Help desk
< November 9	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 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.

November 10[edit]

Length of a string[edit]

How to know the length of a string of characters (I need it for a template on wp)? {{#len:string}} doesn't work! Thank you very much.--DrFO.Jr.Tn (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a string manipulation template {{str len}}, but it is really something of a hack: it only supports strings up to 500 characters long, it is rather expensive, and it is not always reliable. Intelligentsium 01:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the larger goal here? I've seen various tricks used in templates to handle certain types of long strings, someone might have already invented the wheel you need. DMacks (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought[edit]

Hello,

I've been looking around a bit about this but no luck so far.

My question is if there is a way to tell what was the last edited part of an article? I know it says the date in which it was at the bottom of the page, but sometimes people might like to see what part(s) were changed. If there isn't I would like to see a simple way of doing so implemented perhaps. Maybe a link at the bottom that reloads the page with the most recent change(s) highlighted if possible?

Thank you for any response you might have,

R.K—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.196.220 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click the "view history" tab, then click the "compare selected revisions" button; you can also use {{diff||cur}} to generate a link. ǝɥʇM0N0 01:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See more at Help:Page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Payment of matured policyJeewan suraksha[edit]

The Policy has already matured but no intimation regarding the payment, ≈122.252.246.234 (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Surendra JohriMoradabad[reply]

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over three million articles, and thought that we were directly 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 a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on 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.

(I have removed the policy number from your post to protect your privacy) -- John of Reading (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little red x top right of edit box[edit]

I tried to import a photo from commons, correct markup, and the red x buton appears - why please? Mark^Dask 10:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell us what photo you are referring to (you can place a link to an image using a colon inside the linking brackets like so: [[:File:name.jpg]]) and what you mean by "import". In fact, tell us everything that might be relevant about what you tried or attempted: where did you try to add it, what markup you used and so on. Commons photos can be used directly in Wikipedia articles, with normal image markup without being imported in any way. We recently had a sitewide problem with many images not displaying and it's possible you attempted to use an image during that span of time. Anyway, it's difficult to answer your question in the hypothetical.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the article is Yanomamo Women - on that page I have inserted a test image, from commons, but the one I want is either Yanomani.jpg or Jacekpalkiewicz3.jpeg - neither works - if u go to page you can see for yourself. Thanks. Mark^Dask 11:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you use images you must use the exact name in all respects, and the best way to ensure this is by going to the image page, highlighting its name and then using your computer's copy function (ctrl+c) and then pasting the image name where you want to use it (ctrl+v). If you try to use File:Jacekpalkiewicz3.jpeg it will not work because the image is titled File:JacekPalkiewicz3.jpg; if you try to use Yanomani.jpg it will not work because there is no image by that name either here or at Commons. Maybe you mean File:Indio Yanomami.jpg?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - I wasn't using capitals - sorry about that, and thanks for the Ctrl tip. Mark^Dask 11:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. Note that In addition to capitals letters, you had it ending in jpeg rather than jpg:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing[edit]

My mini-biography on Isaac Seligman has been placed on line but apparently needs someone to review it. No idea how to organise that so could you put out an APB to all avid reviewers requesting a review of my biography? Many thanks.213.10.136.135 (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I've got time in the next few days to take a look - I will contact you on your talk page if I have any questions okay? Mark^Dask 11:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a one-line comment to a keyword in a Wikipedia page[edit]

Whilst researching a particular topic in Wikipedia, I believe that I can add some insight into the origin of a title (pronoun) relating to a rock band. Could you kindly advise me (or provide me with a link to a an instructional webpage within Wikipedia) so that can add a one-line comment to that article. I do not want to attach a full-page article or any other attachments but wish to allow other users access to my "comment" by clicking on the key word Spongorfungus (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the article (click the edit tab) to add your text, then follow it with a reference in the following form: <ref>text of reference goes here</ref>. You can also use one of the appropriate citation templates referred to at WP:CITE. – ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that this has to be from an actual published reliable source; so if your "insight" is personal knowledge or mere speculation, then it has no place in the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John L. Locke article[edit]

Dear Help I have added reliable third party refs (articles and books citing and clearly influenced by Locke) and to an article and two books by a key collaborator of Locke.

What is the process for removal of the header on the article that is there at the moment? (It says "This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications...")

Can you do that? Thanks, D. Kimbrough Oller —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimoller (talk • contribs) 18:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done – ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen[edit]

L AM WORKING IN A PROFFESSIONAL KITCHEN AND WANT TO KNOW IF L HAVE TO WEAR A UNIFORM BY LAW AS THEY SAID THEY WOULD SURPLY ME WITH ONE NOW THEY SAID L SHOULD JUST WEAR MY OWN CASUAL CLOTHES HOW DOES THAT STAND WITH HEALTH AND HYGIEN PLEASE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.234.23 (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over three million articles, and thought that we were directly 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 a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on 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. TN X Man 18:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you do ask at the reference desk, one of the first things people will want to ask you is what jurisdiction (country, state, etc.) you are in, as the answer will certainly depend on that. --ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia with green theme for ENGINEERING articles[edit]

Sir..... Previously I found articles in Wikipedia separately for engineering...the main difference is the outline i general wikipedia, surroundings are bluish and in few engineering articles esp from engineering books, outline is little green in color..how can I get those pages <blanked> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghavsairam (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you saw the green outline in Wikipedia? Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and normally uses the same background for all articles. It is one of many wikis with articles about engineering. Several of them use the same MediaWiki software as Wikipedia and have many design similarities. The Google search engineering wiki shows some of them. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles about the same subject[edit]

These two articles Domestic rabbit and House rabbit are about exactly the same subject. IMHO such a situation is totally unacceptable. Does a mechanism to force a compulsory merge exist? Roger (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced; I think Domestic rabbit covers a much wider subject than House rabbit. You could begin a discussion, though - see Help:Merging for guidance on this. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard for the moment the specifics of these articles. I'm much more concerned about the general principle of not having two articles about the same subject and the existence or possible existence of a compulsory merge procedure to deal with such duplication. Allowing multiple articles on a single subject is a slippery slope to factionalism. Imagine if you will there being two articles about President Obama - one tending to prefer a Democrat POV and the other with a Republican bias - such a situation would be intollerable and should not be subject to the whims of ephemeral and capricious "consensus" as each article's set of fans would naturally contend that their version is "canonical".

Returning to the specific articles, it seems to me that Domestic rabbit is the more scientific (zoological) article while House rabbit is biased towards rabbits as pets so maybe there is room to develop the divergence further and also consider moving House rabbit to a title that more clearly identifies is as being about rabbits as pets. The editors then just need to keep in mind that there is a real risk of it violating NOTGUIDE and/or getting swamped with fancruft. Roger (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by a 'compulsory' merge, but the word rings warning bells for me. Very little on Wikipedia is compulsory. If you think two articles should be merged, you should start the process, or if you think it is likely to be contentious, start a discussion on one or both talk pages about merging. See the link John provided above. --ColinFine (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "compulsory" is too strong a word. I'm thinking of something equivalent to the speedy delete procedure where an action can be taken without pointless debate to correct a clear unambigious policy violation. Of course this presupposes that multiple articles on the same subject are in fact forbidden. Roger (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is, in fact, such a thing as a "compulsory merge", if not in title then in effect. Articles for deletion can result in articles not just being kept or deleted, but redirected, deleted and redirected, transwikied, userfied and in a decision to merge, and where that's the result, that is not an optional merge. However, historically such debates are almost always started as deletion debates, followed by consensus to do something else such as a merger. Though I do not remember ever seeing an AfD debate that started as a nomination solely to merge, I see no reason it could not be done. That being said, I don't think it would be the correct thing to do except under very specific and unusual circumstances (maybe to cut short an edit war with one side repeatedly merging and the other repeatedly reverting), and after other options have been tried and failed. Proposing a merger seems an obvious first step, as noted by others. Of course, you could be bold and just do the merge and see if that is reverted (I'm also talking generally here, not about the specific rodent issue this started with; I think these can be sustained as separate articles). The context here is articles that are not true duplicates but that are too duplicative to sustain autonomy. If an article is really just a duplicate WP:CSD#A10 may apply (in limited circumstances) or redirection and if reverted, then asking for salting of the redirect. I've seen a few AfDs that started that way. In the case of two Barack Obama articles, see Wikipedia:POV Fork.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider making drastic changes like merging two articles then start by looking for prior discussions on the talk pages. The content was deliberately split into two articles after a discussion at Talk:Domestic rabbit#House rabbit? The discussion is old but I think it would be inappropriate to merge them again without a new discussion. Undiscussed mergers is generally for cases unlikely to meet opposition, and the discussion shows there would at least have been opposition in the past. Furthermore, our logs show the split was performed by User:Ed Brey who edited House rabbit and Talk:House rabbit as late as 6 hours ago, and about half of all his 2010 edits are to those pages. You can propose a merger with the procedure at Help:Merging. If you make a merger without prior discussion then anybody who disagrees the two pages were "a clear unambigious policy violation" is entitled and able to revert it (unlike deleted pages which can only be restored by admins). PrimeHunter (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Bagpipes Page[edit]

Dear Sir/Madam

Last year we provided information on new technology being used in the electronic bagpipe field by the company vPipes. We stated that vPipes was the only electronic bagpipe to use capacitive continual sensor technology being careful not to make an 'advertisement' out of the information provided. We realised that our contribution had been deleted by the page-owner although they have maintained the names and brands of other electronic bagpipes. We deem this completely unfair and a disservice to users of Wikipedia as the information provided on the current page 'Electronic Bagpipes' is incomplete now that vPipes, amongst other makes, no longer appears. We do not understand how a Wikipage can be so biased excluding information provided in good faith.

We would appreciate understanding why this situation has arisen and how it can be corrected.

Regards

85.53.138.178 (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, there is no such thing as a 'page owner' on Wikipedia: see WP:OWN. With certain exceptions, anybody may edit any page. Equally, anybody may remove another person's edit.

Secondly, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it is not a product directory. I see that User:Hu12 removed a reference to vPipes in January 2010. A few hours later the same user removed a whole list of other brands, and links to them. So I do not see what is 'unfair' or 'biased' - but if you think something is unfair or biased, the place to discuss it is in the article's talk page.

You should also read WP:COI. You do not say that you are associated with the company, but your wording strongly suggests it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]