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.
• If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
• 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 (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

February 8

Someone keeps replacing fantastic planet image with Lovers and Other Strangers in Wikipedia. ( can someone fix it once and all !!! )

Someone keeps replacing fantastic planet image with Lovers and Other Strangers in Wikipedia. ( can someone fix it once and all !!! )

File:Fantstic-planet-poster.jpg

File:Lovers and Other Strangers (1970) M.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.222.164 (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to look at this, but I cannot figure out what you want fixed. One of your image links is broken. What article? Please explain in more detail. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This is about the article Fantastic Planet. The OP tried adding "File:Fantstic-planet-poster.jpg" at the top of the article, inside "gallery" tags which were opened twice and closed three times (and probably not the appropriate tag anyway), and with "Fantstic" mis-spelled. Another user then reverted the edit. As the article already contained that image in its infobox anyway, I am unclear what the OP's intention was. Maproom (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Can someone clean up an article I I edited

Please fix the edit I did in the early life of the Mischa_Barton article. Thank you. Venustar84 (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done With most of the work done by User:Flinders Petrie. -Thibbs (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Joe Cox (cricketer)

• Can anyone figure out why adding the {{SouthAfrica-cricket-bio-stub}} tag to this article isn't actually placing the article in Category:South African cricket biography stubs? I checked the wiki markup and I didn't see anything out of the ordinary. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, no stub categories seem to show up any more on articles. Is that a glitch? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert: There has been a recent edit to Module:Asbox. I've posted at its talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Real date, but an error "Check date values in: |date= (help)"

Just added a reference in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKVToolNix#Applications The date of the journal is Christmas 2012, and not December 2012 and not the 25th of December 2012... Linux Format always has an issue dated Christmas YEAR. I am not sure why Christmas, and Easter (and some other well-known dates) are not being recognized. I have personally seen many official documents signed Easter Sunday AD YEAR, or Christmas Day AD YEAR. Absolwent (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Should I take a photo of the paper copy of this journal issue? This particular issues has also a web page, where without any payment one can see Christmas 2012 http://www.linuxformat.com/archives?issue=165

See: Template:Cite journal — Instead of date parameter, how about year and/or edition (or issue or volume)?   E.g.:  |edition=Christmas|year=2012  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, it can be faked in many ways. In this case, the simplest that keeps the format intact would be to assign author1 to be Mike Saunders (Christmas 2012)... However, the issue is with the date check... Life is life, what about The Good Friday Agreement? Absolwent (talk) 07:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

|issue=Christmas 2012 would be proper. --  Gadget850 ^talk 10:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Gregorian vs. Julian Easter + Whitsun dates might be fun for you. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If the community decide that we should accept Christmas and Easter as valid dates, something not currently addresses at WP:DATESNO, then I suspect that there is relatively little challenge regarding date checking in either calendar because these dates would amount to no more than |date=Easter 1435 or |date=Christmas 1914, right?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

|issue=Christmas 2012 cannot be used, since this is already |issue=165 . Each year, Linux Format publishes thirteen issues dated January-December and one dated Christmas. Going back to my original intent (I admit poorly conveyed), yes, allowing constructs |date=Easter 1435 or |date=Christmas 1914 is all it takes to make life easier, and Wikipedia closer to real life™ :-) Taking into the account the Good Friday Agreement, |date=Good Friday 1998 could be made valid too (and possibly other years...). Absolwent (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure that dating the Northern Ireland Agreement, though colloquially known as Good Friday Agreement, with |date=Good Friday 1998 is appropriate since the term 'Good Friday' is not used in the agreement. Instead the specific date 10 April 1998 is used so, when citing that document, |date=10 April 1998 is the correct form.

The place to raise the issue of defining dates like Christmas YYYY or Easter YYYY would seem to me to be at WT:MOSDATE. If such dates are found to be acceptable there, then CS1/CS2 will be adapted to accommodate these specific dates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the publisher uses as the date is the date. If the date is Christmas 2012, then the MOS can quibble over whether Christmas should be capitalized or it should read "Christmas of 2012", but it would be wrong to change it to a different date, such as 25 December 2012, because to do so would leave the reader wondering if he had found the correct issue in the library, because the citation date would look different from the date printed in the publication. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The same, UK based, publisher publishes thirteen issues dated January-December and one dated Christmas also for at least 3D World, ImagineFX, and PC Gamer.

I have looked at WT:MOSDATE. Thank you for the pointer. However, I have realised that I would need to have dozens of times more edits in my account to enter there... Absolwent (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Need pointer to guideline/policy that describes that asking celebrities on social media as original research

In the strange world in which I gnome, I sometimes find overzealous fans resorting to asking notable people questions on Twitter, like "Did you play the voice of X in anime series Y?" and then using the response as a reliable source. I'm pretty sure this constitutes WP:OR, but I'm hoping for a pointer to some specific guideline. Thanks, and I would appreciate a ping if you can spare one since my Watchlist fills up rather quickly. Danke, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Dear Cyphoidbomb, you are probably looking for WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS. I hope this answers your question. Let me know if there is anything else I can help with. All the best, Taketa (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that's it! Thanks @Taketa:. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

In your example, I would think that the anime itself (or more specifically, the credits shown on screen at the beginning/end) would serve as the reference. Dismas|^(talk) 08:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dismas, typically, yes a primary source is suitable, but there are occasions when the actor isn't credited, (sometimes for English dubs), or when editors find the info somewhere like IMDb, and don't have access to the primary source to verify. (Because IMDb is not a RS...) Danke, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Jim Watkins

Someone keeps re-editing the Jim Watkins entry to the point of gross inaccuracy. jamesbondfan seems to eb the culprit every single time. The fact that he so consistenlty is troubhling.

Everything NewsFan60 has re-entered is factually accurate and verifiable. Yet it is scrubbed every 8 hours.

Please have jamesbondfan refrain from making the re-edits.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsIndustryFan60 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced info and copyright violations to this biography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Content disputes should first be discussed on article talk pages, in this case, at Talk: Jim Watkins. There has been no discussion on the talk page. Please do not escalate content disputes without first trying to discuss on the talk page. I do notice that two posts by the original poster (OP) have been redacted by an administrator. The OP should take that as an indication that those posts evidently violate the policy on biographies of living persons or copyright or both to the point where they had to be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have any further questions, ask User:Tiptoety, who has already advised you that your post was a copyright violation (and who is probably the admin who redacted it). It appears that you also think that another editor is posting incorrect information. Discuss that on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@NewsIndustryFan60: Can you please specify what exactly is inaccurate? I would be happy to correct the inaccuracies if you can point to a source to support your claim. Tiptoety ^talk 16:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Protocol-relative URLs

http://www.nytimes.com

https://www.nytimes.com

Both of the above links work, i.e. they both produce the NY Times home page, although it appears the Times converts the latter to HTTP since Firefox doesn't show a URI in either case.

May I take this to mean that any links to the Times can (and should) be protocol-relative? If so, would that apply to any site that behaves the same way? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/ doesn't redirect for me and displays https in Firefox, but the layout of the whole site is broken (or very poor) in https for me, and the internal links are to http and not protocol relative. In addition, it only took a couple of random clicks to find a page http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/london-theater-journal-crawling-inside-a-family-saga-and-a-jacobean-noir/?_r=0 which fails with https: https://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/london-theater-journal-crawling-inside-a-family-saga-and-a-jacobean-noir/?_r=0. The example was not at www.nytimes.com but it was at nytimes.com and linked from the front page. It looks like the site makes no serious attempt to give good support for https and I would certainly prefer http, but see Wikipedia:Protocol-relative URL. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, I was aware of that page, although I haven't read all of all of the old discussions. The page mentions only archive.org, but isn't PRURL recommended for YouTube? Any others that we know of? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't followed discussions about recommendations for sites. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Move image to Commons?

First image under "Fair use" - click here to compare (changed to Wiki-link GermanJoe (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC))

Image in Commons

I don't understand why the first image has a fair use license and this second image can be in Commons and used in all Wikipedias as they represent the same institution and they are used both officially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digmin3 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The first is an image produced by someone working for the organization so the copyright is held by one of those two persons. The second image is designed by a Wikipedian based on a official description and the image created has licensed its under Wikipedia and Commons rules. The coat of arms may not look identical to one used by the organization but is one correct way to render the description. Rmhermen (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Digmin3 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

alfhild trying to add a music review reference to Andy McKee page

Hi! I am trying to add a reference for a review by John Kelman from All About Jazz on the recording Trio Mundo: Rides Again published on Sept. 2, 2004 ad I got the Cite error message. I thought I was doing the right thing: putting cursor where I want reference to go; clicking on the ref/ref link at the bottom of the page; choosing the cite news from the template menu and fill in in the info and then typing insert. Is that right? Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfhild-anthro (talk • contribs)

Convenience link: Andy McKee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Dismas|^(talk) 19:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The "cite news" and similar templates automatically insert the <ref></ref> tags, so no need to insert them separately. Is that all it was?: Noyster (talk), 11:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright on UK Gov/BBC image

I'd like to add the image that is on this UK Government web page to an article, but I'm unsure on its copyright. All content on that page is supposed to be released under Open Government Licence v3.0, but seeing as it is a screenshot of a BBC game, and that they have a copyright notice on the game's page, I'm unsure of how to proceed. ^{I almost feel like the UK Government may have inadvertently violated the BBC's copyright on this... Which would be pretty funny considering they're essentially the same entity...}  DiscantX 22:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

^{I recognise the incompetence of my country's government, but I do not find it funny. Maproom (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)}

I'm ignorant of the nature of the relationship between BBC and the UK Government, but perhaps it's worth noting that depending on how you wish to use the image, it may be available under a claim of Fair Use even if it's a copyrighted work. Wikipedia's image usage rules are stricter than Fair Use, but if you wanted to use the image within the article on the The Doctor and the Dalek video game, for example, then a single low-resolution screenshot would almost certainly be acceptable. The acceptability of fair use images on Wikipedia basically draw from their value for commentary. If you are using an image to comment on some aspect of the game instead of as simple decoration then it's fine. -Thibbs (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to use it in Digital 5#Events because it was used in one of their major events, so I'm not sure it would fall under fair use, as it isn't directly related with the article subject.  DiscantX 13:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that that might be a bit of a stretch for Fair Use at Wikipedia... The gov.uk usage would almost certainly constitute fair use because the article is entirely about the game, but I agree with you that it's not clear that they own the copyright to the image. It would probably be a good idea to post this question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions in the hopes that someone there is familiar with the exact relationship between BBC and the government with respect to copyrights. -Thibbs (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

February 9

Moving comments from a draft talk page to a mainspace talk page?

Dear editors: I was checking out a page in the Draft namespace, and found that it had been copied into mainspace by the same editor. According to the history merge guidelines, the fragment isn't needed for attribution purposes so I deleted it. However, the draft had a talk page, Draft talk:Katie Boulter, which has information about the notability of the draft. Should this be copied to the mainspace talk page, with a note about its origin, or should it be deleted with the talk page? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anne, the discussion is relevant to the article, and should not be deleted if at all possible. I would move it to the new talk page. A note about the origin would be great. All the best, Taketa (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Taketa. I did that. I just wanted to make sure before moving another editor's comment. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Image uploading (infobox) - Basics

Hi,

I've never fully understood the formalities of uploading / changing an image, since I'm stuck on simply how to present it essentially. An example is the page Mauro Icardi, where I am trying to change the first picture, in the infobox, to the following:

http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Mauro+Icardi+FC+Internazionale+Milano+v+Udinese+GJDZrK3Q9bfl.jpg

It was my understanding this was a simple replacement process but there appears to be lot more to it than that. I've visited the help page on uploading images, but am unaware of how to present it in the editing page of the infobox, i.e. whether it is, for example, image = http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Mauro+Icardi+FC+Internazionale+Milano+v+Udinese+GJDZrK3Q9bfl.jpg (what I believe to be the image's name in full), image = Mauro+Icardi+FC+Internazionale+Milano+v+Udinese+GJDZrK3Q9bfl.jpg (so remove the initial website's link), or image = [ [ File:http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Mauro+Icardi+FC+Internazionale+Milano+v+Udinese+GJDZrK3Q9bfl.jpg ] ] (without spaces) , etc.

Any help would be appreciated.

UnknownBrick22 (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)UnknownBrick22

In brief, the steps for arranging for an image to appear in an article are:

1. Decide what image you want to use
2. Establish that it is not restricted by copyright
3. Upload it to Wikimedia Commons, stating its copyright status. (In some special circumstances, you might have reason to upload it direct to English-language Wikipedia instead.)
4. In the article, add a link to the uploaded image (not to the original image, as you appear to have been trying to do). If the image is to go inside an infobox, the syntax for this is confusingly slightly different.

You appear to be omitting step 3, and possibly step 2. Maproom (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Maproom, thanks very much, this is helpful - what is the most efficient way of establishing an image's copyright status, for example the aforementioned one? UnknownBrick22 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The link you give is to an image on www.zimbio.com. Here is Zimbio's copyright policy. It seems to me that they are saying that users should only upload images there that they are legally entitled to upload, and that if they become aware that an image on their site is in fact protected by copyright, they will remove it. This falls a long way short of confirmation that images on their site are not protected by copyright. Therefore that image of a footballer should not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Maproom (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

adding references to an article

Hi. Can someone tell me how in easiest terms to add references to articles, an an easy way to do it without code?Barniecadd (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Barniecadd. When you are in the edit mode, place your cursor where you wish the reference to appear. Near the top right of the page you will see the word "Cite". If you click on that, you will see a pop-down list of Templates. Choose one depending on whether your reference is a book, website, newspaper, etc. Fill in as much of the form as you can. If you want to see what it will look like, select "Preview". When you are finished, select "Insert" to add your reference. The codes are added for you. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. thank you very much.Barniecadd (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

how to invoke a reference to use several times

Hello, I am editing this page to try and bring it inline with your expectations Draft:Yes, I Can literacy method (Yo, Si Puedo in Spanish). i am having difficulty invoking a reference which i wish to use several times. You can see the highlighted problem at footnote 8. I am not sure where I should invoke the named reference? also why is my reference list appearing in the middle of my article under the heading "community wide approach"

thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthratcliffe (talk • contribs)

Hi Ruthratcliffe, to use a reference twice you replace the <ref> with <ref name="name"> the first time you use the reference. So the rest of the reference would be the same as always. When you want to use it a second time, you simply put <ref name="name" /> instead of the entire reference. So you replace the entire reference (<ref>reference</ref>) with this.

Example first reference:

<ref name="name">text of the citation</ref>

Example second reference:

<ref name="name" />

I hope his helps. All the best, Taketa (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Two editors have made corrective edits to that page, see its page history for details. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mandruss, I noticed but figured I might as well explain for the future :). All the best, Taketa (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I concur, I might have done the same if you hadn't already. I was adding information for the OP's benefit. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Curate this page language settings

If I use curate this page system and my language settings are Finland, then all info come finnish language. Are there soime setting in Curate this page that I can use language setting Finland and with this tool comes english text--Musamies (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know a way to do that. User:PrimeHunter/English interface.js may be of interest but it requires a click each time you want to change to English interface on a page. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the tool myself, but from Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help it looks like you might be able to get further help by posting your question at Wikipedia talk:Page Curation or by contacting the Page Curation liason, User talk:Okeyes (WMF). -Thibbs (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for info--Musamies (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Help with GPG company URL

Hello, I've posted a request for a very simple change on The Glover Park Group article, asking to update the company's URL from the old to the new one. More details at article Talk; if you need any other information, please just ask! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding a graphic

Good morning,

How do I add a logo to our wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohionational (talk • contribs) 14:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ohionational: Help:Introduction to uploading images should start you off. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

What links here

I am wondering if there is shortcut to getting to to end of the list, when the list in What links here is several thousands links long. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Use one or two of the "hide" buttons to exclude group(s) of items you're not interested in. And/or
• Choose "500" items on a page to greatly reduce the number of clicks required to get to the bottom.

Don't know of a quicker way to the bottom. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Choose one of the "View N at once" options, and then adjust the url to read "&limit=5000". You can then skip through them 5,000 at a time - I think that's the maximum allowed. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Mandruss&John of Reading for the helpful tips. Just wondering if there a page Help: What links here? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is. You can reach it by typing "help:what links here" in the Search box at the top. But here's a nice time-saving link: Help:What links here. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

And Help:What links here is linked from the top of any "What links here" page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Obliviously!! ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 16:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Deceased - Andrew Lingen-Stallard

I notice that the page for Andrew Lingen-Stallard has not been updated and his sad death will mean he himself cannot update this. I wonder if anybody could assist in this matter as it doesn't seem appropriate for the talk page. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.245.109 (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparent reference to User:Andrew lingen-stallard. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict): I do not know WP's policy on user pages of deceased users. This article confirms his recent death. Maproom (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have set some templates and the userpage has been fully protected. Not sure about archiving/removing the only entry on their talk. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mandruss and Mlpearc, I have requested assistance at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians. Hopefully someone with more experience in these matters will reply so it can be dealt with properly and respectfully. The guidelines can also be found there. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

how do I get my draft article on Patricia McConnell approved and finalized?

I work for Dr. Patricia McConnell and she asked me to create a page for her in Wikipedia. I did that about six months ago. Yesterday I got an email from Wikipedia (from HasteurBot) saying that I hadn't edited the page in six months so Wiki might delete it. I can't figure out how move it from the sandbox to being a final wiki page. I"m sure this is very simple, but I can't figure it out. Here is the link to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_McConnell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.146.240 (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be confused. The url that you gave us in your question is to the Wikipedia article Patricia McConnell, not to a draft. Under the IP address from which you posted your question, you haver not written any drafts, nor have you received any messages from HasteurBot. I guess that you might be the same person as Llemberger, and that account did receive a notice a month ago that Draft:Patricia B. McConnell had not been edited for more that 6 months. As another month has gone by without you having done anything about it, your draft has been deleted. Your user talk page does, however, give you instructions as to how to get it undeleted (but see below). You refer to your sandbox, but your draft was moved from User:Llemberger/sandbox to Draft:Patricia B. McConnell in June 2014. You had previously edited the Wikipedia article Patricia McConnell in 2013, so it is not obvious why you have subsequently been producing a new draft. Such a draft will usually be rejected if an article already exists. What you should be doing is improving the existing article. One of its major shortcomings is that it has no references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. It is also written in very promotional language, which of course isn't surprising given that the material was written by an employee of the subject. There is a danger of the article being deleted under sppedy deletion criterion WP:G11 as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". You need to read about neutral point of view, and about conflict of interest, and if you have relevant, non-promotional, information which can be verified by published independent sources, then you could suggest such improvements at the article's talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Submitted to AFD. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirect from mainspace to a WikiProject?

Someone recently created a redirect from mainspace to a WikiProject, I'm not sure such redirects should exist. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd guess we treat it as any other cross-namespace redirect and delete it per the consensus at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. I can't see any reason to link from mainspace to a WikiProject, where is this? Sam Walton (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that there should be redirects from mainspace to any other space. What page in article space has been redirected? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's WikiProject Disability, but I think there may be more such redirects. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Cooperation is another odd one, it redirects to a mainspace article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe my question wasn't clear. What article redirects to the project? You provided the project. The real issue is an article redirecting to any Wikipedia space other than article space. (Cross-wiki links are not the same situation.) The redirect from a project to an article also seems odd, but is not the clear impropriety of a redirect from article space to project space. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You obviously haven't actually looked at the redirects - note the absence of a "WP" prefix in the links I provided. WikiProject Disability is a mainspace page that redirects to WP:WikiProject Disability and the mainspace page WikiProject Cooperation redirects to the mainspace article Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#WikiProject Cooperation and WikiProject Integrity (WP:WikiProject Cooperation does exist). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Inexplicable reverts

I noticed that Samwalton9 just had an edit inexplicably reverted by another edit within the same minute. I don't think the second editor is one to ignore an edit conflict notice. I'd generally chalk it up to freak accident, but the same thing happened on the 6th, in an article, where this edit and this edit were both reverted by this edit. Again, the reverter was an experienced user. It's very odd that I'm seeing these for the first time, and twice within three days. Is there cause for concern or am I becoming neurotic in my old age? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Wild guesses, the 1st case could be a side effect of an unresolved edit conflict, @Samwalton9 and David Biddulph: what do you think? The 2nd case could be serious and therefore off topic here. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. At least in the first case I think it looks more like an edit conflict being forced through than a revert. These are both busy pages. Rwessel (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something or lacking in knowledge about ec's, but as I said David Biddulph is not likely to force through an edit conflict. And an edit conflict forced through IS a revert, just an unintentional one. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

From my end I edited the section, added my reply and saved. Can't recall if I saw my reply in the subsequent window but I was obviously confused when it wasn't there later on. Didn't see an edit conflict on my end, and I don't think I should have since I was editing a section. Sam Walton (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This sort of edit conflict does happen from time to time, and is certainly very annoying. I don't know how the edit conflict software works, so no idea why we get these occasional screw-ups (particularly strange when folk are editing different sections). Surely we shouldn't have to do a diff every time we make an edit, to make sure it hasn't been screwed up. Glad it was sorted (and let's hope there's not another edit conflict while I'm making this reply). --David Biddulph (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Seems worthy of a bug report, if two occurrences are seen by one editor within three days. I don't need to do the math to consider that a significant problem. Many of these will never be noticed, let alone sorted. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If you create a report on phab:, please mention that one contributor (=me) thinks that editing the last section of a page over a slow connection while somebody else adds a new last section might be a factor. Or just add a permalink to this section. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If there's no more concern than this, not worth my time to learn phab! ―Mandruss ☎ 23:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• This issue is already on phab and has had some dups I believe. When I get home tomorrow, I'll look up the ticket number and CC anyone here interested in following it if I can find you on Phab. All you need to do to make sure you are there is to go to the login screen and click the yellow flower 'login with MediaWiki Oauth' or whatever it's called. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm interested. I don't see a yellow flower, but when I clicked on the strange white blob near the upper right it displayed information including my WP username. I guess that means I'm "there", I don't know... ―Mandruss ☎ 00:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Carl Smith (American Football) photo incorrect.

My name is Tyler Smith, representing my father Carl Smith, current quarterbacks coach for the Seattle Seahawks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Smith_(American_football)

The photo being used on his wikipedia page is incorrect. Another gentlemen who currently works for the Seahawks is pictured. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Coach_Carl_Smith_in_2013.jpg/220px-Coach_Carl_Smith_in_2013.jpg

These are genuine photos of my father Carl Smith:

http://instagram.com/p/ykpDVqvCnk/?modal=true http://prod.static.seahawks.clubs.nfl.com//assets/images/imported/SEA/bio-images/2012/Coaches/smith-carl/120718-smith-480.jpg http://seattletimes.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/huskyfootball/files/2014/05/UWprodayLOK17.jpg http://www.imageofsport.com/image/thumb/250-250/28122738.jpg

I am not familiar with editing wikipedia pages. Please make this correction- Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely, Tyler J. Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.25.244 (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The place to make the request is the article talk page, Talk: Carl Smith (American football). What is the copyright status of the genuine photos that you provide? Are they freely available for use on the Internet? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

North Bergen, New Jersey

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I read your narrative on the Township of North Bergen, NJ. You have left out one of the Townships famous residents: Gene Cornish guitarist for 60's rock group the Rascals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.101.169.130 (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous user. I added a header, so that it is more obvious that yours is a new question and not attached to the question about Carl Smith. The place to make suggestions for a particular article is on that article's talk page, Talk:North Bergen, New Jersey. If you have a reliable published source that he is from North Bergen, you may add him to the list, or suggest on the talk page that somebody do so; but it does need that published reference: unpublished personal knowledge is not enough. Our existing article Gene Cornish doesn't mention North Bergen. --ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

February 10

How to indicate that I have copyright permission

My page (Draft: Eric T. Costello) was deleted because of copyright infringement. I now have written permission from the copyright owner. How can I add this permission to my new page?

THIS IS THE PERMISSION I RECEIVED; BELOW THAT IS THE MESSAGE TELLING ME THE PAGE WAS DELETED From: Davis, Lester [1] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 9:18 AM To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Cc: Doreen Rosenthal (Doreen.Rosenthal@gmail.com) Subject: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org I hereby affirm that I, Lester Davis, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://www.baltimorecitycouncil.com/District11/default.htm. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Lester Davis Copyright holder and Director of Communications & Policy January 22, 2015

MESSAGE NOTIFYING ME THAT MY PAGE WAS DELETED: A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

11:15, 1 November 2014 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page User:DoreenRosenthal/sandbox (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoreenRosenthal (talk • contribs)

According to the copright notice on the source page the copyright owner is the Baltimore City Council, not Lester Davis, so Lester Davis will need to prove that he is properly authorized to act on behalf of the council. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm unclear on why the text would need to be released under a free license to begin with since we only rarely use text verbatim from a subject's website. I'm not the OP but could someone explain that aspect to me? Dismas|^(talk) 01:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Finding instances of source

Suppose you consider a particular source unreliable (e.g. National Enquirer). How can you go about finding instances of articles that cite the National Enquirer as a source? I remember there's a tool for doing this somewhere. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Special:Linksearch works for ones with an external link. —Cryptic 01:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was looking for. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Search for recently added text

Currently, message notifications are not working reliably (phabricator:T72329), so I'm looking for a way to find any instances of my user name added in the last week or so. Is there a way to search for this? (I posted a similar question at mediawikiwiki:Help_talk:CirrusSearch#Edit_date.2Ftime_53704, but I want to be open to ways other than CirrusSearch, since it doesn't look like it can do that.) — Sebastian 02:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This may not be what you're looking for, but as a non-tool-user I'd come up with a way to do it manually a few years ago (as a sockpuppetry hunting method). All you have to do is to search for the target string with profile set to "all", note the number of hits and logging the results in a spreadsheet. I was running my check monthly, but I could speed things up by searching within the results for "January 2015" (for the last month). It's pretty simple when you only have less than 10k instances of your name in the results. For you it's a piece of cake. Here is the basic search with profile set to "all". If you search for "February 2015" you'll find that your name has only been introduced into the encyclopedia 21 times since February began. You can tweak this search further by increasing the value of the limit. I set it to 1000, but you can change it to 2000 or more. I hope that helps. -Thibbs (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Note also that I was trying to determine changes to the number of instances so I was interested in additions or deletions of the name. You wouldn't need to note the number of hits and log the results in a spreadsheet if you're only interested in additions of your name. -Thibbs (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurelle_Mehus

I requested February 3, 2015 that this article and the photos under the same title be deleted. The article is no longer factual and needs to be deleted immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlntundra (talk • contribs) 03:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

CORRECTION- the article and the photos under the same name in wiki common need to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlntundra (talk • contribs) 03:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The article will be deleted soon: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurelle Mehus You will have to ask at Commons for the photos to be deleted. Since they are uploaded under a free-to-use license you may encounter some pushback. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is no longer factual and I want it deleted immediately. I requested this February 3, 2015. it needs to be deleted immediately. I am blocked from wiki common and can not request the photos be deleted. I did request the photos be deleted on the talk section of the article February 3, 2015. The photos need to also be deleted immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlntundra (talk • contribs) 04:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Bluntly, your "wants" are irrelevant. The discussion I linked to above will run for seven days and then the article will be deleted according to the discussion. Repeating the same thing over and over again will not do anything. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This requested was made February 3, 2015. It is 7 days. If you check the TALK page I believe the discussion began February 2, 2015. I am telling you - you have an article about me - that is not factual. I requested it be removed February 3, 2015. You said it would be taken down in 7 days. It has pasted 7 days and you have been notified it is not factual. I am requesting you take the article and photos down immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlntundra (talk • contribs) 04:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is gone. You can plead your case at Commons for the photos. We cannot do anything about them here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Referencing errors on C. K. Nayudu

Reference help requested.

Thanks, Bariissh (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Hi, Pl help me fix an error in this page that I edited. It says duplicate page is created by error.

These reference errors are long gone. At the time (June 2014) there was a pair of <ref></ref> tags with no reference between, and separately there was a {{cite book}} template with both fields

page=

and

pages=

present. You can have either of these fields, but not both. Please see this page for basic help on inserting references: Noyster (talk), 11:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Change name of an article

The Institute for Energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Energy) changed name in 2012. Now it is called Institute for Energy and Transport. Could you assist me with the update of the title of the article and how to set up a redirection from the old name to the new one.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkostov (talk • contribs) 09:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done See Help:Move for future reference. - X201 (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Change title of a topic

How to change the title of a topic ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imewhy26 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

See the answer above. --CiaPan (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Conference transcript citation help

How do I cite this lecture/conference? Cite conference was obviously NOT thought up for cases like this:

Giulio, Alfieri; Carlo Felice, Bianchi Anderloni; Orsi, Adolfo; Colombo, Alessandro. The Maserati 3500 GT (PDF). The Maserati 3500 GT, by its designer, Giulio Alfieri; Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia, Milan, 12 April 2000. Associazione Italiana per la storia dell'automobile, conference. Vol. 46. Translator: Christopher Gawne. AISA.

A mess. What the citation should convey is that Alfieri etc. weren't authors of a paper, but rather lecturers at a conference titled “The Maserati 3500 GT, by its designer, Giulio Alfieri” and hosted by AISA at Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia, Milan, on 12 April 2000; the transcript was then translated and published on AISA's website. — Cloverleaf II (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You can create a citation manually (i.e. without using a template) by enclosing text formatted however you like in <ref></ref> tags. For example here's one pretty ugly way to convey what you want:

"The Maserati 3500 GT" (PDF). The Maserati 3500 GT, by its designer, Giulio Alfieri; Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia, Milan, 12 April 2000. Associazione Italiana per la storia dell'automobile, conference 46. Lecturers: Alfieri, Giulio; Anderloni, Carlo Felice Bianchi; Orsi, Adolfo; Colombo, Alessandro. Translator: Christopher Gawne. (AISA).

Enclose that in <ref></ref> tags and you're good to go. Or modify it however you want, enclose it in ref tags and then post. Note also that the "Name, Other name" credit format should be "Surname, Given name", not "Given name, Surname". -Thibbs (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Also note however that citation styles like MLA and APA do list conference presenters at the start of the citation, so I wouldn't say your initial reference was improper at all. -Thibbs (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Sure, I didn't notice I mixed up the "first" and "last" fields. So in your opinion the corrected template would be acceptable? I also wanted to add wikilinked footnotes, but something like "AISA 2000, p.x", or "Alfieri 2000, p.x" doesn't read right. What would you suggest? The problem is the same, this work being a transcript hasn't an author proper. – Cloverleaf II (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I think the template would be fine with that one correction. As far as footnotes are concerned, I'd probably just go with something like "Alfieri 2000". Alfieri may not be the author, but if it's his words that were transcribed then he's as close to an author as we're going to find. I think that's what would be expected. -Thibbs (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Tagging citation needed

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for being a complete newb. I literally created a wikipedia U/P 10 minutes ago. I did check FAQ but could not find an answer. I am trying to edit an article whose neutrality has been questioned. There is a important sentence in the article that begins "Research shows..." but there is no reference or citation given anywhere in the article that would point a reader to this "research." I would like to place a mark at the end of this sentence pointing out that a reference or citation is needed and not given. How do I do this? Thank you--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by BacSD (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, BacSD, and welcome to Wikipedia. Don't worry about being new: we were all new once! What you're looking for is a cleanup template. You can find out about all of them at WP:Cleanup templates. The one you want is called "Citation needed", and you add it by inserting {{citation needed}} (including the paired curly brackets). immediately after the relevant sentence: this displays in the article as . Good luck. --ColinFine (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, BacSD that change is probably uncontroversial; but be aware that if you're editing an article which has been the subject of dispute, it's often worth discussing any changes on the article's talk page before going ahead and making changes. See WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BacSD (talk • contribs) 16:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

interwikilinks, tool unuseable, could need some help

Sorry, it seems that I am too stupid to use the "new edit feature":

I simply wanted to add an interwiki link to an other version of an article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inimitable_Jeeves (english, here the link should be added) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Jeeves (german addition, this link should be added to "other languages")

after about 15 minutes I gave up. sorry people.

The German version covers the whole series, there is no article in German Wikipedia only covering this one subject, therefor the automated tool wont find anything. Maybe somebody has more time left to waste and wants to add the link.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.34.176 (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Interlanguage links are typically not more added manually here as, say, [[de:Reginald Jeeves]], but as wikidata items for what you find with an item by title search for either enwiki:The Inimitable Jeeves or dewiki:Reginald Jeeves, and as it happens the latter d:Q521812 does not yet match the former d:Q7742044. At that point I don't know how to fix it, or if it is as it should be (different wikidata items.) –Be..anyone (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification, but still: There wont be an article for the single books in German any time soon (German Wikipedia people wont find it "woth noting in an own article" therefor even there will be one, it will get deleted in no time), as a reader of English Wikipedia who happens to be native German speaker, it was a hassle to hunt down the translated/transcribed article. Therefor I would perfer to add a link. But how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.34.176 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The dewiki folks went into some revert + speedy delete mode when I tried to add [[:en:HMS Proserpine (1777)]] as Interwiki link or soft redirect for an IMO not notable topic needed on a German page, and I fear the rules in the other direction aren't better. Some kind editor later simply created a German [[HMS Proserpine (1777)]] page for this ship. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Interlanguage links at Wikidata are always 1 to 1 with mutual links. The English Jeeves is correctly linked back and forth to the German de:Reginald Jeeves. The English The Inimitable Jeeves is more specialized and cannot be linked to the same German article. That happens all the time. If readers of The Inimitable Jeeves want to find related but not identical articles in other languages then they can look for a more general English article which will often be linked in the opening sentence, like here: "The Inimitable Jeeves is a semi-novel collecting Jeeves stories by P. G. Wodehouse ...". If you click P. G. Wodehouse then you get even more languages but less relevance to the topic of The Inimitable Jeeves. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Anchor link

There is one word which appears twice in an article and I want to link them. I have followed the instructions in WP:ANCHOR but cannot make the anchor link work. I think it may be because the word needs to be wikilinked and italicised as well [as] (word added later P-123) linked. The article is Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya and the word is mutawatir. Can you help, please? ~ P-123 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, P-123. Sorry, I don't understand your question. What do you mean "I want to link them"? At present there are two instances of 'mutawatir' in Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya, both of which are wikilinks to the redirection page mutawatir which redirects to the section anchor Hadith terminology#Mutawatir. What is it about this that you want to change? --ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

ColinFine: I meant link them to each other. The word mutawatir appears twice in the article. I want to link them so that when clicking on the first one it goes straight to the second one. I also need to wikilink the second one to the section of the article where "mutawatir" appears, as you noted. This was done before in an earlier article I worked on. I looked at the wikitext there but could not duplicate it as the wikilnk there was straightforward without any italics. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see, P-123. I think this is a quite bizarre thing to do, but it should work fine. Italics are irrelevant, as long as you don't try to put them in the link. You mark the destination as {{anchor|mutawatir}} and the link as ''[[#mutawatir|mutawatir]]'' (note I've put the italic markers outside the link). I've just tried this and it seemed to work for me (but I haven't saved my trial edit, as I don't know which way you want to link them: neither way round makes any sense to me). --ColinFine (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

While technically possible, it is quite improper. any blue link should go to the main subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you a citation for that, TheRedPenOfDoom? WP:WIKILINK tells you how to do it, and doesn't mention any restriction on doing so. It seems to me that linking to a section of a page is quite common, when a page uses a concept that does not merit an article of its own, but that gets described within in a more general article; and within a single page, to link a mention of something to a section of the page which expands the matter. What I found odd about P-123's request was that the word 'mutawatir' occurred twice in the page, but neither was a section heading, so to link in this way needed adding an anchor. --ColinFine (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:OLINK "Do not create links in order to highlight or draw attention to certain words or ideas in an article. Links should be used to help clarify the meaning of linked words, not to place emphasis on the words." WP:LINKCLARITY "The article linked to should correspond to the term showing as the link as closely as possible given the context" WP:SPECIFICLINK "Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link" . Links are to be used to go to articles not navigate within an article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Section links. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

ColinFine You have described in your second example exactly why I wanted the two words linked. The wikilink alone was not enough to give the reader the needed information. Your instructions worked, thanks. I cannot see what is odd about the words not being in section headings, though. I have seen this done before, several times, for the same reason, and assumed it was fairly common practice. That type of linking of words in the text but not headings is very useful and can help Wikipedia readers a lot. ~ P-123 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Maproom has removed your link to the anchor. Apparently, they agree with me that such usage is inappropriate. A link should provide more information about the word linked - either a Wikipedia article, a section in a Wikipedia article, or a Wiktionary entry. I removed the unused anchor. The internal section you were linking to with the anchor is not the primary or best description of the word available on Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss You say, "The internal section you were linking to with the anchor is not the primary or best description of the word available on Wikipedia." How would you know that? Have you looked into this, as I have? I am staggered that two outside editors, who have not been involved in the intricate talk page discussions on this page (principally about clarifying the text) as I have, feel able to make sweeping judgments of that sort. ~ P-123 (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this area, but it seems intuitive to me that a section called Hadith terminology#Mutawatir probably is a better description of "mutawatir" than a section called Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya#Authenticity. If I'm wrong, the redirect for mutawatir needs to be changed to point to the latter section, and the former section needs to be renamed. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That link was carefully thought through. Its removal means that readers will now be as confused by that word as they were before. How about you sort this out for the editors on that page? You will find all the information you need on its Talk page. ~ P-123 (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

All of the necessary explanation is in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. If an editor has trouble understanding it or disagrees with it, they are free to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. And they will get the same answer I have given above. If linking to Hadith terminology#Mutawatir would be confusing in the context of that article, then add some prose to clarify things. It might make sense not to link mutawatir there, or you could create a link to the internal section some other way. I can't say what would be best in this specific case, but if you link mutawatir it needs to use the redirect. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

ICBB. I'm not a Wikipediholic. You say, "If linking to Hadith terminology#Mutawatir would be confusing in the context of that article, then add some prose to clarify things." That was already done. You say, "It might make sense not to link mutawatir there, or you could create a link to the internal section some other way. I can't say what would be best in this specific case, but if you link mutawatir it needs to be to Hadith terminology#Mutawatir." Those things are exactly what the anchor link I provided did. Please inform yourself before criticizing or handing out advice. ~ P-123 (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The anchor link did not use the redirect (I modified my comment before you added yours) and to use the anchor link for the word mutawatir would be clearly contrary to MOS. That's about all I have to say on this, perhaps others would care to argue with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said, ICBB. I'm not a Wikipediholic. ~ P-123 (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right, Mandruss, to use the anchor link for the word mutawatir would clearly be contrary to MOS. Elementary Watson. IDMB for P-123. Perhaps not. 194.169.217.74 (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a really weird idea to make links wandering across the article contents. Links are supposed to direct you to a new article (or a section of an article) which defines or describes the term shown as a link. They are not for pointing to another place of use of the same term in the same text. Your explanation of 'reader confusion' does not convince me. If you think the reader needs to get enlightened in the matter, write a separate section to explain a specific meaning of 'mutawatir' in the context, which is not covered in Hadith terminology, then make internal links to that section.

IMHO, linking one instance of the word to the other, and the latter to another page simply does not make sense. Nothing guarantees that readers will follow them in the order you presume, so they may miss your point anyway. KISS! --CiaPan (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Martin Luther signature

Note that the picture of Martin Luther's signature is capsuled: "The Signature of Martin Luther King" Obviously that is incorrect--should only be ". . . of Martin Luther." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.197.81 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed at Commons in [2]. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

February 11

Page View Statistics

This feature seems to have stopped working on 2/5/15. What's the problem? Pkeets (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pkeets: The main discussion about this seems to be at Village Pump (technical). -- John of Reading (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Telfaz11

Greeting,

Why Telfaz11 page is still marked for deletion ? can you tell me exactly what is missing?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postdepartum (talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Postdepartum, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telfaz11. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has standards for notability. Things need to be well know before they can be included in Wikipedia. Whether or not something is well known, can be proven by using neutral secundary sources. At least some sources need to be about the topic directly and go into great detail. The article Telfaz11 is nominated for deletion because some people believe it does not give enough neutral sources that are about the topic. You can improve the article by adding such sources. After a while an admin will review the article and the opinions and indicate whether consensus is to delete or to keep the article. If the article is kept, the deletion marking will be removed by the admin. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Using talk pages

Dear colleagues, please tell me, how much time additional information to a certain article must be in talk page before it can be added to a certain article?--Yury2015 (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)