Help desk
< March 11	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 13 >

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.

March 12

Difference between alt text and rollover text?

What's the difference between alt and rollover text? I know that alt text is text that should display when the mouse is held over the image in order to describe it, but (assuming that it's something different) I can't imagine what rollover is. When I include a picture in nominations at T:TDYK, I'm always prompted for both sorts of text; since I don't know the difference, I just use the same text for both. Is this generally a good thing to do in article text? Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollover text is the text that displays as a popup when you hover your mouse over an image. Alt-text is mainly for the visually impaired's use of screen readers and provides a description of the image so that they can "see" it also in a way. Sometimes when an image in broken the alt text will display like this, but normally, it is invisible to everyone except those reading the article with a screen reader, and those looking at the code of the page. Often the alt-text and the rollover text should be quite different given their different aims. For example, where the rollover text might say "John Cleese in a dress, 1968", the alt-text might say "black and white photo of tall, thin man with mustache wearing a housedress and standing on a coblestone road, a double decker bus in the background." --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:ALT —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I stop vandalism faster?

Every time I try to find vandalism to revert, someone has beaten me to it. How can I revert it faster? (Please respond on my talk page) Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might try out the tools in Category:Wikipedia counter-vandalism tools, some of which should make finding and reverting vandalism an easier and faster job.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are searching for vandalism in the RecentChanges, that's where other editors may also be looking. On the other hand, if you look for vandalism in articles that have not been edited for a while, you might find sneakier instances of vandalism that evaded the recent changes patrollers. If you find an instance of vandalism that is at least several days old, the odds are low that some other editor would happen to fix it a few seconds before you. See WP:EIW#Vandal for more links. --Teratornis (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, it's not a competition. You don't "win" if you get to revert the vandalism faster than someone else does. If its already reverted by the time you get to it; then what is the problem?!? --Jayron32 04:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should make you pleased. That means that the WP vandalism-fighting has been successful. :-) Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 14:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should try User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool. The filter recent changes and IP edits features are great at reverting vandalism at lightning speed, because the diff and rollback button can be used quickly and it is even provides the uw-vand and uw-test templates so you won't have to remember the article name - not even the template name. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there is an ongoing race condition at AIV for less lightning-fingered editors. At some times it is almost to submit a report without getting an edit conflict. This doesn't mean someone else got to the same vandal first, just to some vandal. I just now had to try three times to get a submission in. I can't imagine doing that with a dialup connection, it would never get through. There should be another way for those on slow connections or with wp:accessibility issues.User:LeadSongDog come howl 14:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Layout in a template

Regarding the image in Template:All-Steinway Schools:

I think that the layout (in the version of March 12, 2010, 04:17) makes the image too below in the template, and that there is too much empty space above and under the image. Do somebody have some ideas about the placement of the image, and how to do it? Fanoftheworld (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be deleted. The use of non-free images in navigational elements fails criteria 8 for contextual significance. See Wikipedia:Non-free content. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is removed. A free picture is used instead. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U NO HU

U NO HU are a highly successful songwriting duo. The duo are Gary Williams and Philip Barber. They formed in 1998. Their registered trademark number is 2204162. In 1998 Zero1Zero commisioned them to write ninety instrumental dance tracks and thirty instrumental chill-out tracks that would feature on Aerobics Oz Style. P.J.Barber 06:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by UNOHUNOHU (talk • contribs)

I'm trying to create a page for U NO HU. I have the registered trademark details etc and U NO HU are accredited for writing over three hundred and fifty instrumental songs that have featured on more than one thousand Aerobics Oz Style programs that have been broadcast on three continents ove the past twelve years.

I'm having real problems trying to get this page launched on Wikapedia. Please help.

Philip Barber —Preceding unsigned comment added by UNOHUNOHU (talk • contribs) 06:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the two queries, as they are both the same one! The deletion log for U NO HU shows:

14:34, 6 August 2009 PhilKnight (talk · contribs) deleted "U NO HU" ‎ (Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSD A7))

11:52, 17 July 2009 Canley (talk · contribs) deleted "U NO HU" ‎ (A7: Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Looking at both versions (as an admin, I can see them), I would have to agree with the deleting admins. Neither version shows how they are significant. There were also no reliable sources confirming the information. I had a look for reliable sources (newspapers, books, etc) but can find no mentions of them. There is also the fact that your user name shows a conflict of interest.

At the moment, I can see no why in which U NO HU meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"New unreviewed article"

How do I make the "New Unreviewed Article" template disappear? My page has been up for a month now and it's still marked as "new" and "unreviewed." I want that box to go away. Help Please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.141.254 (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When other people review the article, the box will go away. There is a very large backlog of articles that still require review unfortunately. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Waring BIO

Hello

I want feedback on why my brothers BIo is being rejected I find this absolutely harsh and unjustified! The information has not come from foreign source but my own words! I am simply putting his page on Wikipedia for his study and evolvement of his economics and his thesis on China a historical moment in 1999???

Please give me feedback so I can rectify any errors and have his profile on Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyblue38 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over half the content of that article was a full copy of this pdf. Next to that, I also highly doubt if your brother is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. If we include everyone with a job in the encyclopedia, soon it would be unmanageable. The inclusion criteria for academics can be found here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Hi Skyblue38. The article was deleted as a blatant copyright violation of this résumé (pdf) Are you saying that your wrote your brother's page? Because it does indeed contain a word-for-word copy of part of it. If so, we could not use that text unless you gave us permission in a very particular way that showed not only your authority to allow us to use the text, but that you had released the text into the public domain or under a free license compatible with ours. Details on how that can be done are at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. However, you really should not bother because the content has no place on Wikipedia, which is not a place for anyone's résumé to be posted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalism?

Last night (March 12th) at around 0400 UTC, I noticed that entering "fig" in the search box resulted in an article about some Filipino rock band instead of the fig tree or fruit or a disambiguation page. I reported this to the helpdesk irc channel, and the kind souls there fixed this at once. Now, the rock band article is back again and I can't fix this.
Now, the rock band article has no resources and written poorly. It looks like some self-made article for a high school band. I mean, is it even notable enough to be on Wikipedia? 88.242.232.209 (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was fixed earlier today and should be fixed permanently. It seems some misguided soul decided the band should be the primary topic for the word Fig, which doesn't have a clear primary topic. In addition I have prod-ed the article Fig (band) for not establishing notability. Xenon54 / talk / 11:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image placement

I notice the manual of Style says we should avoid squashing text between images placed left and right. Does that advice also include the case where a table of contents is squashed between an image on the left and an infobox on the right, as in the Raphael article? I have tried discussing the problem on the article talk page, but one editor seems adamant that his way is the right way, even maging the ridiculous suggestion that it would be better to remove the infobox to keep the image in the lede section. I'm now puzzled what to do next... drop it? look for a third opinion? Astronaut (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I agree with you. That layout is bad, and the image needs to be integrated in another way. The person who says you cannot and should not,should probably read WP:OWN one more time. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there are no other editors of the article to take part in the discussion, so you could try going for a RFC to get an idea on what would be best. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest putting it in a gallery section. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 13:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

Is writing an unreferenced plot summary considered OR? Kayau Voting IS evil 14:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fine but please have a look at WP:PLOTSUM before you do anything. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Didn't know there's such a great essay out there. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

info box will not allow edits on this site - how do I add content?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_New_Haven

The info box on the right did not "take" additional info when I tried to add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sestie (talk • contribs) 15:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is only set up to take specific parameters. If you check out {{Infobox university}}, you'll see a list of fields that can be added to the infobox. TN X Man 15:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Layout of a template

Regarding the image in Template:All-Steinway Schools:

I think that the layout (in the version of March 12, 2010, 16:25) makes the image too below in the template, and that there is too much empty space above and under the image. Do somebody have some ideas about the placement of the image, and how to do it? Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you want the navbox text to float around the image. That might be difficult. See the {{Navbox}} documentation, maybe someone built in a way to do this. You might be better off removing the image altogether. The template is too tall regardless. Possible ways to shrink it include:

Removing as many redundant instances of the words "College" and "University" as possible.
Abbreviate all possible school names, e.g. State University of New York -> SUNY.
Make some individual sections of the template independently collapsible. See {{Global warming}} for an example.

It looks like the template is up for deletion anyway. Due to its size, it might work better as a list. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. There is a Category:All-Steinway Schools which has fewer schools than the navbox, suggesting this categorization is awkward and a list is needed. --Teratornis (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shrinking div boxes to fit text

How do I make a border made with a div shrink to the size of text the way that tables made with {| and |} do within each cell? In this example:

Here is some example text!

I can shrink the box using the width:300px parameter, but if someone uses a different font size or the text inside the box changes, it has to be re-sized. Thanks, --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use a span in this case ? Or a div with "display:inline" ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to a detailed infobox

I have tried to follow all the templates but still invain
How long do you take to future me so that I can be seen if someone searches for me the way it is for other people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klynskills (talk • contribs) 16:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is a little unclear. Do you mean how do you make the stuff on your user and user talk pages into an article about yourself? If so, the answer is that you don't. Even if you are notable by Wikipedia's definition you should not be writing an autobiography or using Wikipedia as a free webhost or social networking site. – ukexpat (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page vandalism

What can be done about repeated removal of talk page comments in some POV dispute? Seems people have been removing comments from Talk:Assyrian people that they don't agree with, dimissing their comments as "propoganda" or "unrelated". Astronaut (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a User warning template about deleting others' comments. You can put those on their user talk page, starting at a level 1 warning. If they are still doing it after level 4, you have grounds to ask an admin to give them a short block. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language Swap

I am contemplating writing an article on the Polish BOA SWAT unit there is a current page on wikipedia about them but it is solely in polish am i allowed to write a new article in english?

Regards JR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrowbottom286 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to translate anything back and forth between the Polish Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia and feel free to start new articles if they meet our notability and verifiability requirements. Most requirements should be the same on the Polish and English Wikipedias. You can link the articles in each language to each other in the column on the left side of your screen using a link like this: [[en:Polish BOA SWAT]] and [[pl:Polish BOA SWAT]]. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Each language Wikipedia is a separate website. Please do go ahead and create this article. Note that if you translate the Polish version's words rather than create the topic afresh here, in the first edit where you create the page here you should make a link in the edit summary to the foreign polish articles name in a form not unlike: Translating from [[:pl:EXACT NAME OF PL ARTICLE]] and you should add to the article's talk page {{Translated page}} (see that template for documentation). See also the references section in Threshing-board for an example of an appropriate attribution notice. Additionally, any external links that you wish to keep that are in polish can have {{pl icon}} placed before them so people here know they are in Polish (it formats like this: (in Polish)). Finally, please see generally Wikipedia:Translation and specifically Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Polish for guidance. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Irish Water Safety

Hi,

I would like to wrote an article about Irish Water Safety (IWS). I tried befire but it was nit accepted.

Is a ststutoty voluntary charity that promotes water safety in Ireland. It originated from the Irish Red Cross, Water Safety Section in 1945. It has the same status in Ireland as the Red Cross in that it is Statutory , Voluntary and a registered Charity.

It has been under statute in Ireland sine 1945 under the agis of the Red Cross till 1971, then it was the Irish Water Safety Association till 1987 then it went under the aegis of the National Safety Council till 1999 and it has been Irish Water Safety since then details of our Satutory Instrument are available at http://www.iws.ie/publications-page.html

Can you please advise me if I can write and article on it.

Regards--18:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)John F M Leech (talk)

Standard advice about creating articles follows, suggest you use the Wizard to create a draft in userspace then request review at Requests for feedback. And please read WP:COI.

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article. – ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Looks like there's a clear consensus to move Kazimierz Pułaski, and the discussion has dragged on longer than seven days. Where do we notify an admin? Clarityfiend (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The move request should appear at WP:RM - the template does that - so one of the admins who patrol that page will see it and act upon it accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hunslet Austerity 0-6-0ST

hunslett austerity 0-6-0 ST

The article refers to locomotives bieng built for private colliery use.Any information which collieries these were.19:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by John swain (talk • contribs)

Please use a descriptive title in future questions.

Have you tried the Humanities 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. --Mysdaao ^talk 20:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia futures

Is there anywhere which maps out intended future Wikipedia improvements such as better software, hardware etc. One serious problem is a big shortage of psychology academic editors. It is not so much the lack of content in Wiki psychology articles as the fact that it is very uneven and it increasingly needs a few academics that can view all the Wiki psychology articles strategically, plugging holes where necessary.--Penbat (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For software issues, see mw:MediaWiki roadmap. For your question about scholarly content, see WP:EXPERT and Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology. It is as hard for subject experts as for anyone else to learn enough about Wikipedia's complex rules to become productive contributors here. People who are eminent experts in some field might not want to edit on an even footing with schoolboys who vandalize articles. Now granted, Wikipedia has a fairly effective response to vandalism, but an eminent expert who is dabbling in Wikipedia and runs into vandalism for the first time won't necessarily know that yet. Experts are not used to having their work mercilessly edited by nonexperts. They are used to working in the tightly controlled environment of academic publishing. Even so, Wikipedia attracts a lot of academics. I'd think for younger academics especially, some expertise with Wikipedia editing would be essential, since we can expect science and the whole scholarly arena to migrate toward the commons-based peer production model and away from non-collaborative information hoarding. The stunning success of Wikipedia seems to show pretty conclusively that if people aren't working this way, they aren't accomplishing as much as they could. Also see WikiIndex for other wikis that might cater more specifically to psychology academic editors. Collaborating on the free-for-all of Wikipedia need not exclude collaborating in more selective environments. --Teratornis (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem you mention with psychology articles is true for many content areas on Wikipedia. Many if not most Wikipedia editors edit the article they are looking at, without first reading all the related articles to grasp the topic structure. For big topic areas it takes a lot of work to study the overall content on Wikipedia and decide how to even out the usual inconsistencies. One way to start is by grouping related articles so other editors can more easily see the structure. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates for a summary of three methods to group articles. I have found it helps to search Wikipedia with Google to find related articles that might be redundant and in need of merging. Another problem is "synonym disease" i.e. the use of conflicting terminologies across articles. Ideally, Wikipedia should use only one jargon term across articles to refer to the same thing, and the first instance of a jargon term in each article should link to its defining article, glossary entry, or Wiktionary: entry. If you plan to do any large-scale reorganizing on Wikipedia, I recommend writing notes on user subpages because it will be too complex to do extemporaneously. And of course you will have to negotiate your way through a maze of other editors and their preferences. The more editors who agree with a plan, the better chance it has. --Teratornis (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that. The problem is becoming more and more acute and i think that a radical idea like semi-protecting or even fully protecting all the psychology articles for say six months while they can be reviewed by a specified team of experts, giving them a free reign to make the necessary structural changes would be a good idea. It would put things on a better footing.--Penbat (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If persistent content disputes are impacting single articles or groups of articles, one remedy is article probation. If the problem is merely that some articles are of low quality, the easiest thing is to pick one article and try to improve it, or learn how to make one type of improvement, and make it to many articles. You might be able to interest other editors in a collaboration to improve them. However, getting other people to do things on Wikipedia is often harder than just finding things you can do yourself. Wikipedia like most human activities tends to have more "thinkers" than "doers", so it's usually more rewarding to do what you can than to think of things for other people to do. Wikipedia gets a lot of so-called "drive by" contributors, who may be difficult to organize. (See herding cats.) There is no deadline, so all that matters is that articles are getting better, even if slowly. Remember that Wikipedia is a recreational activity - we are here to have fun, not solve all the world's problems. If we can solve some of them while having fun, that's great. --Teratornis (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox Glitch

I am using the system Mac OS X with the web browser Mozilla Firefox and experienced a problem when attempting to edit the article for Pacific Southwest Airlines. The following appeared after my edit, which in turn caused a user to think I was vandalizing the page: "Proxy-Connection: keep-alive + Cache-Control: max-age=0". Is there any way to fix this?24.207.182.40 (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has happened to others with Firefox on Mac: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 57#"Proxy-Connection:keep-alive -- Cache-Control: max-age=0". I don't know how to avoid it. The other incidents I'm aware of were long ago. Do you have the most recent Firefox installed? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note added to archive: see Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Proxy-Connection:_keep-alive and edit filter #345. Chzz ► 06:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational structures in Middle East

WHAT TYPE OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES ARE GENERALLY OBSERVED IN UAE/MIDDLE EAST REGION" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imad67 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't write in all caps.

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

They will not do homework for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]