Help desk
< November 16	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 18 >

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.

November 17

What Wikipedia policies apply to the notability of article content?

WP:N seems to apply only to whether a page should exist.

1. What is the relevant Wikipedia policy or policies that addresses whether an aspect of an article subject is relevant or notable?

2. Under what circumstances can material that is verifiable still be removed, for example if a 'history' part of an article gets 3 times longer than the rest of the article? It's sourced, it's just too in depth or long.

Thanks in advance. StandFirm (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV is one standard. Dwelling at length on a certain aspect can give WP:UNDUE weight. On the other hand, if there's no problem with implicit bias, just being an overly-long section that crowds out other material (or scares others away from adding "more to the article"), WP:SUMMARYSTYLE recommends offloading that section into its own article on that facet of the topic. DMacks (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now maybe I'll be a little more specific - the history section in question consists about 90% of past mistakes of the article's subject. Would you say this creates bias even though each sentence by itself is neutral? And if yes, what Wikipedia policy addresses that? StandFirm (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHTing policy. I like to follow the standard scholarly texts covering a particular subject. It sounds like you're talking about popular culture, so I have no idea there. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's a religious subject: Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses. Further responses on my question here are also welcome if anyone has anything to add. StandFirm (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image not showing in a template

Any idea why the photo on Commons referenced in the infobox of Frederick W. Winters House doesn't show? - Jmabel | Talk 03:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have purged http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Bellevue%2C_Washington_-_Winters_House_01.jpg/250px-Bellevue%2C_Washington_-_Winters_House_01.jpg and it shows now. Something had gone wrong with the 250px version. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn't post the image right. If you still can't upload a picture, then you should contact Wikipedia to give you the instructions. CPGirlAJ (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone deleted my edit. How do I find out why?

Yesterday I made 2 small edits to the 35th Infantry Division (usa) page. Today someone deleted these 2 edits. I checked the discussion tab to see if the person explained why they were removed, but could find no explanation. How can I find out why the edits were deleted? I am new to Wikipedia and would appreciate any help. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plastermonkey44 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking on the history tab will land you to this page, which shows that AnyGuy (talk · contribs) undid your edits; you could ask him why by leaving him a message at his talk page. One thing though : you should never sign your edits in articles. Signatures are only for talk pages (when you leave a message on a page, like this one). Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user that deleted your edits must have thought it wasn't a resourceful edit, or they just didn't want it to be there. Most people don't tell you when they delete one of your edits. Make sure to keep trying to make better edits on Wikipedia! CPGirlAJ (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the topic- Dhenkanal (Princely State)

While going through the article in Wikipedia about Dhenkanal (Princely State), I have come across some factual errors. My father Late Rajkumar Gourendra Pratap Singh Deo, was the 5th son of Raja Sura Pratap Singh Deo Mahindra Bahadur. My father was born in 1915 and was hardly 11 years of age when Shankar Pratap Singh Deo annexed the throne. During the absence of Raja Shankar Pratap Singh Deo from the headquarters, Pattayet Narsingh Pratap Singh Deo (and not Rajkumar Gourendra Pratap Singh Deo) the 2nd son of Late Raja Sura Pratap, used to look after the administration of Dhenkanal. The name of the wife of Pattayet Rajkumar Narsingh Pratap Singh Deo was Jatan Kumari, a very pious lady, in whose name Pattayet Narsingh Pratap Singh Deo built a palatial building named Jatan Nagar, which is about 6kms away from the Palace. Jatan Nagar still exist in top of a hill in a dilapidated condition. I hope you will make the Necessary correction. There are many other factual errors in the article which I will not like to delve into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shailoja Shankar Singh Deo (talk • contribs) 05:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide reliable sources backing up these facts, please post it in the talk page of the article, and some other editor will fix it for you.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Anti-christian policy

I am curious as to why you are anti-Christian in your policies. Unless it is World Council of Churches or catholic, you are not obliging to posts depicting Christianity. I tried about a year ago and you just about made it impossible to publish about my church yet you have undocumented articles and out and out lies in other places that you have no trouble publishing.

Please make yourself clear. If you are anti-christian or don't want our contribution, please post that loud and clear. This way we do not waste our time. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.152.95 (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is run by volunteers like you and me. We're not anti-Christian, nor are we against or for anything. Does your church meet our notability guidelines? If so, then by all means write about it using the proper channels. We welcome any contribution that can make our encyclopedia better! In response to your misconception about our acceptance of lies, if you find things that you think are wrong, you should post your concerns on the faulty article's talk page, so that editors are aware of it. Of course, you should provide a rational explanation of why [it] is wrong, preferably with citations from reliable sources. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no editorial board. It is edited by volunteers from around the world. Please see WP:PILLAR, About Wikipedia and the frequently asked questions for further information. Chzz ► 06:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note the above answers are a bit generic as we don't have the full details - can you tell us what church you were trying to create an article for? And you mention articles that contain "out and out lies" - which ones are those?? Tabercil (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Portal:Christianity be a better place to start? Jim.henderson (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My username is my article title ?

I just made an article on Hélène Boudreau, a Canadian children's and saved it and everything. I don't think it's been deleted, however I don't understand why the article is still titled under my username English1112 ? Why is that ? How can I change it to officially have it titled Hélène Boudreau ? Also, I can't seem to upload pictures, when I try all it shows is the URL in red for the information boxes wiki pages usually have at the top. How can I upload pictures on to this article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by English1112 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't make an article, you made a user page. It hasn't been deleted, and is still available at your user page; when it is ready you can move it to the mainspace. However there are some issues with it in that the references are mainly works by the subject, but do not verify the statements made in the article (see how to cite sources, the guideline on reliable sources and the policy on verifiability; this is especially true for biographies of living persons). In order to get the best advice possible, I suggest you submit your article through the articles for creation process. As for pictures, you must ensure you have the right to distribute them. Do you own the pictures, or did you take them off the internet? Wikipedia only accepts pictures released under a free license, that is, usable by anyone for any purpose. See the page on copyright. If you do have the permission to release the pictures under a free license, then you can go on our sister site, Wikimedia Commons, and upload them there. If you do not, then please abstain from uploading them, as they will be deleted. I hope this helps, and best regards, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the draft to User:English1112/Hélène Boudreau, which is where it should have been all along. In the meantime, why not create a new page, User:English1112, that tells us about you and what you hope to accomplish here. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that English1112 has copied it to article space at Hélène Boudreau. —teb728 t c 14:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LTJ Bukem

Re There are a few incorrect facts in the article on Danny Williamson - LTJ Bukem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTJ_Bukem He was born in Croydon, not Watford. He was adopted not fostered. Danny came to live with my wife and myself when he was 6 weeks old and legally adopted by us when he was three months old. We were living in Rochdale, Lancashire. When he was 2 years old we moved to Hornchurch Essex. It was when he was 10 years old we went to live in Watford. Danny has lived in and near Watford ever since then. I hope these errors can be corrected With thanks Andrew Williamson Daniel Andrew Williamson's Dad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.116.9 (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for letting us know.

Because we insist on verifiable facts, all I can do for now is, remove the information you contested. There was a reference to a BBC interview for some of it, but the link only shows that the programme existed - I couldn't actually get a copy of it to verify. So, I removed the claims.

If you are able, at any time, to supply appropriate reliable sources, we could add the information you have stated above.

Anything that lacks a reliable source may be removed, at any time - and especially on biographic articles.

You might also check Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject).

Again, thanks for letting us know about the inaccuracies. Best, Chzz ► 13:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do I increase the text size on wikipedia?

Yes, I am getting older, but you've got to agree the text on your pages is really small. Really really small. And what with the side frames and all, notably the basic information one on the right side, there at the top, the width is also not uniform. This means that when I use my iPad, for instance, although I have zoomed in with that oh-so-addicting finger-pinching-zoom trick, I have to zoom back out fairly soon into reading the content, otherwise it's cut off on one side, forcing me to scroll left, then scroll right, then left, then right just to follow each and every sentence to find out if, for instance, one of my literaray heroes is or was left-handed. That's just an example, but you must know what I mean--trying to read like that makes me not want to read on your oh-so-wonderful site, to which I refer quite often!

Don't make me not want to read, please, I beg of you!

In the "solution" rather than the "problem" category, I have witnessed many a site with graduated capital letters of "A" in the upper right corner of the text frame, which when clicked upon, enlarge the textual content of its web page without making the page off-kilter in the process. Could this be the oh-so-easy solution? I would love that if it could be.

I know that being over 40 is very "in" right now, so hopefully my concerns as one of these people may be taken more seriously than perhaps some currently not-so-hip people, like the under-six age category that's likely burying you with emails, clamoring for your attention. Their issues concerning the web are specifically irrelevant when you think of what kinds of Internet interfacing they will be doing by the time they become teenagers, much less adults, certainly! It will likely be a little card of some kind, like an SD but inconceivably better, which they perhaps insert directly into their brains, probably with real-time automatic wikipedia access! Just as they begin to formulate a question--POOF!! The wiki answer makes it immediately known to them! They may never even know they did NOT know it, OR that the answer was externally provided from wiki via their integrated version of wifi--ultimate wireless! It could happen, no one *really* knows.

Anyway, thanks so much for your attention to this matter. I appreciate what you are doing very much! Sincebirth (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Kelli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sincebirth (talk • contribs) 10:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too have started using a bigger screen at home. For looking things up while bicycling that's not practical, so my little Samsung M910 Intercept looks at the ".m." version as in [1]. For Apple it's less automatic than for my Android but it can be made to work. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a font-size gadget (only works in Vector) at User:Edokter/FontSizer.js which you can enable by putting importScript('User:Edokter/FontSizer.js'); into your vector.css file. — Edokter (talk) — 11:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your browser has an option to change font size (in IE8 on a desktop/laptop, it's either in View or in the Accessibilty window in Internet Options), Wikipedia will change its font size (there are some sites that won't unless you force the browser to ignore it). - Purplewowies (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change the layout of the appeal on the top of the pages

Hello wikipedia!

As you can see from the attached link, or by going to any page about a person you can notice that the picture of Wikipedia's founder is on top of their name. Kinda misleading as I don't even know or care who has founded Wikipedia.

BR, Just a plain boring broke-ass user

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eino_Rahja - Who is this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson - Oh, so white. Even tho he is very pale nowadays I see. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II - She has become to look so manly lately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.34.139 (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but because the fund-raising is operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, and this is just the Wikipedia help-desk, it would be better if you asked over at meta:Talk:Fundraising 2011. You could also email problemsdonating

wikimedia.org. You might get further answers right here (so - check back) but, I think you're more likely to get help with this at one of those other places. Chzz ► 11:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lyudmila Pavlichenko

Over the past period, several anonymous vandals have removed referenced material from Lyudmila Pavlichenko. I just reverted the second effort by someone. How can we protect this page? I've never done it and maybe someone else who knows how can do so. Thanks. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could request it at WP:RPP, but I also suggest you try contacting those other users on their talk pages, to try and discuss things. Looking at the history shows that the disagreement is with several IP users, yet they do not even have talk pages. It's worth at least trying to make contact, asking them to discuss things on the talk page of the article. Of course, they might ignore you - but it's worth a try.

Protection is an emergency measure, and usually short-term. If you can try and find out why they keep changing it, maybe discussion can resolve the dispute, instead of protection.

I realise they've not made any efforts to discss things on the article talk page, but if they're genuine new users, they may have no idea that such pages exist; putting a message on their talks might get their attention. Chzz ► 13:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chzz. I tried that, and another (not-siged-in) user did reply. We discussed issues, and some changes were made that I thought were sensible. But more vandals have arrived, and the newest vandal hasn't replied on the talk page. Nor have any of the other vandals. Whether or not these are different people or all the same person, I don't know. I have the article on my watch list, but it's getting annoying. But I'll try it again. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't locate any talk pages for the most recent vandal. So I'll keep on reverting the changes. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I requested semi-protection since I can't find any user talk pages for these folks. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with you is not the same as vandalism. I see you have carried on a discussion on the talk page with the people who deleted the section, who have presented a reasoned, and presumably sincerely held, argument for removing it. I make no suggestion as to whether you or they are right: you clearly have a content dispute which has become, or is close to becoming, an edit war. If you cannot reach consensus this should be handled according to WP:DR. Vandalism does not figure, and page protection would be grossly inappropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading something into the discussion that isn't there. The people removing content aren't "disagreeing" with me -- they're removing content for no stated reason. There have been (so far) two editors who have put forth their own (different) opinions, and that's fine -- I have no objections to that at all. However, I do object when anonymous editors simply delete material for no reason they explain -- which has happened. And those people have not come forth on the talk page and said "I feel XYZ and therefore did PQR." As long as they don't explain what their thinking is, these anonymous folks are acting against consensus. And I will continue to revert vandalism. I hope that's clearer. Timothy Perper (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No you won't, because it isn't necessarily vandalism, and you've made no attempt to discuss it (with the IP users). Anyway, I'm now going to help try to resolve it (yes, ColinFine, via DR etc). Chzz ► 15:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Lyudmila Pavlichenko § Japanese Material on Pavlichenko

adding multiple external links

My husband has a website called Classic Collection of North American Birds, www.birds-of-north-america.net, he has asked me to add external links to many birds found on Wikipedia that are also on his site. After editing 5 birds today, I received a caution email about "adding external links to many different Wikipedia pages in rapid succession". Can I continue to add external links beyond 5 of them? Kesha59 (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can, but the way in which you are doing it seems dishonest. An external link is for users to find more information on the topic. You are adding the link to your website at the top of the list of external links and spamming your website across as many Wikipedia pages as possible. Why? It doesn't seem like you are trying to improve information on Wikipedia. It seems like you are trying to abuse Wikipedia to boost your traffic to your website. -- kainaw ™ 16:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Kainaw pointed out the issue is mainly that you are intending only to add links to a site you are affiliated with, as you have a conflict of interest you should be acting with extreme care, ideally suggesting the link on the respective article talk pages so uninvolved editors can assess and maybe add the link on your behalf. Яehevkor ✉ 16:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question boxes

Hi, on Joan Massague's biography page, I noticed that there were two question or warning boxes:

1. "This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. Please add citations from reliable sources." The references I provided were specifically for Dr. Massague's research papers (linked to the PubMed abstracts). These are reliable sources, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and appropriate references. I'm not sure what third party publications I would need to add, but if there are please let me know. Also, if the papers I've cited are sufficient, how do we get that question box to be removed?

2. (in the reference section) This article uses bare URLs for citations. Please consider adding full citations so that the article remains verifiable in the future. Several templates and the Reflinks tool are available to assist in formatting. (Reflinks documentation) (November 2011) Thankfully, someone has taken care of re-doing these references and cleaning up the potential link rot. Now that this has apparantly been addressed, how do I remove this question box?

Thank you for your time. Enapolitano (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Articles need to assert notability, by showing evidence of "significant coverage in independent reliable sources. For example: if a person writes 10 books, that does not necessarily mean that the person is 'notable' (and thus, suitable for inclusion) - anyone could write 10 books, but if nobody writes about their work, they may still be unknown. For that reason, encyclopaedic articles should be mainly based on secondary coverage. There's more about that in WP:PSTS. In the specific case of Joan Massagué Solé, the article does seem to concentrate on demonstrating what the person wrote, rather than what others think about what he wrote - if you see what I mean.

2. Someone else already removed it [2] - it was the line saying, {{cleanup-link rot|date=November 2011}}. For more info about that, see Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Chzz ► 17:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT CONFLICT: I removed the url tag. Chzz said everything else I was about to say. -- LWG ^talk 17:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping sources confidential except to Wikipedia editors

Subject -- Larchmont Village

I re-inserted an addition to Larchmont Village . I have many people to verify what was said . I want to keep their names private . The addition I made is true . Deletion is your loss .

verification : "Barbara Altman Mathieu Phd" (removed email address) -- privat email /retired professor Loyola Marymount (anthropology ) - she along with Dr. Jok founded the Marol School in the Sudan

William Noyes Phd -- lived on Arden and mentioned in article /retired history Professoor University Arizona — Preceding unsigned comment added by CTCMD (talk • contribs) 18:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to post hearsay. Anything you include must be supported by reliable resources, not something that someone overheard. -- kainaw ™ 18:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copying external articles with a creative commons license to WP

I had started an article about a scholar and while looking for a source for the scholar's birth date, I stumbled upon an external article, written by another scholar, about my subject. This article comes with a creative commons license (cc by 3.0). Would it be OK to copy this article onto WP?-MW ^ℳ 18:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide links to the articles concerned. It is much easier to deal with specific concrete information than hypothetical concepts. Roger (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. You are right, I should have done it already. Will try to keep this point in mind henceforth. The article is Andries Van Aarde, and the external article is [3]-MW ^ℳ 03:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From a copyright perspective, the answer is

yes. Provide attribution (using the appropriate {{CC-notice}} if you want) to "Gerda de Villiers, University of Pretoria" or some other reasonable variation. From a content guideline perspective, the answer is maybe. You can take content from the source to build an encyclopedic article, but dumping the article as is will run afoul of neutrality, undue weight, the manual of style, etc. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CharlieEchoTango. Thanks for the response and clarifications. Using the {{CC-notice}} template is a great idea. Instead of dumping the article as is, I now plan to modify the article and insert a general note at the end of the article (above the references section) saying something like "This article is adapted from...". I too see several sentences which may need deletion and some section headings may need modification, rearrangement, etc. I plan to do it in the coming days. Cheers, and have a nice day :-) MW ^ℳ 05:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rules

in womens college basketball D3 on a jump ball dose the 30 sec. clock get reset for the team that had the ball or dose the clock stay were it was? my e-mail is ^{[details removed]} thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.249.11 (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I have removed your email address to protect your privacy). I suggest you ask at the Entertainment reference desk. Some of the volunteers there enjoy sports questions and will do their best to help you. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: facebook link - it's up to you. She has frequent updates over there, including salons, articles, etc.

re: facebook link - it's up to you. She has frequent updates over there, including salons, articles, etc. Adviserslegal (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you a question about using Wikipedia? --ColinFine (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]