Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< September 5 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 7 >
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.


September 6[edit]

Page ID[edit]

What happens to the page ID when a page is restored? Is a new ID generated, or is it the same as the ID before the page was deleted? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new ID. See mw:Manual:Page table#page id and phab:T28123. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category change following boundary change[edit]

When a list of populated places covers those affected by boundary changes, should they be moved from the old category to the new?Johnragla (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about this? Waikato_District#History, in particular the 1989 reorg? My understanding is that there are categories for both eras, so for instance, if Ngaruawahia was a town that was *not* inside the Waikato_District during the 1980s, it would be in a category something like "New Zealand Towns Inside the Xyz District During the 1980s" ... and, assuming that after the reorg of '89, suddenly Ngaruawahia *is* now inside the Waikato_District, then it would be in categories like "New Zealand Towns Inside the Waikato District During the 1990s" and also "New Zealand Towns Inside the Waikato District During the 2000s" and so on. Note that all the category-names here are made up off-the-cuff, and that I have no idea what district that town actually is/was located within. Does this answer your question, though? Try to make the categories up-to-date, but also keep some kind of historical category, such as 'towns within waikato after 1989' category and 'towns within waikato before 1989' , or whatever makes sense in the given situation. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm asking about the current era. For example, Port Waikato is in the Auckland category, but was transferred to Waikato when Auckland Council was set up.Johnragla (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, although, not being familiar with the subject-matter, I might still need more clarifications.  :-)    Port Waikato is currently in mainspace as WP:CAT 'Populated places in the Auckland Region' , and Auckland Council exists already. It sounds like you are saying that nowadays, in reality, Port-Waikato-the-place is currently under the jurisdiction of the Waikato Council, and no longer under the jurisdiction of the Auckland Council? If so, my recommendation would be to put Port Waikato into *two* categories, creating them iff necessary: 'Populated places in the Waikato Region', and for historical WP:PRESERVE reasons, also 'Populated places previously in the Auckland Region'.
    Make sense? Alternatively, you could go with the idea of decade-by-decade categories, or arbitrary-but-meaningful-in-real-life timespans, such as maybe 'Populated places in the Waikato Region since 1989' alongside 'Populated places in the Auckland Region prior to 1989' ... though it would depend on how category-crazy you wanted to go. I think that probably just having a set of place-in-region-xyz categories, plus as needed a related set of place-formerly-in-region-xyz categories, would be enough. Body-prose can specify the years when transitions from jurisdiction to jurisdiction occurred. p.s. Also, I'm assuming in my answer that Auckland and Waikato regions&councils are not overlapping... theoretically it could be the case, I suppose, that a particular city was under the jurisdiction of *both* councils simultaneously... if something like that is the case, you might need to be more careful with the category-structure. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Search of en-wiki images[edit]

Hi! When i search images on English Wikipedia, the search also shows images hosted on Commons. Example in this search which i have filtered for files only. But how do i search images hosted on en.wiki and exclude the Commons images? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dharmadhyaksha, use the prefix local: like this. 185.108.128.7 (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khmer Rouge[edit]

The Khmer Rouge article has been edited so it just repeats one sentence. please return to original condition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.184.94 (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was an act of vandalism that was reverted with this edit within 1 minute. Cannolis (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipage got deleted[edit]

Hello,

This is regarding a page about chennai dost.

Chennai Dost

The page was deleted and the reason give is Article about a club, society or group, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject.

Please note Chennai Dost is a major support orgnization fighting for LGBT rights in Chennai, India.

We are not a commercial firm and in no way we make money out of it. All we do is fight for LGBT rights and create awareness by organizing events like LGBT film festivals, art expos etc.

Chennai dost is a Non Governmental Organisation which is self funded. That is the board members sponsor the events and for some events we go with the donations.

Yes, we occasionally organize parties for our members for which we collect money and again the money is only used to organize the upcoming events and the accounts for the same is being shared in our board meetings.

We request you to restore the page and help us to create the awareness about LGBT to the outer world.

Regards, Venkat Chennai Dost — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.2.207 (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat, the deletion has nothing to do with whether anyone made money from the organization. I myself would not have deleted this under the A7 reason, as it does claim some importance , but the article was clearly promotional in the sense of advocating for a group and a cause. Wikipedia is not the place for that or for "creating awareness". I will, if you ask, restore this as a draft under the articles for creation project, so that it will need to pass review before going live. DES (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nesting ref-tags[edit]

Hello, I would like to do, what seemingly, cannot be done.  :-)

See, nested-footnotes helpdocs. Most of the articles that I work on, use the 'normal' modern style for cites:

  • Factoid one.[1] Factoid two.[2]

References

  1. ^ Cite one.
  2. ^ Cite two.

I would like to, on an existing article which uses that normal cite-style, then add (insert) a new citation, as support for some additional factoids.

  • Factoid one.[1] Factoid two.[2] NewFactoid three[3] NewFactoid four[4]

References

  1. ^ Cite one.
  2. ^ Cite two.
  3. ^ "Cite three". ...which proves fact#3 is true...
  4. ^ "Cite three". ...which proves fact#4 is true...

How do I do this, so that I can de-duplicate the contents of ref_3_A and the contents of ref_3_B, which are identical save for the portion being quoted? Also, preferably *without* rewriting ALL the footnotes on the page to use {{efn}} or some equivalent syntax that permits nesting? What I would like to be able to do, is something like this:

  • Factoid one.[1] Factoid two.[2] NewFactoid three.[3]{{footquote|...which proves fact#3 is true...}} NewFactoid four.[3]{{footquote|...which proves fact#4 is true...}}

References

  1. ^ Cite one.
  2. ^ Cite two.
  3. ^ a b "Cite three".

Which I imagine working something like {{rp}} except that it would produce an output roughly akin to this:

  • Factoid one.[1] Factoid two.[2] NewFactoid three.[3](A) NewFactoid four.[3](B)
References
  1. ^ Cite one.
  2. ^ Cite two.
  3. ^ a b "Cite three".
  • (A) "...which proves fact#3 is true..."[1]
  • (B) "...which proves fact#4 is true..."[2]

Does something like this already exist? If not, is making the hypothetical foot-quote template, technically feasible? p.s. In particular, the MAIN advantage of using {{cite web ... |quote=...}} is that the reader can simply hover their mouse over the [4] portion, and see in a javascript-popup the hyperlink to the source, AND the quoted snippet thereof. I am imaging that Template:footquote would let the readership hover over the [3](A) with their mouse, and see a jscript-popup that shows the hyperlinked source when they hover over the [3] and shows the quoted snippet when they hover over the (A) , so that in long articles they don't have to scroll down to read the footnotes, then scroll back up.

  p.p.s. The main problem with using multiple-duplicate-cite-web-refs, differing only in the portion that they |quote= , is that it makes the article look puffed up with "ten" references, numbered 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 ... when in reality it is just ten distinct quotations from ref#4, backing up various differing factoids. I realize that I could just jam all ten quoted-snippets into one huge super-cite-web, but that is sub-optimal. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  p.p.p.s. See also the question already answered above, yesterday: Wikipedia:Help_desk#Help.21, which points to Szczecin#Name_and_etymology as an example of combining <ref>...</ref>{{efn |...}} as a means to get *close* to what I'm after. The downside to that approach is that 1) the syntax for efn requires a new 'Notes' section be added to the article with {{notelist}} , and 2) the quotations in the 'Notes' section are not found "physically" next to the place they are cited from. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how to register blog?[edit]

207.255.54.120 (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @207.255.54.120: I'm sorry but you're going to have to provide a little bit more information to your question. What exactly are you trying to do? What blog are you talking about? --Stabila711 (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If your question is truly about contributing to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia – and by "registration" you mean having an article entry here – then blogs are rarely a proper subject for an article as they are rarely notable. They are also rarely useful to use as sources to cite in articles, as they are rarely properly considered reliable sources. Note that Wikipedia is not a proper place to promote or advertize any topic, and especially for a blog you are involved with. As noted above, your question lacks sufficient detail for us to be sure what you are asking, and needs to be expanded if this doesn't answer your question. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or If you want to create a blog, you can use blogger, it is very simple. Supdiop (Talk/Contribs) 05:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(download)[edit]

How to download — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashi surada (talk • contribs) 17:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the left hand side of any article, and most pages, you will see various menus. One is labeled "Print/export" and has a link for "Download as PDF". Does that answer your question, or did you mean something else in your very short question?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2015_September_6&oldid=1086099352"