Help desk
< May 17	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 19 >

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.

May 18

Footnotes

I notice that footnotes #94 and #96 under "References" in Piers Morgan (which I have been editing) cite the same newspaper article (Daily Telegraph). I have been trying to merge them, but cannot see anything in WP:REFB that explains how to do it. I managed to merge two other footnotes that cited the same source (Reuters), but that was only because the author was named; the DT article does not name its author, so I imagine a different formula applies. Can someone explain how I merge them, please, and point me to the appropriate section in Wiki help?. .--P123cat1 (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@P123cat1: the method is described at Wikipedia:REFB#Same_reference_used_more_than_once. You can use just about whatever name you want for the reference, it does not have to be the name of the author. (the one thing you cannot technically use is just a numerical digit-the system cannot read those properly)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've fixed it now. .P123cat1 (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC) I saw that sentence in Wikipedia:REFB#Same_reference_used_more_than_once and I'm not surprised I didn't understand it. Do you not think "... you can give it any name in the <ref> code" is clearer than "... you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code"? Could I alter the wording to that, or do changes to formal Wiki instructions have to be suggested on the relevant talk page first?. .P123cat1 (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "any" name might invite people to use something prohibitively long (or the aforementioned number system, if it's not explicitly disallowed in the advice. I personally would discuss it, though I'm sure with a smaller change like that, some others might be bold. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested that wording on the talk page, but included "as long as the name is kept short and does not include any numbers or symbols". If there is no come-back within the week, I will go ahead and make the change.. .--P123cat1 (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The technical limitation is that it should not be only numerical - numbers combined with letters can be used. This makes it possible to use familiar styles such as "Jones 2011". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Someone on the talk page raises the same point, which I did not know about - and thinks the meaning is perfectly clear. I beg to differ, but think I had better not interfere. I will let someone else alter it if they want to. --P123cat1 (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has amended the wording since my last comment, which makes the instruction much clearer, but it does not cover the point about avoiding long names or names that are just numbers. --P123cat1 (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Douglas Blazek

Reference help requested. I think the Douglas Blazek page needs some 'cleaning up'. I have listed all of his publications and a synopsis of his biography, but I am very limited in what else I know how to do.

Thanks, 186.90.242.89 (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently lacks references to show that Blazek is notable, in the specialised sense used by Wikipedia. What you "need to do" is to find evidence from reliable independent sources to show that he is notable. It seems to me, from a Google search, that there are probably no such sources. This does not reflect on you, or on Blazek: it is just that his activities have not attracted the attention of prominent journalists etc. Maproom (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If references are not added to the article, it is likely to be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hi, I have uploaded some images, how do I find the images, I seem to have lost them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorothea lange (talk • contribs) 07:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by you (or by someone whose username there is the same as yours is here). Maproom (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note this discussion above. It seems that there are issues both with the copyright status of the images (the original monochrome images are out of copyright, but the colorized images are the copyright of the colorizer), and with the use of colorized images on WIkipedia (the colorizing is in effect a work of fiction). Maproom (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint

I would like to make a complaint against the way I've been being treated in Lusophone Wikipedia. A certain editor tried to distort an article to create a dubious association between Nazism and Socialism. I protested against this attempt at manipulation of WP and I was treated like a criminal by administrators. They did not analyze the case, just accused me of things I never did and imposed an endless blockade against me. In short, I was treated like a dog and I feel ashamed.

Yes, it is true that I skirted the partial blockages that have suffered, but I did it because I enjoy writing in WP. I'm not a thug, just want to fight for the quality of the project, but I am always treated like a dog. I can not stand this situation, ask you to interfere with justice and analyze the conditions that led to my many locks. I just want to collaborate in this encyclopedia for the texts have quality and credibiidade. I do not deserve to be lynched that way. I'm tired of being forced to endure a horde of arrogant people gathering against me, help me please.

Sorry fot my bad english. Leandro LV (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the help desk for en:Wikipedia. People here have no influence over what happens at pt:Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help me, tell me who should I make this complaint. Leandro LV (talk) 08:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere at pt:Wikiedia. I can't read Portuguese, so I can't tell you the right place, but there may be a link to it at http://pt.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ajuda:P%C3%A1gina_principal . Maproom (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the interwiki list the Portuguese Help page is at pt:WP:Contato/Linha direta. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a word of warning, if you are blocked on the Portugese wikipedia as it appears you are, it's unlikely socking further there to appeal your 'lynching' will go down well. I suggest you make an unblock request in accordance with their norms. You may also want to reconsider your message. While I have no idea of their norms, I suspect anyone who's request more or less consists of 'it's not me it's you all, and yes I did sock but I did it because I enjoy writing for wikipedia and my contributions are so important' is not likely to be well received. (It's unlikely to be if it were here on en.wikipedia.) And with 7 pt:Wikipédia:Pedidos a administradores/Discussão de bloqueio/Leandro LV discussions about blocking you including 4 recent ones, I don't think you should expect miracles even if you do deal with this well but you have a far greater chance if you do. Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Leandro LV (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Language independet link on a wikipedia page

Hi,

I want to put a link to an article on my website. For example: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hydrogen

Is it possible to create a link that redirects the user to the same article but in the language of the browser?

For example if my computer/browser is in French and I click on http://wiki.x.io/wiki/Hydrogen I get redirected to http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hydrog%C3%A8ne

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.220.197.223 (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 99% sure this is possible but this isn't the best place for the question. Try the Computing reference desk. Dismas|^(talk) 12:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD candidate and history merge

Dear editors: I found an old Afc draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dnyaneshwar Mulay which is a copy-paste fragment of Dnyaneshwar Mulay. A second editor made a number of edits to the draft, so I was about to request a history merge, but then I noticed that the main article is being discussed at AfD. It looks as if it will be kept, but should I wait until the AfD is over before adding the histmerge template? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Delong, in general I would recommend seeing how the AfD plays out (you can use {{copied}}, or even just a mention on the talk page in the meantime if you wanted to). Of course there is also no reason not to do one now. Of course as a sysop you can do it yourself, without adding the template. If you want help with that, let me know. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I haven't done any history merges yet, but I plan to. I thought I might start out with one with not so many revisions, in case I mess up. Thanks for your offer of help; you may get a request for help on this soon. I see what you mean, though; if the merge were just done, instead of another template complicating the page, it would be less disruptive. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the meantime, simply linking to the history on the talk page (without the template) is a simple, and adequate means to supply attribution. Something like Parts of this article were copied from Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dnyaneshwar_Mulay, see Special:History/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dnyaneshwar_Mulay for attribution, left on the talk page can be used until the hist merge is to be completed. Then removed after (provided the article is kept). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

deletion talk

hi, have I made this correct?

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suzannah_Lipscomb&action=history Mosfetfaser (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't. You don't have the AFD template on the page and you have not transcluded it on to today's list. Please carefully follow the instruction at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion. I would also suggest that you rewrite the deletion rationale so that it isn't based on the perceived behaviour of some editor, that is quite irrelevant to whether the article should exist or not. Spinning Spark 15:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do I need to do to sort it out? Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been done. Spinning Spark 16:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

kind of money system is london using...euros or pounds?

what kind of money system is london using... euros or pounds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.209.108 (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pounds. Although, some few shops will accept euros, and there are also machines to change euros into pounds (and vice versa) in various places. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Partially collapsible table

Is there any way to make only part of a table collapsible? Specifically, I would like the top eight rows of Template:Stnlnk/doc/other to always remain visible, then the ninth row to be the collapsed header, looking something like this:

[[show]] Specific locations

Thanks. Useddenim (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Partially collapible table

collapsible part

first entry
second entry

third entry

fourth entry

This is what I could get with the {{collapse top}} template but it is not very elegant. Spinning Spark 22:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with citations on Historic Wintersburg page

I keep getting a message that the citations, references are not correctly included on the new page I created, Historic Wintersburg in Huntington Beach, California. I have followed the citation instructions and added the reference list. Not sure what I am doing incorrectly. Thanks for any help!Mary Urashima (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The error message at Draft:Historic Wintersburg in Huntington Beach, California is saying you need to have a line {{reflist}} at the end of the article so that the references you have given get displayed at that point. Two other things, if I may comment. You have included a space at the beginning of each paragraph and this is causing the boxes to display in the text. Paragraphs are separated with a blank line but no leading spaces. Also, your references in <ref>... </ref> tags are at the end of the article when they would be much better if they were inserted at the relevant points in the text. If you do this you will get superscripted numbers where each reference is used but the reference itself will be listed at the end. If I haven't explained very well, please let me know and I can make the relevant changes to the draft myself. Thincat (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at your article, I see the first seven references are indeed in the text but the rest are at the end. I am not sure what you intend for these but if they are by way of "further reading" you could remove the ref tags and place a * at the beginning of each line with the reference. Also, section headings will be needed at some stage. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout generally. These are all rather minor stylistic points which many people can help you sort out. It's the content (and references) that matter and here you have got off to an excellent start! Thincat (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the display tag for you [1] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

vishnu/shiva

In the content of vishnu and shiva,some people are spewing false,biased stories with unsubstantiated links to make their deity look deified and supreme.Such contentious issues shouldn't be encouraged in wikipedia,so i request volunteers/overseers to monitor the two pages,specially the "relations with deities " section so that such disharmonious stories of conflict between the two or any kind of comparison is not allowed to be posted in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.109.37 (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're referring (in part) to this edit? You might want to consider Wikipedia's policy on legal threats, but as Doug points out - it would be a legal challenge worth seeing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Yes, I blocked Mirtuh (talk · contribs) for making three legal threats about the content of Vishnu/Shiva related articles. One real problem is the lack of sources, people are just adding or deleting material without bothering about WP:VERIFIABILITY. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Page

Hello -- how do I start a wiki page about myself? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreyes98 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

almost certainly, you don't. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not FaceBook, and we only have articles about people who meet our notability guidelines, as demonstrated in published reliable sources - and if you were to meet such requirements, you would be strongly advised not to write an article about yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And even if you do meet the criteria, it would be best for you to gather sources and place them in a request for someone else to review the materials and create the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct way for an organisation to edit its own Wikipedia page?

If I want to make factual-only edits, like the number of locations a company has, is it OK to go in and edit the page myself?

I'm well aware that there are issues conflict of interest and objectivity, but in each case I would only be bringing the page up to date, not adding subjective information. What's the right way to do that kind of editing?

--BingLeeWebTeam (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COIADVICE has some advice for editors with a conflict of interest; directly editing the article is generally frowned upon, save for the exceptions outlined in my previous link. The best non-problematic way to perform edits in which you have a conflict of interest is to propose the changes on the article's talk page, and place Template:Request edit above your message to let editors know that you are requesting a change.

As for updating information, make sure you provide reliable sources to verify any changes you wish to make.

Also, just a note that your username appears violates our username policy, as it is both the title of an organization, and the username implies shared use. I'll leave a message on your talk page with more details.

Let us know if you have any more questions! Thanks for reaching out for this. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superhamster is quite right that you should generally avoid directly editing the page, however, in this particular case if the information in the source for the number of outlets has changed then you would be safe to change the number in the article also. However, if you wish to change the source then you should ask for someone else to look at it (since you would have a COI in assessing its reliability). If you are unable to point to any reliable source for the information then nobody should be putting it in the article. Spinning Spark 08:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]