Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:HELPDESK)
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Help Desk
  • This page is only for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. For other types of questions, use the search box or the Reference desk.
  • Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
  • We are all volunteers, so sometimes replies can take some time. Please be patient. Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.

  • New users: While this is a good place to ask questions, you may also ask your questions at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with editing, article creation, and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.
Are you in the right place?
Search Frequently Asked Questions
Search the help desk archives

July 19[edit]

Collapsing tables[edit]

At {{Two-innings cricket match collapsible}}, I'm trying to make it so that the title row (with the team names) and the scores from each team are shown when the table is collapsed. I'd then want it to display match information between after the first line of scores (and before the second scores), and after the second line of scores.

Whilst collapsed:

Whilst not collapsed:

{{Single-innings cricket match}} shows an example of this working, but without a second innings, if that helps. Thanks - 97rob (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Request deletion of incorrect birth date on wikepedia person profile Nivedita Bhattacharya[edit]

I hereby request deletion of incorrect birth date on wikepedia person profile Nivedita Bhattacharya.

The following should be deleted.

Born: July 21, 1970 (age 43), Lucknow

Page LInk:

deletable material is in bold Nivedita Bhattacharya Actress NIVEDITA BHATTACHARYA is a renowned Indian actress. She was born in Lucknow, home to legendary exponents of Muslim elegiacal poetry and many eminent littérateurs of Urdu. Wikipedia Born: July 21, 1970 (age 43), Lucknow Spouse: Kay Kay Menon Nominations: Star Guild Award for Best Actor in a Negative Role — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundaryalahiri (talkcontribs) 05:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

To Soundaryalahiri: This is from Google's Knowledge Graph, which includes information from a variety of sources, not just Wikipedia. The article at Nivedita Bhattacharya currently shows a different birthdate (though there doesn't seem to be a source to verify it). Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The unsourced birth date has been deleted as per the policy on biographies of living persons. The word "renowned" has been deleted as overly promotional. The article needs improvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
It should be noted that since Google Knowledge Graph uses Wikipedia as one of its sources [1] it cannot be cited as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Preuss filter[edit]

Occasionally, when I am patrolling the edit filter logs, I come across a puzzling filter called a "Preuss Filter". From what I can see here, it disallows the text "Joy Richard Preuss Money, Joy Richard Preuss Valuta Powerful Micro Computer is My Manager World News BBC News--Passengerpigeon (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)". What is the reason behind this edit filter? I assume the text was repeatedly inserted into articles, but by whom and why? Passengerpigeon (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Passengerpigeon: In that log entry, click "filter 613" to see the details of the filter. This one is just checking for the use of ~~~~ in an article. It is not looking for particular words or names. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I know. The preuss filter is hidden from public view, but I did see it go off in the edit filter log. Passengerpigeon (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
A search for "Preuss" in the Wikipedia namespace finds Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Joy Richard Preuss. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
This filter is not hidden from public view. As John of Reading says, it checks for new users adding their signature in articles. It adds a tag to histories so that patrollers can go in and remove the signature if there was no good reason for it. The text you saw was tagged because it was signed, not because of anything in the text. This filter does not actually disallow anything, it just adds a tag. SpinningSpark 08:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The edit filter log for this user shows that they triggered both filters, both 613, signing in articles, and filter 534, the one found by John of Reading above, which does disallow the edit. Passengerpigeon linked the wrong one above. SpinningSpark 08:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

creating a book[edit]


I apologise for my ignorance.

I would like to create & download a Wikipedia “book.”

I've tried to create a book, by clicking on "Add this category to your book” in order to add all articles in that category to the book. The book I downloaded included the main article, but only the titles of the related articles.

Is it possible to create a book (which includes the other articles, and not only their titles) simply by adding the relevant Category?? Or do I have to add each individual Wikipedia Article to the book??

In advance, I thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It worked fine for me when I just tested it on a fairly large category. Can you please provide more informtion? What category are you trying to make into a book? SpinningSpark 18:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Note, you'll have to create an account and request confirmed status before you're able to create a book. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
That is not so. Logged out users can create books. There is not a link in the sidebar, but they can go to WP:Books and click "Create a book". SpinningSpark 20:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
This will need to be adjusted. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
No, the guideline is correct. An IP cannot save a book (on Wikipedia), but they can certainly create one and download it (whence they can save it locally). SpinningSpark 21:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

BeginnerW (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your help. The Category I'm trying to make into a book is Christianity. All I get is the main article on Christianity, followed by pages after pages of a list (titles) of related articles.

I created such a book at User:Spinningspark/Books/Christianity. As I say, it worked fine for me. The book rendered fine both in Pediapress and as a downloaded pdf. I think your problem is that one of the pages in Category:Christianity is Index of Christianity-related articles which is indeed a list of article names. If you keep on turning the pages of your book you will eventually come to the next article Outline of Christianity. Perhaps you want to remove the index article from your book. You might also like to note that adding a category to a book does not include pages in the sub-categories. Each sub-category has to be added separately if wanted. SpinningSpark 01:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Proper depiction of the Argentine flag[edit]

Dear Wikipedia,

Until recently, all or at least most of your representations of the Argentine flag before 1985 correctly referred to the then prevailing "old" flag, i.e. the blue-white-blue triband without the sun, also referred to as the "civil flag" (, the one with the sun, also referred to as the "war flag" (, having been introduced only in 1985 as the official flag of Argentina (cf. the law of 1985 imposing the sun on all Argentine flags).

It now seems that in several instances, e.g. on articles relating to past sporting competitions, the "old" flag has been removed and replaced with the "new" one, i.e. the depiction of the Argentine flag is being standardized (with the sun) across the spectrum of historical periods without regard to which version was then prevailing. See e.g. the standardized representations of the flag in this article: Fortunately, this is not the case on all articles, where the flag is (sometimes) still correctly depicted in a differentiated manner depending on the period in question:

I assume the recent changes in the depiction of the Argentine flag before 1985 are due to an incorrect systematic linkage to the "new" flag file instead of to the "old" flag file as used to be the case. Please can someone help fix this "bug" (and restore some historical accuracy)?

Sincerely, Martín — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG says "use historical flags in contexts where the difference matters" giving the difference between the USSR and the Russian Federation as an example. The unstated corollary to that is that historical flags presumably should not be used where there is no difference in the state represented by it. How would you suggest handling articles that span the historical period and the modern period? For instance List of FIFA World Cup finals would have to use two different flags for Argentina in the same list if the historic flag was used. To me, that seems a very confusing thing to do. SpinningSpark 18:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I completely disagree. That would show the US Medal winners in the 1900 Olympics under the 50 star US flag, something that probably didn't exist in the lifetime of most of the competitors.Naraht (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The US flag icon doesn't have enough pixel detail to provide a count of stars. The same flag icon is used for American Civil War and for World War Two, and in neither of them can I count the stars, only recognize that it looks like a US flag. In any case, the purpose of the flag icon is as a symbol of the nation, whether the United States or Argentina, not to define the flag in detail. Argentina is the same nation before and after 1985, just as the United States is the same nation (even with different boundaries) in 1865 and in 1945. As SpinningSpark says, the MOS says to use historical flags only when the difference matters, and in the cases of Argentina and the US in sports, it doesn't matter. (It does matter between the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Fine, replace the United States with Canada which has also changed its flag since 1900 without significant change in boundaries. You'd have the Red and White Maple leaf used to denote the country in the 1900 olympics?Naraht (talk)

Thanks, Naraht, that was exactly my point. Does Spinningspark suggest to use the current South African flag in relation to events dating from before 1994 or the black, red and gold flag for pre-1945 Germany? In most instances Wikipedia correctly distinguishes flags and uses them appropriately in their historical context, why not do so consistently across the spectrum? Regards, Martin Btw, the link List of FIFA World Cup finals correctly depicts two different flags for Argentina (as it does for Hungary and Italy) depending on the period considered. This is a good example of what should be done on all Wikipedia pages, where applicable.

Current Events Portal[edit]

My purpose in writing is to inquire about the use of the Current Events Portal. I am confused because the portal is constantly reporting tragedies and incidents of death, which, although tragic, don't seem to qualify as "current events." In a world of 8 billion people, there are bound to be accidents. It is my opinion that it is unnecessary and irresponsible to look at every single country that exists and report on every single bus that crashes within them.

I would submit that there should be a separate page for tragedies. It is imperative that we celebrate the lives of those who are taken from us early, and that we mourn their deaths, if we are to progress as a race. But to inundate a Current Events Portal with tragic accidents is to ignore the positive things that are happening all over the globe every day.

Wikipedia is something I enjoy, but it is not something for which I can take responsibility, and so I am humble in my suggestion. It may fall on deaf ears and that is okay. I simply feel that the media's preoccupation with death and destruction is a detriment to the human race as a whole.

Thank you for reading.

You might want to discuss your points with the editors of the page at Portal talk:Current events. SpinningSpark 22:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


I Am New To Wikipedia, And Am Wondering Where To Begin, And What is Acceptable . Thank You.

See your talk page. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

July 20[edit]

Detect a redirect[edit]

Is there any way to detect when a page was reached from a redirect, and then transclude a template with different parameters based on that? The page is reachable from a few different names, and it would be consistent to show the embedded template slightly different for each. Thanks! Anterras (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I would not think so. A definitive answer could be found at WP:VPT, but I believe that a page is displayed without regard for what link was used to reach that page. In principle the information is available because, for example, Sasquatch shows Bigfoot with the note "(Redirected from Sasquatch)" at the top. However, there is no way a template can access that, I think. One issue is that pages are cached and readers see the html from cache. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)



Excuse me, but could you rephrase that into an actual question? Also, you don't need to use all capital letters. Dustin (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It appears that you are talking about our article titled Joy of Cooking (band). (That final word is important. There is, not surprisingly, a book of that name.) I suggest you make you comment on the Talk page of that article, rather than here. And when you do, please don't type in all capital letters. On the Internet that is quite hard to read, and can be perceived as shouting. Also, please remember to sign your posts. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are right in that the link in the article on the band is to the wrong Philip Smith - it links to a former Principal Trumpet with the New York Philharmonic. As we don't have an article on the musician in the band, and are unlikely to create one (I doubt that he meets our notability criteria), I'll remove the misleading link. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention — removals by non-administrators[edit]

I sometimes notice listings on WP:UAA, particularly in the bot-originated section which when looked at by a human are obviously not policy violations. Is it OK for me to remove such listings myself to help with the backlog, or are only administrators allowed to remove listings? Thanks. RationalBlasphemist (Speak) 04:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It should be ok, but I suggest you ask at the UAA talk page first, there may be some technical tasks that need carrying out, such as category removal (see Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Instructions) that make it more complicated than simply deleting the report. Make sure you fully understand the UAA policy before taking on this task. SpinningSpark 09:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I'll ask there. RationalBlasphemist (Speak) 09:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Faulty plagiarism[edit]

I am an employee of Ananey Communications. I was put in charge of creating a Wiki page for a show Ananey produces called "Street Food Around the World." I have yet to submit the article, but I have uploaded it as a draft-and the CorenSearchBot popped up and said it was reviewing the content for plagiarized material from an unaccredited article ( )and then subsequently deleted it. Ananey owns the show and owns the rights to the show and because I work directly for them we found this message concerning since it is our content. The website has seemed to intercept the information word for word from something we have published in the past. I was wondering what we could do about this? I do not want to cite them 1. Because they are clearly a spam website looking to get credited when they themselves have plagiarized content and 2. Because we own the rights to the show and produce the show so we should be able to protect/publish our own words.

The page said it was deleted and this is inexcusable seeing as the article that it says we plagiarized is not a legitimate website!

Please let me know what can be done about this before I submit the article for review.

Thanks, Lisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lissheff (talkcontribs) 07:09, 20 July 2014

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest — editors on Wikipedia are not allowed to edit articles that they have a conflict of interest in. Being that you are an employee of the company you wish to write about, that constitutes a conflict of interest. RationalBlasphemist (Speak) 07:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, you are right to say that the content of the page is illegally plagiarised from some official page of your employer. Not surprisingly, our bot failed to realise that.
But disregarding the tvdb page, if some impartial editor creates a Wikipedia article about your employer's show, they will not be allowed to include content which is copied from the official page, as that would be a breach of copyright (as well, probably, as unacceptably promotional content). Maproom (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Text which is similar to that on an existing website is assumed to be copyrighted because usually it is. Some websites provide a license which allows reuse here, but that is rare and unlikely in this case. Copyright is a complex business and it's hard to make much sense of WP:C, but it has the story. In principle it is possible for someone who owns the copyright for some material to make that material available for use here, but for a case like this that is unlikely. An article here has to be written from scratch. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Lisa. Leaving aside the conflict of interest (which means that your employers have given you a task which it is almost impossible for you to carry out), there are two different reasons why using material directly from your website is unlikely to be satisfactory. The first is the issue of copyright which has already appeared. The fact that some other site may already be infringing your copyright is irrelevant: Wikipedia will not accept text in which anybody has copyright, unless the copyright owner explicitly releases it not just for use on Wikipedia but under a licence at least as liberal as CC-BY-SA; so your company would either have to release it publically on your website, or send a message to Wikipedia as described at donating copyright materials. But even if you did all that, it is unlikely that material from your website would be appropriate in tone or content for a Wikipedia article. A company's website is quite properly partisan and promotional. Wikipedia articles are required to be neither.
If you think your company's show merits a Wikipedia article (which is entirely a question of whether it has been written about in reliable sources unconnected with your company, and not in the slightest to do with your company's wishes), then your best course is to assemble those reliable sources, and place a request at requested articles, so that an uninvolved editor may, if they choose, create such an article. --ColinFine (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Lissheff: I think a misspelling of your user name may have interfered with attempts to contact you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


I have received a message from Wikipellia about removing content from an article December 2013. I have never read the article. I have never edited any posts or articles. I am confused why this was sent to me.

Hello, ‎ You are editing without using a Wikipedia account. This means that the only way of identifying you is by your IP address. Unfortunately, your IP address can change and then another address that was previously used by someone else is given to you. Or, alternatively, you may be using a computer that someone else was previously using to edit Wikipedia. In any case, if you have never edited this article, it's likely that the message was meant for someone else. If you make a Wikipedia account and log in before editing, you won't have this problem again. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion[edit]

I cannot understand why the page for "David Bensoussan" has been deleted. Is there a way to put it back?

Dr David Bensoussan Montreal — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

  • The article was deleted under the Proposed Deletion process, with a rationale of "non-notable. Fails WP:PROF". Articles deleted via that process can be restored on request Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, but having reviewed the deleted content, I should warn you that you will need to improve the article to meet the Notability guidelines, of which WP:PROF is the most applicable. Failure to meet the notability standards may result in it being deleted again after a discussion. Also, check out WP:COI and Wikipedia:Autobiography before making your request. Monty845 14:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Greek speaker needed to check change of etymology on bruxism[edit]

Previous etymology appeared in a few sources, although no inline citation. I do not know if the change is correct or not. Please clarify, thanks. (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple Incorrect Information About Me[edit]

The user also cross posted at the more appropriate Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#David_Tillinghast_Multiple_Inaccuracies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following article contains major inaccuracies:

David Tillinghast

It appears that someone has combined multiple biographies and artwork from the web into a single article. This has recently caused embarrassment when this wiki article was used by conference organizers to present a biography and artwork to introduce me as a keynote speaker at a national conference.

Below is a comprehensive biography of mine for comparison:

“David Tillinghast graduated from Art Center College of Design in 1985 with a BFA in Illustration, Awarded With Distinction.

He has been a regular contributor to many of the major newspapers and magazines around the United States, and his work has appeared within the marketing materials for corporations such as Visa, Freddie Mac, and Harvard University. In a highly prolific twenty-nine year career, he has worked extensively in most major markets within the Illustration industry, including Advertising, Editorial, Book Publishing, Design Collateral, and Corporate Illustration.

His work has been selected for inclusion in industry publications including Communication Arts Illustration, Graphis Design, Graphis Logo, HOW Self-Promotion, Print's Best Booklets and Brochures, Print's Best Illustration and Photography, Print Regional Design Annual, Society of Illustrators Los Angeles, Society of Illustrators New York, and Step-By-Step Graphics. He has also appeared in galleries around Los Angeles. He is currently an Associate Professor and lead advisor for the Art Center College of Design’s Illustration department.

His association with Designmatters, Art Center’s social impact department, has taken him to the United Nations as a delegate for a project supporting the Millennium Development Goals, and their most recent collaboration, Uncool: The Anti-Gun Violence project, produced a series of children’s books that were adopted into local Public Libraries.

He is the recipient of numerous awards, most recently for Art Direction from the AIGA for Mark and the Jellybean Monster by Ariel Lee, which was selected as one of the fifty best books of 2012.

Partial List of Clients: Time, Inc., Business Week, Fortune Magazine, Texas Monthly, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Bantam Publishing, Viking/Penguin, Harper/Collins, McGraw-Hill Inc, 3COM, IBM, Freddie Mac, Hewlett-Packard, Visa, Motorola, Lucent Technologies, Nortel, Solectron, Xerox Corporation, Harvard Business School, Vanderbilt University.” Just a further head’s up: I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, and lived in New Zealand for a time as a child. I have been a resident of the greater Los Angeles area since 1982. I have no children. I was married for nearly twenty years, but my late wife passed away in 2011 from breast cancer. My mother is one of the last surviving Air Force Service Pilots, whom received the Congressional Gold Medal in 2010.

Can someone correct this article?

David Tillinghast Los Angeles, Ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtillinghast (talkcontribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Italic title[edit]

I'm trying to make the full title of The Real Thing: In Performance (1964–1981) appear in italics. At present "(1964–1981)" isn't italicized, presumably because parentheses are read as disambiguators (e.g. "(album)") rather than part of the title; in this case though it's part of the title and should be in italics. {{italictitle|all=yes}} doesn't seem to be working. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Only the latest {{italictitle}} template takes effect, and there is one contained in the infobox. That superseded the one you added. I moved it below the infobox to fix that. Huon (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Paul Nicholson ( Darts Player)[edit]

How can I upload a picture for his infobox.

Resolved via IRC: Images should be released under a free license such as the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. If such an image has been found, it can be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. Huon (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Creating a draft to work on an existing article[edit]

Hi all,

I have just copied the article NP-complete to Draft:NP-complete to work on it. It seems however that it's not the right way to do this kind of thing, since CorenSearchBot has detected it as a suspicious copy of the NP-complete article. What is the best practice in this case?

Thanks! Pintoch (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason why you don't simply edit the article in article space, which will maintain the history? If you edit the article in draft space, then there will be history merge issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Resolved via IRC: The best practice is to edit the live article instead, both to ease collaboration with other editors and to avoid the licensing issues inherent in copying within Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Spam-like entry on my user talk page[edit]

A short while ago I received an e-mail message from the English Wikipedia, containing some commercial text, telling me that my user talk page was changed. It turned out to be a text, offering me a free Toyota Aygo car because I changed something a page about this car and the related Peugeot 107 and Citroën C1. I removed this entire nonsensical entry.

First of all, except for a pretty long "wikipause", I am mainly working on another Wikipedia language version, and only occasionally on the English one. So I am not quite sure whether this is the correct place to complain about this obviously unwanted input.

It does not seem to be real spam, as author's own authoring history is very limited.

I would suggest that this user be warned to stop this kind of unwanted editing.

HHahn (Talk) 20:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It was a Wikipedia:WikiLove message, I'm sure made in good faith, if a little weird. He is not offering to give you an actual car. Яehevkor 20:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, that he did not actually intend to give me a car, was obvious. But to me it suggests that the writer is a sort of schoolboy who does not yet understand very well what an "encyclopaedia" is. He seems to be pretty new here, and if he repeats this sort of behaviour, I guess he should better be told to stop this nonsense.
HHahn (Talk) 15:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you retrieve a Wikipedia page using its Page ID number?[edit]

How retrieve a Wikipedia page using it Page ID number?

For example, I have a list of Page Ids: 768770 20258156

How do I search by Page ID and retrieve the Wikipedia page>

21:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

One way is to use the following form of URL: Just substitute the page ID you want for the last bit. Rwessel (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Email address[edit]

I'd like to register my email address, but i never seem to get the confirmaton notice. RWCasinoKid (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@RWCasinoKid: Are you going to the "Preferences" button on the top right of the screen and adding an email? I believe that your email should appear at the bottom of Special:Preferences, if done correctly. Piguy101 (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
You might also want to check your spam/junk mail folder. If your spam filter is set to aggressively delete suspected spam, you might want to try turning it off for a while, or add and to your spam whitelist. SpinningSpark 07:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
If googlemail think wikimedia is a spammer, I'll try it out. RWCasinoKid (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I've checked the spam folder and the WM confirmation code isn't there either, maybe you can help me with that. RWCasinoKid (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've switched to yahoo mail and it worked there and now I'm confirmed. RWCasinoKid (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

July 21[edit]


Could someone please put File:Little Athletics Australia Logo 2.png in the article Little Athletics as I don't know how to

Yes check.svg Done It looks like HueSatLum did it. Piguy101 (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Moving one's own user subpage that has sub-subpages[edit]

I'm an autoconfirmed user (not an admin). I just moved a subpage of my own User page; the subpage had several sub-subpages under it. To my surprise, I was given neither the option to move all of the sub-subpages along with the moved subpage, nor the option to move the subpage without leaving a redirect behind. Is this normal? If so, would you kindly explain why those options were not offered to me? Thanks. — Jaydiem (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's normal. At present, only admins have the options to suppress a redirect and to move subpages when moving a page. (There have been periodic proposals to unbundle these rights and give them to selected non-admin users; one such is here.) The main reasons, I think, for restricting these options to trusted users is that (1) inappropriate page moving is a favorite activity of some vandals, and we don't want to make it easier for them, and (2) the need for the options doesn't really arise that often in most people's normal course of editing. As things stand, it's pretty easy to just ask an admin for help if one needs to move many subpages or to tag an unwanted userspace redirect for U1 speedy deletion. Deor (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for responding! I agree with the concern about potential "move vandalism", but I think everyone could agree that this concern doesn't apply within the subpage hierarchy of a user's own User page. Is there any technical impediment to making that exception? In other words, are "move" permissions granular enough to be applied conditionally only to some cases within a namespace, rather than uniformly throughout a namespace? If it's technically possible, has such an exception already been proposed?
P.S. ~ It would be helpful if you could "ping" or "mention" me when you reply, so I get a notification of it. One easy way to do this, if I'm not mistaken, is to include [[User:Username]] (in my case, "[[User:Jaydiem]]") in the edit summary when you post your reply. Thanks, — Jaydiem (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

How to create a Wiki[edit]

HI team,

I have recently joined Wikipedia and have needed to (as per the requirements) make ten edits and wait four days before my account will be valid. I have done so and now want to know how to get started on creating my own Wiki entries. Your help with this will be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryansauer (talkcontribs) 06:54, 21 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Your account is autoconfirmed, there are helpful links on your talk page about getting started. Mlpearc (open channel) 07:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
You also need to understand the difference between Wiki and Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Are interviews considered original research?[edit]

If I were to interview an executive producer of an old TV show (late 1980s) and then publish the interview on something like Blogspot, could I cite this in the article about the TV show? I'm asking because I'm at a deadend; I want to include certain production information, but can't find any sources. Is this acceptable? (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, in general blogs are not acceptable as reliable sources. There are some exceptions but they almost certainly do not apply in this case. See WP:UGC. SpinningSpark 08:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: This is for verifiability reasons, correct? What if the interview were video-recorded, and the recording were made available online? Granted that would be a primary source, which must be handled carefully, but I would think it'd be more verifiable than a mere blog post. — Jaydiem (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not so much verifiability as reliability. Any self-published source has not gone through the editorial and fact-checking processes we expect of a RS. As you say, WP:PRIMARY is an issue here too. I think it comes down to a careful consideration of what information is being extracted from this interview. If it is basic facts that the producer could be treated as expert in, such as how many cameras in what studio, then it is probably ok. If it is a bunch of negative innuendo about the star of the cast then it probably isn't. Opinions and synthesis need to be filtered through an independent reliable source before finding there way into Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 21:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Tag or template Removing[edit]

what is the policy of removing tag or template Amt000 (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I presume that you are talking about maintenance templates? Any editor can remove that tags after fixing the problem to which they relate. However, if someone disputes that the problem is fixed and reinstates the tags you should beging a discussion rather than edit war over the tags. SpinningSpark 09:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


I am really struggling to upload photos. Could I please have some help? I have read the tutorials but despite using what I believe to be the correct syntax, it doesn't seem to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrisjody29 (talkcontribs) 10:23, 21 July 2014‎

Please explain in more detail where you are having problems. What method are you using to upload? What stages have you gone through? Are you getting any error messages? SpinningSpark 11:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanking someone for an edit.[edit]

I've gotten thanked for edits in the past, and now I can't find out how to thank someone else. What preference do I need to set or where do I need to select?Naraht (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I just figure out that I only get thank for edits that are of *other* registered users. The first page or so of the revision history that I saw, the only edits were my own and IPs.Naraht (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
To thank someone you need to be looking at the diff of the edit you want to thank them for. There is "(thank)" link in the header, right after the "(edit)" and "(undo)" links. SpinningSpark 14:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The option also shows up for me in the revision history as long as the edit was done by another registered user.Naraht (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Shell House Massacre[edit]

I don't where the hell you idiots get your information from? The Zulu's march that day to honor King Goodwell Zwalitini!! Some of us where witness to those events. Get your facts straight. The Zulus were not head towards Shell house, they were head to Johannesburg library were the king planned to address his nation. You bunch of FOOLS!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

You can see where we get our information from, by looking at the sources cited in the article. If you can cite a reliable source saying that no Zulus approached Shell House that day, it can be added to the article. Maproom (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
A little civility wouldn't go amiss here. You can't expect volunteers to be helpful when you throw around words like "idiots" and "fools".--ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep. Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

Self-referencing in Wikipedia[edit]

I was under the impression that articles written in Wikipedia are not supposed to be self-referential (i.e., they are not supposed to make reference to Wikipedia itself). Is my understanding correct or incorrect? Is there any Wikipedia policy about this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That's correct; it's discussed at WP:CIRCULAR, part of the Verifiability policy. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
There is not a blanket ban on this. Wikipedia has an article on Wikipedia, as do other notable aspects of the project, such as Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, and notable events concerning Wikipedia (Category:Wikipedia). What we should not do is write articles in a way that only make sense if they are actually still on Wikipedia as this obstructs free reuse of the material. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. SpinningSpark 14:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This shouldn't discourage anyone from including appropriate wikilinks or listing related WP articles in a "See also" section. These links make it easier for those readers who wish to move to other WP articles having some connection to the one they started with: Noyster (talk), 14:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, all. I am not referring to articles that are actually about Wikipedia (or Wikipedia-related topics). I am talking about the issue of "circularity", as mentioned above by John of Reading. So, if I remove a statement in an article because it is a circular Wikipedia reference, and then another editor reverts me, what can be done? I claim that it is a circular Wikipedia reference; they claim not. Who is the arbiter of whether or not it is a self-referencing circular statement? This is the article: Deaths in 2014. At the very beginning of that article, it states: "This is a chronology of notable deaths in 2014. Names are reported under the date of death. Names under each date are reported in alphabetical order by family name or pseudonym. Deaths of notable animals and other organisms are also reported here if they first have their own article." (emphasis added). I removed the (bolded) statement, since it (obviously) means: "if they first have their own article here on Wikipedia" (emphasis added). My edit summary stated: "Wikipedia is not supposed to be self-referential." Another editor reverted me, with an edit summary that states: "It's not self-referential, it's a condition for listing determined by consensus." To me, it is very clearly a self-reference. Whether or not it is a "condition for listing determined by consensus" is not relevant; it may very well be a Wikipedia condition for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. But that does not mean that it is not circular and self-referential. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
You have misunderstood WP:CIRCULAR. What that is saying is that the references in an article should not include other Wikpedia articles, although of course they can legitimately use references which are in turn included in those other Wikipedia articles. The situation you are talking about in Deaths in 2014 is about what is considered notable in that context, and the definition used there, of having its own Wikipedia article, is consistent with that used regularly in Wikipedia, for example in numerous list pages and in lists of "notable residents" in articles on places. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, let's completely forget the policy about "Circularity". I am referring to the common definition of the ordinary word "circular". And, I guess I am referring to this policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. Is not this applicable to the item I mentioned above?
Let's pretend that that Wikipedia article (Deaths in 2014) was printed on a piece of paper. A reader is reading that hard-copy print version of that article. They have no idea where the article came from. (In other words, I am making an analogy to ripping out a page from the Encyclopedia Britannica and giving that ripped-out page to someone for him to read.) The reader reads the following statement: "Deaths of notable animals and other organisms are also reported here if they first have their own article." (emphasis added). They would have no idea what this sentence means. How would they know what that means? This is the issue/problem of circularity and self-referencing that I am referring to. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Your reader will have the same problem with "see also" sections. We do not apply this rule to hatnotes and see also sections for obvious reasons. SpinningSpark 16:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I am (clearly) not referring to either hat notes or "see also" sections. I am referring to the main body text of an article; its lead, no less. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
You can use {{selfref}} to mark the offending section of text in this particular case. SpinningSpark 16:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. So, what does that do, exactly? I clicked the link and read it; but I couldn't understand what they were getting at. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
All it does is mark the text as class="selfreferences". Reusers such as book publishers can then choose to automatically remove all such text, by defining that class as display="none" in css for instance. If the article is going to use as a selection criteria that entries must have a Wikipedia article then that should be explicitly stated in the lede per MOS:SAL. That makes a self-reference of some kind unavoidable and it is therefore a recognised exception. A more fundamental question is should that actually be the selection criterion? It makes the criteria very definite and easy to police, but on the other hand it excludes entries that may well be verifiably notable but happen to not yet have an article. Anyway, selection criteria is an issue for the page editors to discuss on the talk page. There is not one universal set for all articles, see WP:LSC. SpinningSpark 17:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. So, you are saying that this policy, MOS:SAL, is an exception to the policy Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid? And that, in such a case, it is standard practice for the Wikipedia article to explicitly state that the criteria of the article is Wikipedia-based criteria? Is that correct? If so, do you know of other examples of articles that follow this same practice? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Well yes, it's an exception, although it doesn't say it explicitly. It's a natural consequence of the need to state the criteria. The more usual criteria is notability for all the entries, regardless of whether they have a Wikipedia article, although in practice the two are often much the same thing. This is by no means the only page with the Wikipedia article criterion: this search on just the first page of results turns up list of botanists, list of twelve-step groups, list of deaths by motorcycle accident, list of Latvians, list of dance organizations, list of collectibles, list of former Special Air Service personnel, glossary of education terms (S), list of astronomy websites, and list of minicomics creators. SpinningSpark 20:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hello, Joseph! Let me see if I can explain.

There are a great many "list" articles on Wikipedia; "Deaths in 2014" is but one of these. In managing the content of list articles, one of the key concerns is setting forth the criteria for what items should be included in a given list, and what shouldn't. Beyond the basic criteria that define the list (for example, a list of cats should not contain dogs), editors want to ensure that a list does not become clogged with entries that are not sufficiently notable and verifiable to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. Rather than risk overwhelming a list article's talk page with many separate discussions over the merits of many possible entries, list editors often simply state that an entry must have its own separate article on Wikipedia in order to be included. This is an elegant solution to the problem, because it effectively makes topics pass muster for inclusion at their own entries, rather than at the list article. In this way, the well-established policies and procedures for evaluation of topics for inclusion in the encyclopedia can serve their intended purposes at the individual-article level, thus avoiding the clutter and duplication of effort that would result from the same topic being evaluated separately at one or more list articles.

For more documentation on list articles, please see the navbox I'm including for you immediately below:

Hope this helps! Cheers, — Jaydiem (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Bogus "Daniel Teague" references and info[edit]

An editor at Talk:Potluck has stumbled across a number of hoax edits with references to an apparently fictional "Daniel Teague", none of whose supposed publications can be found. A quick look at WP:SNEAKY and WP:SVT didn't reveal much about where to report this for further investigation and cleanup. What, if anything, should be done to alert vandalism-fighting editors to the problem? Reify-tech (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably the best place to report is WP:ANB to report the user behaviour in genereal, or WP:ANI to have a specific incident dealt with. You might consider giving the editor an opportunity to explain themselves first (you will have to inform them anyway if you take it to AN) but in my opinion you are right, the references are distinctly dodgy. SpinningSpark 15:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

References at bottom of talk page[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to figure out if there's a quick and easy way to fix Talk:Majid Al Futtaim Group so as to suppress the references from appearing at the bottom of the page. I don't see a reflist that I could delete. As you'll notice, the references are running into the more recent comments resulting in a really muddy talk page. I know I can slap <nowiki> markup around the citations, but I was wondering if there was something obvious that I was missing, mostly for my own edification. Thanks, you hard-working editor you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added a {{reflist-talk}} to the relevant section. As you say, there didn't seem to be a {{reflist}} at the end, so I am assuming that the display of the references there was a result of some relatively recent change in the Wikimedia software. I did see similar symptoms elsewhere within the last few days. Perhaps someone can enlighten us? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I too appear to have gained a "reference" at the bottom of my Talk page. How can I get rid of it, as it does not appear in the edit section? Answers appreciated. David J Johnson (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@David J Johnson: There's a reference used in the 12 Mile Reef section. Dismas|(talk) 15:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes it's a software change. It's been in effect for a few months I think. In the absence of reflist or a references tag the references are now automatically added to the bottom of the page. This avoids the generation of error messages on the page (although the error used to be supressed on talk pages), which was a very frequent mistake of new editors. It is better to have references not neatly arranged in the proper place than to have no references at all and an error message. You need to add reflists at the appropriate places to fix this (I have just done this) not delete them. SpinningSpark 15:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow, that's something new and different alright. :) Thanks all for the help and info. David Biddulph, I appreciate the assist. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
There is some discussion going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Missing reference markup will no longer show an error (and maybe this is newer than I thought it is—I saw it discussed some time ago and assumed it had been implemented). SpinningSpark 16:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Create a Wikipedia page[edit]

How do I create a Wikipedia page for the CEO of the company I work for?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Golden.Insurance (talkcontribs)

Would be best to read over Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia#Article creation and notability. Please note though that we strongly discourage people from writing about themselves, their friends, bands, websites, companies or organizations, personal vendettas, campaigns and any other topic in which they have a conflict of interest. -- Moxy (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, we don't allow accounts which appear to represent organisations, or which are in fact used by multiple people. Please create an account that is yours personally, with a name that doesn't suggest an organisation. (It is possible to change the name of an existing account, but since you haven't made any other edits yet, it's easiest just to abandon Golden.Insurance - it will shortly get blocked anyway - and create a new one). --ColinFine (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

July 22[edit]

The Three Stooges[edit]

In the movie credits you left out they had a cameo role in the western North To Alaska with John Wayne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2014‎ (UTC)

  • Welcome to Wikipedia, fellow editor! I see that we have an article about John Wayne's movie North to Alaska to refer to. According to that article, filming began in May 1960, and the movie was released to theaters the following November. Based on that timing, it seems any mention of this in our article about The Three Stooges would need to be placed in the section entitled "The comeback: Moe, Larry and Curly Joe". Before being added to the article, though, you will need to find a third-party reliable source to document that the Stooges did in fact have a cameo in North to Alaska. Once you do, you will be able to add this information, along with a citation to the reliable source so that other editors who may wish to verify the claim will be able to do so. Alternatively, you can visit the talk page for the Three Stooges article—which you can find here: [Talk:The Three Stooges]—and create a new section at the bottom of that page, much like you did here. Talk about the John Wayne movie, the cameo, and the reliable source you have to document the cameo, and ask for help in integrating this into the article. (And don't forget to "sign" your comment by typing four "tilde" characters at the end, like this: ~~~~ ) I'm sure someone who watches that page will help you, but if you don't get a response within a couple of days, feel free to ping us here at the Help desk. Happy editing! Cheers, — Jaydiem (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Live Chat No Help With This Question[edit]

Hi. I tried to get on to live chat for over two hours and no one gave me a response. Perhaps this will be better. Regarding the following page - Liam Burrows - You'll notice on the page the second image is the album cover. For some reason, no matter what I do, this coding still shows up - [[File: |frameless|upright=1|alt=|]] - I would like that coding to disappear. What do I do, or can you help, please? I would really like to get this resolved. Sincerely, The Brain Coach. The Brain Coach (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed - because it's in the infobox template, you don't need the square brackets or the File prefix. Yunshui  08:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
And further fixed in this edit.--ukexpat (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

An article that is not an article it is actually an avertisement[edit]

The article Orthotropics® is not actually an article it is an ad prteneding to be an article , not meet wikipedias guidelines, could you please nominate it for the articles for deletion (afd), thank you , (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted, I've sent the article to AfD. Sam Walton (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Why bother with AfD? Looks like a clear G11 speedy to me, and so tagged.--ukexpat (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Change Redirect to BLP Stub[edit]

In P versus NP problem, an unsolved problem in mathematics and computer science, there is a mention that Vinay Deolilakar published a supposed proof, and that his proof is not widely accepted. There is a redirect from his name to P versus NP problem. I have written a short BLP, containing what information I could obtain from reliable sources, in User:Robert McClenon/Vinay Deolilakar. I tried to move it to replace the redirect, but of course the redirect prevents me from moving it. I tried using the Requested Move template, and found it to be confusing. Is there a simple explanation for the Requested Move template, or some less confusing way to replace a redirect with a short article? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Go to the article, it will redirect you. At the page you are redirected to look at the top left for a blue link saying it was redirected. Click that link. You will go to the page you were redirected from (and it won't redirect you again because that link has a special code that means don't follow redirects.) Edit it as normal. That is the easiest way to handle this. RJFJR (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk page archived but archives disappeared[edit]

Another editor has asked me a question I don't know the answer to so I hope someone can help them here. Yesterday the talk page for the article Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia had old discussions archived [3] but there is no link to the archive on the page. MICHAVP has asked me where they went, I can see that there was a new page created [4] but have no idea why the talk page doesn't show it or why it says "Archive 20" when it is the only one. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)