Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The assistance section of the village pump is used to make requests for assistance with Wikipedia.

If you wish to report vandalism, please go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead.

If you have a specific question to ask, you may go to Wikipedia:Ask a question or MediaWiki Help instead.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Copyright discussion

Can I get some advice on where to go with a question about copyrights and the Creative Commons as they pertain to images on Wikipedia? I had gotten the owner of a website (lukeisback.com) to license his photos under the Creative Commons (see here for more). Now I see that the new images he's uploading have a clear "© LUKEISBACK.COM" tag placed on them. My question is this: would these new photos qualify under the earlier permission for use on Wikipedia? I suspect not, but I want to sound out others first and I don't know where to go on that topic... Tabercil 23:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say that there is no problem with using the new photos. He still holds the copyright to all his images (even those that didn't have that little "© LUKEISBACK.COM" tag on them), but he has agreed to license the pictures under a CC-license. That tag just restates basic facts (and makes it impossible to forget to attribute the author :) ) — Ksero 15:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition, if you think the "© LUKEISBACK.COM" is ugly, you can just crop the pictures. As long as you attribute the original creator.— Ksero 15:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Flooding articles with cite flags ...

I'm sure others have seen it too. An editor comes to an article on a controversial subject and starts slapping flags onto everything in sight, even onto fully non-controversial assertions. Despite the assumption of good faith, it's perfectly clear that this editor has an axe to grind and is doing the citational equivalent of quibbling over the definition of "is" and "the". And yet ... and yet ...

What's happening in a case like this is that the editor in question is gaming the system, abusing one of Wikipedia's most precious core principles as a pretext for something that approaches vandalism, and is using verifiability as a pretext for attacking the subject of an article, for impugning the credibility of article by plastering lots of little blue 's all over it (I've seen the move referred to as "bluing out" an article), or for out-and-out censorship.

Where does this behaviour stand, under Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and how can it best be addressed? Does it fall under the concept of pushing POV, or vandalism, or what? Is there a guideline for when calling for citations becomes abusive or disruptive? For when an editor or group of editors may simply remove excessive flags?

--7Kim 19:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

C. f. Wp:citation#Tagging_unsourced_material. You might want to consider that it is actually more helpful to tag individual facts in need of sources than it is to tag the entire article. The former approach allows you to address the specific concerns, whereas an article-wide template is more vague. But if there's a {{Fact}} template in virtually every paragraph, then that's probably not too useful and should be replaced by a single template. — RJH (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't use the inline tags very much, unless something specific catches my eye, preferring instead to mark only completely unsourced articles or using {{citation style}} where appropriate. But I think that the editors who use the fact tag a lot are, for the most part, doing a good thing by marking out where the citations should have been. bear in mind that it would not happen if the articles were properly cited in the first place. Adrian M. H. 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(I'm indending to the second level, but responding to both comments here.) You make some good observations, but I wouldn't even be raising the question if I didn't have a sense of "'sblood, there's something in this more than reasonable." If we have a sixteen-sentence article and somebody comes in and drops eighteen fact-flags into it, yes, that's perfectly reasonable and I have no objection ... so long as what's being flagged is eighteen unsourced assertions that are sufficiently controversial or outside the range of general knowledge to demand citation. In that case I'm all for it and it seems quite proper to me; there are some articles out there crying out for a taste of that sort of discipline. (I'm deliberately avoiding reference to any specific case, incidentally, because the recent cases I've seen have been in controversial articles I'm not closely involved with, and pushing in seems unwise. The people on the scene can work it out.) That even makes more sense to me than tagging the whole article, because if there are a number of editors working on the article they can clear the tags and essentially have a visible progress report.

The situation I'm talking about, though, is something that more closely approaches a veiled form of vandalism, in which the flagging editor gives the appearance of setting an unusually low threshold for what demands a citation -- not necessarily to the level of "You're saying the sky is blue? I demand a citation for that!" but close. Particularly where other edits this particular editor has made, or the pattern of which assertions e has chosen to flag, suggests an ax being ground or a double standard for views e likes vs. views e doesn't. If someone who is behaving in that way crosses the line, are there any good standards for recognising when the perfectly good and proper call for citation is being abused, and on the basis of what Wikipedia policies or guidelines can what action be taken?

--7Kim 23:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Calvin Cooledge article being vandalized

I'm sorry, I thought you wiki-whateveryouares had tools to keep this from happening. Come on, guys, please take care! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.167.95.23 (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has the tools, even you. Even IP addresses can be used to revert vandalism. All you have to do is to click on the page history, and then click the previous version and edit it. The vandalism will be gone.--Kylohk 17:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Would the vandalism, by any chance, include spelling Calvin Coolidge correctly? - DavidWBrooks 00:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit

How do i edit a headline on Village Pump. there seems not to be any edit sign anywhere.

Click on the [edit] link to the right of the heading, then in the edit box that appears, you will see that the first line looks like == Text goes here == . This is the headline for that particular section. You can edit that by changing the text between the equals signs. Tra (Talk) 13:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

non-categorised user page links to category

I want to add a link on my user page to a category, but without making my user page a listed member of the category? Is this possible? many thanks, Lynbarn 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Use the syntax [[:Category:Example]] Tra (Talk) 12:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And pipe it to hide the colon. Adrian M. H. 18:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks both, Lynbarn

Translate from German to English

I've worked a bit with some articles about some cities in Dithmarschen (Germany) at the Norwegian (Bokmål) WP. Now, I'm ready to translate the article about the city of Burg (Dithmarschen), but the problem is: It doesn't exist at all at English WP. I can't speak German, and the article isb't translated into Danish or Swedish either. It isn't necessary to translate the whole German article, just a small elementary part so I can translate it into Norwegian. I would be very happy if someone did it ;) Link to the German version: Burg (Dithmarschen) Thank you. Efloean 12:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Translation and maybe leave this message on the talk page there. YechielMan 05:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image

I'm currently working on Simple English Wikipedia, an article about Shields. I have an image i want to use on it. I need this image to be translated into a Wikipedia format, so it can be place on the article. the image is Here→[1] {if the screen opens and it's small, then click the maximize bottom at the top of screen to see the picture at it's real size.} All i need is the image's format, the one i need to paste on the article for the image.

§→Nikro 01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The image may well be copyrighted. Part of the imame upload process requires you to confirm that the image use is not violating copyright, so you may want to be careful. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for example. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is. I went to the home page, and at the bottom of it I found the following statement.

"This page and all photos are copyrighted © by Valentine Armouries. Please ask us for permission to use these photos for any reason other than your own personal collection. All photos are of items at our armoury. Our medieval armoury is located in Calgary, Alberta, Canada."

If you want to upload them, you are going to have to ask permission from the owners of the company. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 19:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Okey, if they give it to me, then can you ranslate it into the right format it needs to be in.§→Nikro 4:19,67 May 7 (UCT)

Will someone send this e-mail to [email protected] requesting the usage of the image, i can't send it because i'm only 14, and don't have an E-Mail address.

P.S. Strike this entry out if your going to send the e-mail. Thank you.

Dear Valentine Armories, I'm working on an article on Wikipedia, and while looking through images for it, I found your image, the image is http://www.varmouries.com/vpics/cru_200a.jpg. this image might have a copyright on it, and I ask if you may let me use the image for wikipedia. P.S. Please write back to my talk page, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nikro Thank You.

§→Nikro 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My changes were correct.

Yes, the reason why I added Evangelist Dorinda Clark Cole's bio is because it was from her official page http://www.dorindaclarkcole.net. That is all official information. But yet the bio up now is from an official source too. Also I changed her website because why would you use www.theclarksisters.com, when she has her own website www.dorindaclarkcole.net? It makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinisterCoreyM (talk • contribs)

The text that you added appears to mostly be cut-and-pasted from the individual's website. While it may be official, it is also likely to be copyrighted. Please read Wikipedia's guide to copyright for a explanation of why we cannot use the information you added in that form. Thanks. -- MarcoTolo 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

False orphan

I have just received a massage saying that Image:Three of a Perfect Pair.jpg is an orphan. The image's description it states that no articles link to the image, but the same file still appears in the parent article Three of a Perfect Pair. How can this be fixed? Justin Foote 23:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done a null edit, which fixed the problem. Tra (Talk) 23:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikichem Editors promoting own commercial projects

"WIKICHEM" Editors promoting own or related commercial projects such as "CHEMREFER", "CHEMSPIDER" and "EMOLECULES". They create/tolerate articles about these commercial websites. Martin Walker is part of the Chemspider Project, see: http://www.chemspider.com/Advisory.aspx It seems as if there is a conflict of interest and I would recommend that Wikipedia and Wikipedia users clearly define, which kind of articles are helpful! I do not think, that "Chemspider" is a helpful article that need to be part of an Encyclopedia. Please stop the commercialisation of Wikichem! 213.188.227.119 17:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Might you perhaps include some links to point us to where on Wikipedia these problems are? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There are specific guidelines telling people not to write their articles like an ad, and there is also WP:COI to handle conflicts of interest. If it is blatant advertising, you can nominate it for deletion, especially if the subject is not notable (see WP:N). If it is notable, then you should ask someone to rewrite it according to the manual of style.--Kylohk 18:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess you are talking about Talk:ChemSpider and its related article? Apparently, ChemSpider, whatever it is, is notable enough for its own article, and a link to that product's homepage is useful rather than advertising. But I do not know what this has to do with a user "Martin Walker", who appears not to exist on Wikipedia. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Imdanumber1

I request assistance with Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He continues to bypass redirects because he dislikes redirects and "a guideline...cannot be violated". The latest can be seen at User talk:NE2#Redirects, in which he urges me to "be a better contributor on Wikipedia" by allowing him to continue his redirect bypassing. --NE2 22:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Left him a gentle notice. Keep us posted. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will. --NE2 23:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, WHOA. First off, I really don't have any problem with redirects, but what I find that makes no sense is why he puts them in there. Also, he too has bypassed redirects as well, so the redirect bypassing issue shouldn't be a big deal if he decides to be a hypocrite by bypassing redirects himself, then warns others not to bypass redirects.

I have filed a mediation request regarding this issue. I don't think we need trolls on Wikipedia who try to assert themselves as they own the place. This guy has a lot of problems with other users, and I am willing to help if he learns what the meaning of consensus is. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 23:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... he did it again. --NE2 16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Have either of you considered the fact that both of you are in the wrong, and that continuing to do so might be a little pointy (or at least disruptive)? x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image needs adjustment

File:Hasekpractice.jpg

Dominik Hasek looks like he's skating on frozen urine. Help?

This is a good photo, but the lighting has made the colours awful. The ice should be white, not brownish-yellow. Could someone with Photoshop (or whatever) give this some quick attention? -Joshuapaquin 01:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this better?--72.81.33.113 01:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of my user page

A few hours ago, an IP vandalised my user page as seen here, adding "This user is a Rank 5 rapist!" to the top. I've reverted the change, of course, but I'm not sure what to do. First: what warning should be left for the IP, which has never had a message on its talk page: Template:Uw-npa1, Template:Uw-npa4im, or something else? And who should leave it: is it appropriate for me to leave such a message, or is it better for someone else to do it? I'd like to leave the npa4im myself, but I'm not sure whether either one would be the best. Nyttend 04:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You can probably use Template:Uw-upv1 as a starting point; going to a fourth-level warning right away might be a bit sharp as a first warning. Wikipedia:Template_messages/User talk namespace has other options. I note the IP has done a few other dodgy edits; I'll sort those out as well as I can. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, use Template:Uw-upv1, and if the ip continues, increase the severity of the next warning. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 19:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Input requested on Talk:Neurotically Yours

There has been a variety of IPs trying to push through a fan invented name of a character in a webcomic (who's never been given a name by the creator) at the above article. Its been going on for over a year now. Another editor once again wants to re-open the issue, so I'd like to request some additional input. Quick facts:

• The name is a pure creation of some fans
• a forum link is provided to show that
• there haven't been any reliable sources provided to show its use or notability
• the creator has never referred to the character by name in any form.

In my experience this type of information has never been considered reliable or notable enough to be included in wikipedia articles. Please provide your take on the article talk page--Crossmr 16:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell them that fora are not reliable sources, even (especially?) for what could be described as a form of neologism. Its widespread use must be demonstrated by reliable sources, and try to educate them about those. If you get nowhere, RFC may be an option. 3O is out really, if you have more than one editor per side of the dispute. Adrian M. H. 16:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Citing a programme

I recently viewed Not the Messiah (yesterday, actually), and have added some information to the article. However, I have no idea how to cite it. WP:CITE isn't helping at all. The information is from the programme we received as we entered. It is a published work, I suppose, and thus completely trustworthy and reliable, but it's not publicly available. (Libraries don't have copies.) The show is only being performed for three nights. Initially I suggested that I could scan it in and upload relevant portions, but it is copyrighted material, so I oughtn't do that, especially not on Wikipedia servers. Any help? There is no "author" or "publisher" or "date of publication" or "city of publication" or any of the things you'd really need to cite it like a book, which is probably what it is closest to. There isn't even a title, really, it's just called "Performance", Summer 2007 issue. Is it a magazine? Still, we run in to the same problems as with citing it as a book: who publishes it, who "wrote the article", etc.

While I'm here, I also used a fact which Eric Idle mentioned in his monologue prior to the show beginning. Can I cite that like an interview? This is even more shaky! It is sort of unverifiable, isn't it? No video recordings are available, nor is the script. (The fact is the one about his mother being the sister of the mother of Peter Oundjian.) Goyston talk, contribs, play 21:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In my strict interpretation of WP:ATT and WP:RS, citing a programme or film would verge on OR, and (when the subject is the source) would certainly be a primary source that is not independent. Though the degree to which that matters depends on what information you are citing. Someone asked this some while ago and we (he and those of use who responded) agreed that it would be very marginal and probably best avoided. Or at least backed up with written independent sources. Adrian M. H. 16:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to cite a TV programme, I suggest you use the correct template for it. Cite the name of the programme, its air date, episode name (if applicable) and the broadcaster. This should allow it to be looked up.--Kylohk 20:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Elaborate vandalism by user:StealBoy

A user has been creating a series of articles describing fictitious animation/cartoon films, and attempted to make them appear genuine by linking to them from various real articles. A glance at the user contributions will show thescale of the problem.

Although technically hoaxes, and definitely calculated vandalism, the wording of the 'report vandalism' page suggests that the user must be 'currently active' and have been given a complete set of warnings before he may be reported. Well, he was active a number of hours ago, and his IP address has been given a couple of anti-vandal warnings, but despite the disruptive nature of his editing, this would seem insufficient to be reported there. So, I have resorted to reporting the problem here as it is far too complex a web of edits for me check and to deal with in the limited time I have available just now -- besides which, I cannot speedy pages!.

The user in question is either StealBoy (talk · contribs) or 220.233.238.103 (talk · contribs). (The edit pattern would suggest they are the same person.)

As an example: The Clinger Winker was created by copying a section from the page The Clangers and changing a few words to make it look like a new article. It is clear to anyone who knows the Smallfilms canon that The Clinger Winker is just vandalism/nonsense/etc, and comparison of the two pages will quickly reveal the similarities.

The second example, also erroneously added to Smallfilms, is Ello It's Cheeky. This one includes a cast list, based on the fictional characters in Bagpuss, although none of the actors was involved with that series. This change goes further, since the fictitious film has now been added to the Richard Griffiths page.

Google searches will reveal no hits for either film (may need to refine search with the word 'smallfilms' to avoid flotsam.) And both link to the Bagpuss page at ImDB.

I have reverted the edits to Smallfilms, as it is within my sphere of knowledge, but the other pages are too much for me to take on. It would seem that a blanket revert of this user's edits might be appropriate since they appear to be intended to bring WP into disrepute.

Help? Please?? EdJogg 00:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It certainly looks like this editor has indeed been doing some strange things. Assuming good faith for the moment, it's slightly possible that he/she is creating pages for these articles that reflect their names in other broadcasts, I guess, but I doubt it. I'll drop them a note, and see what the deal is, then go from there. These may need to be AFD'd, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm going to start the AFD process now, and see if the editor comes up with some reasoning through that. These aren't referenced properly or anything. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. EdJogg 09:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The AfD process has been effectively completed. It was decided that all the erroneously-created articles should be 'speedied'. The original author has also been blocked, and the majority of contributions have been reverted by various editors.

EdJogg 01:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

sending e-mails to an editor

I want to send an email to an editor that says on his user page that he will keep emails confidential. However, he doesn't provide a link to his email. How do I access his email, without posting the question on his talk page first? Thanks--Moon Rising 01:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If the "E-mail this user" link in the toolbox does not work, then he has the feature turned off. Adrian M. H. 16:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Small request for proof reading

Who can proof-read Patrick Hunt and Col de Clapier? Thanks a lot. -- 12:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What does "in den Swiss Alps" mean? Changed 'massiv' to 'massif'. — RJH (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any typos, but I don't understand what "is favouring Col de Clapier" means. Perhaps you should rewrite it with another tone.--Kylohk 20:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

When to remove an {{unsourced}} tag

User:AED placed an {{unsourced}} tag on Clarence Carter back in 2006. I've cleaned up the page a bit and added some references, but don't know if that's enough to merit removing the tag. Could someone take a look and let me know?

nb According to user contributions, AED has been inactive for some months. I have placed this question on User talk:AED but don't anticipate a speedy response!

Thanks Paul Tracy_|\talk 21:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the template {{unreferenced}} was the template in use on the page. It is for articles with no references. Since you added some references (thanks!), that tag wasn't needed anymore, but more references are still needed. I replaced the {{unreferenced}} tag with {{refimprove}} tag to help attract more editors to improve this article. Sancho 22:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right. Sorry, I had managed to confuse myself! Thanks for the help. Paul Tracy_|\talk 22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

How to move a category?

I would like to change Category:Ella Fitzgerald songs to Category:Songs recorded by Ella Fitzgerald. How would one go about this?Proabivouac 06:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You can list it at Categories for discussion. Adrian M. H. 17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Article splitting and GFDL

I think the is the appropriate forum. I am going to be splitting up an article in the near future (List of musical works in unusual time signatures). I realise that people usually split articles by cutting the material from the original article and pasting it into the new article, then point to the new article/moved material in the old article, and link the old article in the new one. However, recent discussion at WP:AN#BJAODN Deleted has lead me on a mini-quest to see what exactly has to be done, from a WP:GFDL standpoint, when splitting articles. Is it sufficient to note in the edit summary where the original location of the moved material was? Is this sufficient in terms of authorship attribution (GFDL, 4B)? (Someone could go to the old article to find who added what). Links to a relevant page is fine. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Summary style#Always mention in the edit summary when splitting. A link in the edit summary to the source article is sufficient, since it allows anyone sufficiently interested to track down the original edit. Note that the BJAODN thing is a bit different as, in many cases, the source article is deleted so the attribution would probably have to be detailed. - BanyanTree 04:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What I suspected. Thanks! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 22:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two questions here. What is within the spirit of the license, and what is required by the letter of the license. The letter of the license is tricky, because it is vague in parts and over-specific in parts. We are doing fairly well in pursuing the spirit of attribution (list all authors, preserve edit history), but neither the recommended style for splitting nor pages of small excerpts such as BJAODN -- with or without deletion of the originals -- are 100% GFDL compliant. The best thing to do, would be to fix the GFDL. A second-best thing would be to add functionality to mediawiki that allows explicit merges and splits, and 'does the right thing' with regards to 'History' and other metadata. A split should contain the entire list of authors of the original in its 'history' section -- in this case perhaps what you see when you visit the History tab. A merge should merge the same list. And it is 4I that is tricky, more than 4B (which could forever be the first five contributors). +sj + 02:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

2008 US elections

Is there a policy somewhere on wiki regarding the tone of articles on candidates aiming at the upcoming elections? Here is an example at Rick Goddard (U.S. Politician) where I had asked for some direction at the discussion page but to date no one has replied. My feeling is that this subject falls under a Db for importance at this time...after a successful run at the election, probably an article. I'll watch for reply. Thanks in advance! --Stormbay 21:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it might fall under WP:SPAM. I'm not sure though. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 23:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If the person was made notable due to him running for the election, his article should simply redirect to the election article on Wikipedia, and give him a brief mention there.--Kylohk 17:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Automobile generation

Hi, I was wondering whether or not if there was someone who operates a bot that would be able to convert all instances of Template:Infobox Automobile generation to Template:Infobox Automobile. Both infoboxes are identical to each other, and a consensus has been suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles remove the template. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 05:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no such discussion. The discussion involves converting tables to infoboxes. --Sable232 12:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If they are completely redundant to each other (with no extra parameters), and there is consensus that a separate infobox is not needed for generations, then you can simply redirect one to the other. –Pomte 08:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright halp

Image:Main_Page_Uncyclopedia.png --> the logo and content of this image are creative commons, and the softwre is GPL. So surely this is a free image. I just don't know what to call it :( What should I do? It's all freely licensed material, but different components are released under two different licenses. Milto LOL pia

Bump. Milto LOL pia 21:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Policies for lists/categories of religion/ethnicity vs. occupation

I'm having some difficulty locating a policy regarding when it is acceptible to cross-categorize or cross-list biographies by an intersection of ethnicity/religion versus occupation. (For example: List of Hindu mathematicians, List of Roman Catholic Church artists, List of African American astronauts, List of Jewish economists, List of Native American actors, List of Irish-American mobsters, &c. ... which all seem like suitable topics to me.) I found nothing on this topic under Wikipedia:Categorization of people. But this debate seems to keep coming up in various forms on PROD/CfD/AfD, so some clear guidelines would be useful in making a neutral assessment. Could somebody help? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm actually in the process of writing up a policy proposal for just that, per your suggestion. Essentially just a overcategorization applied and tuned for lists. I'll try to have a prototype ready in a few days, which people can tweak and add to. Hopefully it will help with the millions of list AfDs that have come up in the last month or so. By the way, List of Roman Catholic Church artists wouldn't count in that list you give. It's not really an intersection of religion and occupation. It's more like one in the same. Bulldog123 16:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Great. That'll be helpful. — RJH (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Template

How do I make a musician template? Like the ones you see on the bottom of an article that contains the discography and singles. Quetzal123 02:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Navbox musical artist. –Pomte 08:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use "consultation"

Since the 3 images used to identify the persons in The Bus Uncle has been removed, the article lacks images. I plan to upload 2 new images to be added, and would like to consult whether they fit the fair use criteria, particularly with regards to replaceability.

• One image will show the "press-arranged" meeting between the young man and Bus Uncle, and will be placed in the Aftermath section. The purpose is to illustrate that second incident. I don't think it's replaceable with a free image because it's happened 1 year ago, and only the press will have photographs.

• The second image will be a satirical cartoon showing the Bus Uncle's enthusiasm in cashing in on his 15 minutes of fame. Again, I don't think it's replaceable because if any editor uses Photoshop to create their own satirical image and upload it, they will be expressing their own opinion in doing so, violating NPOV.

Any comments?--Kylohk 11:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Good idea to have both of them in an image. It's important to show them doing something more than just looking at the camera or at each other though. Are they interacting with each other in some meaningful way?
• Depending on what the second image looks like, it may be construed as slander on the Bus Uncle. But go for it if you have time to see how they react.

I would avoid pursuing this until the FAR is over, to prevent the issues from piling on each other. –Pomte 04:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Snake Project

If anyone's not doing anything this week or day, please visit the Snake Project and help out with completion. For information about the Snake Project, please visit my userpage←here

§→Nikro 11:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Category boxes

Hello

I have created my first page and I need to know how to put the Categories list into a box as it is alays seen. I've searched through the help pages but can't find anything. Please help. Thank you.

Blueturtle01 18:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Howdy and congratulations on the new page! Categories are classifications of a page by type (like "Salmon" might be in the "Fish" catgeory). To add a category to an article, just put [[Category:Fish]] at the bottom of the article. The article will also automatically appear in the category. If you want the article to be alphebetized in the category differently from the title (such as wanting "Ethel Merman" to alphebetized as "Merman, Ethel"), then you can pipe the category: [[Category:Singers|Merman, Ethel]]. I have taken the liberty of fixing the cats on the page you created; you can take a look at how it was done there. Let me know if I can help further. Thanks again and keep up the great work! --TeaDrinker 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Co-Dependents Anonymous — why was the article deleted?

Does anyone know what happened to this valuable article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Dependents_Anonymous
It is cached at Google.

— DavidMack 22:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted with the reason WP:CSD#A7 (Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If controversial, or if there has been a previous AfD that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be nominated for AfD instead.) x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(EC) : Well, the deletion log lists it as:

02:04, 2 June 2007 Coelacan (Talk | contribs) deleted "Co-Dependents Anonymous"

It looks like it was speedy deleted under the A7 criteria ("Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.") If you have further questions, I'd contact Coelacan and/or read Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?#What you can do about it. -- MarcoTolo 22:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've taken it up with Coelacan. — DavidMack 22:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please help to verify validity of a page

I don't know if the "Gregory Ellison" page is true or not and I marked it for speedy deletion because it looked to be yet another made-up biography. Now it is contested. Please help.

Zaglith 03:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it too much. The creator has to provide some sort of reliable sources to prove the person's notability; any Survivor winner would be all over Google, but I'm not getting anything that would indicate anything in the article is true. A lot of people will use the 'hangon' template and never provide the needed notability; in that case, it doesn't look like anything is likely to turn up. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. I Googled it too and found a lot of "Gregory Ellison" results, but nothing about Survivor. Yes, I have seen people use the 'hangon' inproperly, but this biography seemed realistic somehow, as opposed to the stanard "My name is Bill. I like Pizza." kind of thing. Thanks for helping.

Zaglith 03:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Frankly, if any Survivor winner didn't have a page already, something's wrong... the reality-show related editors are awfully quick with that. Tony Fox (arf!)

Is the person a winning of the latest survivor? To my knowledge, all winners would be mentioned on the archived websites of each season. Therefore, it should at least be one reliable source. There may also be papers that exist that follows such reality TV series. (Like the Sun in the UK, which follows Big Brother).--Kylohk 20:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it said he had won in 2003, which didn't check out. It's been deleted now, so no worries either way. =) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Baker image

Could someone please untangle the mess regarding Image:Baker.jpg? This was originally a picture of a monkey sent into space on a Jupiter missile. Due to an unfortunate sequence of events it became a picture of a minister of some sort. Needless to say, someone removed it from Jupiter (missile) thinking it a racist joke. But the image of the monkey is the one that matches the image description page! (sdsds - talk) 08:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted to the previous version of the image by clicking (rev) in its file history. –Pomte 08:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope all the different editors who want an image of that name can find other names for their images! (sdsds - talk) 14:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Map images

How do you go about getting the map graphics created. An example of this is Image:EnglandYorkshireTrad.png.

Keith D 14:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you need? I suggest making a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. --Aude (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking of some depicting civil parishes. Keith D 14:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with an article talk page

One particular talk page about a music genre, Talk:Eurodance, over the past month or so, has been getting filled up with disputes between new users. They are adding unsigned, unformatted contents to the top of the page instead of making new sections at the bottom, and some of it is uncivil. What should be done with the talk page? Should the edits be removed as uncivil, should we try to parse it out into numbered sections, or should we leave it alone because we don't want to get involved in it? Squidfryerchef 03:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted pages in my contributions and watchlist

Hello everybody, for the past couple of days I've been tagging a lot of articles with speedy deletion tags. Some where deleted others were not. My question is, the ones that were deleted, how come they disappear from my watchlist and my contributions. I'd like to see those pages in order to see what the comment left by the person who deleted them. --Witchinghour 11:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

They disappear from there because deleted pages become invisible to everyone apart from admins. However, you can go to Special:Watchlist/edit then the pages that were deleted whilst on your watchlist will show up as red links. If you click on one of those red links, you can see the deletion log, which would look something like this:

• <time>, <date> <admin name> (Talk | contribs) deleted "<page name>" (<reason>)

The text given for the reason will show the comment left by the admin. Most likely, this will be the number of the speedy deletion criteria (which can be looked up at WP:CSD) or a brief reason why the page was deleted. Tra (Talk) 12:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for :) --Witchinghour 12:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)