Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 June 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< June 20 << May | June | Jul >> June 22 >
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.


June 21[edit]

Mass Template Adding[edit]

Is there a way I can have a bot do a mass adding of templates? I'd like to add this template to the pages in this category. Thank You! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 02:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall a bot, but I will use a repetitive software (AWB) to add them. ZooFari 03:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a large navigation template and we have List of films released by New Line Cinema. Maybe this should be discussed first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and for a start, I've collapsed the template. ZooFari 03:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly we have WP:BOTREQ, for bot requests. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

javascript/scripting language[edit]

why scripting using javascript is better than scripting using other scripting languages??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zee4 khan007 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking at Have you tried the Computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. —teb728 t c 04:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We do have the JavaScript article which might be helpful. Personally I've never thought of it as better, but rather something that is very functional within html, and easy to use for non-programmers. Perhaps the term popular would be a better description, and at this point it it very ingrained into webpages throughout the Internet. — Ched :  ?  04:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short Explanations After Linked Words, Is It Acceptable Here?[edit]

I'd like to state first off that I understand Wikipedia is a public venture, and not to be treated as an encyclopedia, but I have learned more things about more subjects on Wikipedia than I have anywhere else on the Internet. I am grateful for that. There is one thing, however, that I've found to be a nuisance. The links are a problem for me. I find if I'm reading an article about a subject of which I know very little, and if I encounter a word or term I'm unfamiliar with, I am always and forever having to click on the links just to get a definition. So my question is this: Wouldn't it make more sense to include, perhaps in parenthesis after the link, a small explanation of what the linked word means? To cut down on the number of times a reader has to click on a link just to get the gyst of the article?

For instance, if you go to the page titled Biology, about three paragraphs down you will see in blue the linked word "botany", followed by the words, "the study of plants". Without the words, "the study of plants", a reader not familiar with the word "botany" would have to click on the linked word for a definition. Each and every click, in my opinion, is an interruption to the flow of the article and thus, an interruption to the education of the reader. And isn't that why Wikipedia exists in the first place? To educate readers?

While I can't speak for all readers of course, I find that many times when I run across an unfamiliar word or term all I need (or want) is a brief definition. If I want more in-depth information, the linked word is there to allow me to learn more.

I have toyed with the idea of adding definitions after some of the linked words in articles I have read, in the belief that if it would help me, surely it would help others, but I'm unfamiliar with what is allowed here in that regard. I've spent some time searching for an answer to my question and I haven't been able to find anything on this subject. Hopefully this page is the right place to ask a question such as mine.

Once again, as I stated earlier, I am grateful for the existence of Wikipedia and all that it has to offer. Keep up the good work all! Mirabellayellow (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should really consider enabling navigation popups in your preferences (link is at the top right when you're logged in). You can enable it by checking it off in the gadgets menu. This feature will cause the first paragraph of an article to "pop up" when you place your mouse over a link, which should be exactly what you're looking for. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for your idea of adding definitions of linked words, don't do it. Hyperlinks are an important advantage that Wikipedia has over conventional encyclopedias, since there is no need to provide explanations of everything. Adding such explanations will only make the article longer, difficult to read and will irritate the readers that do not want it. A hyperlink on the other hand, needs to be clicked on only if you want to read that page. Chamal talk 08:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One option that is available is Wiktionary. You should provide a Wiktionary link if you are using a word that does not have an article here, but may not be generally known (such as persnickety). TNXMan 14:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also see the Simple English Wikipedia. And note that learning the jargon in a field is always a critical part of learning the field. Someone who is unfamiliar with the specific terms in a subject such as Biology will have a very difficult time reading the literature on the subject, until he or she learns those terms. It may help to read through a glossary on the subject, at least once per day, for several days in a row until the information sinks in. (See: Portal:Contents/List of glossaries.) The first time a person sees an unfamiliar term, it goes into short term memory. Short term memory is very limited, so after just a few unfamiliar terms it overflows and the person feels confused and overwhelmed. By reviewing the material day after day, the student gradually drives the information into long term memory which is effectively unlimited in capacity. It's surprising that schools exist to help students learn, but they don't really explain the process of learning so students understand how to do it on their own. We all spend hours studying, but we aren't necessarily conscious of what our brains are doing. And once we learn something, we forget what it was like not to know it - that's probably the most amazing aspect of learning. --Teratornis (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Wikipedia is not paper, we have unlimited room for an introductory article on a subject in addition to a more technical article. See for example:
So, if you find articles that are too technical for beginners, you can help in at least two ways:
  1. Create an introductory article.
  2. Create a glossary on a subject if one does not already exist.
Doing either of these things is also a good way to teach yourself about a subject.
--Teratornis (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

empty lines[edit]

How do you get empty lines to appear between paragraphs, etc? This is a pretty stupid question, forgive me, I live in a cave. Myth1000 (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just have to leave a blank line when typing in the edit box. For example, like this:
Example text.
<blank line comes here>
Example text.
Hope that is clear. Cheers. Chamal talk 08:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you type "<nowiki>"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Myth1000 (talk • contribs)

No, you should not; Because replies here are indented it the newlines fail to appear here. The no wiki in this example is not strictly required. The ::<nowiki><blank line comes here></nowiki> should have no content at all. Just like it says, it should simply be a blank line between two texts. Once you do that in a normal, non idented text, you should have a nice new line between the example texts :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

empty lines again[edit]

I think just accidentally destroyed someone elses question there. Look, Chamal, in your reply, there was an empty line after the second example text but not before the first. Am I right? How did you do that? By using the space bar a lot? Myth1000 (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is actomatically achieved thanks to a different indent for the response lines. You will also see that empty line between my question and yours - but this is not the way to add blank lines. For a blank line you should specifically leave an empty line between two texts. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

empty lines again[edit]

But how do you leave the empty line? With spaces? Specifically, if I want to insert a para between two paras, with empty lines before and after, say. Myth1000 (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Use the "Enter" (aka return) key on your keyboard. I left two empty lines between your post and mine by hitting "Enter" twice. 59.95.110.112 (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the right answer. Why you feel the need to get snotty about it, in your edit summary, "Now this is getting close to trolling", I'll never know. I didn't put a test there, I was asking a question. Myth1000 (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... you did? The sandbox, as the IP correctly stated, is the best area to test anything you want to try, simply because its made for that purpose. The help desk, on the other hand, is not. The IP simply stated this - why call him snotty after he helped you? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 10:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; I realized my edit summary was inappropriate right after I clicked save. Apologies, 59.95.102.85 (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. I shouldn't have thrown my toys on the floor. Cheers Myth1000 (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving files into Wikimedia commons[edit]

I want to move a file existing in wikipedia (under a free licence (Attribution-Share Alike 3.0)) that is missing in commons. If I do this, it can be used in all wikimedia sister projects (right?) and not only wikipedia (en). My question is: Is there a tool or shortcut to do this, or it must be done manually? If I do it manually, should I first erase the existing file in wikipedia? (I mean, what happens if I upload it to commons and the file also exist in wikipedia? Does this makes an error?). - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_ . --  08:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons has detailed instructions.--Commander Keane (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the board?[edit]

Hello,

In the labyrinthine world of Wikipedia I don’t know if there’s a board where I can complain about a possible improper use of administrator powers over me. Thank you for the information.

Thantalteresco (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there isnt a board that over sees en.wikipedia it functions by community consensus, if wish start a discussion suggest that you post a note to WP:AN/I, but remember to notify the admin if you do so. Gnangarra 10:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, as Gnagarra notes, WP:ANI is the best place for such a discussion. However, please remember that any complaints must be written fairly and shouldn't attack anyone. TNXMan 14:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My application of the {{editsemiprotected}} tag[edit]

Hello, something tells me I have not properly applied the template in this edit [1], yet I cut-and-pasted it from the box. Could I get a heads-up on what I did wrong? Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has told me that I did it correctly, so there is no need to respond to this question and I am unwatching this page. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Setting up a vote on Wikipedia[edit]

There is currently a discussion on Wikimedia Commons regarding the flag of the Republic of China. Since the government doesn't provide any specification for their flag, several editors have tried to approximate the colors based on different sources, but in the end everybody have different preferences so no consensus has been reached as of yet. So in order to reach this consensus, I'm thinking that we could organize of vote, as it as been done for the Polish flag. i.e. we we would propose two or three different options and ask editors to choose their favorite one. So my questions are: do you think this kind of vote would be appropriate on Wikipedia? If so, do you know what is the procedure to follow to setup the vote? Thanks, Laurent (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody? :) Laurent (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't such a vote be set up at Commons where the file is? The English community cannot decide to change something that is the same on many projects and as such, I see no point in voting here, even if possible. You should probably ask at Commons (Commons:Help desk) instead. Regards SoWhy 10:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a democracy. Voting is discouraged. Consensus is the preferred method. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Festival[edit]

I have continued to try and create an infobox festival for the Vermont State Fair page, and it has continued to say Template:Infobox Festival in red, can I have some help with this? Mr. Prez (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give the page where you tried to create the template? I've looked through your contributions and I didn't see any edits in the template namespace that are relevant to the infobox you mention. Chamal talk 13:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. You may have capitalized the word "festival", which would cause the template to turn into a redlink. TNXMan 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

changes in industrialization affects fertility[edit]

how would changes in industrialization urbanization and economic development affects fertility —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.219.243.242 (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The humanities or science reference desks may be able to help you answer this question. However, please note that Wikipedia will not do your homework for you. TNXMan 14:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Searching history[edit]

Is there any easy way of searching an article's entire history? Many articles have a lot of useful information in their previous versions that doesn't appear in the current version, and it's a pain in the neck to have to trawl through sometimes hundreds of revisions to find what you're looking for. --88.110.22.156 (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to do this from the search interface but it you add the template {{Search archives}} to a talk page there will be a search box on that page that will just search the archives. For an example of a page that uses this page see Talk:Federal_Reserve_System or see the template itself: Template:Search archives. Hope that helps! meshach (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP wants to search the article history, not the talk page. If looking for a specific change, then searching the edit summaries in the history is problematic, as you are assuming that the summary exists or is useful. If trying to determine the revision when something was added or removed, then try WikiBlame. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can click on the "History" tab of the page you're interested in, and then click on the "Revision history search" link. Laurent (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah- had not noticed that WikiBlame was in the tools section. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're both right, I misread the question. Thanks for clarifying. meshach (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing image File:Allanblackia stuhlmannii (Clusiaceae).png[edit]

I've just noticed that an image I uploaded to the commons last week, File:Allanblackia stuhlmannii (Clusiaceae).png, has gone missing. The image was PD (from the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary). It doesn't look like it's been deleted -- it's just not there anymore. Can anyone suggest what's happened? Should I upload it again? Pburka (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure a file was uploaded? It looks like you created [2] the page commons:File:Allanblackia stuhlmannii (Clusiaceae).png without uploading a file. None of your uploads have "Created page" in the edit summary. Either way, I suggest trying to upload it again. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very odd. I could have sworn I'd uploaded it, but maybe there was some sort of error. I've uploaded it again. Thanks for your help. Pburka (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2009_June_21&oldid=1146583675"