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 (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

January 1

Christian Darnton and James Kitson, 1st Baron Airedale

Please note that refs. 5 and 6 on the above Christian Danton page are incorrectly formatted. There is also a bad ref. on the James Kitson page 101.182.146.167 (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Thanks

 Done Replace the url in the title parameter with the actual title of the source. Or click the tiny blue 'help' link by the error message where all is explained. Eagleash (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Linda Ikeji

Can you please delete my Wikipedia page?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyra82 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Linda, as it was explained already here, you will need to contact the Volunteer response team so your identity can be verified. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 03:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Ashton, 1st Baron Ashton of Hyde

This article has enough citations now - please remove the "warning" at the end of the page. Thanks Mike101.182.146.167 (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

There are still parts of the article which need in-line citations as the sources are not immediately clear. The tag has been moved to the normal position at the top of the article. Any editor can remove it if they so wish, but should ensure the issues are addressed. (Also tweaked up the refs headings etc.) Eagleash (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Changed the banner from refimprove to lacking inline cites to make clearer. Sliven2000 (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Different versions sorting

I was wondering how one could sort the versions of an article in the history section by the amount of text in each version, and how one could do the same for different language versions of an article's current revision. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.84.28.198 (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That's completely impossible; it's not possible to re-sort anything in the history section. That's quite an interesting idea, however, and it might be a nice feature: make a proposal at WP:VP/Pr, or ask someone else (including me, if you want) to do it if you're not sure how to do it. Implementing this idea would require a software change, and while our software developers probably wouldn't make such a change in response to one person asking alone, they'd be more interested in performing a change that a lot of people support. Nyttend (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon

Reference number 3 is all wrong. Please help if you are able and please include the quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.182.146.167 (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Done. 31.52.138.243 (talk) 08:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you make articles "drill-down"?

Different readers of a wiki article may want a different level of detail; some may be casual readers, others more expert. Is there a way that you can construct an article so that it gives an executive overview in each section but if a reader is interested in more they can click on a link to expand the content?

I thought you could use sub-pages but having just read Wikipedia:Subpages it seems that using them to break up an article is not allowed. Sliven2000 (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sliven2000: Wikipedia articles are supposed to be an overview on a subject. They aren't supposed to be like a textbook on it. Collapsible content in articles presents a problem for certain screens and our manual of style says they should never be used to conceal article content. Our very best articles are able to give an excellent overview of the entire topic without going into every little detail. We even have a cleanup template, {{Technical}}, that should be used on pages that are too hard for most readers to understand. --Majora (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: I'm not talking about really complex things that are difficult to understand. I'm thinking mainly about 1) having good readability and 2) providing the reader choice. One of the best things about wiki is that a reader can go to a topic and then decide whether to find out more or not. Having a high level executive summary that can be expanded on if the user wants to is very much in the spirit of wiki, imo. Long topics do not have good readability and benefit from being split up somehow. Sliven2000 (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The lead of an article is intended to give an overview of its whole content. The idea is the reader reads the lead for a brief account, then goes to the sections that the lead has indicated may be of particular interest. For larger topics, each section may itself act as an overview of a more detailed account given in a separate article: e.g. the History section of the article on Spain is headed by a link to History of Spain, and subsections within that also link to articles on more specialised topics. Admittedly many articles do not adhere closely to this structure of lead, sections, links; but this is part of the huge task of article improvement that will keep many of us busy for years to come: Noyster (talk), 12:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Summary style contains some useful guidance, when and how to move longer sub-topics into their own stand-alone articles (with a concise summary being kept in the main article). Those sub-articles are not "sub-pages" from a technical view of course, but they serve a similar purpose. GermanJoe (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

For further details see the references. (Good articles will have references both to support the information provided and to tell the reader where to find further material.) RJFJR (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

But the best answer so far is suggested by User:GermanJoe: the answer is yes, articles can be constructed with links to more detail in related articles. For example, see the George Washington biography article. Under several of its section-titles are "main" links (using the {{main}} template) which go to the "main" article on the topic of the section, one of which is Military career of George Washington. Each of the linked articles has to be an individually legitimate article on its own, however. --doncram 04:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks to you all for the ideas. Will mull them over. Sliven2000 (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You can also use the template 'finedetail'.

Do people know to hover their pointer over the green text produced by Template:Finedetail? I've never seen this b4 so probably wouldn't have realised there was more text to be seen. Seems to be similar to using Template:Efn to make explanatory notes like used here Logic Theorist. When would you use finedetail and when efn? Sliven2000 (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Citing Coronial Inquiries/Inquests/Reports?

I want to cite the findings of this Coronial Inquiry. How should I do it to follow Wikipedia guidelines? I checked the courts citation template, but was unclear on what to do. --Toomanyaccountsargh (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You could add something like the following to the Bibliography section.

Deputy State Coroner HCB Dillon (State Coroner’s Court, Glebe 28 September 2015).

Depends on how the references are set up on the page you are editing. Which page is it?

Sliven2000 (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It might be better to just use Template:Cite web?? Sliven2000 (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Judging by its parameters (e.g. "volume" and "litigants"), Cite court is for judicial rulings, and it might produce citations that aren't appropriate for this kind of document. Per WP:CITEVAR, use a citation template on the page you're editing if the page already uses them, but otherwise it would probably be easier to write a normal citation. "The state coroner's office found that the fire destroyed 166 buildings in Warrumbungles National Park".<ref>Inquiry into Fire at Wambelong Camp Ground, Warrumbungles National Park, New South Wales, January 2013, Coroners Court of New South Wales, 28 September 2015, 8. Accessed 1 January 2016.</ref> Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Living Person

Hi,

I want to add the images from my wikipedia page "Josh Agnew" to the little widget box that comes up when you google my name

Kind Regards, Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuajnet (talk • contribs)

@Joshuajnet: The box is made by Google and not Wikipedia. We have no control over it. See Template:HD/GKG for a stock answer to requests for corrections to it. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Uncollapsing tables

How do I uncollapse all of the tables at Excision discography#Mixes. Please ping me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: Do you mean you'd like to display uncollapsed by default? Add the parameter "expanded=true" to the template:hidden invocation. Rwessel (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2

Mysterious public logs

Can anyone tell me what the "public log" entries on this page are for? I understand the logs of pages I have moved, but the earlier logs are mysterious - what do all the logs in 2012 mean, describing something connected with me as "unhelpful"? According to my contributions at that time I haven't done any of these acts. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Log entries are generated by the software each time they are viewed. If log-producing features are removed from our software then old log entries can display incorrectly. You probably used the feature at Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Feedback response guidelines#Moderating feedback. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thankyou, that seems to explain it. I remember I did indeed mark lots of feedback as "unhelpful", plus this answer explains the sudden cessation of those particular log entries, presumably coinciding with the removal of the feedback feature. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text

— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wordsmith at Work (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 January 2016‎ (UTC)

In the error messages, the word "help page" is in blue each time, indicating that in each case it is a wikilink to a help page on that specific error. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I presume this is about Jean Hewitt FBATD? I have reverted some changes that have inserted broken references, and have broken some of the existing tags. In any event, http://www.elainespires.co.uk/journal/2013/08/tribute-to-jean-hewitt/ appears to be a blog of some sort, and is not a WP:Reliable source (WP:USERG). Rwessel (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

How do I upload a photograph onto a Wikipedia Reference Desk page?

I want to use the Wikipedia Reference Desk to ask a question about a photo. How do I upload (is that the right word?) a copy of that photo onto the Reference Desk, so that I may ask my question about it? And does it matter what type of file the photo is (JPEG, Word document, etc.)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Joseph. To display an image anywhere in Wikipedia, you must first upload it to Wikipedia or (preferably) to Wikimedia commons: in either case, you need to sort out the copyright properly (and a picture on the Reference Desk can never meet the non free content criteria, so you can only use it if the photo is in the public domain or released under a suitable Creative Commons Licence, in which case it can be uploaded to Commons). See WP:Upload wizard.

An alternative approach for the Reference Desk is to upload the picture to some other site, such as Flickr, and link to it from your question: it isn't possible to display the picture in the Reference Desk, but you can explain your question and people can follow the link to view the picture. --ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Sheesh. More complicated than I thought. Here is a somewhat related question. Let's say that a photo is posted on the Internet (on some site, somewhere). Does that make it "public domain"? Given the fact that it is published to the public on a website? Or no? Just curious. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: If the photo does not explicitly say that it is published in the public domain the copyright is still held by the person that took the photo. Basically, if you don't see a specific notice saying you can use it assume you can't. --Majora (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Then why is it the case that when people post things on Facebook, for example, then those photos are re-posted all over the place? For example, let's say that someone gets charged with a high-profile crime. The next thing you know, all of their Facebook photos are posted all over the place (in news sites, etc.). How does that happen? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright law is complex and I don't know the details of it to really say a whole lot but most of those stories have credit notices below the pictures. That is usually fine for their purposes. For Wikipedia's purposes all images must be able to be reproduced and edited. That requires a different license. For more information on all the things we need see the bullets in this section on Commons. So since a Facebook photo is not specifically released under a license that allow us to do all the things in that list we cannot use it. --Majora (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

January 3

Total count of person-articles?

I am curious to know how many articles in English Wikipedia are about individual persons, whether living or deceased. I have not been able to find a figure for this anywhere, nor even whether this has been asked before. I imagine if this count isn’t already automatically compiled somewhere, it would be prohibitively time consuming to determine manually. Can anyone tell me if this info is somewhere I have missed, or suggest whether it is even possible to figure it? MJ (t • c) 04:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mark R Johnson: That is actually a really hard question. There are 743,527 people (at the time of typing) in Category:Living people. However, that does not mean that there is only 743,527 living people articles on Wikipedia since some articles may not be tagged. Deceased is even more challenging since it all depends on whether or not someone tagged. it. For example the article on George Washington does not have a "deceased" category so it wouldn't be counted in any of the dead people categories. If anyone else has a more concrete answer I am curious as well. --Majora (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that an exact count isn't available—as Majora notes, the 'metadata' associated with each article (categories and such) isn't complete. For an approximation, one could just hit the Random Article button 100 times (say), count how many of those 100 articles are biographies, then multiply the resulting biography percentage by the total number of Wikipedia articles to get an estimated number of biographies. (I just did a very quick survey and got 10 biographies out of 25 articles: 40%. Figure about 5 million articles, so about 2 million biographies. 6 out of 10 were living and correctly tagged as such, so very roughly half of our biographies are of people now living. But my sample is very much on the small side.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This may actually be a (better) job for WikiData, subject mostly to the same limitations already mentioned. Wikidata General Ization ^Talk 05:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all! – especially @Ten for the rough estimate. That’s probably nearly as informative as an actual count, so it pretty much satisfies my curiosity. But I also raised the question in case anyone might want to work on how to automate it. Other suggestions welcome. MJ (t • c) 05:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear MJ, there are 1,309,068 articles within the scope of WikiProject Biography. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

...With the caveat, of course, that that number relies on manual tagging of biographical articles (or their talk pages) with the appropriate template—so it will under-count by some margin for the same reason as counts based on other categories. (Which is not to say I'm assigning any huge robustness to my "about 2 million" figure; given its aforementioned small sample size, it could be off by a half million articles either way. I just repeated the count with another 25 random pages and got 10 biographies (again), 14 non-biographies—and one dab page to distinguish between two biographies, so I'm not sure how you want to handle those cases.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Currently at Wikidata there are 1,324,393 biographies, that have an article at English Wikipedia. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The Wiseman Baronets

I knew that my ancestor had been knighted at the Battle of the Spurs, and when I saw his name listed I clicked on it, which opened to an article about the Wiseman baronets. I saw where verification of the information was needed. Yes, that which is written is true and can be verified in two ways: Burke's Peerage or Google "Much Canfield Park". I don't want a tutorial; I just want to help. That's my family.

Thank you for your time. Marilyn Guinnane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cce6:6240:e423:4b10:ab4e:3d0e (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Hi Marilyn, Burke's Peerage is generally accepted to be a reliable source and most likely better than almost any arbitrary website found through a Google search. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

New article

I have recently created an article, but I can't find the article online except for when I login. Does the page have to wait for approval? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WonderKid1988 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 3 January 2016‎ (UTC)

So far, you have only put the article on your own user page, not in main space. You might like to read Wikipedia:Your first article, and ask again here if you need further help. Dbfirs 10:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Wyoming State Files 12 & 80 2015

Hi, I'm intending to start an article about the above laws recently passed in Wyoming, called "Trespassing to collect data." These are being challenged in the courts by environmental groups. On WP I'm an (English) astronomer and know little about starting an article dealing with US legal issues. However, having gauged opinion on a well-known international Citizen Scientist website called Zooniverse, it seems a good idea to proceed with the article. I have made a significant start already in a WP article on Citizen Science under the section Wyoming Data Resources Law. It has outgrown that article and will doubtless be added to as the legal case progresses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science#Wyoming_Data_Resources_Law

This law makes it a crime to collect environmental data on behalf of the government in the state of Wyoming. This potentially means that a member of the public is a criminal for taking a photo in Yellowstone National Park. It would also criminalize Citizen Science; there could never be a wildflower count, for instance, in Wyoming. I have also asked for help here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences/Law#Statutes. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Richard Nowell. I suggest you start by reading Your first article, and then use the article wizard to create your draft. Do remember that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, so everything in the article which might be at all contentious must be cited to a reliable published source, and if there are differing views in the published literature they should all be covered. So, taking what you have said above (and without researching the topic at all myself): if a reliable published source says that "This potentially means that a member of the public is a criminal for taking a photo in Yellowstone National Park", then the article may either explicitly quote that source, or say the same in other words and cite the source; but the article must not state that conclusion without citing a source that says it. And if there are published sources which dispute that interpretation, the article should cover them as well. I'm mentioning this at length because it sounds from your post above that you are concerned to highlight a law that you disagree with and its presumed consequences: if I'm right, that would be SOAPBOXING, and you should guard against it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

And, by the way, a quick look at it does not suggest to me that Zooniverse would be regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, as it is user-contributed. You would need to find discussion of the laws in sources such as major newspapers, or websites with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. --ColinFine (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to try to keep as NPOV as I could- I'm interested in what both sides have to say. I can also appreciate that statements that are emotive and unreferenced, rather than factual and referenced, should be avoided. Zooniverse wouldn't be used as a reliable source within the article, but was used here to highlight a point. Your point about SOAPBOXING is a good reminder. I've created several articles before but none would have had any soapboxing issues.Richard Nowell (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

West Papua Expert

Is there anyone here with any knowledge of West Papua, or more specifically West Papuan politics?
I found a fairly new article Dr. Thom Wainggai which appears to be written by a political supporter, and includes a section entitled "WORST TRIAL EVER", which is clearly not NPOV.
Although there do appear to have been some irregularities, I suspect the sources have been cherry-picked to support the PoV being presented. Having no knowledge of West Papua whatsoever, could anyone who does, please have a look? Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Arjayay: I've just tagged that article with {{POV}} to alert users to that issue, but if you want Wikipedia users from West Papua (in Indonesia) see Category:Wikipedians in Indonesia. You could also let the Indonesian WikiProject know here.  Seagull123  Φ  13:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Arjayay: I've left a message at the Indonesian WikiProject talk page.  Seagull123  Φ  15:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

entry deleted and modified to a previous inaccurate version

I am writing re: the content in Jeremy Gardiner's Wikipedia entry. Jeremy himself has created the content for his Wikipedia page and had it installed by Ginez 17.

Jeremy Gardiner

This content was edited and replaced a few weeks later by some old entry created at random. There are a lot of inaccuracies and not enough information on Jeremy's career as an artist. As his name becomes more well-known, the pressure is on to get a correct Wikipedia entry for him. His website link is correct on Wikipedia: www.jeremygardiner.co.uk

I contacted Wikipedia helpdesk and got the following reply:

The content was rewritten as the previous version was copied from an external site that was copyrighted, which is not allowed under our policies. As this is technically against copyright law, I will not be able to restore the article. Yours sincerely, Matthew Dann

My reply is below:

Dear Matthew Dann, Are you talking about the parts from Lund Humphries website? The publishers of his monograph?

http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9781848221000

Or is it Jeremy Gardiner's own website?

http://www.jeremygardiner.co.uk/profile/

I have actually created content for both of these, so in effect the copyright belongs to myself and Jeremy Gardiner, who is my husband and with whom I work to help spread his profile.

Could you please refer us to a fully qualified Wikipedia editor so that we can correct this and publish a new Wikipedia entry that is in line with Wikipedia's rules? Ginez 17, who we originally paid to do this for us is no longer available.

We really need to have this rectified asap.

Many thanks and kind regards, Veronica and Jeremy Gardiner VeroGardiner (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I am referring to Jeremy Gardiner. 86.130.237.5 (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This raises several points:-
1) - Jeremy Gardiner is most definitely NOT "his Wikipedia page" - it is Wikipedia's page about him, and will include whatever relevant information has been published in reliable independent sources - whether that be good or bad.
2) the last person who should decide what goes on that page is Jeremy Gardiner - as he clearly does not have a Neutral point of view
3) The text was deleted, because it was a copyright violation - we do not include text published elsewhere, unless it has been released under the correct licence, and even than, text written by his wife, or someone employed by him, is unlikely to be acceptable due to the inherent PoV
4) We have no sympathy whatsoever with you having paid someone to promote you on Wikipedia. As they apparently did not declare this, their contributions were against our Terms of use, which in some jurisdictions can be an offence.
5) Given the clear conflict of interest, please follow our policy here, and suggest any changes you would like considered, on the talk page of the article, including, reliable, independent sources, that can be cited to support the information you want added, if an independent editor deems the information worthy of inclusion. - Arjayay (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I also note that your question was asked, and answered in a similar vein, at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions - please do not ask in multiple places, in the hope of receiving a different/more favourable answer - that is considered Forum shopping - Arjayay (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to contribute a text, which was previously published elsewhere, to Wikipedia, please, follow WP:DONATETEXT. Ruslik_Zero 18:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

That is theoretically true, but licensing does not assure acceptance of the content. And promotional content would not be accepted anyway. —teb728 t c 21:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Inability to edit

I am a registered contributor. Why can't I edit an article like for instance Fireworks and some other ones? I couldn't find the answer in FAQ.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adimu (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Another editor has added a section heading, as your question didn't relate to the previous section, and I've also added a signature. If you click on the padlock symbol at the top right-hand corner of the article, it takes you to Wikipedia:Protection policy#semi, which explains that articles subject to persistent vandalism can be semi-protected so that it can't be edited until your account is autoconfirmed. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Your account should become autoconfirmed after just one more edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Hi User:Adimu
Firstly, please sign all posts on talk pages with 4 tildes ( ~~~~ ) which will add your signature and a timestamp
Secondly, to answer your question, Fireworks is a semi-protected article, so your account needs to be autoconfirmed in order to edit it - which your account will be once you have made a couple more edits :- Arjayay (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Approval

I put my artical how to get approval ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdaiHaddad (talk • contribs) 19:13, 3 January 2016‎ (UTC)

If you are asking about Draft:Innovations and the formation of ideas, you have submitted it for review, but (I am sorry to say) it undoubtedly will be declined because it more of a personal essay than an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such it summarizes what has already been published in reliable sources. If your article has published sources, you should cite them in the article. —teb728 t c 21:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

What is the minimum word or character limit for good articles?

Hi Help Desk volunteers. I have received tremendous support from you all before and I extend my thanks for your priceless help. I had a confusion on what is the minimum word or character limit for good articles. As in for WP:Good articles. I have nominated two of my articles for DYK (of which one has been accepted till now). But I am confused about the Good article process. Please advise. Xender Lourdes (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe there is any limit. Rather the article must have enough to be "broad in its coverage," but how much that is depends on the scope of the article. See WP:GACR. —teb728 t c 21:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Xender Lourdes - article length as such is not a criterion for Good Article status. However, to be given such a rating the article must properly cover its subject, which would generally mean that a very short article is unlikely to qualify. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you teb728 and Dodger67. This helps. Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove DOB from my bio?

Hi-

I am a voice actor and a page was created for me on Wikipedia. First off, I'm so flattered and grateful that people I don't know thought me noteworthy enough to make a page about me. And I would be happy to help add to it, though I am not familiar with coding. One thing I would prefer not to have published is my birth date and age. I try to keep that information non public as it can effect my career opportunities. Is it possible to have some one help me to remove it? Or direct me to some one who can? I'm happy to verify that I am indeed me if you'd let me know the best way to accomplish that. The page is for Carrie Keranen. And I'm her :)

I appreciate all your help.

Sincerely, Carrie Keranen CareBearFinn (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it. The sourcing was not appropriate for the personal information. -- GB fan 20:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It's been put back; with a note by the editor concerned that DoB is sourced. However, one source mentions Facebook and the other seems to be a free local-paper. Eagleash (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:DOB "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." - Arjayay (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

January 4

In the news

The main page has a section In the news. This 2016 Pathankot attack must be there. --Marvel Hero (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There was no consensus to post that. See this. --Majora (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: A new nomination has been posted and Marvel Hero just voted in support. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide

I'm not really sure if this is the appropriate place for this question, but it concerns a policy about pronunciation of articles. Usually, in fact almost always, the name of an article is followed by a note, usually in italics, about how to pronounce the title word of an article. For example, a word like puppet may be rendered like this: Puppet (pup-pet) It seems that Wikipedia no longer shows how to pronounce it's words anymore. Why is that?— Preceding unsigned comment added by VirginiaBoy (talk • contribs)

There has been no change in policy or practice. As with most things on Wikipedia, such pronunciation guides are added by users. If there is no guide, it just hasn't been added yet.--ukexpat (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd add that pronunciations are more common on words that would be less familiar. See Sabot, for example, and the IPA pronunciation there (hover over the individual symbols or click on it). Rwessel (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirect

hi,

i want https://bn.wikipedia.org/s/6yx5 page to redirect to https://bn.wikipedia.org/s/6yws

1. REDIRECT target I am using #REDIRECT গুল্ম but it is not working. please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justbublin (talk • contribs) 07:04, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

@Justbublin: It did not work because you are on the English Wikipedia. We can only really help you with questions about the English Wikipedia. Please try again on the actual page you are trying to edit in the Bengali Wikipedia. --Majora (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Justbublin: A redirect should have #REDIRECT [[targetname]] at the start of the first line. Your page creation had a lot of other code in [1], maybe because you apparently used the ContentTranslation tool. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Getting Access to Semi-Protected Page

Hello, I'm not too sure if this is the right place to ask as I've just joined Wikipedia. I'm happy to help and edit pages to do with Rangers F.C. but the actual Rangers F.C. wiki page is semi-protected until 2017. I was wondering of there is a way that I would be able to edit the page, therefore be able to add more information to the page? Thanks, --StevenRFC1872 (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)