Help desk
< October 25	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 27 >

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.

October 26

Check an edit please?

I'm at work and I don't feel comfortable checking an edit due to the possibly NSFW links used for the sources. Could someone who doesn't have prying eyes watching over them check this edit? I think the editor may be using WP:SYNTHESIS to justify their claims. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 00:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence is supported by first citation. Second sentence appears to be using Twitter and Facebook as evidence of absence, and does look like SYNTH. I haven't reverted. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i removed the second part, even without the SYN it is user generated site making claims about a different living person. i know we dont trust the IMDB for anything other than screen credits. does the iafd have a better rep for fact checking than IMDB? otherwise the claim about half sisters should be removed too. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm still looking for the WP:SOURCE RELIABILITY RATINGS LIST. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template error

Why does Template:Types of ant say there's an error? I can't see any possible mistake in the source code for it. Blackbombchu (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The upper left corner houses the links where you view and edit the template page. the template page name had been changed to include brackets around the word ant and the software could not find a page with that markup because the page name doesnt have brackets around the word ant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know what my mistake was; I made this edit clicking the E in the top left corner of Template:Types of ant while reading the Ant article because the word ant was just as bold as the rest of the title and wasn't a hyperlink in the Ant article. Blackbombchu (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information Change

I do not know where to go to ask a question, I searched Jason LaBarbera the NHL hockey player and the information Wikipedia has is the wrong information. He was born January 8th 1980 and he was born in Prince George BC not Burnaby BC. Just wanted to give you right information. Please forward this onto the right area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.68.244 (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article's current information is apparently based on the NHL website. If you have different, reliable information, it's best to post such corrections on the article's talkpage (click "talk" while reading the article, then "new section" on the talkpage). Please add a reliable source for your information to the message. GermanJoe (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tundra Nomadics

You have at least one article up that talks about Eskimos being descended from Siberian Mongols. I have recently read a genetics study that asserts that this is inaccurate. More recent genetic studies show that Eskimos are not closely related to Siberian Mongols, but are more related to Northern Navajo Indians. There is not enough tracking information on the Thule people of Asia and the later wave of Athabascan to be certain at this point but I was talking with a Yup'ik recently and he asserts they are descended from the Athabascans, while most literature says the Inuit are descended from the Thule. We need to be cautious about making absolute statements about all of these Indigenous groups since no one has ever properly documented their origins down through the ages. I'm just a hobbiest; not an expert, but I think we need to hear a lot more from geneticists before we can unravel the truth about Arctic Nomadics and other North American Indigenous peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.33.62 (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This looks interesting but I would advise you to particularize! If you give details of your sources, you could raise specific issues at (1) the talk page of any article you wish to improve, or (2) the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, perhaps WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Unfortunately your personal discussions with Indigenous people cannot be used directly as sources, as they would be regarded as "original research". By the way, please sign your posts to talk pages with four tildes (~~~~): Noyster (talk), 09:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Important information

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

I need to add a citation to an entry that sorely needs it but don't know how. I just joined Wikipedia and don't know what's up. I tried to edit add information to this section and just got code:

"According to Alex Constantine (Mockingbird: The Subversion of the Free Press by the CIA), in the 1950s, "some 3,000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts". Wisner was able to constrain newspapers from reporting about certain events, including the CIA plots to overthrow the governments of Iran (see: Operation Ajax) and Guatemala (see: Operation PBSUCCESS).[9]"

This attribution has been widely circulated but is either unattributed or wrong. I contacted Alex Constantine regarding an article I'm publishing, and he says this:

"The Mockingbird story was a chapter in a book of mine, Virtual Government, published by Feral House in 1997. But an article in The Nation mistakenly identified it as a "book," and reporters have since made periodic reference to it. I have to roll my eyes every time it happens. I wrote to The Nation immediately after I found the error and a correction was printed. Nevertheless, I continue to find references to the "book" that doesn't exist.

Best, Alex Constantine"

I just want to add that citation. Can someone help me out?

Thanks,

Shawn Sacramento — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperpolysyllabic (talk • contribs) 03:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've confirmed and corrected this citation. Thank you for pointing this out: Noyster (talk), 09:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone here to help?

I use the What links here tool. I usually know what I'm typing in. Recently I have noticed that search suggestions have come to the tool. I do not need its help. Any way to disable it? (It can get annoying, too.) I posted on another page and no one responded. A Great Catholic Person (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Click "Preferences" at the top.
Click "Gadgets".
Scroll down to "Appearance".
Check "Disable the suggestions dropdown-lists of the search fields".
Log out and log in.

Should do the trick. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 04:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Go to Preferences > Gadgets > Appearance > Disable the suggestions dropdown-lists of the search fields. Dismas|^(talk) 04:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss (talk · contribs), Dismas (talk · contribs), I did that, but I still want the dropdown lists for the search, not what links here. A Great Catholic Person (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're above my pay grade, but perhaps someone else knows a way to do that. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 04:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Fairly sure that would take some custom JavaScript added to your common.js file. And I'm not sure where to go for someone who can write that. Dismas|^(talk) 04:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing education by Wikipedia

Whatever,

I really do not care who sees this.

I cannot print any of your information-CRAP???? This is not how people learn. They have to read, comprehend, compare, examine. That is what books are for.

This system is hopeless. My children get 30 mins a day of television or movies, another 20 minutes on a device. They read books every night, and have inherited my love of history. My youngest-she is six- asked me to look upon the computer and PRINT about James Stewart, Earl of Moray, Scotland. I have found what she wants but your company does not allow printing.

This is not the first time I have encountered this problem. It is appalling. Some of us want our children educated properly so unless I get confirmation that your site will be printer friendly-with a fee if that is necessary- I will be doing all sorts of nasty notifications about your site's greed, indifference to education, indifference to basic learning etc.

That is not a threat, a fact.

Samantha Ward — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.57.38 (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Wikipedia is not a company - it is an online encyclopaedia, funded by a charitable organization. Secondly, if you are having problems printing out Wikipedia articles, you will almost certainly find that, as with most things, a polite request for help is more likely to provide positive results than threats. Have you read Help:Printable? And if so, what happens when you follow the instructions there? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every article has a "Printable version" link on the left bar menu. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hesitate to be WP:BOLD. Feel free to edit or improve whatever "CRAP" you find so offensive. Your contributions will be appreciated! Just so you know, this is not a "company" but an almost entirely volunteer driven endeavor. As far as your inability to print an article, that is not a problem that I have ever encountered. Cheers! —Gaff ^ταλκ 06:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To print any article, simply use the print feature of your browser as you would with any other web page. The printable link is mainly for older browsers that do not support CSS. For a more featured set of print options, create an account and install User:TheDJ/Print options. -- Gadget850^talk 10:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i want to update the article but....

i want to update the article List of manned spacecraft, if you see this article List of manned spacecraft there is section called Current manned spacecraft section, in that USA country is missing, i want to add the manned space-craft belongs to USA, & also i want to remove Space stations in Current manned spacecraft, because space stations don't return to earth like manned space-crafts does. how can i do this changes or any wikipedia editor please modify the changes which i am asking, i don't want to spoil wiki articles in any form i want to update the wikipedia articles, so i am posting this section. Ram nareshji (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think the reason there are no USA manned spacecraft listed in the Current manned spacecraft section is because the USA does not currently have any manned spacecraft. The U.S. space shuttle program ended in 2011.

I don't think you should remove the ISS from Current manned spacecraft because manned reentry is not part of the definition of manned spacecraft.

I see that you have started a discussion on the article's talk page. I would recommend NOT making either of these changes unless you have reached a consensus there. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 07:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit title ?

Hi, I have created a page on Henri Bol, but in the heading Bol is bol. I would like to change the b into a capital B. How do I do that? Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_bol Gesinamartina (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I moved the page for you as uncontroversial spelling error. See WP:moving a page for more information. You can do uncontroversial moves yourself, once your account is autoconfirmed after a few days. The "move" option is on top of the article, a bit hidden behind the "more" tag. More complex moves would be better requested - see the guideline for details. GermanJoe (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which which?

Dear editors: Which template should be added inline after a link to a disambiguation page, if I can't disambiguate because I don't know which item was intended? I found one called "which", but it appears to be intended for use on weasel words. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{disambiguation needed}}?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with free access to the New York Times online?

Apparently you only get around 10 free page views at the NYT's online, and I don't want to subscribe. Does anybody have free access to this article here and the NYT's in general? Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SW3 5DL: I have access. What do you need? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This here Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SW3 5DL: I've emailed you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thanks @NeilN:. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can good articles be deleted?

Is there a policy in Wikipedia in which good articles should not be deleted? I was wondering this when I thought about how much work it takes to write a good article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, there is no policy that states that any article cannot be deleted. Clearly though, if an article has been correctly assessed as meeting the good article criteria deletion is less likely - though I note that the criteria don't specifically include meeting relevant notability guidelines, the usual grounds for deletion. As for the amount of work going into an article being relevant to deletion discussions, I'm not sure it should even be a factor - I've seen well-written and extensive vanity articles about non-notable subjects deleted before, and I'm sure I'll see them again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There have been good articles that have been deleted, such as Justin Bieber on Twitter (AfD). This is highly unusual though, and I doubt a good article would be deleted unless it was an ultra-niche topic like the one above, or if there were copyright issues over the text and such. Altamel (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anything on a wiki can be deleted, a good article being one of them, question is why ? Mlpearc (open channel) 17:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question that is worded as a hypothetical question. When a seemingly hypothetical question is posted to this help desk, there is often some background in which the original poster is trying to get a blanket statement in order to wikilawyer an argument, so I will ask what the context is. However, an article will only be deleted if it has gone through speedy deletion, proposed deletion, or the articles for deletion process. I have a hard time imagining an article that meets the Good Articles criteria being deleted through speedy deletion or proposed deletion, so the question is whether a Good Article can be deleted through AFD. The answer is obviously "yes, but ....". Yes, but only if the Good Articles reviewers and the AFD reviewers had different consensus views. Deletion review would be an option. In some cases, nominating a good article for deletion could be considered disruptive editing or disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but it could be a good faith disagreement as to whether the article was good. Why is the original poster asking this question? Is this really a hypothetical question, or is there a specific article involved? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it relates to this where the statement "Good Article status is not reason enough to keep an article" was made, - Arjayay (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Unfortunately, it does appear that the OP was attempting to get a general answer in order to wikilawyer a merge issue. Unfortunately, my skepticism about the seemingly abstract question was well-taken. The real question doesn't appear to be whether to delete a Good Article in the usual sense of a true deletion, but whether to merge it into another Good Article. Please don't pose seemingly hypothetical questions at the Help Desk in order to try to get statements of policy in order to win a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to use this in a policy argument more as it was simply curiosity. Of course it had relevance to my argument, but I was not going to use anything here in an argument. In reality, I was just trying to see if there was a policy I could use. My apologies for wikilawyering if that is what I did. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you weren't trying to use the answer in the merge question, then you weren't wikilawyering, only asking a useless hypothetical question. (Hypothetical questions are useless because Wikipedia isn't rule-bound.) Apology accepted anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyer (like regular lawyer) is a pretty flexible term, anyway. It can apply to to the weaselly ones as well as the productive ones. Whether you're being weaselly or productive is often entirely up to whether you're working for or against the editor who calls you it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. However, when someone asks a hypothetical question at the Help Desk, it is often an attempt to get a statement of policy in order to wikilawyer some sort of issue. In this case, the real question wasn't about deleting a good article so much as merging two good articles. Interestingly, the question was about whether to merge an article on a highway with an article on the merger of two highways, a meta parallel. Maybe I shouldn't be so cynical of hypothetical questions, but I often assume that a hypothetical question is a trick question. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But isn't every question some sort of trick, crafted to gain useful information or influence a discussion? (Hint: Don't answer that.) InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't come to the Help Desk with a general question anymore, where can you go? Please assume good faith. USchick (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the purpose for asking is general then it's fine but we do get a lot of generally formulated questions from posters who are only interested in a specific page. It doesn't have to be bad faith from the poster who may think we don't need more info to give the appropriate answer, but if we don't know what they really want then the answers will often have low relevance to them. We waste time writing irrelevant answers and the poster doesn't learn what they need. There are good reasons Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Help desk says: "If possible, please be specific in your question rather than general and link to any page or article your question involves, or at least tell us the title of the page." PrimeHunter (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do, and if they thought they could get an unbiased answer on that page, they would ask it there. That's why they come here instead. USchick (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the fourth word of the original post should have disqualified it for this page, anyway. This page is for help using and editing Wikipedia. Granted, that's a very general description, but I would think it would exclude things that are better suited for Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Or, WP:Noticeboards says, "Noticeboards are not places to advocate for change to Wikipedia's existing policies. Instead, such suggestions should be taken directly to the talk page of the applicable policy or guideline." One could interpret that as suggesting that page as a good place for clarification of policy. Either way, Help desk doesn't seem the appropriate place for such discussion. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that asking questions about what Wikipedia's policies are is an inappropriate use of the Help Desk. It is for help using and editing Wikipedia, and knowing what the policies and guidelines are is an important part of knowing how to edit Wikipedia. Proposed changes to policies of course should be directed to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). The original post asked whether there was a policy, not whether it should be changed. Some of us are wary of hypothetical questions, but that doesn't mean that questions about what the policy is shouldn't be asked here, only that they should be as specific as possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Agreed. Harking back to earlier questions/points made above, an alternative venue would be for the person to ask at the WP:Teahouse, which is supposed to be friendlier. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original question was clearly related to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and could be viewed as a request for clarification of that policy. You may be right, but I see a lot more policy clarification questions elsewhere. And this is a very different animal from, How can I fix the formatting of this table?. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help with article

Hello

I have created and saved a draft article on mypage called Cleaview (house). Can someone please check it is ok and whether it can be put on Wilipedia. Also, I wanted to add some photographs of the house but don't know how so if someone can please help me with that too.

Kind regards Paul (moulash)Moulash (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paul, and welcome. User:Moulash/Clear View (house) is a good start, but there's a long way to go yet. The main problem is referencing: it's not enough to put a list of references at the end: Wikipedia policy requires that pretty well every statement in an article be referenced to a specific reliable source: as it is, we can't tell what in your draft comes from the sources, and what you may have added. The article should be in your own words (otherwise it will infringe somebody's copyright), but should not go beyond what the sources say, either in factual data or (more importantly) in interpretation. You place references throughout the text, where they apply, using the tags <ref>...</ref>, and the software numbers them and collects them at the end of the article. See referencing for beginners for more on this.

As for adding photos: this is unfortunately not the easiest area of Wikipedia. You need to do this in two steps: first you upload a photo to Wikimedia Commons (or in certain circumstances to Wikipedia itself); then you link to it in the article. First you need to know the copyright status of the photos. If you took them yourself, then you almost certainly own the copyright, and are free to license them in a manner suitable for Wikipedia. If you did not, then you will probably need to find the copyright owner and get them to release them. Please see Upload wizard and Image tutorial for the two steps.

One final point: your working title is "Clear View", but you refer to the house as "Clearview". When the article is reviewed and accepted, it should probably be moved to Clearview (house) - the '(house)' being needed to distinguish it from other Clearviews. But I wouldn't trouble to move the page at present.

When you think the article is ready for review, please edit it to insert {{subst:submit}} at the top, and that will request a volunteer to review it. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to request a page

I think their should be a page called 'DC Shared Universe' (DCSU) for man of steel and the 10 new films. Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) have a page, and now dc have a similar theme going on. They used to have the DCSU but because there was only one film, 'man of steel', it was deleted and i think the page should be re-made, just take the same idea and layout as Marvel's MCU page. It would be much appreciated thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.108.80 (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please check out the Articles for Creation page for information how to request creation of an article if you do not have a Wikipedia account. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 17:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DC Cinematic Universe (DCU) is a redirect now but the page history [1] shows it was previously an article. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting advice on Politecnico di Studi Aziendali

Politecnico di Studi Aziendali is an unaccredited Swiss school (see also its talk page), but some editors, chiefly anonymous apart from a brand new account, keep writing that it is accredited. The latest valid revision is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politecnico_di_Studi_Aziendali&oldid=631064576 by User:Sfan00_IMG. Is it possible to stop this vandalism? Thank you.--Bianbum (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The usual way to do this is to request semi-protection, which prevents the page from being edited by unregistered editors and by editors who are not yet auto-confirmed. I have gone ahead and requested this for you. If an editor who has been auto-confirmed edits the article inappropriately, then the alternatives are dispute resolution if the edits appear to be good faith, or the vandalism noticeboard if the edits are obviously bad faith. Semi-protection may be sufficient here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the clarification.--Bianbum (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can I change my e-mail address?

I recently changed my e-mail address. Despite searching (I found out, for example, how to change my password), I don't see an option for changing the e-mail address. This must exist so if someone can point me to where it is, I'll appreciate it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bblinn (talk • contribs) 19:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bblinn. To change your email address click 'Preferences' there or in the top right of Wikipedia, scroll down, and you should see a 'Change email address' link where you can changed the email address linked to your account. Sam Walton (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]