Help desk
< February 12	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

February 13

Deleting categories

The Italian Unification page is listed as being in two categories that do not exist. I have been trying to remove them, but I cannot find them in the edit area. Could I have assistance in removing them? It would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CV99 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They were caused by an odd undocumented category system in {{Infobox holiday}} used in Italian unification#Anniversary of Risorgimento. I have avoided one category by removing the scheduling parameter [1], and created the other one Category:Holidays and observances by frequency (every fifty years) as a hidden category like similar subcategories of Category:Holidays and observances by frequency. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Log funny business - move log and file upload log weirdness - where discussed? Why? Fixable?

It seems clear from the page edit history that this log shouldn't be empty. I'm wondering what's going on. Also, I have noticed that file upload logs are incomplete; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Cmdrbond is inaccurate, other uploads to en, such as Cmdrbond's upload of File:Lacounty_originalseal.JPG are missing.--Elvey (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moves are only logged at the original title [2] and not the new title (there have been requests to change this). The purpose of Special:ListFiles/Cmdrbond is to display the files so deleted files are not listed. And it isn't the file upload log. That is at [3] and includes the deleted file you mention. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George P Coleman Bridge Yorktown Va

Hello My name is Marianne Flowers. I am interested in knowing if it would ok to include suicides on the the page I believe there has only been one attempt and My sister succeeded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingergirl1313 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can bring it up for discussion on the talk page for the article. That's generally where discussions about the content of a specific article go. That said, I personally don't think it's worth mentioning if there have only been the two attempts. If the bridge were noteworthy for the number of suicides per year or something like that, then I'd agree that it's worthy of inclusion. Dismas|^(talk) 03:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does one withdraw an AfD nomination?

I have nominated an article for deletion but have found some sources and indications of notability. How does one go about withdrawing a nomination for deletion. Please ping me: @Basemetal:. Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 04:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basemetal, Add a comment indicating your reasons for withdrawing the nomination to the AfD discussion page, and ~~strike~~ your nomination statement. If no one else has argued for deletion, you can speedy close the discussion, but not if anyone else has suggested deletion. Ypu could, if you choose, ping or otherwise notify those who previously commented, but if you do, be sure to include everyone who made any comment. DES ^(talk) 04:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Edit

List of wind farms in Australia

The table “Operating” showing “Hallett Group” should be 351 MW. Oaklands Wind Farm (63 MW) is not shown Macarthur Wind Farm (420 MW) is not shown Wattle Point is shown as being AGL Hydro but should presumably be “AGL Energy” In the table “Under Construction” the Macarthur Wind Farm entry should be deleted as it is operational

Macarthur Wind Farm Does not reflect operational status of wind farm.

AGL Energy Does not reflect current generation portfolio and has old corporate logo.

It appears to me the corrections have been made. Whether they should have been is another matter. As long as a reliable source says this is all correct, it's fine.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Unification Theory - the unification of Science & Spirituality / Mysticism

At the Fifth International Conference on Thinking - July 1992 I presented a paper entitled "The Ultimate Unification Theory", which is the unification of Physics (Relativity Theory & Quantum Mechanics), Psychology & Spirituality / Mysticism.

My question is, what do I have to do to get the topic inserted in Wikipedia?

My original paper is accessible at http://www.bpramana.org/metascience/UUT.pdf

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.220.209.227 (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not publish original research. Maproom (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of villages, towns, blah blah blah

I see a lot of articles on random towns, villages, hills, etc as I go about my day, for example Arugankulam. Maybe this is a bad example because of the glaring copyvio notice at the top, but what's the deal on establishing notability in these articles? Are all geographical things worthy of inclusion? It seems every cranny on the planet is getting an article. Here's another, Aibheti, Nagaon. I was under the impression that nothing is inherently notable, (what with reading that at WP:NRV, but I feel like I've tried nomming articles like these before only to have an admin tell me I was wrong, that locations are typically notable, etc. Or maybe it was secondary schools. I dunno. Thoughts anyone? Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts: there are thousands of such articles. They are badly written and almost useless. But they do very little harm. I think the logic for keeping them is that if a village in England, like this one with a population of a few hundred, warrants an article, then so does a village of the same size in India. Maproom (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the consensus, any former or currently populated place with a distinct identity is notable, proof of existence is sufficient to justify an article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPLACE.--ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I warn an admin that an anonymous user seems to be on a vandalizing rampage?

Anonymous user 72.89.16.201 has been systematically removing image file links from several articles connected with Indian clothing for the past hour and he-or-she might not be done yet. How do I warn an admin to see what can be done? Please ping me. Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 06:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Basemetal: Maybe try WP:AIV? - Purplewowies (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)User:Basemetal, you can report this at Wikipedia:Aiv--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Basemetal: But AIV will generally not do anything unless the IP has been given the appropriate series of warnings. So the first thing is to make sure that you have let the IP know that what they are doing is inappropriate. If the disruption continues, keep giving escalating warnings, and if they are still ignored then AIV. (unless the disruption is gross BLP violations or something similarly bad)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the vandalism is rampant, give an "only warning" and then report to AIV.--ukexpat (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a user list of commonly referenced pages

Either there is no such way to do so or I am missing something, but I recently set up an account solely to basically bookmark pages I frequently reference. I set up a watch list, but I have little to no interest in tracking changes, I would just like to be able to reach all my "favorite" articles from one location. If this question is quite stupid and helps nobody else, I apologize, but would be thrilled to at least end my frustration. Truly appreciative of any new information. Best, thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livelyraff (talk • contribs) 07:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could set up a user subpage. You might want to call it something like User:Livelyraff/Bookmarks. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The top of Special:Watchlist has a link saying "View and edit watchlist". It goes to Special:EditWatchlist which has an alphabetical list of all your watched pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps WP:Books? You can add pages to a "bookmarks" book or sort your list into books of different bookmarks that are related subjects. You can even then download or buy a print copy of the book. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritics in titles

Hello! I am interested if the following policy is outdated or not: The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works). The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources. (WP:DIACRITICS).

I'd like to know if the above text is or not "outdated content in a guideline no article follows", as an editor suggests at Talk:Sámuel_Mikoviny. More exactly, if a name without diacritics is more frequently used in reliable sources than the name with diacritics, the name should or should not contain diacritics? 86.126.34.194 (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For background the wording on that guideline was itself an issue of disagreement 2-3 years ago when e.g. Talk:Lech Wałęsa/Archives/2012/April was current. The guideline hasn't been updated since but as part of the process of article creation/natural edits, plus a relatively small number of RMs (relative to the entire article corpus), the de facto status of the project is that all non-exonym en.wp articles have full font titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umm — can you please translate "all non-exonym en.wp articles have full font titles"? Maproom (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that is a bit cryptic, meaning: all non-exonym (like Munich) en.wp article titles have full (not just ABCabc ASCII) font titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever form is used as the title, there should be a redirect from the other variant. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British Raj

This page here is broken British Raj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.67.144 (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK to me. What's broken on it? RJFJR (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The captions of the second picture in this and in the following section are incomplete. I don't know if that is what the OP means. Maproom (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see vertical scroll bars in those long captions. Are they not visible for you?--ukexpat (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henk Pieterse

Hello I am Henk Pieterse, ex basketball pro and well known for my work against bullying at schools. Like to make a nice piece about my work and history, how do i do that?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henk pieterse (talk • contribs) 09:03, 13 February 2014‎

In general, you don't. If you or your work is really that well known, someone else will create an article about you or it sooner or later. If you are thinking of doing so anyway, please first read our guideline on conflict of interest. It is very hard for most people to write in a properly neutral way about themselves or things they are involved with, and when they fail, such articles are often deleted quickly, and the process is a waste of time for everyone involved. Also please read our guideline on autobiography and our policy on promotional pages. After you have read all that, please read about Notability and in particular our guideline on notability for biographical articles. If, after going through all that you think an article about you and your work can be properly created, you can ask someone else to do so at requested articles, or submit a draft for review at articles for creation. But it is simpler to wait for someone else to do it. DES ^(talk) 14:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henk, given that your fame was in the Netherlands (including as part of the Dutch National Team) and the news that I can find on you is all in dutch, you may want to consider asking on the Dutch Wikipedia help desk. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Helpdesk The Dutch Wikipedia has the second most number of articles of any Wikipedia and the editors there would be *much* more likely to be able to judge sources. And while different wikipedias have somewhat different rules of notability, at least at that point the Dutch article could be used as a start.Naraht (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Forum Boarium

Reference help requested. I am not sure what the error is. I looked at the reference in question and it seems to work. Thanks, 64.115.223.106 (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that you had not put a {{reflist}} command on the page, but User:Frze added that at 08.53 this morning, so the problem should have gone away. Are you still seeing a problem? Arjayay (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. I just looked at the article, saw no {{reflist}} but an error message indicating that one was lacking, and added one, fixing the problem. Then I saw that User:Frze had added one more than six hours earlier; and that my addition had made the article shorter. The edit history shows me as replacing a {{reflist|2}} by a plain {{reflist}}; but that is not what I did. I definitely typed in a "References" section header. Maproom (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You probably edited the revision in the diff in the heading instead of the current version. Your diff to that revision is [4]. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Hello all,

I have a slight issue in that my username, the one I registered with & use when logging on, has a lower case first letter, but that, whenever I post or edit the first letter becomes capitalised. Thus my username is shown in red & "talk" (my page), if clicked on , insists that I don't exist. I wonder if anyone has any advice on how best to resolve this. Thanks Eagleash (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Having clicked on talk from link in para. above, it did actually take me to "my" talk page, but this has not been the case previously. Maybe it is only a problem when clicking from pages where I've made edits? Eagleash (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name starts with a capital, as do all Wikipedia pages (though a link starting with a lower case letter will automatically go to the page with the capital). Your user name Eagleash is shown in red because you have not yet created a user page for yourself. If you click on the link it will let you start to create the page. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Could you clarify which link you are referring to please? Clicking on the "talk" link takes me to the page "User Talk Eagleash" which was actually started by someone else. I am not sure if (or how) I should amend this page so it becomes created by myself or if I should create a new page altogether. Thanks for help. Eagleash (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page is User:Eagleash. You can create that but it's optional. See Wikipedia:User pages. Your talk page User talk:Eagleash already exists and you shouldn't create another. Your talk page is usually created by the first one to contact you and not by yourself. You can choose to add a message to the top of your talk page but most users don't. Regarding your statement about a link saying you don't exist, I guess you refer to the current message at User:Eagleash: "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title." It only means the page has not been created. It does not mean the user doesn't exist. See User:Made up name for an example of that. Usernames automatically start with a capital but you can display a lower case letter in some places if you want. Place {{lowercase title}} on User:Eagleash and User talk:Eagleash to display a lower case letter in the heading. Enter eagleash in the Signature field at Special:Preferences and leave "Treat the above as wiki markup" unchecked to write eagleash in your signatures. Any automatically generated page like user contributions and page histories will still say Eagleash. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I understand the difference (now). I'm not worried about the capitalisation but was concerned that the "E" was causing the error message. I shall create a user page in due course (once I've worked out how!). Thanks to all for assistance. Eagleash (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: have now created a user page. So once again thanks to all.Eagleash (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert H. Schuller

You have an article about Robert H Schuller. He has not died - his wife Avella Schuller died on 11 February 2014, not (as far as news stories go) anything to say Robert Schuller died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.237.137 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing it out. I have corrected the error at Robert H. Schuller. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC Review

I couldn't find my "Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission" Below is what I received. Where do I find my reviewer?

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Takeahold/Sharon Crute.

To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.

If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takeahold (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because your draft was in userspac, not the standard AfC space, the script seems to have misinformed the link. Your draft is at User:Takeahold/Sharon Crute and the decline message is "We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. Please consider submitting to Wikipedia:Requested articles instead. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer." It looks as if you asked for a review of an empty page. DES ^(talk) 19:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks aas if the actual text of your draft is at User:Takeahold/sandbox. DES ^(talk) 19:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I've tagged it for speedy deletion as the copyvio it is. Deor (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a quick reply. Also, thank you for protecting all copyrights. I do want to let you know that the item in questions is my wife's website and information and that I do in fact own the copyright for all of her work and website information. Please let me know how to correct this to your satisfaction. Michael Bray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takeahold (talk • contribs) 22:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can place an appropriate free use licence on your web page see Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Granting_us_permission_to_copy_material_already_online. However, it is unlikely that anyone's personal web page will in fact be appropriately worded and sourced to lift wholesale for use as a Wikipedia article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since the user-page draft constituted a BLP and was unsourced, it would not be accepted at Articles for Creation in that state, no matter what the copyright situation might be. Biographies of living people, even when created in article space, are subject to deletion if they contain no reliable, independent source(s) for the information therein. Notability can be established only if sources other than you and your wife have treated her career. You will save yourself wasted effort, Takeahold, by carefully reading Wikipedia:Your first article before any further attempt to create the article. Deor (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the proposed article is about your wife, please read our Conflict of interest guideline. It is very hard for anyone to be properly neutral when writing about him or herself, but Wikipedia articles must be neutral. They also should be cited to published, 3rd-party reliable sources. The subject's web site is not independent, nor are press releases. Blogs and forum posts are not reliable. Please consider the matter carefully before investing time and trouble, and asking others here to take time and trouble reviewing your work. DES ^(talk) 00:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"mediagraphy"...?

Is that even a real word? And if so, is it being used properly for these 2 article titles; Monty Python mediagraphy and Peanuts mediagraphy? (and shouldn't these article titles have italics?) - ^theWOLFchild 19:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A list of films an actor has been in is a filmography and a list of records by a band is a discography so this sounds like an extension to appearances in multiple media. It does have 123,000 Google hits but the wiktionary doesn't have the word yet. If it isn't a 'real word' then do you have a real word for the concept? RJFJR (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes in articles I have used a section heading "Works". Works of Monty Python could potentially not be any worse (although eww). Works of Peanuts however, is far too eww. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is 'works involving...' rather than 'works of...', I'd suggest. I must admit to not liking the word, but it is certainly out there, and we may be stuck with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess we just make shit up now... - ^theWOLFchild 06:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]