Help desk
< January 20	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 22 >

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.

January 21

Using book reviews

Hi Are book reviews potentially acceptable sources to use as references for a new article about a living person?

Thanks! Susan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanhuculak (talk • contribs) 00:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews from major national / international publications can be. Random bloggers or the local paper's review of book by hometown boy, no. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

seige of constantinople

the page in reference to this term has been tampered with i think — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.43.142 (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia article on Seige of Constantinople, nor on Siege of Constantinople (though the latter redirects to a list article). Can you give us a link to the page about which you are concerned? --David Biddulph (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That should be siege - one of the many at List of sieges of Constantinople. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Siege of Constantinople (717–18) - a bot has reverted the vandalism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the vandal whose edit had been reverted manually (within 4 minutes) a little earlier has now been blocked, as has the account created soon afterwards. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

Curious to find out how long it should take before my article appears in the Wikipedia search engine?

Thank you Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridervos (talk • contribs) 03:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A day or so. It just takes time for Wikipedia's indexing routine to update the databases. Could be a few minutes, a few hours, or a day. No way to tell. --Jayron 32 03:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that Ridervos is referring to Draft:Rider (Voice Actor). In which case, they need to mark it for review and it must then be reviewed and approved before it will be a 'live' article. Dismas|^(talk) 03:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

Created Virtex_(FPGA), MPLAB and MPLAB devices recently, but not sure about naming conventions. Should it be Xilinx Virtex and Microchip MPLAB, Microchip MPLAB devices instead?

Also the pages are almost invisible on Google, meaning I'm wondering what the point of writing such articles are, if the article does not appear when people search for similar terms on Google. What can be done to improve SEO/ranking/discoverablity on Google/WP itself? Where are good places to add "see also" links to such newly created articles? I've added them to appropriate navboxes already (also created by me)

Wonderfl ^(reply) 04:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, we don't care what Google does. Wikipedia editors don't really concern ourselves with SEO. Yes, Google usually ranks our articles up in the top couple of search results but that isn't really our doing. Part of the algorithm that Google uses is based on how many times other sites link to Wikipedia. So, if other sites link to Wikipedia, then the articles will go higher in search results. As for how often Google's spiders crawl through Wikipedia finding new articles, that's also up to Google. Generally, it's a matter of a few hours before Google finds a new article here and adds it to their search results. Dismas|^(talk) 06:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. Can you answer my other questions? (naming conventions, and where should incoming links be added in WP to prevent new articles from being orphans) -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 11:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wonderfl. The relevant policy is WP:MOSNAME. This doesn't have any specific mention of articles about products, but I think the most relevant part would be "sually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". So I would say that the appropriate title is Virtex etc. But it's also relevant what the independent sources say: if none of the sources ever say "Virtex" but always call it "Xilinx Virtex", then the latter would be more appopriate. --ColinFine (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help ColinFine, can you help with the orphan issue (ie. new articles that are not linked anywhere except the navbox)? -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 11:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole point of a navbox, allowing us to link from article to article, and preventing orphan status. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, I know how navboxes and "see also" links work. I know articles can be linked inline (within sentences). I've been on wikipedia for years. I'm just asking if there's any better way to do it, ie. how to give articles better exposure so people actually FIND the content they need when they need it. Currently new articles just sit within a navbox, and if they don't appear on search engines then the likeliness that people find it is close to zero. Wonderfl ^(reply) 14:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not aware of any. Why does it matter? New articles quickly get found by search engines, whether Special:Search or external services such as Google; the Wikipedia article is the first result when I run a Google search for <MPLAB devices>, for example. Nyttend (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, thanks for checking. However "MPLAB devices" is a made-up term for lack of a formal title. Real world search examples include : "ICD2", "ICD3", "REAL ICE", "Microchip ICD3", "Xilinx Virtex", "Virtex FPGA". When I try any of these the wikipedia article is nowhere to be found. Maybe google has different rankings based on location? Anyways that apart, my basic question was, should I continue writing such articles and will they be discovered? I am planning on doing one for the main Altera (another big FPGA vendor) product called Stratix, and will probably call it Stratix (FPGA) to be consistent with the Xilinx one, and since Altera themselves refer to it as "Stratix", not "Altera Stratix", but then "Xilinx ISE" and "Altera Quartus" have the company name, so confused about that too. Wonderfl ^(reply) 16:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google definitely provides different rankings based on location. If I search for "fire hall", it begins by giving me the addresses of some local fire stations and a map of their locations, and while the Fire station article is the second hit on the list, the first one is a local fire department in a community near me. I can't imagine someone in the UK or Mongolia getting the same results. Nyttend (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI in the UK, the current top five is:- Fire station, Old Fire Hall (Fenton, Michigan), Images for "fire hall", "Firefighting @ Firehall.com - Canadian Firefighter Resource" and "Manchaca Fire Hall Kitchen - CLOSED - Manchaca, TX | Yelp" - Arjayay (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that it finds two Wikipedia articles. Wonderfl, please do continue writing about them; they'll get found. I tend to write about notable-but-obscure historic sites, ones generally known only by locals and historic preservationists like me, and they still get read. For example, I wrote the Garver Brothers Store article last year, four years after the building got arsoned, and people are still finding it. Not sure why anyone's interested in it that much, but they are for some reason...Nyttend (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because "fire hall" is not a normal UK English phrase - so it looks for matches (unfortunate association) that have been used from the UK - Arjayay (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Nyttend, thank you for your help and encouragement. I will continue writing about such topics. The stats tool is awesome too. For example "Xilinx" gets anywhere from 150-300 views PER DAY! (Obama gets 10K to 22K VIEWS PER DAY!!) Its a great way to compare the popularity of pages. I wish such stats could be integrated into WP somehow. -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 19:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my website link to relevant wiki pages

Hi,

I would like to know if I am allowed to add a website link to pages that are relevant to my website. There are about 15 differnt pages that I can find that I would like to add my website to. They are all of the same topic as my website and my website will offer further information about that topic. I would like to add my page to the "See Also" or "External Links" sections. I was in the process of doing so when Wiki warned that I may be in contravention of the terms and conditions and may have my website blocked... I would like to avoid this and apologies if I have done anything wrong.

Please advise.

Thank you. Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.39.146 (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should not be adding your website to pages, you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a link farm and has strict guidance on what type of links might be appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you feel your website meets the criteria and is appropriate for a particular page, you can make a suggestion on the talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, again I apologise. I tried to remove my links and see you have already done so. I will add my suggestions to the talk page, I hope you have not blocked my page, as soon as I read your warning I followed all the steps you provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.39.146 (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely anybody will take any action against you, 196.210.39.146, since you have behaved impeccably. You tried something which seemed reasonable to you, realised that it might not be acceptable, asked the question, and then took action to remedy the situation. Well done. --ColinFine (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IB Textbooks as a source

Next year at school I will be doing IB, so I will have many IB textbooks. Is it OK to use IB textbooks as a reference?? I am not using IGCSE books as a source as it isn't technical enough. pcfan500talk|my contribs 08:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Text books, like encyclopedias, are generally tertiary sources and should only be used in limited situations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:46 am, Today (UTC−8)

how to change a logo

Hi there,

we noticed you have the incorrect logo for Merlin Entertainments and we need to change it. It says in your edit that it can not be replaced. Can you advise on how we can get this changed or do we send it to you and you change it?

best regards

Sandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by The firm comms (talk • contribs) 11:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "wrong" the only difference I can see between the Wikipedia one and the one in the company website is the omission of the word "group". - X201 (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link: Merlin Entertainments.

Dismas|^(talk) 13:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sandra. The logo can certainly be updated (X201: if the logo has different wording in it, it is a different logo.) If you go to File:MerlinEntertainments.PNG, and pick "Upload a new version of this file", you can upload a low-resolution version. Normally I would discourage you from making edits to the page because of your conflict of interest (as Dismas has told you on your talk page), but since the logo is not obviously available from your website (as it appears to be embedded in a Flash presentation) it is not easy for me to get a copy to upload; and updating the logo is uncontroversal. Unlike most images on Wikipedia company logos are usually not freely licensed, but are displayed under "fair use" rules, and so your permission is not required; but the way they are used must meet all of the non-free content criteria.

Your changes to the page were reverted for two main reasons, both of them to do with your not understanding how Wikipedia works. One was the technical point that the fields in the 'infobox' template are fixed: you cannot use fieldnames that are not in the definition of the template. The other is about Wikipedia policy. Every single statement in a Wikipedia article should be cited to a reliable published source; and most statements (including any kind of analysis, conclusion, or evaluation) must be cited to a source independent of the subject. If the number of your attractions is mentioned somewhere on your website, then it can go in the article, cited to that website - if it is not published anywhere, then it must not be in the Wikipedia article. The claim that you are the largest in Europe is slightly different: it relies on research or synthesis, and must not go in the article unless a source independent of you has published it. (I am not disputing the claim, but Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth). The final, major, point, is that your involvement with the company will make it difficult for you to write in the appropriate neutral tone. For example, you changed "an Italian amusement park" to "Italy's premier theme park". This is both evaluative (and so should not appear in an article unless it is quoting an independent reliable published source) and possibly promotional. Another point was that you removed two comparisons to Disney. Now you are welcome to make a case (on the article's talk page) that these comparisons are not appropriate for the article; but the decision of whether in the end they should appear or not is with a consensus of Wikipedia editors, not with you. That is why you are strongly encouraged to limit your involvement in the article to making suggestions on its talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: I know different wording means a different logo, I was trying to get to the bottom of whether it was just the wording or a radically different logo altogether, to try and avoid wasting time grabbing the wrong logo. - X201 (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colin,

I am still baffled how to use this page and it is not easy, even to respond to your message. Thank you for your feedback, much appreciated. I will amend the couple of things you pointed out and put back the Disney. I also dont know how to comment on the talk page again this is not a simple site to use. I will try amend the logo on your guidance and see how i get on. Sar

@The firm comms: at the top of the article is a tab "Talk" , click that then edit like you are doing on this page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin there is no upload new file in the logo section as you said. sar — Preceding unsigned comment added by The firm comms (talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and uploaded the current logo. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 16:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sandra, yes, my mistake: your account is too new to have that privilege. But AxG has updated the logo. I suggest that rather than doing any more editing on the article, you make your suggestions (with citations to reliable published sources, as far as possible sources independent of Merlin) on the talk page Talk:Merlin Entertainments. I also suggest that you read the links Dismas put on your talk page, and change your username as suggested there.

Wikipedia is a complex beast, and it is not easy to get it right, so don't be discouraged. But people who come here to improve Wikipedia get a warmer welcome than people who come just for the purpose of massaging an article to how the subject of the article wants it to appear. --ColinFine (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the logo has been completely redesigned and the change in name is pretty crucial since the company is now public and is Merlin Entertainments plc not Group. It is essential we change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.141.2 (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not essential that you or we changed it, though in fact AxG has done so. It is not your article or Merlin's article, it is Wikipedia's article; and while Wikipedia prefers that images are up to date, that comes way down the scale of priorities compared to having the article neutrally written and fully referenced. --ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

Would someone please help on the Cyrus Gates Farmstead article? I don't know why my picture of the house got removed? Also, the article is now not showing anymore, I don't understand why or how to fix it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgbeukema (talk • contribs) 14:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were 2 issues, firstly an empty set of <ref></ref> tags were right at the top of the article. Upon fixing that I discovered a set of ref tags that had not been closed. You can see my changes here [1]. CaptRik (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional to 'using book reviews' above

Would an editorial printed in Amazon.com by a best-selling author be permissible as a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanhuculak (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Amazon is not a neutral party, it exists solely to hawk its products - and one of the products is the book - making it a non-independent source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, if it's something actually written by the author, you can use it as a citation for saying "The author says X". Don't use it to say that such-and-such is true, because of the reasons TRPoD gives, but people won't disagree with the idea that the author says such-and-such. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poster

I would like to post a picture-poster to find out if anyone can give more information about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GermanJhon (talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this isn't the best place to do that: this page is for getting help on editing Wikipedia, not getting information about other topics. You should feel free to go to the Reference Desk for help (they specialise in getting information about other topics), although you'll probably do best not to upload the poster itself: try to find a picture of it somewhere online and provide a link to the page when you request reference help. Nyttend (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Musicians tag

Why is it that this tag {{WikiProject Musicians}}, which I got from this page (WikiProject:WikiProject Musicians) does not work when I add it to this article Talk Page (Talk:Canserbero)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikipedia page with the title WikiProject:WikiProject Musicians. For some reason, it appears as a red-link. Why? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians the page you're looking for? RudolfRed (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians (sans underscore) also works. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally confused. What am I doing wrong? I simply did a "copy and paste" of the title of the page. I didn't type anything myself. Why is mine not working and showing as a red-link? In fact, what is the difference between my wording in my original post (the second post of mine above) versus what Mandruss typed immediately above? We both typed the same exact thing, no? Or what am I not seeing? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yours begin with WikiProject instead of Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. It's still not working. Can someone please tell me exactly what I need to type on this Talk Page (Talk:Canserbero)? What I have typed is {{WikiProject Musicians}}. And that won't work. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very famiiliar with talk page templates, but I looked at a couple of other musicians talk pages and they don't have that template. They do have other WikiProject templates. Take a look at, for example, Talk:Joan Baez or Talk:Bob Seger. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't really explained why you want to add this. From looking at the Musicians WikiProject page, I think the template you should add is {{WikiProject Biography|musician-work-group = y}} . Nanonic (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "why". That guy just died very recently. So, I went to read his page. His Talk Page was totally blank. So, I wanted to add in the appropriate Wiki Projects. So, basically, I want to add in whatever is the correct "code" for the template for singers. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was under the impression that those templates are added by members of the WikiProjects, who know more about their appropriate usage. Could be wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that anyone can add them. And, by doing so, that actually alerts the members of the project that a new article falls under their purview. I could be wrong. But, that's what I have been doing all along. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Musicians does not have a separate banner template. All relevant articles will be biographies; so first make sure the talk page has a {{WikiProject Biography}} (add it if there isn't one); and to that add the parameter |musician-work-group=yes, like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

French translators

Hi! I'm looking for a French speaker and I remember that there was a page where I could request the help of an editor who spoke both French and English but I can't remember where that was. Could someone please help me out with the link. Cheers!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is some information about translation here Wikipedia:Translation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help me how to Update any Information

Hi...

Dear All

I am fresh for this site...

I am willing to share some Information can any one help me....

Thanks & Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajay13614 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome aboard! I left a message on your talk page with some helpful links for beginners. One of the first things that comes as a surprise to most new contributors is that we don't really care ( and cannot use) information that you have to share if it is not verifiable as having been previously published in a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight- unless your information is about spelling and grammar and you can help the Guild of Copy Editors. However, if you have access to reliable sources like newspapers or books (you probably do have access to a number of sources through books.google.com and news.google.com ), you can help with any topic that they cover!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting help needed, List of trolleybus systems in the United States

List is populating oddly, probably because I followed the format oddly. Any help appreciated.Anmccaff (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Nevada table was not closed. It was missing the } to close it. (note that there are probably Manual of Style issues with including the Flags let alone including them in a section heading. )-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there's one of them "}" thingies floating aimlessly on the page now, I'll nuke it. Me, I'd leave the flag images. Thanks; it had looked pretty bad before.Anmccaff (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anmccaff: Sorry but that use of flags is clearly contrary to MOS. I'd suggest a little reading on that, perhaps MOS:FLAG. Inappropriate use of flags is widespread, but must we add to it? If you need any support removing the flags, it shouldn't be hard to find. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the MOSFLAG instruction, section headings may not contain any graphics, or anything other than the plain heading text - it disrupts the WP:Accessibility of the article for users who are dependent on screen readers. I have removed them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BAM! Thanks. You beat me by six hours (I was giving them 24). ―Mandruss ☎ 14:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reverting this. As I see it, I came in here with a single, focused, formatting question, aimed at fixing an obvious problem, about an article which I am a recent participant in; you are making a change, in effect, without any discussion by the article's usual editors.Anmccaff (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any particular dog in this fight, but I neither see the particular harm in leaving them until the usual participants have had time to discuss this, nor do I know the reason why they were placed there.Anmccaff (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to discuss - the use of graphics in section headings is clearly in violation of MOS so the reverts were entirely appropriate.--ukexpat (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Sibanda Page

NAC: Sockpuppet of banned user blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have been trying to create the above mentioned page of a notable emerging writer/director Ken Sibanda. I have been told and speedily deleted most recently, that he is not noble please create page and protect.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3879098/

http://www.amazon.com/Ken-Sibanda/e/B007USQRSO

It is clear that there is some bias because deleting editors are always citing the same reason to delete. The first serious African (black) born writer/director engaged in science fiction is notable as per WIP:Notability.

Please look at the acrimonious and unprofessional behavior that accompanies creation of this page! View the history and you will see that its the same editors who seem to be motivated by racism. It is getting ugly and make Wikipedia seem baised to certain subjects and people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacecorps1222 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there have been at least three previous discussions on Sibanda, [2][3][4] and in each case the consensus was that there was insufficient evidence in third-party published reliable sources that he meets our notability guidelines as an author. If you have evidence that this has changed - i.e. multiple reviews of his work in significant independent sources - we can of course reconsider. However neither IMDB (which is user generated, and not considered a reliable source by us) nor Amazon (which is selling his books, and therefore not a disinterested party) are in any way sufficient. And please don't accuse Wikipedia contributors of racism, it does precisely nothing to advance your case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the community have either overlooked the fact you're banned (as Mziboy) or were unaware of your history, and have reviewed the Draft article submissions you've made for Ken Sibanda through the Articles for Creation process, and you have still failed to create an article which doesn't have significant sourcing problems, which, even with the help of other editors, has always been unable to demonstrate notability and which has never managed to overcome the concerns at the Articles for Deletion requests, mentioned above.

It may be possible for an uninvolved, experienced editor to create a page on Ken Sibanda, and if anybody wants to have a go at it, do please feel free. I can make the deleted material available to those who would like to review it (though there's nothing more than an IMDb and Amazon link in the most recent material, as I recall), and I've not been able

The recent deletions (through the Speedy Deletion process) are simply due to the fact that you're the sockpuppet of a banned user (which is enough to delete material under the G5 criteria), the fact the submissions were previously deleted by an AfD discussion (G4 criteria) and given the notability issues, deletion under the A7 criteria is also possible. I'm usually quite generous (and frequently told I'm far too generous) and won't automatically delete material recreated by a banned user if it has merit. You creations don't, your sockpuppeting has only succeeded in creating material which has significant referencing issues (for a BLP - a woeful lack of reliable sources) and which fails to demonstrate notability.

Your first step, before creating more sockpuppets and creating further Ken Sibanda articles (at increasingly improbable, incorrect titles) is to appeal your ban through the Ban Appeals Sub Committee. Hope this helps. Nick (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sarah Palin page

She does not own "THE Sarah Palin Channel" - Steve Colbert owns it. Sarah's is only "Sarah Palin CHannel" as Steve Colbert talked about this on one of his shows last year shortly after Sarah Palin announced she had her own channel for followers to subscribe to for $9.95 per month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.70.40 (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to the presence of the word "the", this FAQ page on the Channel's website refers to "the Sarah Palin Channel". I would think they would be the ultimate authority on their own name. Further, while the Wikipedia article Sarah Palin Channel does not include "the" in its title, it does include it in the first sentence. I think the appropriate thing to do is to retain the word "the" but de-capitalize it and separate it from the link, which I will do now. Thank you calling this to our attention. In the future, such comments should be made on the talk page of the article in question, which you can access by clicking the "Talk" tab near the top-left of the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject question

A wikipedia page has been associated with a wikiproject but I think it has nothing to do with it, what should I do? Can I just remove tho notice from the talk page per WP:BOLD? 09I500 (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @09I500: Depends on how sure you are. Oftentimes, a WikiProject might have a scope that's broader than you might think, and it's up to each WikiProject to define how large that scope is. If it's really obvious that the WikiProject doesn't belong, you could remove it - but it's usually best to ask the tagger (or the WikiProject's talk page) about it to see their view, especially if you're not entirely sure (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#WikiProjects_do_not_own_articles for guidelines and suggestions on this). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign alphabets in Template:cite wikisource

Hey, I posted in Template talk:Cite wikisource requesting that the parameter script-title be added to the template. This parameter appears in {{cite book}}; it allows a title in another language to display without italics. Foreign alphabets, such as Greek, Cyrillic, Chinese, and Japanese, are not to be italicized (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting § Foreign terms).

I don't have enough template experience to do this myself easily. This parameter is needed since the template is used in Ancient Greek phonology § Quotes to link to a work whose title is in the Greek alphabet. — Eru·tuon 23:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went to see if I could copy it over from book to wikisource, but I was greeted with the fact that book just employs a Lua code page while wikisource is a traditional template. I don't understand a thing about the Lua coding, so you'll need someone who understands both. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 January 21