Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners.

Ask a question

July 4

Printing

How do I print this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.149 (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey there - on the menu on the left side of every article, you should see a "Printable version" link under the "Print/export" section. Clicking it will take you to a cleaner, printable version of the article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Purple Heart

Just trying to add my late grandfather to the Purple Heart recipients list, W. E. Boyd. http://www.lawsonfuneralhome.net/memsol.cgi?user_id=844995. His obituary. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.49.95 (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey there - much respect to your grandfather, and it's kind of you to want to include him. I'm assuming the list you wish to place him under is Purple_Heart#Notable_recipients? If so, that list holds a list of people who meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines - or in other words, are significant enough to have a Wikipedia article. If you notice, all the listed recipients already have their own articles. It's unfortunate that we can't list them all, but this restriction is for good reason too, considering that there are almost 2 million Purple Heart recipients. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask! Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Why wikipedia have strict policy about BLPs?

Why wikipedia have strict policy about BLPs?Ssaz 12 (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Because it can be sued. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ssaz 12: Expanding on HiLo's answer, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is a nice place to start. Living people are, naturally, more sensitive topics to write about than anything else - people have both feelings and reputations, in addition to the fact that the coverage of people can involve legal issues (e.g. defamation), which can and have lead to lawsuits in the past. This is why biographies of living people must be well-sourced, neutral, and of course, factually correct. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

more generally, because we are an encyclopedia: not a fan page, resume posting service, gossip mill, or hatchet job. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. As HiLo48 and SuperHamster say, incorrect or unsourced information in biographies of living persons can be the basis for a lawsuit for defamation. As a result, unsourced information can be removed, and its removal is an exception to WP:3RR. However, threatening a lawsuit for defamation, even due to incorrect information in a BLP, is a quick way to be blocked from editing, because we have means for resolution of BLP issues, such as WP:BLPN or even redaction, that do not involve legal threats. We have to provide these remedies, or we would have legal threats and litigation, and other injuries to humans. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Content about our company is permanently delited even if it is not a spam.

Please, need your assistance! Informatio about our company was twice delited by Bilderling that incriminate us as spamers. Our company (Suprotec) is well known in Russia for its inovations in autochimicals, but we aren't allowed to share information about us because somebody sincerely ignores other user's ingerests. Please, help us! Sandernik (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand, you probably have a conflict of interest, because you refer to "our company", which implies that you are employed by the company, and you should be posting to the article talk page rather than editing the article. On the other hand, I don't know what article is being reverted. This edit to this Help Desk is the only edit you have made. There is no article Suprotec. User:Bilderling has not edited the English Wikipedia in 2014. If the article about which you have the issue is on the Russian Wikipedia, then you should go to the Russian Wikipedia Help Desk. (Maybe someone who knows Russian can direct you there.) This Help Desk is for asking questions about using and editing the English Wikipedia, and I don't see an article or any reverted edits here. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Bilderling is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia and has not made any edits all year (and only one in the previous three years). I suspect that you are referring to the deletions on Russian Wikipedia. You must take the matter up there, but we have little sympathy for companies that create their own articles, and repeatedly doing it is the reason you have been blocked. It is almost impossible for those associated with a company to succeed in writing about it in a neutral way so almost certainly the label of spam is justified. SpinningSpark 14:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Where and how to propose a merger of several separate articles

The articles River bifurcation, Distributary and Anabranch all seem to be describing fundamentally the same thing, with the naming differences being mainly a geographical one. There also seems to be significant overlap with the disambiguation page Slough (hydrology). Last year another editor proposed on the Talk page of one of the articles the merging of two of them, but received no response. Is there somewhere where the broader issue of merging all these articles can be raised, with some hope of resolution? HiLo48 (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

with no opposition to the previous merge suggestions, just carry out the merge.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

finding my book

on the day that I enrolled in the free version I was invited to create a book and add pages as my research progressed. Now, after I log-on, I am unable to locate that book that has six or seven page-articles included. How do I locate the book that I created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithrlsmith162 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I take it your saying its in Book namespace... Try searching just books

-- Moxy (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

effective date issue for George Washington

I wanted to change 5 star generals page ... error listing Geo. Washington's EFFECTIVE date was listed as 1976 instead OF 1776 ... going through the process today, I note the print has been changed ( I didn't, though I had highlighted the incorrect date ... haven't yet checked the online Wiki 5 star generals site to see if change was made there. If not, someone who's more familiar with the process than I will have to make the change. Questions? email me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobblewash (talk • contribs) 17:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this is about Five-star_rank#Footnotes. But I don't understand what Bobblewash is requesting. Maproom (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bobblewash: Please check existing source links in the article before making changes. I have reverted your edits with edit summary [1]: revert two good faith edits by Bobblewash, the linked s:Public Law 94-479 says: "appoint George Washington posthumously to the grade of General of the Armies of the United States, such appointment to take effect on July 4, 1976." PrimeHunter (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Guide to editing

Is there a guide somewhere that can teach me the basics of editing? There's an article I want to edit but for some reason there's not an edit tab on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesVegas (talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

A few articles are protected from editing. Maybe you have come across one of them. What is the title of the article you want to edit? Maproom (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello LesVegas yes we have such a page at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia - you may want the specific section Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia#How to edit-- Moxy (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation and redirect issues

I'm not a new editor but it's been a long time since I have edited Wikipedia. I discovered that Wikipedia didn't have an article on Ross Parker, famous for composing such songs as We'll Meet Again and There'll Always Be an England. Ross Parker was a redirect Murder of Ross Parker. Although it seems like a tragic event, I have no doubt that Ross Parker the composer, actor, and lyricist has far more lasting relevance and is the primary target, so I started an article there. An editor moved my article and made Ross Parker a disambiguation page with Parker the composer and a redirect to the article on the murder. There is now a discussion about moving the page here, but that is only one part of the issue.

I went to add Parker (the famous one) to Parker (surname) only to find that there is already an entry for the murder victim. Same with Parker. Should there be an entry for someone who isn't considered notable outside of being the unfortunate victim of a crime? I don't mena to sound callous, I'm simply asking what the consensus is these days. Bwaybaby77 (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that the lyricist Ross Parker is notable enough to justify an article, though I am not the best person to judge. If he is, then the article should be titled "Ross Parker", and the existing redirect from that title to "Murder of Ross Parker" should be removed. Maproom (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the page should go to the composer. It is not necessary to have a disambiguation page when there is only one other target, especially when it is of lesser notability. Disambiguation can be dealt with with a hatnote instead. SpinningSpark 14:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the article on Ross Parker (composer) had been in existence since at least 2010, so that the real problem is that Ross Parker was directing to the murder victim. Both articles meet the notability criteria, so that question is whether Ross Parker should redirect to the composer or should redirect to the disambiguation page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the question of whether Ross Parker should direct to the composer or should redirect to the disambiguation page be determined by consensus? However, what talk page should the discussion be on? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe it will be settled by consensus. I linked to the talk page where the discussion is taking place (Talk:Ross Parker (composer)). I don't think I asked my real question very well, so I'll try again. Should the victim or perpetrator of a crime be included in lists when the linked article is about the event? For example in this case Ross Parker (murder victim) is included in lists, but the article is Murder of Ross Parker. I don't mean to minimise the crime, but outside of being a murder victim he is not notable by Wikipedia standards. Bwaybaby77 (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you asking whether Murder of Ross Parker should be in Parker (disambiguation) and Ross (name)? I would answer yes, but but have not yet rechecked the disambiguation list policy. By the way, Bwaybaby77, thank you for being bold and for then discussing your actions here. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but let me give you another example of a more general case. If Ross Parker the murder victim had gone to Yale, should they be added to the terribly named List of Yale University people? Bwaybaby77 (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say, no. That list ought to be of notable alumni of Yale; and the murdered Ross Parker was not notable, though his murder was. Maproom (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm trying to gauge where things stand these days in relation to victims or perpetrators of crimes. My impression was that they were not considered notable (except in rare cases) and would be covered by an article about the event. And as such they would not be included in lists of people with the same surname or lists of alumni or people born in such and such a place, etc. Is there a guideline that addresses this? Bwaybaby77 (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Flags in Infoboxes

Hi! I read in the WP:INFOBOXFLAG that "flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes". According to this, I removed flag icons from some articles about tennis players. Soon after, another editor reverted my edits without any edit summaries. I asked him on his talk page to explain me his move, and he told me that it is a "long established consensus" of the WikiProject Tennis to include flag icons in the infoboxes of players. Now, I don't understand how is it possible to have "long established" consensus that is directly opposite to the Wikipedia guideline? Shouldn't the guideline actually reflect the consensus? If guideline is the reflection of the consensus, than it appears that we have two totally different consensuses on the same issue. Which one applies? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It is an unfortunate fact of Wikipedia that people in a given field can get really fanatical about "protecting" "their" topics from the standard practices elsewhere in Wikipedia. One is the taboo maintained against creating any infobox for classical composers; another is the insistence in certain sports on adding flag icons to infoboxes. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Orangemike is correct. Sports has long been allowed to populate (some might say overpopulate) their articles with flags. I would note that WP:INFOBOXFLAG is a guideline not a policy and there is more leeway with these. Also it state right at the top that there will be occasional exceptions to the guideline and it goes further (and this comes directly from the section that you linked to) when it states that "examples of acceptable exceptions include military conflict infobox templates and infoboxes that include international competitions" and tennis is certainly an international competition. You may find this frustrating but your best bet is to let that go (and I know that it is difficult to do all at once - give it a few days) and edit other articles. There is always a ton to do around here. Clicking the "random article" link can lead to new learning which is usually fun. Hang in there V. MarnetteD|Talk 03:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The big problem with sports and actor bios is template spam Michael Jordan#External links more links there then in the article...looks like some grade 5 student went template mad. -- Moxy (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

July 5

Editing a page due to inadequate sources

Hi, I wanted to edit this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorman

Specifically, the 2nd sentence under "production". I see that that it states that "Stroud carries an emergency satellite phone and normally has daily radio contact with his support crew that was always within rescue range", however the source cited does not say anything to support it. The 2nd citation (link doesn't work) which i retrieved using web archive mentions: "I carry an emergency satellite phone, but unfortunately it has proven to work only half the time, which has been disconcerting." and "...I found through random testing that my emergency radio/phone set-up did not work, leaving me utterly alone and exposed" which leads me to believe that the statement in question is false.

I just want to see I am justified in submitting an edit since the sentence cannot be verified and the 2nd citation links to a page that does not exist anymore. Can i still cite to that page? do I cite the archived page? or should i simply remove the sentence?

Thanks for your help.

Dice89 (talk) 06:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Dice89. If you've tried to find support for the statement and can't, please be bold and remove it. Make sure you leave an edit summary which explains why you are removing information. --ColinFine (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

how do iget my army records

How do I get my army records — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.224.37 (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Miscellaneous reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. --  Gadget850 ^talk 12:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Company Mergers & Acquisitions: date announced or date finalised?

When adding information about mergers & acquisitions to Wiki articles, as a general rule, is it preferable to put the date the acquisition was announced or the date it was finalised? In a paragraph, there's often enough space to write that the merger "was announced on X date and finalised on Y date". However, in the table here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_Group#Mergers_and_acquisitions the entries (apart from the last one) generally say "acquires..." but then put the announcement date. This doesn't seem coherent: it would seem more reliable to either say "Man Group announced" and put the announcement date, or say "Man Group acquires" with the finalisation date. I was wondering whether, Wiki-wide, there was a preference for using one date or the other. (This question also posted on the Tearoom because I wasn't sure where the best place was) Jjlewis745 (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what the preference is but logically the date the merger or acquisition is finalised appears to be the only one that should be used, the date of the announcement is not really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi MilborneOne, thanks for your reply. I agree that the finalisation date feels like it should be more notable, but the announcement date usually gets more press, which makes it easier to reliably source. On reflection (since asking my question), between the agreement date and the finalisation date the two companies have been undergoing the merger process, which often leads to significant chances in the business structure, so in some ways the announcement date would seem more relevant. However, here, I think I'm just going to tidy up the wording so that's it's more clear whether the date given is for agreement or finalisation. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjlewis745 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

How to correctly format web references for featured articles?

If some helpful person could suggest how to format references 2 (web dictionary), 4 (web dictionary), 12 (website), 13 (newspaper), 20 (website), 23 (wikisource), and 25 (web dictionary) on this article, which is due for FA, I would be most grateful. The rest of the references are all books and journals so I will be ok formatting them myself. Thank you in advance, 94.196.107.155 (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help, but it would probably be a good idea for you to look at Wikipedia:Citation templates. This doesn't appear to cover all of the issues, but it might help for knowing what to include. Dustin (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

July 6

Castle Calatubo

Please could you check this page and tell me why I can't see the map of Italy with the red point? --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Calatubo Castle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've added "pushpin_map = Italy" -- John of Reading (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry in internet cafes/free wifi

I recently saw a person logging in and out of multiple accounts in an internet cafe, although I forgot the usernames. If I were to see this again (I see this a lot) should I report it? Is it considered valid evidence if I saw the person engaging in sockpuppetry (eyewitness evidence) and vandalism or is only CheckUser/other evidence valid? ElectronicKing888 (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You kind of have it the wrong way round in one respect; a checkuser will usually only initiate an investigation if there is already some evidence of sockpuppetry. I don't know if eyewitness evidence would be accepted, but evidence is usually verified by the case clerk before a checkuser investigation proceeds. I don't see how anyone else is going to be able to verify such evidence. So it comes down to would they be prepared to take your word for it without verification? Maybe, maybe not. In any case, one thing you need to be aware of: I presume that you know the perpetrators; you must not reveal their real-life identities on Wikipedia, this is considered a very serious breach of policy. SpinningSpark 23:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Galician Inventors

Hello, I've created an article or this is what I guessed but I can see it published. What can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praiaxardín6th (talk • contribs) 13:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

By looking at your list of contributions, I find that you have created Template:Draft_article/doc and User:Praiaxardín6th/Galician_inventors. They are similar in content. The first is not a template, and so should not be where it is. The second is ok where it is, in your personal user space; but it is not a published article. Incidentally, en:Wikipedia already has an article on Ramón Verea, which could be improved. Maproom (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is a copyright violation of http://www.abc.es/local-galicia/20121216/abci-galicia-inventos-calculadora-201212161110.html and cannot be allowed to remain in its present form. Also, the claims for Verea are probably exaggerated; see the history section of the Calculator article for instance. SpinningSpark 23:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

barnard bee

I noticed on barnard bee civil war brigadier general known for giving thomas jackson the name stonewall. it is incorrect his buriel. It is written that he is buried in pendleton virginia.when he is actually buried st.pauls episcopal church cemetary pendleton south carolina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mourning1861 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Barnard Elliott Bee, Jr. states he "is buried in Pendleton, South Carolina." --  Gadget850 ^talk 20:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The error was in the infobox, not in the body of the article. SpinningSpark 00:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

a page was violated and now i cant access it becouse its semi protected

a page was violated and now i cant access it becouse its semi protected, this is it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Miller_%28politician%29 what do i do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adomadom (talk • contribs) 21:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

'Violated' how? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The page was semi-protected due to vandalism. However, the page history shows only one vandalism edit by an unregistered editor, so it is not clear that semi-protection was necessary. There does also appear to be content edit-warring due to a BLP violation, but semi-protection is not a remedy for BLP violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Best to make an edit request at the article's talk page. Be specific about the violation, and how you'd like the problem solved. Or continue editing non-protected pages, wait a few days and become "autoconfirmed". Then fix it yourself. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

In any case, as InedibleHulk advises, either make an edit request on the talk page, or make 9 more edits on non-protected pages and come back in four days. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

IH and RM I know that you are AGFing here and that is to be commended. OTOH if you look at the edit history for the article you will find 3 WP:SPAs (created after the initial IP vandalism) removing huge chunks (the same chunks in most cases) of the article which is why it received protection. The OP passes the WP:DUCK test for me as being the next of these and I would have avoided telling then how they can resume their actions. Oh well, if the OP takes your advice and gets confirmed we can always up the protection. MarnetteD|Talk 22:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The article was semi'd because there were at least three SPAs removing content wholesale from the article without explanation. That's in addition to past attempts at negative POV editing by other SPAs. I've trimmed down the article, improved the sourcing and created a discussion in the talk page. @Earnestpbass, Tmsgop, and Aviwhite: you are all welcome to voice your concerns there. I've also left notifications in your respective talk pages. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Bhumihar

Origin Bhumihars are said to be descendent of Parshuram. First Bhumihars were the offsprings of Rajput women and Brahmin men because it Parshuram is said to have killed all kshtriyas from whom Rajputs descended but Khastriya women wanted child but only upper class left was Brahmin so, khatriya women started marrying them and offsprings were Bhumihar Brahmins.Shivam kr. Singh (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Shivam kr. Singh: Hi Shivam. This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Your post recites some information but lacks any context posted here, and does not appear to contain any question. Is there some article, maybe Bhumihar, that you think this text should be added to? Please advise what it is you seek.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

July 7

How to edit a document

A page named Bhumihar has been reported vandalism, but there is a wrong information in about origin of Bhumihars and i am unable to edit it, so how can I edit it.Shivam kr. Singh (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It might vary for certain users, but there should be an edit button to the right of the article title. It might also help for you to look at Help:Editing. Dustin (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Shivam kr. Singh: You need to put an edit request on the page's talkpage. Add a new section at the bottom of the page and put {{edit protected}} on it. Then specify exactly what to change and where to change it. More information can be found at Wikipedia:Edit requests. Ask for any questions. Piguy101 (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Listen to what Piguy101 said. I hadn't realized the page was semi-protected. I believe it is also possible to leave an edit request relatively easily by clicking on the "view source" button, then clicking on the "submit edit request" button. Dustin (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

But please ensure that you cite verifiable reliable sources that clearly back up your request, or it will not be implemented. The reason the page is semi-protected is because of the number of edits which were not a neutral point of view and edits based on "personal knowledge" and unreliable sources. Arjayay (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Templates, navboxes, categories, and my utter, utter confusion

I've come here for guidance. I'm about to fix the categories for the navboxes I created, listed at the bottom of User:Anna Frodesiak. Basically, I want to remove all the cats to the article categories, so that only cats that are navboxes/templates remain. I have encountered all sorts of issues that I cannot figure out:

1. Category:Golf templates has a parent cat Category:Golf. That's okay, right? I gather that individual navboxes shouldn't have cats that are the articles, but template/navbox cats can have parent cats that are articles, right?
2. Category:Sports and games Wikipedia administration just confuses me completely.
3. The parent cats in Category:Society and social science templates is also baffling to me. Parents are Category:Science and nature templates and Category:Wikipedia templates at the same time. How can that be? Plus, it's a container cat that shouldn't have pages, right? Dear, oh dear.
4. A navbox is a kind of template, right? So, as for cats, aren't all navboxes children of templates? Then I see Template:Woodworking has Category:Technology and applied science templates, Category:Forestry templates, and Category:Navigational boxes. Is this right?
5. Per item 4, can a navbox or cat have parent cats that are XXX templates and XXX navboxes at the same time?
6. Category:Navigational boxes says that it is a container cat, yet contains a whole bunch of pages. Are those supposed to be subcatted (added to the child cats)?

I'm so sorry to bother you all with all of this.

I wish to start with going through the navboxes I made to remove obviously wrong cats, like Template:Paper and its cats Paper and Forest products cats, which are articles. Of course, it also has Category:Navigational boxes, which must be refined. That is where I'm at now: trying to figured out the most refined cat for these things. I'll wait for feedback to these questions before I begin.

Many thanks for any guidance you can offer. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)