Greetings all.

as the name of this topic implies im trying to figure out how to edit spouse information or how to add spouse information to a person page and then link the two pages mutually. the linking i know how to do. but editing or adding fields (Usually underneath the persons picture) still eludes me. any help is appreciated. sincerely. Vandrake (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you refer to parameters in an infobox which is a form of template. Articles use different infoboxes and many infoboxes have no parameter for a spouse. You can only add something the infobox has a parameter for. Which articles are you interested in? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be right. I was casually looking and an example would be the one for seal (musician) he has a bio history whilst his wife heidi has something completely different for her info and this lists seal as her husband. now is it possible to change an info box template (this would be a major edit) or does the one im mentioning have the spouse option as a parameter? Vandrake (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Seal article uses the "Infobox Musical Artist" infobox. You can see from the talk page for that infobox that the spouse field has been discussed before and it has been decided that the field should not be included. You're welcome to add your comments to the discussion but unless you're very persuasive, nothing is likely to change. Dismas|^(talk) 09:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what questions are asked in the US census? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.185.254 (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read United States Census and 2010 United States Census. If you need more information, ask on the Reference desk. --Teratornis (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, you can ask on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. --Teratornis (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHH (for Wilton Hanford Hanover) is the name of an Australian professional services company.
The firm's website <http://www.whh.com.au> comes first on a Google.com.au search.

The second return from Google.com.au is a Wikipedia disambiguation page that says:

Whh or WHH may refer to
"Whatever Happened, Happened", an episode of the television series Lost
William Henry Harrison, American general and president
Werthamer–Helfand–Hohenberg theory of superconductivity

The third return from Google.com.au is 'thefreedictionary' listing, which includes Wilton Hanford Hanover as one of seven things WHH can stand for.

The directors of WHH ask three questions:
a) is it fair enough to list the firm WHH as a fourth reference on the Wikipedia disambiguation page?
b) if yes to a), is it necessary and permissable to supply an article about WHH to do so?
c) if yes to b), is it advisable to supply an article about a small business that anyone can edit?

Grateful for your views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mya Toska (talk • contribs) 05:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages usually list only pages that are available on Wikipedia. If an article about this company is made available, it should be included in the disambiguation page so that anyone searching for it may find it easily. It is ok to create an article about this company, given that it qualifies our notability guidelines for organizations and companies, and the article should be verifiable (backed up by reliable third party sources) and written from a neutral point of view. However, you might want to take a look at WP:COI before you think about creating the article. Chamal ^talk 05:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is "advisable" for a small business to have an article that "anyone can edit" s not a question WP can answer. If an article is written, it will be open to editing to by anyone. // BL \\ (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:CORP, WP:SPAM. – ukexpat (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia's law of unintended consequences. Astronaut (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is 'Mya Toska'

Thank you Chamal_N for confirming that an article would be necessary for an entry on the disambiguation page, and the useful links. Thank you Bielle, PrimeHunter and Astronaut for providing me with a range of perspectives on the WP framework. When I drilled down through the links you provided, these present a mature set of considerations.

The WHH director's interests largely go to ensuring their trademark is 'unambiguously' recognised. They get threats, for example, that third parties will register their 'whh' domain name in other countries unless money is paid. While that kind of issue may be a point of interest in a more general article in an online encyclopedia, you have raised much better questions than I asked: I will think about these.

It also strikes me that the spirit of your responses is very balanced and congenial as well as collegial. This is my first experience of WP culture, and I like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mya Toska (talk • contribs) 01:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 more thing looking at this live: I should include thanks to ukexpat as well! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mya Toska (talk • contribs) 01:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help! I loved the new mobile format and accidentally "permanently disabled" the format and I want it back on!!! How can I do that?

I love Wiki, use it all the time and instantly fell in love with the new mobile format. I need it back. Please help.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.131.27 (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See if there's an option to reset your phone's browser to its original state, or an option to delete cookies. I know there is such an option on the iPhone's Mobile Safari. Doing so might make mobile Wikipedia "forget" that you clicked the link. If it doesn't, then try the other official mobile website. There are two - http://en.m.wikipedia.org and http://en.mobile.wikipedia.org. The first seems to be designed for iPhones and the like, and the second one for normal mobile phones. If neither of those work, then there are other unofficial websites you can use. Xenon54 (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them. hmwithτ 13:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of the term used in analysis report i.e. CPM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.12.129 (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might find what you are looking for in the article about Radioactive decay. If you cannot find the answer there, you can try asking your question at Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for). I hope this helps. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 07:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that many Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes have links to "reviews" at the bottom. Most include this "Section 31 Review" link:

• Section 31 Review

Which appears to be some kind of toy catalogue.

I've deleted several of these as I come across them, but with 144 episodes, it would be an effort to do this manually.

Is there an easy way to mass delete this crap? Barsoomian (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AWB would be a good tool for this I believe. But make sure that the link doesn't qualify as an external link before you start removing it. Chamal ^talk 10:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

looks like straight spam to me - it's not a review at all - just a link to a commerical catologue. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special:LinkSearch/www.section31.com shows the url's are different and the Internet Archive shows there were reviews in 2006, for example [1] for the example given by Barsoomian. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Dead external links. I haven't found a current url. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The URLs all resolve to the same place - it looks like it was a review site at some stage, then retooled into a estore. The links as they current stand fail WP:EL and I have removed them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Barsoomian (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently trying to add an image to the blair drummond safari park infobox but can't seem to work out the format for this. I already have the image uploaded to wikipedia and know how to get images onto the rest of the page, but I'm really stuck here - can someone please help me with how to add it? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.90.74 (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it for you, when adding an image to an infobox it should be done like this:

|image = Image name.fileformat

And remember that the "i" in |image should be lower case. Hope that helps, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if you want to include an image caption, just add:

|image caption = <insert image caption here>

Good luck, Theleftorium 10:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some infoboxes differ from this though (for example, some require the 'File:' prefix before the image name). For instructions on how to use a particular infobox, take the name and add 'Template:' to the front and search (in this case, Template:Infobox Park). The template pages usually contain documentation on how each parameter should be used. Chamal ^talk 10:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Template#Other usage information shows another way to get to templates used on a given page. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use the pictures on wikipedia on other websites?

See WP:REUSE. Images have tags at the bottom of their page describing their copyright. In general, if an image is released into the public domain, it's free for use wherever. I suggest you look at the link for more information, though. a little insignificant 11:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please take a look at the following two edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CTM&diff=298423087&oldid=298422868 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CTM&diff=300002571&oldid=299137217

To me, these edits look strange. What do you think? -- 62.225.102.138 (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEDAY. Edits have been removed by User:A little insignificant. Chamal ^talk 12:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I would have said non-notable acronym until they attributed it to a group of friends. Vandalism, reverted and warned parties. I suspect they are trying to use Wikipedia to increase the popularity of their new acronym. I'll keep it on my watchlist. a little insignificant 12:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

On the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_von_Uexkull the infobox picture is not working - I have uploaded the file at Commons. Can anyone help? Thanks a lot! 195.4.0.199 (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No such image exists at Commons. Are you sure you had completed the uploading properly? If you have uploaded it, it is possible that you may have mispelled the name. Please log back in at Commons and check your uploaded images. Chamal ^talk 14:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it - the image file name uses caps for the file extension, so the ibox code needed editing accordingly: commons:File:Jakob_von_Uexkull_portrait.JPG. – ukexpat (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that a lot of articles about Buddhist monks contain "thero" in the title after the name. Isn't this contrary to WP:NCNT? Should these articles be renamed to just the name or is it appropriate to keep them this way? Chamal ^talk 14:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Thero means or what status it has as part of a name, but my search [2] only found 2 or 3 cases. Are you seeing more? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means something like 'monk'... I don't know if there's an exact word in English. Anyway, last time I checked (some time ago), there were more than that; maybe they were renamed or deleted. Weird... Chamal ^talk 02:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly new here, so I was wondering if this: User:Pianocrasher is a violation of something, because it just looks like advertising.. RichsLaw (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if it is advertising, but I think it violates Wikipedia's user page guidelines. Others have already commented about this on the user's talk page. Astronaut (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it for G11 speedy deletion. If it does get deleted and he wants it back, it can be userfied at an admin's discretion. – ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK, couldn't find user page policies (though I didn't look too hard). Thanks for the clarification. RichsLaw (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can usually take a guess at the shortcut for most policies and guidelines, in this case WP:UP. – ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if guessing fails, check the index. Algebraist 18:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On several occasions I have seen people request an external link be "verified" or "validated" (for example: see Talk:Guideline). Is such a thing even necessary? What should I do when I see such requests? Astronaut (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure. I know that people may request that someone check a suspect link for them that they may not be able to check themselves (since they may be at work, etc.). Or, someone may want a third opinion to see if the link complies with WP:EL. However, I don't know what the IP on the Guideline talk page was looking for. TNXMan 16:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is registered in China so maybe their access is blocked by Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China. The url is not on the article and 7 minutes later the IP made an edit [3] which hints they may have been confused and should have posted to Talk:Medical guideline instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to access help queries that are older than 3 days? Is there an archive of old queries? I posted something a week or so ago and would like to re-refer to the response. Thanks. redherring (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blue/grey box at the top right hand corner of this page has a link to the archives page where you can search or review the archives. Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives. – ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've found what I was looking for. 88.106.151.99 (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Conway Hall ([4])was deleted in 2008 for some sort of copyright contravention. I wish to recreate the article and have access to all the pictures with permission from the managers. How do I prove that I have permission to use the pics and so avoid the article being deleted again? redherring (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright owners should follow the process set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this right. I put all the pics I want to use in the article(s) into the Commons and then send an email from admin@conwayhall.org.uk to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org referring to the names of the pics and that we want to use and the fact that we own the copyright? Is that OK? - redherring (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The email needs to specifically state that you are releasing the pictures under an appropriate free license. Algebraist 23:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Yes, but it's just a bit more complicated. What you do is upload the pictures to Commons and put {{OTRS pending}} in the Summary field. Make sure that the permission is acceptable to Commons. GFDL, public domain and Creative Commons are, while "Wikipedia only" is not. (If you can choose it when uploading, it's probably acceptable.) Then send the email (including any previous correspondence and links to each image) with the copyright holder's full statement of permission. An editor will check the email. If it is deemed acceptable, then the other editor will replace the {{OTRS pending}} tag with {{PermissionOTRS}}. Then your images can be used without problems. This was a paraphrase of Commons:OTRS. Xenon54 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get all that. Complicated isn't it! - redherring (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up bazedoxifene in Wikipedia and there it was. This is an estrogen substitute. Estrogen, being a naturally occurring molecule, cannot be patented. Drug companies heavily promote these estrogen substitutes, some of which have harmed people considerably, because these are patented money-makers. Research literature confirms that estrogen is safer and more efficacious than its substitutes, but they are more expensive and make more money for their owners. Is there any kind of ongoing discussion of the possible use of Wikipedia to promote pharmaceutical products or medical procedures which may or may not be good for one's health?

Thanks.

Laura Fisher (contact information removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.110.231 (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the content of an article, for example if you believe that an article's text violates our neutrality policy, then the best place to raise the issue is the talk page of the article. If you have access to reliable sources which contradict or improve upon information in an article, you can cite those sources to improve the article yourself. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article, and removed the three references cited: one was no longer existing (and I did a search on the news organisation's website, but couldn't find an alternative URL); the other 2 citations were both from the company's own websites, so not a neutral POV. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 23:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a citation for EU approval. Also, Bazedoxifene is the generic name, rather than the trademarked name. From what I can see of wikipedia, that's OK. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 00:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ADVOCACY. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a platform for explicitly advocating causes, no matter how worthy. However, we can document every notable cause in a neutral way. For example, suppose I feel strongly that everybody should slash their carbon footprint by 90% or more as soon as possible. I cannot just write that in a Wikipedia article. Instead I can contribute to articles that document the various methods to cut greenhouse gas emissions such as wind power. On Wikipedia, we don't tell people how to live their lives, but we can explain the various alternatives, the probable consequences of choosing each alternative, and we can also document all the controversies. The trick on Wikipedia is to write for your opponents - we have to find a way to state the facts about a situation which all sides of a controversy can agree is a fair statement. Since nobody talks this way in real life, it can be quite a challenge on Wikipedia sometimes. If on the other hand you believe The Constitution is not a suicide pact and you find Wikipedia's neutrality policy too confining, there are lots of other wikis which cater to various points of view. For example, you might find a wiki you like in Wikiindex:Category:Health. --Teratornis (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]