedtime now.
I have written a sort of editing tool-script at User:Jnothman/automod.js. It becomes the basis of other tools I write and allows me to do some mass automated editing. But generally it allows you to modify a page by optionally clearing content, adding afterward or before, performing a search-replace (regex) and providing an edit summary. It's not bug free yet and is certainly not documented, but it is usable for many things.
You can get bookmarklets to take advantage of user scripts, but in the end the difference is that the former needs to be activated each time and the latter is automatic, but therefore might create unecessary overhead.
If you are using Firefox, go Tools > DOM Inspector (assuming you have installed the developer tools), and you can view a tree version of the page with corresponding ids instead of having to trawl through the source code. enochlau (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP performance problems
Wikipedia was down for about a half hour a couple of hours ago, and it has seemed sluggish to me for a few days. Anybody have an idea (or know) what gives? Halcatalyst05:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See that bar up the top with the money being counted? Not enough. (Well, okay, so hopefully this fundraiser will help. Specifically, I don't know the answer.) jnothmantalk07:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has to do with WP:AUM where there was an effort to fix the server problem with software robots, then some administrators started deleting the same userboxes that the software robots were trying to fix, and this led to an arguement you do not want to know about or get involved in. User:AlMac|(talk)11:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it is mostly shear volume of traffic. Wikipedia servers tend to operate towards the limit of their capacity. It doesn't take much to push them over it.Geni19:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I get information on my father's working history. He was a miner at Brandon Colliery in County Durham. I need information on his work details from 1953 onwards. He died in 1986.
Can you please help me with where I can get information on this or a telephone number which I can ring to get help.
Thank you.
If you look at the top of this page, it clearly states this page is for help about using Wikipedia. You might be able to get an answer at the Reference Desk. But they too will probably not be able to answer such a personal and individual question. jnothmantalk12:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to upload a movie of historical significance, the first educational film regarding gastrointestinal endoscopy. What would be a good format for the movie and how would I put the code in wikipedia to allow it? Kd4ttc22:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the best approach to improving articles in the Mathematics section?
I love Wikipedia, especially the mathematics section is a superb source information, it doesn't stop surprising me. Certain topics though, can be improved, I am sure. Editing a math article shouldn't be taken too lightly imo, that's why I have a question about the editing process. I want, and am able to add to and enhance Wikipedia content in the math section (abstract algebra mostly). Now, is it practice to just change an article if one thinks his or her version is better? Or is it preferred to propose a change somewhere else in Wikipedia? Is someone responsible for an article? What if someone thinks the change doesn't improve the article?
Oops, a lot of questions I hope it is clear what I mean, anyway??
--Jim Caprioli22:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just go ahead and make changes. If you are a compleate idiot you shall surely be informed :-) It is usually the case that the edits go along quite smoothly. Check out some article you like and look at the history. Compare a few versions and see how they progress. Sometimes big changes, sometimes small. When it works it works very well. Since there are not too many political issues regarding math articles you wont see too many goofy contributions. Kd4ttc
If you think that an edit will be particularly contriversial, you have a few options:
Bring it up on the article's talk page (click discussion up the top) first and wait for agreement, although this may take a while.
Just make the change and bring it up on the talk page with justification.
Just make the change and leave a brief rationale in the edit summary.
Hi there. I have recently updated and revised Steve Allen (radio presenter) after initially adding to it in December. To separate him from Steve Allen, but still let people find him, how do I create one of those little links at the top of each page which I've seen elsewhere along the lines of 'This article is about x but if you want the person y who did z, click here'?
I have often just typed it, but I guess it is good to use the template. In particular {{Otheruses4}} is more appropriate: write something like {{Otheruses4|the American comedian and writer|the British radio presenter|Steve Allen (radio presenter)}}. jnothmantalk23:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to set up more than one watchlist?
I'd like to set up one (long-term) watchlist, for articles I want to monitor on an ongoing basis, and have one for short term and of-marginal-interest pages, such as AfDs. Is this possible? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)23:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, why bother worrying about the AfDs because once the vote is closed, you shouldn't ever see that page edited again. Therefore it won't continually come up on your watchlist. Dismas|(talk)00:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's no biggie, but I keep more or less everything I edit on the watchlist, and pruning it would be easier if the stuff I really want to watch was on a separate page to the temporaries. I watch AfDs I vote in in case there's a debate. I suspect only one list is possible, and as I say, its not a problem, but being a bit geeky, I wondered. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)00:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you can only have one watchlist per account. It is posible to use the related chaneges function to create something simular to a watchlist by listing the pages you want to watch on a user subpage.Geni00:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My user talk page seems to have run out of room, as the latest post is not present on my page, but I can view it in history. How do I fix it so all posts are visible? Thanks. MSTCrow01:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what you mean. When I look at your talk page, all messages are there. Talk pages don't run out of room, and I've certainly seen them much longer than yours. jnothmantalk01:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably due to caching either by your browser or by the Wikipedia servers. Try appending "?action=purge" to the URL to get the server to clear the cache for that page. You may also like to try clearing your browser cache. enochlau (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Signing former anonymous edits
Hello, I have made a few contributions to Wikipedia as an anonymous user, but now I have a user name and I want to "sign" my previous contributions. All of them are deep into the articles history. Is there any way to achieve that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotam (talk • contribs)
First you should sign your unsigned posts! Please sign your comments on talk pages, help desks etc, with ~~~~. As to your question, I assume you mean have your contribs show up with your username rather than IP? I don't think this can be done easily, and even if it can be done, I'm quite sure it isn't. Among other things, there is no way to verify that all edits from an IP come from you. Anyway, if you know the IP(s) you edited from, you can place a remark on the user page (while logged into that IP, preferably) suggesting that Jotam made many of those edits. You can put a similar comment on your user page so people can see your prior contributions. jnothmantalk00:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit. However, there's a notice there now saying that the service isn't operational. In the past, when it was working, you could attribute IP edits to a username if you can prove that the person editing at that IP was yours, e.g. by signing with IP and username right after each other. enochlau (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that could, of course, assign you or me an IP in the School of IT at the University of Sydney... and that's a problem. Anyway, the point is it's not done. jnothmantalk04:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's very true. I made that statement after a cursory glance at the previously quoted page, which consists primarily of people wanting to assign IP edits to a username. enochlau (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Safari Park
Any particular reason why safari park redirects to Longleat Safari Park. I know it's one of the most prominent, but shouldnt there be an article saying what a safari park is??
Well spotted. Yes there should! It RDRs there at the moment becayse the Longleat article was originally (mistakenly) created at Safari park. Safari park can safely be turned into a proper article in its own right now. So happy editing! pfctdayelise01:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boxes at the bottom of pages
I don't know what they're called, so I'm having trouble finding a tutorial for them. I want to add them to a different wiki that I contibute to, and I would really appreciate a hand finding some instructions. For an example of what I mean, there are three at the bottom of this page.
This depends what level you want to discuss the issue:
In a broad sense, I guess this is a series of articles that share a common box of information
In the next sense, that box of information is a template that is designed once and can then be used on multiple pages
On the code level, these sorts of boxes are designed as elaborate tables.
I think perhaps the two Wiki stub articles watch list and watch lists should be combined? I am a template novice, and have been into the no human's land of differint opinions of editors entirely too often, so I now like to suggest stuff, before actually taking action on it. User:AlMac|(talk)09:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make my userpage's background colour black. If i do this, how do i make all of the font white? Thanks --Ali K09:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one option would be to stick in a div as follows:
<div style="background-color: black; color: white">I can put whatever<br>I<br>like in here</div>
I'm writing an article about quints, a special type of fire engine. For a piece of apparatus to be a quint, it must perform certain functions and have specific equipment on it. These standards are defined by the National Fire Protection Agency, and it would be good to include them in the article. My question is whether it would be better to put in the entire text of the quint standards and cite the NFPA, or link to a copy of the standards. Were I to link to it, the quint standards are only 1 page in a 141 page PDF, and linking to it would not really provide the information looking to be included. Is there anything wrong with putting the entire text of the quint standards into the article, as long as it is properly cited? And if so, is there any special citation I need to do, or just make sure to credit where it came from?
There are already articles on NFPA standards - NFPA 70E and NFPA 704. Given this, you may as well give the standards their own article altogether. If you don't want to do that, I would try to summarise the standards within the article. pfctdayelise12:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt such standards are filled with jargon. I would summarize them in the article you are writing, using plain English as much as possible. - Mgm|(talk)13:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i'm editing translation version of one topic, can i link the photo in the orginial version into the translation one? and because my page have several english words, eg "cat", how can i link toen.wiki/cat instead of linking to a page that's not existing in zh.wiki? thz!
i cant log in
i was successful logging in at en.wiki, but i cant login at zh.wiki, and it said i'd already create 10 a/c? why's that?
ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 08:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 10:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Mac Davis ญƛ. 11:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Mac Davis ญƛ.
