Help desk
< December 4	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 6 >

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.

December 5

Very quick question about colors

Anyone know what's the color used in templates such as Template:tmbox? Been quite curious about what it is. Lor^Chat 02:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honeydew? --Jayron32 02:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't be, It's more of a brownish color. Lor^Chat 03:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is #F8EABA. It does not have a name at List of colors: A–F and its companions, but it falls somewhere between Peach (#FFE5B4) and Blond (#FAF0BE). Dwpaul ^Talk 03:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Park, New Jersey

Hi there. I'm having a tough time making an edit to Lincoln Park, New Jersey. I left a reason for my edit on that article's talk page, but another editor feels different. Is there a process by which other editors with some expertise in Wiki policy could look at the article and give an opinion? I don't want to get into an edit war. I'd just like another opinion, and not a lot of editors seem to be watching that page. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: I have just a minute, so I haven't looked at the page in question. That said, you might want to check out WP:3O for a third opinion. Dismas|^(talk) 12:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

new article

how long does it take for an article to be verified and we can receive a confirmation regarding an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudeeptha (talk • contribs) 06:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sudeeptha: Who is "we"? You Sudeeptha have as your only edit [1] the comment above. If you created and submitted content it has been deleted. If someone else submitted content, the process provides a note that the process is severely backlogged and may take several months for a volunteer to reach the review status. The account that submitted does receive a notice when the content is approved/declined (if the volunteer follows the appropriate process- they are mostly very good, but are only human and sometimes miss a step). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a book

This is link of my book which i have created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rkadchitre/Books/KnowledgeRK when im rendering the book it takes too long and ending with error Status: Bundler reported back with spawn error: Error: Fork failed please help me thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkadchitre (talk • contribs) 12:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to put 891 articles into one book, which is simply too many.
As Help:Books states "books that result in PDFs with more than 500 pages are probably too big". Many of your articles will produce several PDF pages, so at a guess your book will have >2000 pages.
Simple question - why do you want all of those articles in one book? Why not have several volumes? - Arjayay (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question

Article reworded so that it is not copyvio or close paraphrase. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2014 (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 added an article about Joseph Rodney Moss, a South Carolina Supreme Court justice. Because there is very little information available about him, the basics of his life are recited in staccato form: "He attended Erskine College." Some editor has tagged it as a copyright violation. It isn't. And I'm not saying that as someone who is unfamiliar with copyright issues; I am a lawyer who has handled intellectual property claims. While some of the phrases are similar (by necessity), they are not copied. I specifically reworked as much as could be reworked without getting ridiculous, but there are only so many ways to say such simple, biographical facts. The similar phrases giving rise to the tag include things like "University of South Carolina School of Law"! That is a proper noun, not a lifted phrase! The editor who tagged the article doesn't seem to have actually thought about what he is tagging. The template that has been inserted into the article does not provide any way of actually contesting the claim of copyright issues at all. It just tells people how to do things like submit statements consenting to the reuse of secondary sources. That's not what I'm doing. There IS NOT a violation in the first place. How do you contest the claim of copyright in the first place? ProfReader (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to discuss the copyright issue, or any other issue, would be the talk page, Talk: Joseph Rodney Moss. I also see that the first tagging of the article as copyright violation was done by a bot. Also, "reciting" the details of his life in "staccato form" may not be the best way to avoid a close paraphrase. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no discussion on the article talk page. The article talk page consists only of templates. Try discussing the copyright violation issue on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Googling on his name to find reliable sources of information about his career that can be reworded? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right about the Bot involvement. It just drives me crazy when someone employs a Bot to make a judgment call and then doesn't apparently confirm its judgment, much less offer any explanation in the Talk page. I've tried to find other sources (and cited one or two), but there just aren't many to use. I purposefully reworked some of the bullet-point sounding text from the main source, but there is only so much you can do. (You can only say, "He was born in 1992" or whatever in so many ways without sounding really contrived: "In the year of our Lord 1992, he passed through his mother's birth canal and entered the world.") Moreover, the problem is that this Bot has seized upon several short phrases like "University of South Carolina School of Law" and deemed this a copyright violation, which it is not. Bottom line: I'm frustrated that people use Bots to dig out supposed problems and then (apparently) uncritically take some severe response (like tagging an entire article for deletion) without explaining their decision first. A Bot should be a tool, not an editor. (Steps off soapbox.)ProfReader (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm those "people". The bot is a tool which flags a potential problem; each bot report is then evaluated by a real live human editor, who tries in each case to make the most appropriate response. Some bot reports are false alarms; this one isn't. I've now posted some examples of what I see as copyright violations by ProfReader in that article on the talk page. The article isn't listed for deletion, it's listed for copyright cleanup. I chose to list it rather than just removing the copyvio content for two reasons: there was copying from more than one source, and on more than one occasion; and because the user has had at least two copyright warnings (in November 2013 from WilyD, December 2013 from Ammodramus) in the past, which raises concern about a possibly wider problem. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article. Since the article wasn't that long, it wasn't that hard to rewrite it to change the wording (which was copyrighted) while keeping the meaning (which is not copyrighted and is the purpose of the article). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2014 (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.

denied article

I wrote a page for Necessary Clothing and included only facts- dates, names of owners, etc. I used a small snippet about Soho area in New York which I modeled after a wikipedia post about Soho and my article was still called advertisement even though it only included very basic facts. What can I include in the article about the company since facts are not allowed? Should I exclude the dates, business owners, and area and put more fluff related material? Is that better? I cited everything and listed information from well known companies online. Thank you for your help. PageLucky (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Page[reply]

What was posted was not an article, but a couple of bald unsupported statements, a series of external links, a brief blurb advertising a street in Soho, and a batch of links, at least one of which was not to an article but to a press release from the company. It did not look like you were taking the whole thing very seriously. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search suggests you are the SEO Manager of the company, in which case you should look through the FAQ page for businesses and organisations. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the article in question is Necessary Evil Clothing, it was deleted almost two years ago, so that there has been plenty of time to write a new article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the most recent version, Necessary Clothing, was deleted on 12/4/14.--ukexpat (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala

On 4\12\2014 , I added some better and correct information on Kerala than the biased write up there and received some notification that i have not given source or facts and it is false. All, that I had edited is given in various chapter of Wikipedia it self, what more reference do you want. It is unfortunate that in Wikipedia now there is no scope for corrections of biased articles like this. By the way I have contributed and was instrumental in opening the article on Thirunainar Kurichi Madhavan Nair and gave lots of information for Bharath Bhushan (Hindi film actor), and many other Wikipedia articles earlier , and there was no such problem. Here the editor\whoever of the article Kerala is strict in promoting his views only with no scope of adding correct information and may be a male chauvinist (eg; I added names of Kerala's Major Actress and is this not a fact as per your notice to me , According to your article Kerala, in Kerala cinema there are no Actress , is that a fact? ) and readers will know all here are not unbiased facts as you think and is ignorant of lots of genuine information . I shall no longer edit but please give the job some one competent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.66.100 (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear from your post what article you are saying is biased. Is it Kerala or Malayalam cinema or Bharat Bhushan? I see that you have not tried discussing any content issues on any article talk pages. The best place to discuss content issues, including sourcing issues, is on article talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that your changes are false. They may very well be correct. But Wikipedia requires that all information be cited to a reliable source (which Wikipedia itself is not). To see why this is so, consider what may happen in future. Suppose your edits are all correct, but next week or next month somebody comes along who changes the text you have added - maybe they are mistaken, maybe they found a different source from you which says something different, maybe they are mischievous. Either way, all the reader sees is that the information has changed: they have no way of knowing whether it was correct before, correct after, both wrong, or whatever. By insisting on a reference to a reliable source, we make it so that the reader for whom it the information is important has a way of checking it. --ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hide New articles from recent changes

Is there any method to hide newly created articles from recent changes ?--Shiti (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't think so.--ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

any script ?--Shiti (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what do you want to hide from what? Do you want to create an article and then hide it from recent change patrolling? If so, that doesn't seem like the way that Wikipedia, which is a collaborative effort, works. What is it that you want to do? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no. no. I want to hide 'new articles' from recent changes only for me. Recent changes has option to hide "Bot edits", hide "minor edits". like that i want to hide "new articles" i.e. newly created pages. is it possible ?--Shiti (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ଶିତିକଣ୍ଠ ଦାଶ: if it can be done, try WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Message to editor that deleted 1 comment from an article dicussion

Mr. Mazuco. I left my comment on my great-uncle José Júlio da Costa in the Wikipedia page which is full of many gross errors written by very ignorant or very ill intended people. Moreover, I am a researcher and historian. Who are you to reverse whatever? Are you not a Brazilian? What do you know about the history of Portugal? Isn't your specialty pop music? Enough of quackery on History. The article is a shame. Greetings. TSS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.108.50.46 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This post is the only contribution that has been made by this IP address. What article is being discussed? The place to discuss content issues is on the article talk page. Also, the tone of this post is not likely to advance collaborative discussion. Please be civil. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You probably intended to post this at the Portuguese language Wikipedia, the only Wikipedia version with an article about José Júlio da Costa. This is a separate language Wikipedia with its own help desk and project structure. A link to their help desk is to the left labelled "Português" or at "https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contato/Linha_direta". Please post your concerns calmly over there or at the article's talkpage on the Portuguese Wiki. GermanJoe (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl LIII

Well Wikipedia I Would Like to request a page about Super Bowl LIII. But I'm not being mean or anything I'm trying to be nice so that I don't get blocked again. But When will the Super Bowl LIII Page start Hopefully soon Because I Can't get the page to start so I Would Like to know when it starts. 68.102.58.146 (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to catch everyone up, the OP insisted on the Entertainment Ref Desk that we start an article on Super Bowl LIII. When asked why we would write one years in advance of the actual game, they only insisted more. The game won't take place until 2019. Dismas|^(talk) 17:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl LII was created 3 August 2013, Super Bowl LI on 22 October 2012, Super Bowl L in 2006. Based on recent history, then, we're already late with LIII, and Google News Archive returns 25 hits for "Super Bowl LIII". What's the problem? If no one feels like creating the article, fine, but there's no basis for insisting that it's too early to do so, or trying to delete one created. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has been informed, already, on how to create an account so he or she can make the page in question. No one has yet prevented them from doing so. --Jayron32 17:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a draft at Draft:Super_Bowl_LIII that the IP is already contributing to. When the draft is ready it can be resubmitted for review. RudolfRed (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok That's fine And we hope that the Super Bowl LIII Page Can be ready soon Cause there's a draft for it and I hope it will be ready soon Cause there are 6 Cities In The running Atlanta, Dallas, Indianapoils, Miami, New Orleans, and Seattle. And we hope in May that bid will be announced. Until then have a nice weekend ok. 68.102.58.146 (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.58.146 (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to change the associate photo for a wiki page

The photo in the information tab on the right side of the wiki page on our facility needs to be updated to reflect the current likeness. How do I upload and change the associated photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpringerTheatre (talk • contribs) 18:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This post is the only post that has been made from this account, so it is difficult to tell what article is being discussed. A search on "Springer Theatre" lists several articles, any of which might be the one that the OP wants updated. The place to request the update would be the article talk page of the article in question. Information about uploading photographs is available at WP:Uploading images. Please read the discussion of copyrights carefully. Since any existing photographs are probably copyrighted, it might be a good idea to take a new photograph and release its copyright under the appropriate Creative Commons copyleft. Also, the OP is using the user name of User:SpringerTheatre, which appears to be a role or shared user name, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy that a user name should belong to one person. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more specific - tell us the article, the old photo and the new photo. In the case of photos and other potentially copyright media the specifics do matter - a general answer is useless. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the copyright issues and see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for the technical "how to". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Also note that just because you decide to donate an image, the community may decide not to use it if they feel that other images are more appropriate for the Encyclopedia.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Babu Gogineni

Checking! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.87.20 (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

insert animated image by link

Dear help desk

is it possible to embed links like https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kff6Q3VeRJbuMU8hvsIWh8SmnxIQCeahgrVmsGLJktc/pubchart?oid=977367143&format=interactive as an image to wikipedia contributions, instead of using static images only? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U rob me (talk • contribs) 19:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot embed links or images, you must upload them to Wikipedia or Commons. -- Gadget850^talk 19:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Animated images, like the one to the right, are certainly allowed. But the thing you have linked to is to an html file. If there's a way of embedding an html file in a Wikipedia article, I don't know what it is. Maproom (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

illegal page

Dear Wikipedia this page is against the interanational law and United Nations (UN): Republic of Macedonia

Please check this for proof: Member states of the United Nations

And the Official UN page. http://www.un.org/en/members/

No country in the world by this name exist. Probably must Replace title at least to FYROM-The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It's unbelievable that Wikipedia let this illegal to United Nations (UN) and internationl law page on it's adress. This movements makes problems harder between Greece and Fyrom and also confuse wiki viewers. Please fix it soon. It's illegal. We'll post this to internet. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.198.64.28 (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing whatsoever under any international law that regulates what titles Wikipedia uses for its articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And note that whether to title the article "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" has been discussed ad infinitum on the article's talk page. The current title appears to reflect the consensus of editors. Deor (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to quote laws, see First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gives the WMF the right to use its servers in accordance with its own policies. Your statement "It's illegal" is incorrect. Your statement: "We'll post this to Internet" is empty because this is already on the Internet. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok right. I respect your opinion but mine is Money can buy the history for sure. Obey soros then dear friends. Anyway this page is against UN and you know it but wiki does not have problem and guess why?! Maybe soon all this propaganda against truth, history and a whole ancient nation will be dust. Big red bear coming. And this is not a fantasy like the Makedonia with slav people. Anyway anyone how want to have an clear opinion must read ancient texts and the history until 1940 of both countries. Wiki knows the truth and how this country took the FYROM name and now changed the name from FYROM to this..... showing disrespect το UN and Εurope. This is politics this is propaganda. search for this yourself. Thanks for your answers. Hope not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.198.64.28 (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are not beholden to "soros" or anyone else for that matter. Reopen the discussion on the article's talk page if you feel that strongly about it.--ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with rendering a book

I have been trying to render my book but it keeps on failing It comes up with this message "Generation of the document file has failed. Status: Rendering process died with non zero code: 1" Heres a link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PerpetuaLux/Books/The_Codex_-_Physics Any help would be appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerpetuaLux (talk • contribs) 21:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing the error message. It displays a list of articles that it says can be printed as a book. I suggest, first, that you try again, and, second, if that does not work, you post your inquiry at Village pump (technical). It would probably be useful to provide operating system and web browser information on your computer (although the problem may be entirely at the Wikipedia end). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong picture?

I think there is wrong picture on this page: Valka

In that gallery there is a photo with title "Rīgas iela (Riga Street) at the Estonian border."

And text is about city on Lithuanian/Latvian border! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.243.108 (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the article states that the city is on the border between Latvia and Estonia. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and multiple times. The only mention of Lithuania in the whole article is one of the seven cities in Valka#Sister cities. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]