Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 April 10

Help desk
< April 9	<< Mar | April | May >>	April 11 >

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

April 10

Commercial Non English references

I have a question. Can a non english site be used as a reference on a english wikipedia article? Also can the reference be to a commercial offer to sell you the information but not actually give you the information that would back up the wikipedia statement? If not what rule would that fall under? Kilz 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

For the first question, see: WP:SOURCE#Language. I did not find an answer for the second question, but I did not search extensively. If no one else has an answer, you could try reading the various links under: User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia#Sou. Good luck. --Teratornis 01:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We could also try applying common sense: information being for sale doesn't prevent it from being a reference, because we are allowed to cite books, and book publishers usually charge money. (Often a book is also available for free loan from a library. But not everyone has access to a library copy of a given book, and going to the library may also represent a cost in time and travel.) I would imagine that even if a book was out of print and rare, as long as a citation of it was verifiable (even if verification would be inconvenient for some or most readers), it would be OK as a reference. Also consider the extraordinariness of your claim, i.e. the probability that a reader would need to check it. If your reference claims the flat earth idea is wrong, few people would need to check that. If the reference claims to have a practical cold-fusion power source, lots of people would want to check that. --Teratornis 02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The reference was to Pass Consulting Who in german offer to sell you for 490euro the results of a browser study. But the site gives no information to prove anything.Kilz 02:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds more like clever spam than any kind of reference link. I would disallow it. — coelacan — 07:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The ref is only used to give an example of a benchmark, nothing more (Swiftfox). The claim is very weak - in fact only "that there are webbrowser benchhmarks". A non-commercial ref [1] was not allowed by Kilz, forcing a commercial ref. The identical claim is made on (star rated) Firefox goes without challenge. Widefox 11:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The noncomercial reference is to a private site with no editorial review(but at least we can see what it says so I an other editors suggest getting updated information). The remaining references are to old past versions that are 2 years old and used to prove points on the correct new version. Since we have no idea what is in the Pass benchmarks since the site gives no facts we cant say what they are. They simply cant be verified Kilz 11:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Add to this the fact that there are no other sites that give us a glimpse of what the Pass benchmarks are, that the only thing that we can see from the site is a mention of the acid test (correct rendering). Using this reference to backup speed of browser claims is ify at best. That By Widefox's own words (line 45) it doesnt include Swiftfox data, on a Swiftfox article makes it completely useless.Kilz 12:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Tables

The editing tutorial offers very little in general. Specifically, it gives no clue as to where I should find how to format tables. I wish to edit an existing table. The table *vertically* follows an image. I wish to reposition them side by side. I can get the image to align left and the table to align right. The problem is that the table *overlies* the article content which is supposed to *follow* it. Hurmata 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be useful if we knew which article you were talking about. In the meantime, taking a look at Help:Table can't hurt. --Ybbor^TalkSurvey! 01:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This made for partial progress. By deleting <margin: 0 0 0 1em;>, I have gotten the following text to wrap around the table instead of underlie the table. But what I want is to have the text (in this case, "External links") *begin after* the table, not *wrap around* it. The article is Governorates_of_Egypt. Hurmata 04:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I could explain why, but if you remove the "align=right" from the beginning of the table, you'll get the effect you're talking about. — coelacan — 07:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You can also use the HTML code <br clear="both"/> to insert a break after the images (or tables) on both the left and right sides. It looks like someone already fixed the Governorates of Egypt article for you, but you can always use the sandbox for editing experiments to get the hang of things. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

discipline of B.Tech engineering in India

i want to know, which is the discipline in engineering for the cuurent time, having good future for next 10 to 20 years.

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that's what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. — coelacan — 07:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

random article home page

i heard that you could set wikipedia up to randomly open an article as your home page, so does anyone know how to set that up?

Point your browser to open http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random as its home page. Sancho 03:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Save search results on articles

Shall i save search results of articles for future reference in wikipedia?

Exactly why would you do that?--$UIT 05:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Spreadsheet to wikitable

Where do I find the tool to convert a spreadsheet (i.e. .xls) into a wikitable? --ChaChaFut 05:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Try Help:Tables#External links. It looks like there's at least one tool there that does direct spreadsheet-to-wikitable conversion, and others that do html-to-wikitable conversion (those could be part of a two step procedure if you convert the spreadsheet to html first). — coelacan — 07:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Chain lashing on board ships

How do you lash project cargo on ships by means of chains ?

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that's what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. — coelacan — 07:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How to fix this infobox?

The infobox at the beginning of Ulysses S. Grant isn't working. That's to say the source is appearing rather than the box. What's wrong with it? I tried comparing with the source of other US Presidents but still can't figure it out. What's wrong? Stroika 06:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This edit is the one that broke it. Someone removed a square bracket, which set the whole infobox out of whack. Often, to fix this sort of thing, rather than tinkering you just have to sift through the page history and then revert. — coelacan — 07:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah-ha. Thank you. One missing bracket removed by a one edit anonymous user. Now I remember why I stopped editing wikipedia. Stroika 08:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

covansys Chairman

current chairmain is Raj Vattikutti

• You probably need to read the instructions at the top of this page. This is not a question about Wikipedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not a question, period. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing the introduction of an article

To edit a single section of an article you just click on the edit link (button, whatever) that appears to the right of the section title. Where is that link for the introduction? I have always clicked on the "edit this page" tab which can be cumbersome if the article is long. You have to scroll through reams of text to get to the edit box. Have I been missing something obvious all this time? Stroika 09:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• You can click another section and change the section number that appears in the URL, but most people use a user script to make either a tab or a edit link appear for the lead section. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mgm. That's been bothering me for ages. Stroika 12:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Reems of text before the edit box" can't be right, surely? It appears at the top of the viewport. Unless you are referring to the preview, in which case you must have chosen to display the edit box after the content in your prefs; you should not have to scroll anywhere to see the edit box. Adrian M. H. 13:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

evs

what are domestic animals? give examples.

This is for Wikipedia related problems, you are free to search via Wikipeia and the internet but please only use the Help desk for Wikipedia related probs. Cheers - Tellyaddict 13:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I sense a homework question.... Adrian M. H. 13:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What are schools teaching these days, if students don't know how to search for Domestic animal on Wikipedia? (Arguably, not knowing how to search on Wikipedia renders a person increasingly irrelevant.) That article lists several dozen domestic animals. --Teratornis 21:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Category

I have come across this fictional cateogory: Category:United Nations Space Command - it seems to me that it needs to be changed as it is not clear from the name that it is a fictional organisation. What should I do? is there something similar to AFD for cats? --Fredrick day 12:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Take it to WP:CFD, they regulars their will help you. Cheers - Tellyaddict 13:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not just edit the category page so it explains what the category is about? For example, there seems to a definitive article with the same name (United Nations Space Command), so the category page could use the {{catmore}} template. (I'm adding it now.) If the real United Nations starts its own Space Command someday, the category can be split into real and fictional subcategories. --Teratornis 17:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I copied the first paragraph from the lead section of United Nations Space Command to Category:United Nations Space Command, and I put a {{catmore}} template below that. Now I think the category page explains itself clearly. The category itself might still be confusing to an editor who does not read the category page itself, but I'd like to think most reasonably skilled editors would look to the category page if they had a question about it. I also put a {{talkheader}} template on the category's talk page because it contained one entry from someone who seems unfamiliar with the recommended style for talk page entries. --Teratornis 17:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

writing

Should a person use wasn't, didn't, couldn't and so on when writing a novel?209.247.5.85 15:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a question for the Reference Desk, but I don't see why not - a negative isn't problematic, although negative phrasings should probably be avoided when it is easy to change the sentence to a positive phrasing. Nihiltres 15:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the questioner was referring to the use of contractions (rather than negatives), which I would not use in any formal writing except in speech and quotes. Adrian M. H. 16:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A novel is a work of fiction, so the author can use any style or styles he or she wants. Mark Twain sometimes wrote in the vernacular of his characters, for example in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. --Teratornis 17:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pick up a James Ellroy novel to see an unusual writing style at work. Adrian M. H. 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My signature

I want a new signature, my old one used to be confusing and I want a new one. This is the code I used: [[User:Pie Man 360|<span style="color:red;">Pie Man 360</span>]] _{[[User talk:Pie Man 360|Talk page]]}[[Special:Contributions/Pie_Man_360|<sup style="color:green;">contribs</sup>]] which turns out Pie Man 360 _{Talk page}^contribs but when I set it to that in my preferences, it says "invalid raw signature", and all the <s and >s are replaced by their html character equivalents. What do I do? --Pie Man 360 15:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Try changing things like

[[Special:Contributions/Pie_Man_360|<sup style="color:green;">contribs</sup>]]

to things like

[[Special:Contributions/Pie_Man_360|<font color=green><sup>contribs</sup></font>]]

I believe that that makes the difference. Nihiltres 15:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's still saying "invalid raw signature, check HTML tags", what should I do? --Pie Man 360 15:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You won't get far with that colour change unless you place the font tags within the wikilink:

Old: ^contribs

New: ^contribs

Adrian M. H. 16:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Scott Baio

On the Scott Baio article, there is a section that describes his career in detail, then a section that lists his selected filmography. His "Early Career" section is hard to read and very confusing--much clean-up is needed. So, my question is, is the first section needed, if the list of filmography is kept? ~Gatorgirl623~ 16:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The list of works is useful, I think. It provides a neat précis. The "Career" section certainly needs a cleanup and re-write. I would also suggest reducing the number of film titles in that body of text if possible. You could tag it for these issues, but it may not get sorted for a long time, since the relevant departments and projects have a permanent backlog. Better to sort it yourself if you can. Adrian M. H. 16:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

All righty. So clean it up, but don't delete it. Right? ~Gatorgirl623~ 01:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of 3D Architectural Solutions (3DAS) - includes "notability"

Hello Wiki Editors,

Please take a look at 3D Architectural Solutions (3DAS). There is a concern on this page that I would like to work with you on: "An editor has expressed a concern that the subject of the article does not satisfy the notability guideline for Companies." We've removed all links to our own websites & linked only to websites that showcase our credibility (and hopefully our 'notability'). We've also added testimonials to also show credibility & 'notability'. What else can we do to keep this article on Wikipedia?

Thank you, Brian - 3DAS

16:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you've actually made any claims of notability, and a quick search for "3D Architectural Solutions" doesn't show up much. The 'testimonials' section also read like an advertisement (where else do you really find them?) so I deleted it. I'm borderline going to speedy delete it myself, but I think I'll take this one to Articles for Deletion instead. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(E.C.)Please see WP:COI before deciding whether you are best placed to work on the article. Also of some relevance are WP:ATT and WP:V. Adrian M. H. 16:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I have to agree with the AfD nom. Adrian M. H. 16:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Update 4/10/07: I do see your points about advertising, but this is definitely not what we want to portray. In fact, after a quick search, I wanted to emulate a page like this: [2]. Besides offering free tutorials, books on 3ds Max, teaching classes, and client lists (for credibility), what else would you suggest I add? Thank you.Brianzajac 20:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(the above and my reply copied from Talk:3D Architectural Solutions (3DAS)) I'd suggest getting some proof of notability; that's the reason I nominated this page for deletion. Without proof of notability, the article will be deleted in about five days. Good examples of notability would include coverage in CNN, MSNBC, the BBC, New York Times, etc. Basically, things that are considered reliable sources. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Update 4/10/07 - b: Ok, thanks for the information. However, we have many sources that we believe are credible: CG Architect [3] is one of the largest CG Community portal sites there is (Current stats: Threads: 22,224, Posts: 155,240, Members: 22,435, Active Members: 2,376). We also have published books at companies like Barnes & Noble [4] (& Wiki at [5] ). And the VRay training [6] (& Wiki article [7] ) is a unique & very popular service for people who use 3ds Max for arch. visualization. So, with this information, how should I increase notability? Should I add info into their respective Wiki article? Or are these references from actual sites good enough to do? Thank you again. I really want to get this right. Brianzajac 21:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Try to familiarise yourself with the policies and guidelines to which I linked on the talk page. They will help to guide you. Adrian M. H. 21:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Idioms in Wikipedia

What is Wikipedia's policy on the use of idioms or figures of speech in articles? I cannot seen to come across it in a help page, although I surmise that there must be something concerning this. Thanks in advance, Chris Buttigieg 17:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there nothing in the Manual of Style? If in doubt, I would leave it out, unless it is specifically pertinent to the subject at hand; I like to keep my article contributions as formal as possible within reason. Adrian M. H. 17:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The closest I see are the links under User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia#Wor. For example: Wikipedia:Explain jargon and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. If a figure of speech is not understandable to all English speakers around the world, the article should explain it. Some figures of speech might be peculiar to English speakers from particular countries or regions, in which case Wikipedia:Manual of Style (national varieties of English) might apply. You could look up the figure of speech in question and see if a Wikipedia article explains it, or describes who popularized it, and then link the figure of speech to the article that tells more about it (see for example Snoop Dogg and -izzle). --Teratornis 17:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

-izzle, indeed? Well, you learn a new thing every day! Adrian M. H. 17:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a particular idiomatic sentence in the Yoigo article which I think I should change to a more standard parlance. I was just wondering whether Wikipedia had any such rules or guidelines pertaining to expressions etc. The sentence in question is 'the company was kept in the freezer for several years' which is without doubt somewhat informal. Nonetheless, many thanks for your time, Chris Buttigieg 17:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Or perhaps I should have said, many thanks for your tizzle! Chris Buttigieg 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would go ahead and change that. It is not very encyclopædic in tone. Adrian M. H. 17:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, I learn a new thing every day, but it's not every day I get thizzled for my tizzle. --Teratornis 20:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Template to notify users that they have been reported

Hi, I created a template to notify people that they had been reported to admin after vandalism. It isn't a simple code, it is {{Subst:User:Asics/Reported|sig=~~~~}}. I believe it is very useful, as sometimes there is a backlog on WP:AIV and can take a considerable amount of time to process the block request, and I am wanting to submit it to see if it passes as an official User Warning. So, I have a few questions:
1. It needs to be made more simple, obviously I can move it to mainspace, so should I do this?
2. But how do I get it, so it is just {{Subst:templatelocation|~~~~}}?
3. After this is done, I would like to submit it to a place where it could be accepted as an official warning. Is there such a place?
4. And finally, I do not believe there is a similar warning (non-official anyway), but is there in your view a need for such a warning?
I look forward to hearing the answers and views! Thanks, Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 18:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Question 2 has been answered by Mr.Z-man on my talk page. It now works as {{Subst:User:Asics/Reported}}. Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 19:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To try to answer question 4, let's run with the idea. What would you hope the result would be of using this template, after adding to WP:AIV? Notinasnaid 19:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If it is intended to function as a "justice will be handed down to you shortly" kind of message, I don't suppose that would worry your average vandal. And it may actually be better not to warn them; after the usual escalated warnings, they will know that a block is on the cards anyway, and this might just serve to encourage them to take avoiding action (such as a sockpuppet account or public IP). Your intentions are obviously good, though, so kudos for that. Adrian M. H. 20:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand both of your views. I do now see the view that it probably wouldn't do any good, as they won't change as they have already been reported. Saying that, it may get them to realise, ones with a conscience anyway, that what they have done is bad. But as you said, it could prompt them to create an account. Would you suggest deleting it? As after hearing your views it seems that would be the best idea. Thanks, Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 20:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, if the administrator for some reason, decides not to block them, then it would show to other users that they had been reported before, as no warning would be present if the admin just decided they shouldn't be blocked. Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 20:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there should still be the previous warnings on their talk page (even if they remove them, they're in the history, which is why an accurate edit summary is essential when leaving warning templates). Vandals don't have a conscience, unfortunately. Adrian M. H. 20:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see you point, I am going to delete the template and then request the page be deleted (speedy deletion). Thanks for your help and advice, I now see that the template may only cause more problems! Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wildvine

Yes listen I know this is how you ask about Wikipedia but I have to tell you that on the 'Omnitrix' section of your website someone has deleted the 'Wildvine' section. I was wondering if you would be willing to put it back up for other fans as well as myself. I would really appreciate this. Thanks for your time.

I dug around the archives and brought back the Wildvine section. The only problem is that I'm not experienced in table coding and now it is at the bottom of the page. It looked good when I previewed the section before saving. Can anyone more experienced than I am fix my attempt at restoring the section? --LuigiManiac 19:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just had a quick look at it (it's at Omnitrix), but I can't see a problem with that section being last in the hierarchy. I'm no expert on that subject, though. Adrian M. H. 20:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's strange, when I went back after you replied, it was right where it should have been at the bottom of the section (before it was at the bottom of the page, right above the Ben 10 template). I couldn't see who fixed it. I'm not really an expert on Ben 10, either, I've never watched it. --LuigiManiac 20:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

templates and category

I'd like to use a template in a category description. The problem is that the template adds pages that it's in to that category, and I don't want the category to be added to itself. It's hard to describe, but you can see it here: Category:Dinar. It's not terribly important, but I wonder if there's any way to remove a page from a category that it's put in automatically. Thanks. Ingrid 18:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. I edited the template to only put article pages in the category. If this is a problem for some reason or something doesn't work right now, leave me a message on my talk page. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't understand how it works exactly, but it seems to do what I was looking for, which is good enough for me. Ingrid 23:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Numbered Lists

I know that if I want to create a numbered list I just use a bunch of #'s

1. Item #1
2. Item #2
3. Item #3
4. Item #4

But say, two of the items are tied in rank and instead I want them to both have the same number (or have it go 1, 2, <blank>, 4, how would I do that? Zomic_13 20:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

For more control over list item numbering, see Help:HTML in wikitext. You could use an <ol> tag, or maybe two of them, and use the start parameter to play with the item numbering. --Teratornis 20:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

New message sign

i've never edited wiki and it says that i have. how do i get rid of the new message sign appearing on all the pages i look at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.140.254 (talk • contribs)

That refers to "your" user talk page: User talk:24.106.140.254. If you never used Wikipedia before, others probably have edited Wikipedia from the same IP address you are using. To make the new messages box go away for now, browse to User talk:24.106.140.254. A better method is to create your own account so you aren't sharing that IP address with other users. --Teratornis 20:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That comes with the territory for users of dynamic IPs. If you activate an account but fail to login, I think you will still see any messages that were aimed at other recipients of whatever IP you happen to have at the time. Best to make an account and take the option to stay logged in. Adrian M. H. 20:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Many times the "new messages" bar is stuck up there even if you read the talk page. This problem still hasn't been fixed. [8] -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 23:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it WP policy to remove the names of dead victims of IRA killings from WP articles?

The reason I ask is because of this edit:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Mon_restaurant_bombing&diff=prev&oldid=121705050

and the edit summary of "(→The Dead - remove list of dead as per wiki policy)":

W. Frank 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Feel free to revert the edit. In your edit summary, you might ask that any such "policy" be specifically cited on the article talk page, so others can review its relevance. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse my presumption for asking this question (I don't wish to be the offender in an edit war) but do you think your answer is authoritative? Are you an admin or whatever the appropriate word is?

If you are correct, it really is astounding that this character can go around deleting whole chunks of an article because people assume good faith when he simply states in each edit summary "remove list of dead as per wiki policy"

I've asked him on his user talk page User_talk:Vintagekits#Northern_Ireland to point me towards an authoritative source for such a POV but he hasn't done so.W. Frank 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You might find John Broughton's Index useful for future reference; it links to almost every bit of important/useful content. Adrian M. H. 21:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Some comments:

• To see a user's administrative rank, go to Special pages | Users. Select: Group: (all); Group users starting at: John Broughton, to see John's entry. Any extra rankings beyond an ordinary user would appear in parentheses to the right of his name. None do, so evidently John holds no special rank here. However, John did edit an impressive editor's index, so I would imagine he knows quite a bit about Wikipedia policy (although that says nothing about the authoritativeness of any particular statement he might make). On Wikipedia, we don't judge policy statements by personal credentials so much as we judge them by looking up what the policy documents say.
• Yes, it really is astounding that almost anyone can edit almost anything on Wikipedia. I'm as surprised as you are that Wikipedia works at all. Just about every time I describe Wikipedia to someone who isn't already familiar with how it works, they react with astonishment: "Anybody can edit almost anything? Then why doesn't it quickly turn into garbage?" Why Wikipedia works at all is complicated; two important factors include the built-in revision control system, and the vigilance of the user community (thousands of users tirelessly revert vandalism and try to improve articles).
• Some topics are especially divisive, and pose a particular challenge for Wikipedia. In the real world, when a topic is highly controversial, that usually means:
  • The topic has substantial, and different, impacts on different groups of people.
  • The facts of the matter are inconclusive, but different groups of people have leapt to conclusions anyway, and hardened their positions by selectively ignoring bits of contradictory evidence. (The neutral point of view when the facts of a matter are inconclusive, is to admit that one does not know which of the plausible conclusions may eventually turn out to be correct, and not all of the plausible conclusions may necessarily have been thought of yet. If everybody actually thought that way, the entire history of warfare, politics, religion, and commerce would be completely different.)
• It is perfectly reasonable for you to request a meaningful policy citation from another editor who claims to be following policy but does not cite any particular policy. "Per wiki policy" looks to me like an instance of weasel words. It isn't even a technically correct statement, because there is no "wiki policy." Every wiki has its own policies. The policy that matters here is Wikipedia policy. When someone can't write weasel words correctly, we definitely want to check the sources.

I'm not an administrator either, so don't take my word for anything. Read the policy documents instead. --Teratornis 22:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What about WikiProjects, or the neologisms 'crosswiki' (en.wikipedia.org to es.wikipedia.org, say), 'wikilawyer', etc.? I see those in common usage, and they certainly don't span multiple wikis. While I do agree that a more specific citation would've been better, WP:NOT is actually official policy; but even if it were a guideline, I'd still agree. I remove things 'per WP:EL' or 'per WP:SPAM' all the time, and the former is 'only' part of the MoS! Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine that Vintagekits was using WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, which I think can be appropriately applied to the simple list of names, and the sentences "Twelve people were killed in the explosion. The dead included three married couples" were redundant to other article text. — Scientizzle 22:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed - the page already lists the number of dead - I'm not sure the rest is particularly called for. WilyD 22:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my query, but it is the bombing that is notable because of the number and deaths of the victims. The article does not memorialise people but it is surely a bowdlerisation not to enumerate the ages, origins and genders at least of the victims since it is the sheer horror of this incident that caused many consequences.

Forgive my indelicacy, but to censor the list of victims of a bombing is a bit like removing the 2-1 score of a soccer match on the grounds that such a score occurs all the time and is non-notable, is it not?

No. It is not. I think that Wikipedia not being a memorial (which, by the way, covers this perfectly. And I honestly can't believe you compared the list of people who died in a terrorist attack to a soccer score. The score is a lot more relevant that the list of dead; that's useless information unless you know who they are. On the other hand, a score is useful: a 2-1 score indicates, for example, that team X and team Y both played pretty good games, whereas if it was 10-0, then team Y was horrible (or team X was really good). On the other hand, not to be heartless, but whether it was John Doe or Jane Roe who died doesn't make a difference to me; I don't know either of these people. The horror of the incident has nothing to do with the people that were killed, in my opinion. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not really. The article on Toronto doesn't list the 2.5 million inhabitants of the city proper. This is just distilling "infinite information" to "encyclopaedic information". WilyD 23:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to put the article in context:

It begins by stating:"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and goes on to say (at Shortcut:WP:NOT#MEMORIAL) that " 3. Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered."

Now in this proximate case, is it not the Bombing that is the subject of the article?

Nobody has yet disputed that the Bombing itself is either non-notable or a "memorial article".

It then follows what referenced facts should be included and it is here that I fail to see that the number, ages, genders of the victims are not pertinent to the article.

It would be a bit like an article on the grassy knoll failing to mention the name of the president who was assassinated.

I can't quite see your analogy with Toronto inhabitants; the present case is a bit like stating that to mention the demographics of the inhabitants of the City is irrelevant to the article.W. Frank 23:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• The article (quite rightly) notes the number of dead. Same as Toronto notes the number of inhabitants. Neither notes who they are. This isn't like the Kennedy assassination not noting who was killed (that's the whole point - if Johnny Nobody was shot and killed across town that day, there'd be no article) - it's like the Kennedy Assassination page not noting everyone who was watching the President drive by, or the name of Kennedy's driver. In this case, replace those twelve dead with twelve random guys, and the event's importance doesn't change. WilyD 00:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• There's no way that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL applies to newsworthy events like these. I imagine that MEMORIAL was intended to disallow the cyber equivalent of "roadside shrines" on Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef 23:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• • The prevention of the "cyber-equivalent of 'roadside shrines'" is certainly an important intent of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, but I believe this list of the victims can be reasonably argued to be an "indiscriminate collection of information". None of the victims was individually notable, so adding the names to the article adds little that a good source link could not provide. Is it a big deal to have a list of 12 names? Not really, but only 'cause its a rather small number. It would be, however, a problem to list all 102 fatalities from Adam Air Flight 574 or 1198 names in RMS Lusitania or even every car bombing victim. It's easier (and better, IMO) to draw the line at no unnecessary lists of otherwise-non-notable-victims, no matter the size of the tragedy. (Likewise, it's better to not list every lucky person that received a free car from Oprah Winfrey. Such would also be indiscriminate.) — Scientizzle 01:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I couldn't agree more. Lines must be drawn somewhere and discouraging any lists of non-notable victims is the sensible solution. Adrian M. H. 15:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Numerous one edit editors making the same edits

Is there anything that can be done about the numerous editors to the Vikki Blows article? They all add back in the same image which can't be used under WP:FU. I've tagged the image as an orphan so that one day soon it can be deleted but I tire of going back to the image and the article on a daily basis to put the tag back and take the image out. Here's a link to the page history. Input, ideas, etc? Dismas|^(talk) 21:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• I may be wrong but it looks like Turn around for all (talk · contribs) created a sockpuppet after he found out putting it back under his existing account would get him into trouble. You could ask for protection or see if a sockpuppet check is fruitful. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation

How does one go about becoming a translator for Wikipedia? Ciaran12 22:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You can translate pages from a wikipedia in one language to another at your leisure. Simply find an article that interests you on one wikipedia that does not exist on another wikipedia (or would be improved by some of the other wikipedia's content), and add the information by clicking "edit this page" on the target page. johnpseudo 22:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Translation. Adrian M. H. 22:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I used to do a lot of this and a great way to find good translation candidates is to do a search for article talk pages tagged with Template:FAOL for a particular language, which identifies that the foreign language article is a featured article. For example, see this search for articles tagged as featured in the French Wikipedia. Of course, this only finds articles already in existence here. Another method is to go to Wikipedia:Featured Articles, then click on the language you wish to translate from the interlanguage links on the left hand side of the screen. There may be articles there which have no equivalent here. Finally, you might want to check out WikiProject Echo.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

HELP!!! Emergency!! Popups stopped working!

Hi. All of a sudden, my popups just stopped working. I didn't edit it when it started failing. I don't know if it's my computer or the page itself, but when I logon, there is an error in the page. The popups no longer work. I tried deleting some of the text in my monobook, but it made almost no difference. Could someone help? Thanks! – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 22:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Did you use Shift or Control F5 to clear your browser cache on the monobook page? - Mgm|^(talk) 07:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I think so, but my computer's really slow sometimes. However, they seem to be working just fine now. Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 17:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)