Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BryanCoggins (talk | contribs) at 23:55, 23 February 2016 (→‎Constellation Research Page - Deleted without Contest: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    ↑ To top of page
    Shortcuts
    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 20

    How do I edit the {{Infobox film awards}} template?

    How do I edit the {{Infobox film awards}} template? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Joseph A. Spadaro: If you are not familiar with template coding, I suggest you post at Template talk:Infobox film awards with a general description of the change you'd like to make. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no traffic whatsoever on that page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There may be even less traffic in your own brain. >MinorProphet (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to apologise for my unnecessary and unhelpful comment above. Sorry. MinorProphet (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. But what prompted that? There is no traffic on that page, correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Depends on what you mean by traffic. If you post a question, someone may well be listening. >MinorProphet (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. But, doubtful. No edits on the page in a year or more. And no watchers of the page. So I figured I had a better chance here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is the article title in italics?

    This is referring to the following article (Red Ben de Lisi dress of Kate Winslet), and all similar articles. Why is the article title in italics? How can we change that? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Joseph A. Spadaro: If you see something and you can't find it in the wikitext always check the templates that are used on the page. Per Template:Infobox artwork, all articles that use that infobox will also have an italic title. You can turn it off with a parameter. --Majora (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I never know how to fiddle with templates. They are very confusing and not user-friendly at all. The documentation is notoriously difficult to comprehend. Why would the words of that type of article "demand" to be italicized? I don't know how to shut it off, or even if it should be shut off. But I cannot imagine it is accurate that the "name" of a dress should be in italics. So, I am asking. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseph A. Spadaro: At the top of Template:Infobox artwork is a box explaining its use of the "italic title" feature: "If this is not required, add |italic title=no to the list of parameters". I have done this to the article with this edit. The template defaults to italics because MOS:ITALIC says that the names of most artworks should be set in italics. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Then, I guess that a dress is considered a "work of art"? Oh, brother ... Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessrily, Joseph A. Spadaro. Somebody has decided that {{infobox artwork}} is the most appropriate one for that article. That does not constitute considering it a "work of art" , since that phrase does not appear in the visible text. If you think it is inappropriate, you are quite at liberty to edit the article to use a different infobox, to propose that the infobox be renamed, or to create a new one. The fact that somebody has provided "italic title=no" as a parameter suggests that somebody thought the infobox would be applicable more widely than titled works of art. --ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Info boxes and templates are notoriously difficult to edit, unless one is very tech-savvy and "good" with that type of computer language (HTML or whatever it is). The documentation is also very difficult to understand. These are rarely user-friendly. As a result, I "stay away" from editing info boxes and templates. I would cause more harm than good. Needless to say, I find it quite silly that dresses are considered "works of art" (at least for info box purposes). And, quite frankly, I am stunned that we even have articles on dresses like these! These are notable? Oh, brother. I somehow just happened to stumble across these. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't an infobox for every type of topic so editors sometimes find one that can be used without being a perfect fit. We actually do have {{Infobox clothing item}} for dresses but it was created after the article. I have converted to it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I just fixed the hideously contorted lead in this article. The others listed in {{Academy Award dresses}} probably need looking at too if anyone is interested in helping.--ukexpat (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Uncontroversial_technical_requests

    Could someone fix this section Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Uncontroversial_technical_requests. There's some spurious text right under the header:

    ||reason= }}

    and enter on a new line, directly below -->*

    Thanks --76.14.85.215 (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    That was fixed at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests a few hours ago. I have just purged the Wikipedia:Requested moves page, so the display of that page should be correct now. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:V; Things to source??

    The things it says that are acceptable sources seems like a labyrinth to me. I'm seeing stuff that says to specifically refer to academics and then other tangible, but do all references have to be tangible? Are web-based news sites allowed? This confusion with the policy is why I'm shy to add facts or make new articles. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely, web-based sources are allowed, Zeke Essiestudy. In fact, all other things being equal, web-based sources are preferred, because it is easier for readers to check them. What is crucial is that they are reliable, i.e. have editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Some web-based sites meet this test; others don't (and it's not always an all-or-nothing test: it may depend on just what information it is being used to support). --ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange gap in reference text

    If you look at ref 1 in User:Penbat/So (sentence opener) it says:

    • "SO wrong! Why John Humphrys is in a rage at such a little word after..........it invades everyday speech Sam Creighton Daily Mail 20 Jun 2015"

    Any ideas ? --Penbat (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Penbat: {{Reflist|2}} asks for the reference text to be displayed in two columns. This does give strange results when there are only one or two references -- John of Reading (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK thanks :-) --Penbat (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Minor formatting problem in infobox film

    Hi, In the infobox for The Miracle (1912 film), there is an unwanted empty line between the release dates for Germany and Argentina. I have tried several times to get rid of it, but I don't seem to be able to fix this very minor problem. Any ideas, please? >MinorProphet (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand what is happening there. The gap appears between the last two items in the list of release dates. The actual items, and their order, does not affect this. Maproom (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @MinorProphet: I tried pulling the Argentina start date back to the prior and then using an html break and that did work – except that it moved the same spacing problem back to the prior start date. So I pulled back the next, and it fixed it there too, but that once again moved the space problem to the prior. So I just replaced all the hard breaks with html breaks, and that worked. I have no idea of the cause though. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The extra vertical space results from improper (read missing) list markup. The original markup caused MediaWiki to wrap the UK–Germany release dates in a <p>...</p> tag; Argentina was not included. The proper solution to this problem is to use some form of list markup. Per WP:VLIST use of {{plainlist}} is probably the best option. Rewrite the list like this:
    {{plainlist|
*{{start date|df=yes|1912|12|21}} (UK)
*{{start date|df=yes|1913|02|17}} (USA)
*{{start date|df=yes|1913|03|24}} (Netherlands)
*{{start date|df=yes|1913|12|29}} (Australia)<ref name=Oz_premiere>[http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/15494914 ''Sydney Morning Herald'', Monday 29 December 1913, p. 2 col. 3]</ref>
*{{start date|df=yes|1914|05|15}} (Germany)
*{{start date|df=yes|1916|01|29}} (Argentina){{sfn|Finkielman|2004|pp=34–35}}
}}
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you're supposed to use {{film date}}, and, according to WP:FILMRELEASE and WP:FILMDIST, not include release dates or distributors outside of the original one for the film's nationality. In this case, that would mean only the British release date and distributor should be listed. I can go through an clean this up, but it looks like it would be kind of time-consuming to sort it all out. I'll get to it later if nobody else does. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Thank you to everyone for your timely accumulated responses. I have moved almost everything down to the 'Performances' section, leaving info for the originating country only in the infobox. Thanks all, >MinorProphet (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Essential Mix episodes

    I am trying to clean up the List of Essential Mix episodes article to remove massive amounts of spam links. Other editors keep adding spam links into the article, after I remove them, and so it's difficult to make any progress in the cleanup. What is the best way to get help with this? Teh (talk • contributions) 17:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The spam links I see there are to download sites, offering material that is, I assume, copyrighted by the BBC. If what those sites are doing is illegal, that would be an excellent reason for deleting the links, and maybe blacklisting the sites. Maproom (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Update a Picture

    Hi there, Could anyone update the first picture on the University of Bristol page? The crest used currently on the wiki page is not the official one (it is for the alumni). Could anyone do this?

    Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bristolian00 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This question has also been asked at WP:MCQ and responded to. ww2censor (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    What will you do to pages that get too big

    This is not a question on how to use or edit Wikipedia, but just out of curiosity, I just wanted to know what will you do to pages that have too much coverage of the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocus47 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of it might be deleted; or the articles might be split into two or more. Maproom (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, now I know what to do with articles. Eurocus47 (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Your question may involve one of at least two situations. First, the article has too much coverage of the topic because it contains unnecessary information, contains an indiscriminate collection of information, contains trivia, contains irrelevant material, et cetera. Second, the article is too long because the topic requires a great deal of information to be fully encyclopedic. In the first case, the excessive information can be removed. In the second case, the article can be split. In either case, you should discuss on the talk page before taking action. If other editors disagree with you, read the dispute resolution policy and follow one of the procedures for resolving content disputes, such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You may also find it useful to read WP:SPLIT. ww2censor (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a specific page you are concerned with? Tiggerjay (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrongful use of information

    Ok, so on this page Calcium nitrate I noticed their was something missing under the uses section. So I added another use and cited my website. My citation was deleted, but my information was kept. Why is this and/or how is this allowed? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.87.160 (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You added a sentence to calcium nitrate, with a poorly-presented reference. Then Mysterious Whisper rewrote what you had written, making it more accurate, and replaced the reference you had given by a correctly formatted reference to a more reliable source. Such actions (both yours and MW's) are not only allowed, they are encouraged. That is how Wikipedia gets better. Maproom (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposing Additional Twinkle Warnings

    If I have seen certain types of disruptive editing more than once that do not have their own Twinkle warnings, and I would like to have new Twinkle warnings added, what is the proper place to make that request? (In particular, the two offenses are the removal of MFD templates (AFD template removal and CSD template removal have their own warnings) and the removal of AFC comments.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Twinkle?--ukexpat (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    February 21

    Sir/Madam,

    I have run www.naval-history.net since 1998, an internationally known site, which is being taken over by a major British museum. As a group project, we have a wealth of information that we would like others to be aware of. On that basis I have added a link two or three times to Royal Navy, to find it is rapidly removed.

    I cannot understand this. The last time I made changes or added links to Wikipedia was many year ago when I had an email saying I was adding too many links. I immediately stopped doing so and this is now the first time I have returned. I am not on your blacklist, so how can I continue to add links to new material that will be of value to your readers?

    Thank you, Gordon Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonSmith1941 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, GordonSmith1941. Just as anyone can add material to Wikipedia articles, anyone can remove it as well. What content stays is determined by consensus of editors. The editor who reverted your addition explained in an edit summary: "doesnt really add to the article per WP:EL" (diff) and again "already been removed. Go to talk page and discuss" (diff). I suggest you heed their advice and start a discussion at Talk:Royal Navy to get this resolved. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if you "run" the website of the link you're trying to add to a Wikipedia article, you should've proposed the addition on the article's talk page with the disclosure of your connection to it to avoid any possible conflict of interest. - theWOLFchild 02:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Section Watching

    How do I watch a specific section in a page? 400 Lux (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @400 Lux: That would be really useful, but unfortunately I don't believe it is possible. One thing that might help a little is that if someone edits a section, the default edit summary begins with the section title. (So my edit summary begins "/* Section Watching */") So you could watchlist the page and look for the section title in the edit summary. Of course that doesn't work if someone edits a different section later, or if someone edits the whole page. —teb728 t c 06:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @400 Lux: This is a popular proposal. See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Technical. Dismas|(talk) 22:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @ @Dismas: That *entire* page was interesting. Thank you. 400 Lux (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    What's different between "Edit source" and "Edit"?

    I saw two buttons, "Edit source" and "Edit", in the article List of muscles of the human body, but I don't know what is different between two. --Osteology (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, great question! When you click edit source, you will be taken to a page where you can edit the Raw Wikitext of the page. That looks like this. When you just press edit, you will use the Visual Editor. Editing the raw source is more powerful, and you can do more things, but it can be confusing as a new user. The Visual Editor makes basic editing very easy. --allthefoxes (Talk) 03:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing using the Visual Editor is easier when it works. Have the bugs been worked out finally? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Jorjafak

    This spelling is wrong. I was able to correct it to Jorjafk in the text of the article. How can I correct the main title from Jorjafak to Jorjafk. Any help for correction or instructions how to do it is appreciated.69.117.200.235 (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The article's reference 1, and this link, give the spelling Jarjāfk. I am reluctant to change the name of the article to something which appears not to be the usual name of the village. Maproom (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The reference 1 is from US military, and I am not sure what is their source for names and the correlating English transliteration. There are many references about Jorjafk fault in reputable scientific journals about earthquakes. If you search this references you will see the costant spelling as Jorjafk. I lived in Jorjafk and served as the only physician there for more than a year. This correction will keep the stability of the usage of the same old spelling, and will also help geographical locating systems to show Jorjafk on their serving pages. Thank you for attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.200.235 (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Help filing an SPI?

    Sorry. Bit out of practice. Pretty sure I did this wromg... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've no idea whether you did it right, but it doesn't seem to have made it onto this list. Maproom (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    To Kill a Mockingbird

    Hello, sorry for my bad english;

    I think several paragraphs of To Kill a Mockingbird#Biographical background and publication, especially the third, are copy/paste from [1]. Thanks, Kotovol (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kotovol: Alright, so I have cleaned up the article. The material was added after the source was published so I can assume that the reference came first, not the other way around. I have also added a revdel request template to scrub the copyvios from the article's history. Thank you very much for reporting this. It is greatly appreciated. --Majora (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Please consider a closure of this Rfc

    A user (Spirit Ethanol) has requested that Palestine be displayed as a sovereign state in its own right over at List of state leaders in 2016, and he has, in my opinion, falsely worded his Rfc question: "Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel"—which, in my estimation, is a blatantly biased question, as hardly anyone would ever infer that Palestine (i.e. the Palestinian National Authority renamed) is purely some sort of "substate" of Israel, more accurately rather a "quasi-sovereign state partially under Israeli occupation". Most of the contributors over at the Rfc seem currently unaware that the status quo is in fact Palestine being listed as a separate sovereign entity, believing that the Rfc is a proposal to revert this to what the status quo actually is at present, hence the confusion and commotion. Personally, I honestly believe that the user is simply trying to score pro-Palestinian political points (as per WP:POINT) and is simply in denial of the reality on the ground over at that disputed area or perhaps unaware. Due to the sensitive nature of the dispute, the survey has become heated somewhat with editors misled in believing that Palestine is somehow displayed as a subnation within Israel. This is 100% untrue. Per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, Palestine is not considered a sovereign state on par with Israel and other independent nations. If you could review the dispute, please consider either closing it altogether or temporarily halting it (a moratorium), as the neutrality of its wording has been called into question by at least two other editors involved. On a further note, the issue was not even discussed on the talk page before the Rfc, as the aforementioned user decided to skip this part of the process, further calling into question his conduct and reluctance to seek local consensus first. All that said, I believe that WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT seems to be his argument at the moment—as he has not sufficiently laid out his reasoning as to why Palestine should be displayed as a fully independent & sovereign nation. Note: I have previously queried this concern over at Number 57's talkpage, although I feel I may get a swifter reply here. Thanks.

    First, you would be better off to request closure of the RFC, which I agree is worded in a misleading and non-neutral way, at WP:AN. Did the originator open the RFC before or after being given the warning about WP:AC/DS? If the originator had already been warned, arbitration enforcement might be in order, but it appears that it was the RFC that resulted in the warning. However, since you have posted here, an administrator who reads this page and thinks that the RFC is as bad as I think it is may choose to close it as non-neutrally worded. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon:
    1. An apparent ally of Spirit Ethanol / SE (Super Nintendo Chalmers) has already requested Rfc closure at the behest of SE—with SE believing that the consensus is in his favour, and refuses to acknowledge anything wrong with the questionable wording of the Rfc question.
    2. This is not a short story, although Bbb23 did mistakenly block the two of us (evidence here and here) for apparently breaching WP:1RR (a mistake, as he believed that the article involved was under arbitrary sanctions, which it was not). I had initially reported SE for breaching WP:3RR.
    Both I and GoodDay tried to contact several admins, including Alison and Number 57. With the latter admin, I had received a non-sympathetic reply from a different user (TracyMcClark); although I thank you, Robert, for your professional and forthright perception of this dispute. I hope I have sufficiently answered your questions.--Neve–selbert 19:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    RM's advice is spot on. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Kashmir is a disputed territory??

    Can you please edit the page, the state of Jammu and Kashmir is a soverign part of Democratic country known as India aka Bharath aka Hindustan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.224.129.61 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This sounds like a content dispute, and should be discussed on an article talk page. What page do you want edited? In any case, discuss on a talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, read the dispute resolution policy and follow one of the procedures described. Be aware that ArbCom discretionary sanctions apply to disruptive editing or tendentious editing in accordance with the ArbCom India and Pakistan ruling, which is even more reason to be collaborative and to discuss on a talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-English sources

    The rule states: "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." What does "preferred" mean in this context? Is it only an advice to me to make a search for a source in English as earnestly as I can? Or this rule gives other editors some right to dismiss (i. e. to revert) my edit because it is supported by a non-english source? Especially: 1) What if equally reliable sources (e. g. works of reputable scholars from different countries) disagree and some of them are in English, while others are in other languages? 2) What if I am unaware of the relevant source in English whose reputability if fit to the claim? 3) What if I cite sources of different national origin to show how widespread the opinion is? 4) if someone have suspicion that I've mistranslated a source, what part of the burden of proof each of us have to bear? Woud it be sufficient that I give relevant quotations from the source and my literal translation of them? Help me please to clarify. Эйхер (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Эйхер, a source cannot be dismissed only because it is not in English. There are a substantial number of articles on the English Wikipedia that have no English sources at all. 1) In a case of disagreement between sources of equivalent quality and reliability the language of the sources is irrelevant. 2) You can only cite sources you have access to, irrespective of the language. 3) That's a perfectly legitimate use of non-English sources. 4) Including a quote and translation in the reference is a good idea if it might be a contentious point. Finding other editors fluent in the source language is not difficult for most languages, so a second opinion is also an option. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank You very much! Эйхер (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add my two cents to Roger's excellent response. I don't know which article you are talking about in particular, so I'm not sure how relevant this is, but where there are reliable sources which disagree, it is not Wikipedia's role to decide which is "correct". Instead, we should report the discrepancy in a balanced way (see WP:BALANCE.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't about a particular article in English Wikipedia. There is some debete in Russian Wikipedia about proposed correction of the wording in the local rule abour Reliable Sources, and I decided to study existing practices of other chapters. Thank You very Much. Эйхер (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    site wikipedia

    How do I site Wikipedia in a research paper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.238.2 (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    On the left hand side under the Tools header should be a link that says "Cite this page." However, it is probably unwise to cite Wikipedia directly. Wikipedia should be used as a starting point that points towards reliable published sources. These sources can be found in the references section of any article. It would probably be much better if you were to work off of those than the article directly. --Majora (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For a detailed explanation, see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are writing a research paper, you should probably know that "site" is a noun and "cite" is a verb. --Thomprod (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    February 22

    Jorjafk

    The reference 1 is from US military, and I am not sure what is their source for names and the correlating English transliteration. There are many references about Jorjafk fault in reputable scientific journals about earthquakes. If you search this references you will see the costant spelling as Jorjafk. I lived in Jorjafk and served as the only physician there for more than a year. This correction will keep the stability of the usage of the same old spelling, and will also help geographical locating systems to show Jorjafk on their serving pages. Thank you for attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.200.235 (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There are 2 essentially identical questions about this on the page, so please continue any further questions at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Jorjafak above. Also note, your original question has been answered there. CaptRik (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Batch download

    Is there any MW-included tool that permits one to download a bunch of images all together, at full resolution? I just want images, not file pages, so the book tool wouldn't help. Of course, one can do a total database dump, or one can download each one individually, but when it's a matter of 2500 images, neither one is practical if there's a better option. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Referencing errors on Skrull

    Reference help requested. Referencebot lists "On the Skrull page, your edit caused a broken reference name" but I don't see the problem? Thanks, Darci (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You need a lot of H'rpra if you couldn't see the angry red message in the reference section. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    obstacle course racing

    Hi guys my name is Mark leinster im the CEO of the Obstacle course racing association (OCRA UK) and uK ambassador for the OCR World championships.

    We have been established for almost 2 years now and are soon to be recognised as the NGB for the sport in UK.

    I would like to know how to amend the wikapedia meaning of the sport as it is a bit outdated now as the sport has progressed so much in a short time.

    hope you can help

    mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.96.169 (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Mark, welcome to Wikipedia!
    Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so if you can see improvements to make, you can just go ahead and make them! There's some advice on getting started at Help:Getting started.
    That said, by being CEO of OCRA you have a financial association with these articles, so you should be aware of Wikipedia's rules about conflicts of interest. In particular, Wikipedia's terms of use forbid making edits that you are being paid for (even if not being paid directly) without making it clear that you're being paid, per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, and such edits may also be in breach of fair trading laws or ASA guidelines. Your best bet is to request changes on article talk pages and make it clear that you have a conflict of interest when doing so.
    —me_and 13:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The other important thing, Mark, is that every single piece of information inserted into the article should be cited to a reliable published source: unpublished information and personal knowledge are not acceptable. Furthermore, information from your organisation's website or publications is only usable in limited ways, because it is not independent. If you follow me_and's advice, and post your suggestions on the talk page, you're more likely to get somebody willing to make the edits if you provide reliable published sources for information you suggest adding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinFine (talk • contribs) 17:31, 22 February 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

    Odd page format

    Hello,

    I am new to Wikipedia, editing pages at least anyway, but I have recently come across the page for Abingdon and Witney College - - a local college to me.

    I noticed that the page doesn't seem to have the usual format of an info box on the right, with an image and some key info. I have tried to work out how to rectify this issue but just can't. Upon looking at the 'talk' section I noticed that their has been an ongoing argument between two users with regards to the content that has been uploaded.

    I would like to make the page look like all other pages on Wikipedia, as in following the same layout and format but I can't work out how. I imagine I'm being stupid but any help on this matter would be very much appreciated.

    Many thanks,

    Shasley2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shasley2016 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Shasley, welcome to Wikipedia!
    The infoboxes most pages have on the right are created with templates; if you look at Template:Infobox college#Example, you can see an example of how to use a template to create a suitable infobox for this article. (The example uses "Infobox university", but "Infobox college" is a redirect – effectively an alternative name – to "Infobox university", meaning you can use either to get the same result).
    I've also had a look at the article talk page, and I can't see any dispute there. In any case, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution has some suggestions about how to resolve disputes and arguments on Wikipedia.
    —me_and 13:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I hear the content as audio form instead of reading it?

    Can I hear the content as audio form instead of reading it?

    I wish to suggest Wiki to facilitate audio form of the content when a person can't read the article etc on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.210.66 (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi! Wikipedia has a relatively small number of articles that have recordings of them that you can listen to rather than read. You can request articles have a have recordings added by following the instructions at Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests.
    For the vast majority of articles that don't have spoken recordings of them, you might want to find a screen reader that will read the page to you, although I don't have experience with any to offer any personal recommendations.
    Hope that helps! —me_and 12:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have used Voice Dream on the iPhone succesfully. It costs $10. deisenbe (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Creating a public figure profile

    Good day sir, madam: I am finding it difficult to create a profile of a young public figure. Can someone please help me? I will highly appreciate the effort.

    Thanks

    Kaifa SesayDusesay (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, welcome to Wikipedia!
    There's a lot of advice about creating an article at Wikipedia:Your first article; I'd suggest having a read of that first of all, since there are a lot of common questions and problems covered there.
    It's worth noting that Wikipedia has some fairly strict policies when writing biographies of living people, in order to avoid harm or libel. You should probably have a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for those policies, but in short even more than for most articles, things in a biography need to be sourced from reliable, independent sources.
    If you're having any particular difficulties, feel free to come back here and ask for help with whatever's causing you trouble.
    —me_and 12:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Kaifa Sesay. Please be aware that if you are thinking about a "profile" you may be on the wrong track. Wikipedia isn't like a directory or social networking site which has profiles: it is an encyclopaedia, which contains articles about notable subjects - those that have already been written about in reliable published sources. If you write an article about a person, what that person says or wants to say, or what their organisation or associates say, are all almost irrelevant to Wikipedia: the article should be neutral, and based almost completely on what people with no connection to the person have published about the person. --ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Urgent

    I want to know the steps involved in the creation of public figure profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusesay (talk • contribs) 12:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I've just answered your previous question above. If you have any new questions, please feel free to ask them, but repeating yourself won't get you answers any quicker. —me_and 13:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And, by the way, it is not urgent. WP:Wikipedia has no deadline, and if you think there is urgency, you may be here for a purpose which is not Wikipedia's purpose. --ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Move request

    Talk:Amadis de Gaula

    I posted a move request as the last item on the above page, but nothing has happened. Could you either make the move, or tell me what I should do? Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Deisenbe: I think you're looking for WP:REQUESTED MOVES. Dismas|(talk) 14:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you have requested this over at WP:REQUESTED MOVES. It may take up to 7 days for a discussion to take place and then the requested move to take place if supported by consensus. Please see WP:DIACRITICS so you're aware of one of the criteria that will be used to determine the validity of the move request. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Conflict of interest but not paid for contributions

    Hi there,

    I have made a major edit and a collection of minor edits to the following Wikipedia page;

    ThumbSat

    And the related talk page. My question is about making it clear that I have a conflict of interest, and the nature of my conflict. I work on the ThumbSat project and hence when I received an email from an external source saying they have made a ThumbSat Wikipedia page on our behalf I decided to review and then rewrite the page due to a number of technical omission and poor syntax. This is not covered my my typical duties (I'm a spacecraft engineer, not in PR) and I was not asked to make these changes by anyone else in the company - so to be clear I wasn't paid for these edits. The motivation for the edit was not wanting a project I have worked on to be misrepresented, especially in a negative light. I have attempted to keep a clear and impartial tone when editing the page and have tried to make the majority of statements reference secondary sources where possible and primary sources where not.

    A separate user (the user who set up the page initially) had edited the talk page to signify my employment at ThumbSat and that I was paid for the work, this wasn't the case so I've removed that edit and am posting this.

    Many thanks,

    FraserJamesRobinson (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @FraserJamesRobinson: If you are working for a client, then you are a paid editor, and so are legally required to disclose this. Also, do not removed sourced content replacing it with promotional datasheet-like material. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @FraserJamesRobinson and Joseph2302: If you're not being paid for editing (i.e. you're doing it on your own time, you're not receiving any reward for the edits), it doesn't count as a paid edit – those are explicitly contributions "for which [the editor] receive[s], or expect[s] to receive, compensation", per WP:PAID. It sounds like that's not the case here.
    Nonetheless, I'd strongly recommend disclosing your conflict of interest on your user page and the article talk page (the latter seems to have already been done, if not by you then another editor), and reading the guidelines at WP:COI.
    Looking at the edit history for that page, it looks like you've been reverting a lot of edits by other editors; given that you have a COI, I'd strongly recommend limiting yourself to uncontroversial edits (and a revert is almost never uncontroversial) and otherwise only making changes by requesting them on the talk page, so other editors can review them and comment on them before they make it to the article itself.
    —me_and 19:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @me_and so based on this would it be appropriate for me to revert the changes back to my text as it was more structured and help to expand the article (it's now listed as a stub). I've learnt a fair amount of info about what makes a good article so I'd certainly make a bunch of edits to the post now. FraserJamesRobinson (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Bibles

    I need to do research on the sort of English old bibles used (Middle?", as meanings in modern bibles occasionally have altered the original meanings, as well as spellings, & need clarification by readers unskilled in whatever the period of English means in "modern" terms.

    Example, the meaning of the word "sin" comes from an early ARCHERY term: "sinne." This is the term which describes MISSING the target. One hears the ssss sound of the passing arrow, but there's no resounding THUNK at the end. One has "missed the Mark," which, to the Church, was an apt description of aiming incorrectly, & falling short of the path to reach God -- the Mark.

    Do you see that the term has =become= a condemning notion to modern minds, & NOT incentive to trust in the "endless" forgiveness of God? One should instead be inspired to aim better & try again. Instead, many, unaware of this aspect of the Christian God, of eternal forgiveness with only ONE exception (& even that one =can= be forgiven!), people give up & just give in to "sin / sinne."

    Ultimately my question is DOES a place exist on Wikipedia which translates that OLDER English that I can use? The site MUST be translated into =modern English. Thank you! Connie Crouch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.150.174 (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Your etymology of "sin" is not supported by the reliable published sources which Wikipedia respects. What is the site which you believe must be translated into modern English? Maproom (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    First, as the previous editor notes, you will need a reliable source. Second, some of your above post has a polemic quality to it, and would certainly need to be toned down before being put into an article. Third, if there is a specific article that you want changed, discuss on the article talk page. If, as is likely, you don't find consensus, read the dispute resolution policy, which will tell you what different options are for resolving the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not quite clear what you're asking, but I think the answer is "no". Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, nothing else. It does not do translation. It does not contain etymologies (except sometimes in passing). You might find some useful information in Early English Modern Bible translations, or in sources referenced from there. --ColinFine (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure but I think ColinFine is referring to Early Modern English Bible translations - Arjayay (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops! Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks Arjayay. ColinFine (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Connie, you can't do better than the OED. My abridged edition gives the etymology as:

    OE. syn(n, for original *synjō, related to OFris. sende, MDu. sonde, G. sünde, etc. Cf. L. sons, sontis guilty.]

    Its first definition, which represents what the compilers believe to be the oldest sense of the word, is:

    A transgression of the divine law and an offence against God; a violation (esp. wilful or deliberate) of some religious or moral principle. b [this indicates a sub-meaning] transf. A violation of some standard of taste or propriety 1780.

    The date represents the earliest documented use of the sub-meaning; the lack of a date for the main meaning indicates that it's so old that there's no way to find an earliest use. You need exceptional evidence to prove that OED has made a mistake here. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, Connie, have you heard of the Lindisfarne Gospels? They're an ordinary set of Latin manuscripts of the New Testament that a monk annotated with Old English translations of short passages. See [2] for transcripts. Page 8 contains the latter half of the first chapter of the Gospel of John, including the words of John the Baptist in verse 29, which in Modern English reads Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! The Latin text given there is Altera die videt Johannes Ihm [a scribal abbreviation] venientem ad se, et ait, Ecce agnus Di [another abbreviation], qui tollit peccatum mundi. Consider the final words, which become "who takes away the sins of the world"; this clause is translated seðe nimeð þ lædeð synne middang [scribal abbreviation]. It's synne, not yfel or some other OE word with comparable connotations. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    How to edit?

    Can you please help me edit my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bianca Levine (talk • contribs) 17:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bianca Levine: which page are you trying to edit and what sorts of edits are you trying to make? Also, what do you mean by "my page"? Wikipedia articles are not owned by any one editor, and autobiographies are strongly discouraged. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (copied from [3]) I'm trying to edit and upload my profile page first before meeting more people, so others can know me better and my new speciality Bianca Levine (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bianca Levine: You are trying to create your Userpage, correct? A page to tell other editors about yourself, what articles you are interested in editing, and what you know about? The link I gave you to userpage will tell you a lot about what people use a userpage for. As for how to create it, you can click on this link: User:Bianca Levine and just start typing. When you are done, click "Save page" and whatever you have typed will be there. If you like, you can use userboxes to tell people about yourself, but there is no requirement to do so and some people don't like them. Some people have fancy userpages with a lot of code on them to make them do things, and you can see some tips for making those at the user page design center, but again, you don't need the fancy formatting and early on it may be easier just to use text and userboxes. Let us know here if you need any more help with your user page or have any other questions. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    My page

    I'm trying to edit and upload my profile page first before meeting more people, so others can know me better and my new speciality Bianca Levine (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    What exactly do you need help with? Wikipedia:User page design center would be a great place to begin. -- ChamithN (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that this paragraph, which I moved from the talk page, and the above question, are really the same. You say that you are trying to edit and upload your profile page. Wikipedia does not have profiles in the sense that social media do. Wikipedia has encyclopedic articles and user pages. If you want to provide information about how you plan to use and edit Wikipedia, you can put that in User talk:Bianca Levine. If you want other editors to know you better, outside the context of improving Wikipedia, use social media. Please explain what you are trying to do. Creating a user page is not difficult, but it should be oriented to how you participate in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't that say User:Bianca Levine, Robert? The User talk page is usually for other people to start discussions with her. --ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ETBE = Editor Transient Brain Error. Yes. User:Bianca Levine. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I'd encourage you to contribute to the project before focusing on your user page. Sometimes, your contributions can say more about you than your user page. In my opinion, that's the best way to tell others about your "specialty". -- ChamithN (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Have I warned this IP appropriately?

    Hi guys. Some time back, I was reviewing a few edits by an IP and found that all the edits of the IP seemed like vandalism. I reverted the IP's edits and then went to the IP's talk page and left this warning message. I wanted your assessment of whether this warning left by me was appropriate or not. Thank you as always. Xender Lourdes (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sneaky vandalism, which would not be found by ClueBot. The changing of dates is sneaky vandalism, which is in some ways worse than obvious vandalism. I would given the IP a Level 3, but the Level 4 final does not seem excessive to me. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    When I see that an editor has made multiple disruptive edits, I usually give them a collective warning. If it's mostly harmless, like "i luv bob" or "bob is teh awesome lol" across a few articles, then I give out a level 2 warning. If it's more overt vandalism to a small number of articles, I usually give out a level 3 warning. I usually don't start with a level 4 warning unless it's really bad, like an obvious campaign of vandalism to lots of articles. This IP editor would be at a level 4 warning if he'd been warned individually for each of his edits, so it's not necessarily excessive to jump to a level 4 warning immediately, but I think a level 3 warning would suffice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Robert and Ninja for the invaluable pointers. I realise this – to understand the level of warning to be placed on a vandal's talk page – requires quite a bit of experience; so different from the article editing that I do. I hope I gain in the coming days I learn in this area too. Thank you again. Xender Lourdes (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge Pages

    These companies have recently performed a merge. You can see that referenced from their page: General Dynamics Mission Systems

    General Dynamics C4 Systems was redirected correctly. However, General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems needs to do the same redirect as C4 Systems.

    I started a Merger proposal back in January 14, 2016 and I am not sure what the next steps are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.100.97.11 (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The process for merging articles is described at WP:MERGE. Have a look through that guide, and feel free to come back if you have any trouble! —me_and 19:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Setting up an archive

    Hello all,
    There is a talk page that is very much bloated and it should be archived. I've been reading about Cluebot III, etc. but I'm fairly confused. All I'm trying to do is set up a bot that will archive the talk page every 30 days. Can anyone provide the wikitext necessary to do so? Thank you.Ergo Sum 19:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ergo Sum: If you want to use ClueBot and have it archive every 30 days add the following to the top of the page:
    {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age=720
| archiveprefix={{SUBST:FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive
| numberstart=1
| maxarchsize=75000
| header={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minkeepthreads=5
| minarchthreads=1
| format= %%i
}}
    That will set up an archive so any thread older than 720 hours (30 days) is automatically sent to PAGENAME/Archive 1. The minkeepthreads is how many threads will be left on the page regardless of how old they are. Leave the minarchthreds parameter alone. If you have any other questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Majora, thank you.

    Changing username - rewriting old talk page signatures? AKA global find and replace.

    For various reasons, I'm thinking of changing my username. The Limitations and Restrictions section of the help pages says, "Existing signatures and mentions of the old username in discussions are not affected by a rename."

    If I want to change old signatures I made on talk pages, etc, to reflect the new username, then presumably this would require some kind of global search and replace tool that works across all the WMF sites covered by SUL. Does such a tool exist? Is there another way? zazpot (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    No such tool exists and changing previous post, especially old ones, would be discouraged. Instead, just edit your old user and user talk pages to indicate your new name. RJFJR (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you change your username, your old user and talk pages are normally set to redirect to your new ones, so people will be able to link your old and new usernames together. For example User:Meand (my user page from before I changed username) is a redirect to User:me_and (my current user page). As RJFJR says, there's no such global search-and-replace, and I'd expect there'd be a lot of resistance to adding one. —me_and 09:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Thanks for explaining! zazpot (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    February 23

    Success Academy Wikipedia Page

    This page has several errors and is very biased. I would like to help edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keacd701 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There are multiple Success Academy schools. Since this is your only edit, I cannot tell which one you think is biased. (I know that some of them are controversial.) Discuss on the appropriate talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, read the dispute resolution policy and follow one of the procedures. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Are wikipedia communities arranged at all by topic? How to find them?

    If one is particularly interested in an individual sphere or topic of editing (maybe, say, "science"), is there any way in which wikipedia organizes itself into communities in which one could connect with others editing that same/similar topic(s)? For instance, I could imagine a community portal that listed, among other things, trending issues in "science" related to wiki writing, articles that needed attention, general philosophies toward editing such articles, etc.

    Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.83.109 (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Those are called WikiProjects. There is probably a WikiProject for everything you could possibly want although many of them are no longer active. To take your example, there is a WikiProject on science that you can be a part of. The WikiProject directory can be used to find a specific project. You can also check out our portals which are pages that serve as a nagivation within a general topic area. So the portal on science would be used to navigate within science articles. --Majora (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (My post may be redundant to Majora's above, but hope it helps:) Yes, you are quite right that this is a useful way of organizing ourselves. Indeed, many editors have organized what we call "WikiProjects" to encourage coordination. To use your example, we have WikiProject Science. They discuss how to edit articles related to that topic, maintain guidelines, etc. One way that WikiProjects keep track of articles is by placing their templates on article talk pages. Go to Talk:Science and look for where it says "WikiProject Science". You'll note that this project has assessed that the article is of "Top importance" to them and is currently rated at "B class" (which means it's pretty good, but there is still work to be done). These projects typically maintain Portals that feature their best articles. Think of them as themed main pages for Wikipeda. See Portal:Science for example. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremy McConnell

    Please could this page be updated to his correct name which is:

    Jeremy McConnell Cooke

    Thanks heaps and keep up the great work. FiveStarCoCo (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC) (moved from Help talk:Getting started: Noyster (talk), 10:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

    Wikipedia does not use people's "correct names" as article titles, it uses the names they are generally known by, see e.g. Tony Blair. Of the six references in the article, four call him "Jeremy McConnell", one calls him "Jeremy McConnell Cooke", and one doesn't mention him. Maproom (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Ideally, the article should explain how it is that he is referred to by different names (though only if a reliable published source covers the question). However, I have created a redirect from Jeremy McConnell Cooke. --ColinFine (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    List-defined reference markup

    Is there some reason that sometimes the named reference is shown as <ref name=foo/> and other times as <ref name=foo />? Both work; the extra space seems unnecessary and the documentation is inconsistent. When I was first learning to use named references, I was given to understand that the space was required; that is obviously incorrect. I asked this question on the LDR Help page more than a year ago and have received no response. Anyone?—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 12:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There is some obscure context, maybe never relevant in Wikipedia, in which the space matters. No-one can remember what it is, hence the inconsistent documentation. Maproom (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a browser incompatibility when XHTML was introduced and made closing tags mandatory, and introduced that shortcut format (as opposed to <ref name=foo></ref>, which would otherwise have been necessary). See HTML#SGML-based versus XML-based HTML, third paragraph. --ColinFine (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) It doesn't seem to make any difference in practice. It's much neater to use {{r}} instead: {{r|foo}} for one ref, {{r|foo|bar|baz}} for three, {{r|foo|page=n}} to add a page number. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ColinFine Is it no longer an issue, then? For any browser?—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 13:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand there are still people in the world using IE6, and for them it is probably still an issue. I suspect that even IE8 had fixed it, but I don't actually know the answer. Certainly any HTML5-compliant browser will be fine. --ColinFine (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all the help, everyone!—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 13:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    But isn't <ref name="foo" /> (with the space) more correct from technical POV? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    No. EmptyElemTag ::= '<' Name (S Attribute)* S? '/>' (where S is whitespace, and ? means 'optional'), according to the XML specification. --ColinFine (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It never was an issue, because it's nothing to do with HTML, XHTML or XML. See my answer at Help talk:List-defined references#Formatting question and please also see WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Show preview

    I see that now, when I edit a section and click "Show preview", the preview includes the references cited in that section. This is a big improvement. What would be the right place to express my thanks to whoever implemented it? Maproom (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've also noticed that and am pleased. I guess it would be at WP:VPT. --ColinFine (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Deputy attorney general of United States

    Your page does not list Peyton Ford as the first attorney general. I have the newspaper article stating his retirement from the post to return to private practice. This was September 1951. I know this fact, I am his daughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfinkeldei (talk • contribs) 17:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Convenience link... I think the OP is referring to United States Deputy Attorney General. Dismas|(talk) 18:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mfinkeldei: I have found other references that back you up, including a declassified CIA document of correspondence between Peyton Ford on Deputy AG letterhead and Allen Dulles as Deputy Director of the CIA. (http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/5829/CIA-RDP80R01731R003100180066-1.pdf) and a copy of the Reading Eagle newspaper that mentions it (https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19510901&id=LmQuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ktoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=7098,115759&hl=en). The *only* reason that I'm not adding it immediately is that I've written to the DOJ asking if there is a complete list available (Possibly with exact dates rather than years). If he isn't added within the week, please remind me on my talk page.Naraht (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Hello, Mfinkeldei. The best place to make that suggestion is the article's talk page, Talk:United States Deputy Attorney General. However, I have gone looking for a source for his holding the office, and have found one, so I have added him to the article. However, the source I have used is not ideal (it says that he was D.A.G on a particular day, but does not tell us for certain that he was the first one, nor when he left office). If you could post bibliographic information about the newspaper on the talk page (at least, the name and city of the paper, date and title of the article, and the byline if a writer is credited) then somebody can add that as a better reference, particularly if it gives the date of his taking up and leaving office. Since we're not supposed to add sources we haven't looked at, it would be helpful if you would quote the relevant text from the article - not too much, so as not to infringe copyright, but enough so that an editor can see that the article supports what you say it supports. (Do not try to scan and upload the paper - that would certainly infringe copyright). --ColinFine (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Why photo was removed?

    Hello, Please let me know why photo of David Bushmich was removed from his page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bushmich Was there a problem with a file size? or some other problem? I tried to upload photo again but the system doesn't allow me to do so, because the file was removed before.

    Thank you, Eugenia Bushmich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebushmich (talk • contribs) 18:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ebushmich: The image was deleted at Commmons where it was uploaded. The reasoning for that deletion is here. Dismas|(talk) 18:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am mother of Dale Everett, son of chad Everett, u have printed much incorrect information ..call me or contact me Respectfully. sheila Surkes Scotti

    I am mother of Dale Everett, son of Chad Everett...u have printed much incorrect information..Several CA Attorney Generals submitted amicus briefs supporting me and Dale..Respectfully, Sheila Surkes Scotti(aka sheila scott) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.206.162.96 (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Connected article Chad Everett Theroadislong (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the Orlando Sentinel, as cited in that article, you have been ordered by a court "to refrain from publicly claiming that Everett is the father of [your] son". But you have just made that claim. Do you believe that the Orlando Sentinel report is incorrect? Maproom (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Help

    Hello,

    I have been adding award information to personal pages for people who are laureates of The Lincoln Academy of Illinois. The Lincoln Academy of Illinois is a not for profit, nonpartisan organization which honors outstanding Illinoisans each year. In the award notation added to the Wikipedia page, there is a link that goes to the Lincoln Academy website where the laureate is listed. This addition should be useful for people who are researching an individual and using Wikipedia as a historical resource. After adding the Lincoln Academy award to several of the recipients’ Wikipedia pages, I received a warning and was subsequently prevented from adding information to additional pages. Apparently that was because the Wikipedia system thought my additions might be spam. If someone could help, I would like to continue adding the award notation for Lincoln Academy of Illinois laureates to their existing Wikipedia pages.

    Thank you very much.

    JEANNE FERRARO <redacted contact info> — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThurstonD63 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If you learn the recommended way of adding references to Wikipedia articles, instead of using direct external links, your additions are less likely to be regarded as spam. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Maproom (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Page ranges in references

    Hello there, I got a parameter error when trying to add a specific page # to a journal article ref that is normally styled for a page range only. The syntax I'm using is: [1] How do I specify that my reference is to a fact on page s9? I believe that this is important because the species referred to in the article is not named in the title -- curious readers might need a more specific ref. FWIW the parameter error explained what I got wrong, but gave no guidance as to how to get it right. All tips appreciated, thank you.

    Constellation Research Page - Deleted without Contest

    Hi, I have been editing regular pages and things that interest me over the last couple of years - management changes, acquisitions, tech funding, etc.

    I decided to create a new page for an analyst firm that was founded in 2010 and doesn't have a page. I mirrored it after other analyst firms in the space- Forrester, Gartner, IDC, etc. I spent two hours addressing categories, basic info, third-party links to make it not promotional, including competitors and links to their pages.

    Someone decided to automatically delete it since it was a promotional page in the past and was deleted. I was not part of that and not affiliated with the company, so I'm not sure why you deleted all of my work without me having a chance to contest the issue?

    Please put this page back up. It should have representation on Wikipedia.

    1. ^ Daniel Golani, Oren Sonin, & Dor Edelist (2011). "Second records of the Lessepsian fish migrants Priacanthus sagittarius and Platax teira and distribution extension of Tylerius spinosissimus in the Mediterranean". Aquatic Invasions. 6 (1, supplement): s7–s11. doi:10.3391/ai.2011.6.S1.002.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=706558507"