Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 August 23

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

August 23

Genealogy of Umberto 11 and Maria Jose of Belgium

How do I go about obtaining a complete genealogy including in book form if possible? If not in book form other means to obtain.

Thank you.

Frances —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.112.27 (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It is best if you ask this at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. This page is for Help with Wikipedia in general. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 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. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia logo - a foot?

why is the wikipedia logo (located on the top left corner) that of a foot and what appears to be a blueprint of high heels. is this just me or is this an error/hacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.3.122 (talk)

I don't see what you ar seeing. Looks normal to me.--SPhilbrickT 00:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it either. On which page did you see this? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle

It there another way to report a user using twinkle than going to the user's talk page?  Btilm  01:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You must be on a user's user or talk page in order to be able to warn or report to AIV. Twinkle's documentation is pretty thorough and you should definitely become familiar with it before going off and using the script. Remember that you are always completely responsible for any edit you make with Twinkle, and misusing it can get you blocked. Xenon54 (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia:Meta....

...be moved to Meta-Wiki? It seems to be in the wrong namespace.----occono (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Occono. Meta-wiki is not in a different namespace but is a different site. Meta-Wiki is the global community site for all of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects, which includes Wikipedia. Because of its relationship to Wikipedia, it seems appropriate to have an administrative page here explaining it. Administrative pages are placed in the Wikipedia namespace. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC) (misread your post, obviously)

....I know that stuff :) The template at the bottom of the page links to other Articles on Wikimedia Foundation projects, only Wikipedia:Meta is in the Wikipedia namespace, why? It seems to be an Encyclopedic article on Meta-Wiki.----occono (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There may be enough reliable sources on the site itself to create a targeted article. If so, go right ahead and edit the redirect. The material from the administrative page can be merged into the article and ultimately redirected there. I guess it could be moved over the redirect but I wouldn't call it presently an encyclopedic article because it lacks sources. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like moving Articles :( Somebody else make the call, please.----occono (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Meta-Wiki is currently a redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. Therefore only an administrator could properly move a page over the existing redirect (avoiding a cut and paste move). However, that might be doubtful because Wikipedia:Meta is a longstanding page in project space, about a wiki of primary interest to Wikipedia editors rather than readers. However, I can see the problem in having Meta-Wiki as a rather degenerate redirect. (I consider a redirect to be "degenerate" when it links to an article describing a much larger set that contains what the reader was probably trying to look up. Imagine for example searching for France and instead getting redirected to Europe or Country.) Currently the redirect may be rather confusing to someone who wants the Wikipedia:Meta page. You could fix that by adding a Hatnote to the top of Wikimedia Foundation (perhaps with the {{Redirect}} template) that says:

• Meta-Wiki redirects here. For information about the coordinating wiki for all Wikimedia Foundation projects, see Wikipedia:Meta.

However, I suggest discussing this first on Talk:Wikimedia Foundation to get some other opinions. This article is likely to get a attention from a lot of established editors. --Teratornis (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming for placenames and search

I just created a new entry for the village of Wynndel, British Columbia, Canada. I don't understand why if I enter "Wynndel" or "Wynndel, BC" (with or without the comma) into the search box I don't get a matching entry. Entering "Wynndel British Columbia" works fine.

Be gentle ... this is my first complete article and I'm sure I've done something wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellobob (talk • contribs) 01:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong. Your article is located at Wynndel, British Columbia. Unfortunately, the software that runs Wikipedia is not smart enough to realize that when you type "Wynndel" or "Wynndel, BC" you mean to go to the article you created. You can, however, make this behaivour happen by creating redirects at those locations. Xenon54 (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's search index has not added the article yet (this will happen automatically) so it cannot be found by searches currently. If you click Enter or Go at the search box then you go directly to a page by that name if it exists, and that functionality doesn't require the search index. You actually have to include the comma in "Wynndel, British Columbia" to go there. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I did it right then. I just assumed that the indexing was done right away. I'll check in a day or so. Hopefully I'll have time and expertise to add more in the future. Bob (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

When is blanking considered vandalism?  Btilm  02:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Page blanking is normally vandalism, unless it is done to remove copyright violations or attacks. Also, if it is done by the author of a page and no one else has edited it, it may be regarded as a request for deletion under WP:CSD#G7. A partial removal of content may also be vandalism, or carried out for one of the reasons given above, or a removal of unnecessary content per consensus or simply a removal of vandalism. In such a case, the editor would normally explain this action in their edit summary or article talk page. Recent changes patrollers normally revert unexplained removal of content/page blanking as vandalism unless it is an obvious removal of an attack etc. It's best to contact the editor who did it if you are uncertain. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I think your question is easier answered by looking at when blanking is not considered vandalism. Removing unsourced material from articles that you challenge is enshrined in policy. See WP:BURDEN. Removing material that is original research, or fringe, or provides undue weight, or otherwise is not neutral point of view, even when sourced, is not vandalism. And, of course, removing material that violates our policy on biographies of living persons is not vandalism. Vandalism, at base, has to do with intent. Is a person removing material for a good faith reason or are they a... vandal? (vandal=bad faith). What must not be forgotten, though, is that if you're going to perform such removal, always leave an explanatory edit summary and possibly a note on an article's talk page explaining the removal so you don't appear to be a vandal, despite good intentions. We cannot read minds so removal of material without explanation invites scrutiny and, depending on context, a presumption that the edit should be reverted. The word "blanking" often is used to refer to not just any removal, but removal of large swaths of material or a page's entire content. There are few reasons to do so, and such edits better have a good explanation. I hope that hjelps clarify matters. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

One important thing to note is that removing talk page messages from your own user talk page is NEVER considered vandalism; users are allowed to remove any messages, including to fully blank, their own user talk page, and such actions should not even raise an eyebrow from anyone else. See WP:BLANKING. --Jayron32 05:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You overstate the policy. 'Blanking your own talk page is not vandalism' and 'blanking your own talk page should not even raise an eyebrow from anyone else' are two very different statements. It is not vandalism, but I certainly perceive users to who habitually blank comments off their talk pages as either antisocial or trying to hide something, and will not, as a rule, support them for any positions of community responsibility. - BanyanTree 07:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User subpage use

Is it ok for me to use one of my user sandboxes to create a document that isn't related to Wikipedia, but that I want organized and formatted like a Wikipedia article, so long as I delete the content after I have copied it into a word processor? Ks0stm ^(T•C) 03:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The content must be related to Wikipedia (such as the draft of an article you intend to move into the mainspace, something you intend to use in your main userpage etc) even in your userspace. See WP:UP, particularly the section WP:UP#NOT. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case, is there any other place I can make the document wikiformatted? Ks0stm ^(T•C) 03:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There are many. Please visit Wikipedia:Alternative outlets and List of wikis. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that if you want it formatted like Wikipedia, use a MediaWiki-run Wiki.----occono (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Who will know or care! Just get on with it because no one patrols User pages, as far as I know, for such trifling infringements (especially considering that you were kind enough to ask). - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is my newly composed page?

I just wrote a long page. How long does it take before it got published here. I am sure I saved it. How can I retrieve it. Thanks.EchoesoftheWord (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your contributions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EchoesoftheWord don't show any edits except to your User page and this page. What was the name of the article? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you do not even have any deleted contributions, which means you did not save your work to the English Wikipedia. Unless it was written for a different Wikipedia, if you did not save it, it is lost for good. --Jayron32 05:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe an accidental save to simple English or here under an IP? Cptnono (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Several things could have happened. Your account is not autoconfirmed yet so if your page contained external links then after clicking Save page you would have to answer a CAPTCHA before it was saved. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Time Help

How to display the time of timezone +5:30? --Srinivas (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Use {{utc|+5.5}}, which produces 21:43 ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Bad habit

The page seems to have some kind of problem, but what is it?--Mikespedia (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're going to have to tell us what the problem is, actually. At least what you think is wrong with it? Is it some issue with the article itself, or the way it is displayed or what? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

More like how the article is written. It looks really simple.--Mikespedia (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

For an article that is nearly a year and a half old, it is sparse - but unless the content is factually incorrect, then there is no problem! I will add an "expand" tag on it. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have also added an "expert help" tag (for WikiProject Psychology), so hopefully someone with more knowledge of this subject can expand it -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Logging In

Hello:

I might have registered in Wikipedia some time ago but I cannot remember the username or the password that I used to register. I have found an error in an entry in Wikipedia. How do I rediscover my username and password? My email is <removed> Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.243.88 (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can't remember your username, it's going to be hard to find it again. If you have at least a vague memory of what kind of thing it was, you can try looking in Special:ListUsers. If you find the username, you can retrieve the password by using the "Email new password" option at Special:UserLogin. Otherwise, just create a new account and use that. Or you can edit without using an account, but your edits will then be recorded with your IP address, as in here. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you recall editing an article? If so, you might find your edit in the history of the article. The history would tell the username associated with the edit. —teb728 t c 07:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with citations

Hello, I am looking for a page that describes in detail how citations on Wikipedia work. I know I can just type [1] nad give a link to the citation at the bottom of the page but I noticed that some pages have special codes that link the citations. What page can I find this on? Thanks Tgv8925 (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing sources. And please don't just type [1] and give a link. You have to enclose the citation in <ref></ref> tags to make it properly work. See the given link for details on how this is done. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 08:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. :) Tgv8925 (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Tgv8925, we have several templates for citations that work really well. See this page: WP:CITET. There are two different citation styles that are regularly used on Wikipedia, so templates are given for both kinds. You will see, for example, that for citing books, you are given the option to use either {{tl:cite book}} or {{tl:citation}} (book). I tend to prefer using the first format (you'll see throughout the page that it's given as {{tl:cite book}}, {{tl:cite journal}}, {{tl:cite web}}, etc.). All you need to do is copy and paste the template parameters that are given in the Common usage column. It should go inside your <ref> </ref> tags; if you're not sure how to use those, see the link that Chamal gave you and Referencing for beginners. Fill in information after each parameter (see the other columns on the template page for some examples on how) and delete the parameters you don't need. Hope this is helpful, too, :-) Feel free to ask if you have more questions! Maedin\^talk 08:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example (from Robert Black (lawyer)) of the use of {{Cite web}}:

...In February 2009, Professor Black proposed a number of Scots law changes so as to expedite the Lockerbie appeal verdict.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2486999.0.Expert_devises_changes_in_law_to_speed_Lockerbie_appeal_verdict.php |title=Expert devises changes in law to speed Lockerbie appeal verdict |date=2009-02-05 |author=Lucy Adams |publisher=[[Glasgow Herald|The Herald]] |accessdate=2009-02-06 }}</ref>...

Put this at near the end of the article...

==References==

<references/>

The <ref>...</ref> tags create a footnote, and the <references/> tag displays all of the footnotes that have been created. If you want to see other examples, just open any article that has footnotes for editing (but remember not to save the page). Good luck! Peter Chastain (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Is a YouTube video original research?

Hello, on an entry that talks about a Youtube video posted as part of a social action campaign, does a description of the Youtube videos posted by the campaign need any other citation than the Youtube videos themselves. i.e. it doesn't claim the Youtubes are 'research' but simply describes the content.

The videos led to a major public figure calling for urgent changes to the law - the reason for mentioning the content of the videos.

There has been an objection on the talk page. The objection says 'original research'.

Could anyone help me with this?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbbiggs (talk • contribs) 10:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is anyone who can help me with a swag of objections to citations I've made, I'd very much appreciate it. My username is barbbiggs.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbbiggs (talk • contribs) 11:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your chances of getting help improve if you link to the page you have in mind. A look at your contributions suggests you refer to Talk:Barbara Biggs. I suggest a careful reading of WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIO, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OWN, and the other links under WP:EIW#Dispute. You may also want to write your autobiography on Wikibios and/or Wikipopuli, which do not have Wikipedia's complex rules. --Teratornis (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Link to a section in a hatnote?

If the alternate meaning of an article title does not have an article on its own, but a section within another article - do you link to that article title, or directly to the section? --KnightMove (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that if (for example) "Placeville" is both a place and a book, then the book is located at the article "Placeville" and the place (which would be located at "Placeville (place)") is located at the article "Placeville County" under the section "County seat"?

I think you would link directly to the section, because linking to the article might cause a "how did I get here?" moment. So if I wrote "Rupert Griffin was born in Placeville", I wouldn't link to "Placeville County", I would link to "Placeville County#County seat". Xenon54 (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. --KnightMove (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

2 pair of geographic coordinates

The piano company Steinway & Sons has 2 headquarters – one in New York City and one in Hamburg. The two headquarters are equal. The Danish article about da:Steinway & Sons has the two pair of geographic coordinates in the up right corner. Is it possible to get the same in the English article about Steinway & Sons? Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any way to do that while retaining the useful features of the {{coord}} template. The Danish article uses a workaround that invoves a direct link to Geohack, which I don't think is a good idea. Instead, I've added the coordinates in the infobox, where the locations are listed. Is that OK? Deor (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's OK, thank you. But I think it would be better to do as the Danish article, then the coordinates have the same placement as the rest of the coordinates on Wikipedia. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that would break terribly quickly when users switch skins for instance. The better idea is to simply not have a "title" coordinate at all, and just specify 2 inline coordinates in the infobox. The "title" should really only be used for articles on absolutely defined locations. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. What do you mean by: "No, that would break terribly quickly when users switch skins for instance."? Would you please elaborate what you mean? Thanks. Fanoftheworld (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Help:Skin gives general information about skins, but I don't know what specific breakage TheDJ has in mind. In general, tricky page layouts that look good in one skin might not look good in another. Between all the possible combinations of skins and browsers, it's amazing anything works. --Teratornis (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Coord contains a bunch of subtemplates and microformats and other things I don't understand that allow people viewing WP to alter how the coordinates display for them and that pass specific information to Geohack and the mapping services linked from there. Bypassing them with kludgy direct links to Geohack would make the coordinates less useful to our audience, as I understand it. Deor (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article publication date?

Resolved

 – Dsf (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

How do I find out the date an article was published as the featured article of the day? Is there an easier way than crawling through a huge change history for a frequently edited article?

For example, Barack Obama on en.wikipedia.org. Dsf (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Featured articles have the information you want? Ah, no it doesn't --ColinFine (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If you go to the article talk page, it is usually listed in the "Article History" template. For the Barack Obama article, this template has been squished over to the side. If you click "show" next to the "Article Milestones" heading, it lists all of the various milestones. The Obama article specifically is unique in that it ran as a TFA on two different dates, AFAIK, the only article ever to do so. It ran on August 18, 2004 the first time, and on November 4, 2008 as part of a double-TFA (also a first ever) with John McCain in honor of the U.S. presidential election held that day. --Jayron32 16:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh! I see. Would've never thought to look at the talk page. :-) (And never noticed that particular feature there, either, surprisingly.) Thanks, guys, for the assistance and useful information. I'd not realized that (re: TFA twice) and had forgotten about the double-TFA -- which was a classy move on WP's part that I appreciated. Dsf (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Placename confusion

Here's a mare's nest I have no idea how to untangle. There are three towns in Wales with similar names: Penygroes, in Gwynedd; another Penygroes, in Pembrokeshire; and Pen-y-groes, in Carmarthenshire (see List of United Kingdom locations: Pe-Pen#Pent-Penz). The only one we appear to currently have an article for is the Gwynedd one, but it's at the (incorrect) title Pen-y-Groes, with redirects to it existing at Penygroes and Pen-y-groes; so that whichever place one may be looking for, one winds up at the article about the Gwynedd place. I was all set to move the article to "Penygroes" over the redirect, but I realized that wouldn't really solve the problem. Short of writing articles about the other two places (about which I know nothing), moving the article to a correct name, retargeting the resulting redirect to Pen-y-groes, creating a dab page for the three places, and spending much time checking incoming links to make sure each goes to the right article, is there any way to fix this? Deor (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Out of the three of them, is there any one which would be notable than the others? If so, that would have the main article. Otherwise the current one (with corrected spelling) will be the main one - if articles for the others are created, they would need to be called Penygroes (Pembrokeshire) and Pen-y-groes respectively. Unless the Gwynedd one is also known as Pen-y-groes, then the redirect at Pen-y-groes]] should be deleted. Otherwise, from what I can see, everything should be kept as it is. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

After posting the above, I noticed that someone had already created a stub at Pen-y-groes, Carmarthenshire, and I ended up fixing the problem in a way that seemed logical to me (the last words of many a Wikipedian)—moving the Gwynedd place's page to Penygroes, Gwynedd, creating a dab page at Penygroes, retargeting some redirects, and cleaning up incoming links. I'm expecting the cascade of vituperation, from UK editors who know that the one in Gwynedd is ("of course") the primary topic, to descend on my head at any moment. Deor (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to make an icon show up for Good Articles?

Resolved

 – meshach (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Something similar to {{FA-star}} but of course for GA. I was reading the page on Perennial Proposals and it mentions that this is possible on a per user setting (Indicate Good Article to Reader) but I can not figure out how to make it happen. Thanks, meshach (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a dedicated template for it (like {{featured article}}, but you can try to do it manually using {{GA-icon}}. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 19:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's long been debated and consensus almost always comes up that only FA's should get a magic icon on the article page. GA's are noted as such on the article talk page, which should be enough. --Jayron32 20:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The ressponse on the Perennial page is referring to your own user settings. If you click on your preferences and go to the ""gadgets" tab, you'll see a section entitled "User interface gadgets." Click the option to "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article." It's a neat feature, I use it. There won't be an icon, but it has a little dropdown that gives the assessment. There is unlikely to be a GA-icon like for FA for the reason stated - it's a review by one person, and as such not inherently audited. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct Amory. That is what is being references. Thanks to everyone who responded. meshach (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Buggy diffs

The diffs available from the History page seem to be absolutely essential for detecting vandalism and bad edits, yet the software often fails to make sense of fairly simple changes. It seems to easily "get lost" and flag large chunks of text as entirely different even when they are identical. One then has to go through the whole thing laboriously by hand, or (more usually) give up and thereby potentially miss bad edits. This is a typical example of what I mean. In my time here I have encountered dozens (probably hundreds) of similar examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hear%E2%80%99Say&diff=309659929&oldid=273431822

I wonder if someone who understands the bug/enhancement reporting system would be so kind as to flag this up to the developers so that it may be addressed. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.243.119 (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You could try User:Cacycle/wikEdDiff. Bugzilla has some enhancement requests for diffs. See for example bugzilla:5072. Your post does not appear constructive enough to be useful to developers. I'm sure they are aware that some diffs could be better, but many things could be better and I guess developers have a lot to do. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Your post does not appear constructive enough to be useful to developers." Huh?? What more do you expect? Do you want me to spend hours and hours trying every different permutation of possible changes to see which work and which don't? I've given a representative example of exactly what is going wrong, which should be perfectly sufficient for the developers. I tried adding a bug once, but it didn't work/I couldn't figure out how to do it, which is why I asked if someone else would be so kind as to do it on my behalf. But it seems at bugzilla:5072 that it's already known, so thanks for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.243.119 (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The MediaWiki software probably uses a line-oriented diff. This is subject to errors when users edit wikitext without manually wrapping their lines. In the example you gave above, the changes involve insertions of line breaks and headings into what were previously paragraphs on one line apiece. If the paragraphs had been on multiple lines of wikitext, the diff software would probably have resynchronized sooner. As you can see from the diff, the software resynchronizes when it gets to the next identical pair of lines. In any case, the editor whose diffs you show in your example made the situation worse by editing several sections in one go. Diffs work better and are easier to understand when editors save a few changes at a time. That also minimizes the risk of edit conflicts so it's better practice anyway. As to how much work you should do to help the developers, that depends on how much you want the developers to help you. Developers are human, and many are volunteers, so naturally they will work first on the requests that are clearest and easiest to understand. See How to Ask Questions the Smart Way. Asking good questions is, in fact, often hard work. --Teratornis (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't expect you to spend hours and hours (although some people do) when you didn't want to post to bugzilla yourself. I was just explaining why I wouldn't copy your message to the developers. I could have ignored the post or said "no" without explanation. I simply guess the developers already know the basic limitations in the diff code and wouldn't get new information from your post. Examples of diffs with problems similar to the one you gave are easy to find and I often see them too. Maybe you are not a programmer. Programmers often know their programs have poor perfomance in some situations but going from there to improving the code and testing the new code to release quality can be complicated and time consuming. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Counting all the pages in a category including those in subcategories

Can this be done? For example, if I wanted to count all of the articles on state governors from Category:State governors of the United States, which are actually found in the categories for each state, is there a tool that would allow me to do so? Thanks. Cool3 (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

{{PAGESINCATEGORY:State governors of the United States}} says: 32. m:Help:Magic_words#Statistics does not say whether that includes pages in subcategories, but the result looks like the sum of the pages in the category (11) and the number of immediate subcategories (58). Some of the subcategories have many pages in them, so that obviously isn't the recursive sum you want. Maybe m:CatScan can help. --Teratornis (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

PHP Unix timestamp

I am not a PHP coder, but am trying to understand a bot being developed (User:Full-date unlinking bot). I have done some online searcing, and found that a Unix timestamp in PHP is an integer. The amount of storage available for an integer is platform-dependent, but is often 32 bits (1 bit sign + 31 bit magnitude). Does anyone know the storage of a PHP integer on Wikipedia's servers? --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears no answer is needed, because the bot will probably be modified to avoid the functions in question. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandal deterrent

Hello. I've been experimenting with creative ways of deterring vandals. The problem is, I can't get "last change" to link to the last revision of the user talk page of whomever attempts to click it. And yes, I have tried substituting "Special:MyTalk" in for the name of the target page where it says "title=(Targetpage)" in the url. Any suggestions? Intelligentsium 22:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are trying to do, but take a look at {{oldid}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

::Thanks, I found what I was looking for. I was actually looking for {{diff}}, not {{oldid}}. And this was what I was trying to do:

Sorry, not resolved yet. Apparently, many templates do not work with Special:MyTalk. Intelligentsium 01:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What I need is a way to link to the most recent revision of the talk page of any user who clicks the link. So far, I've found replacing the target page with Special:MyTalk does not seem to work. Any ideas? Intelligentsium 01:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Try [[User talk:{{REVISIONUSER}}]]; when viewed directly, REVISIONUSER will show the last editor, but when 'transcluded it will show the viewing user. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems to work. Intelligentsium 22:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)