Help desk
< January 30	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	February 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

January 31

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

Re: William Levitt

I made a mistake and do not know how to correct it. For some reason I am not there! I am William J Levitt's second son (to his first wife, R Kirshner) so I added it yet this error is showing Can you help This is what I added; Levitt married Rhoda Kirshner in November 1929.[5] Their son William Junior was born in 1933.[5] His second son, James was born in 1944. The couple divorced in 1959, and Levitt married his secretary and long-time lover, Alice Kenny.[5] Ten years later in 1969, Levitt divorced her and married a French art dealer, Simone Korchin.[5]

The person being referenced is WILLIAM J. LEVITT Thank you James Levitt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.152.110 (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You accidentally inserted extra ref tags before the "Background" section heading. I removed them. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Gridlock (politics)

Reference help requested. ReferenceBot tells me I have a redundant parameter error. I used the templates, so there shouldn't be an error. I did use a reference with two authors, though, so perhaps that's the issue? Here is how the template created that reference:

Brady, David (2006). Revolving Gridlock: Politics and Policy from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. p. 4. {{cite book}}: More than one of |author1= and |last1= specified (help)

Also, I cited this reference twice, from two separate pages. I included the full reference both times, only changing the page number. Could that be the cause of the error? Is there a better way to cite a reference that's already been cited in the same article? Thanks, Transdeuce (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

|author1= may not be specified with |first1= or |last1= as they both refer to the first author. Either change |author1= to |author2= or remove it. If there is in fact a second author, and they are a person, I'd suggest changing |author1= to |first2= and |last2= for consistency. You are also misusing |authorlink1= which should always be the title of a Wikipedia article (there is no article titled "Craig"). As for your last question, see Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. You can specify the page number by using {{rp}} immediately following the citation, as {{rp|n}} or {{rp|p.n}}, where n is the page number. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After a second look, I'm thinking perhaps your second author is Craig Volden. In that case, change |author1=Volden|authorlink1=Craig to |last2=Volden|first2=Craig. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tel vs. tell

I have a style question that is somewhat similar to the question about 'Murican and Commonwealth spelling. In Near Eastern Archaeology, tells are our bread and butter when it comes to sites. Tell is both a Hebrew and Arabic word with different spellings and commonly-used transliterations that match those spellings. They both mean mound in their respective languages.

In Hebrew you have tel (תֵל) and in Arabic you have tell (تَلّ)—which has a wee w-looking character above the lam (ل) indicating the letter should be treated as a double, for those curious. In archaeological writing, both tel and tell are acceptable and recognised by those with even a basic knowledge of the practice. In place-names (be they extant cities or ancient sites), you'll generally find tel used in Israel (Tel Aviv or Tel Megiddo), and tell used in the Arabic-speaking world. In archaeological writing, it's not uncommon for a site whose name starts with Tel to be referred to as a tell throughout a paper and the opposite.

Anyway, my question is, for style purposes on Wikipedia, is it okay to use one or the other so long as you're consistent throughout the article? I want to change the terminology from tel in Tel Kabri to tell (not changing the article name of course, just the references to the 'tel' itself) just because I think it looks nicer. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 11 Shevat 5775 02:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

within a single article the use should generally be consistent (except where direct quoting) 2) see WP:LANGVAR for determining which - follow the sources - what is the most common usage? which usage was in the article first? , is a strong national/cultural tie to one version? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think most of what you asked is answered in my OP. No one version is more common in the sources as I recall. As for which was in the article first, it's tel, but only because it's what I put originally. I did about 99% of the writing for that article (stating fact, not ownership) and put in all instances of the word as most other editing on that as article has been correcting goofs. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 11 Shevat 5775 15:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pointer to WP:LANGVAR is critical. In short, it doesn't matter, as long as it's consistent (please don't follow your colleagues in using both spellings in the same publication), and we give leeway to the first significant writer, so you ought to make your decision without worrying about some sort of policy overriding you. If the field were consistent, we should go that way, but since you're more familiar with the sources than most (all?) of the rest of us, we oughtn't question your conclusion that the field in general is inconsistent. Nyttend (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made sure to scope that guideline. The using both spellings thing is generally that it'll be something like Tel Megiddo and then the author will refer to it as the tell through-out. You couldn't call it Tell Megiddo because it has an Arabic name, Tell Em-Mutsilliem. I'm not the only archaeologist Wikipedian, and there's many more qualified than I am, but I guess I am the only person actively editing Wikipedia who has access to most of the English-language sources for this specific archaeological site.

Also, sadly, archaeology, especially Syro-Palestinian archaeology, is rarely ever consistent. Almost every little detail is disputed and fought over. There could probably be a section in an article somewhere or a separate article about it as a lot of people write articles about it (the majority of archaeological writing that isn't bone-dry). Thank you though, I shall follow your advice! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 11 Shevat 5775 16:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disgusting vandalism

The Julie Bishop page contains truly vile and disgusting vandalism and swearing, please remove IMMEDIATELY how to contact wikipedia ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.18.234 (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism has been reverted by a bot and the edit was "revision deleted" by an admin. I expect the vandal is already blocked. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No block in block log

I recently got this user blocked after vandalizing one of my article comments. I see no block in his block log. What happened? 118.209.2.5 (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the report was badly formatted, so it was removed without action. As the vandal has now been warned, they will probably get blocked next time they edit. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A human wouldn't just remove such a report, but a robot maintains the page. It saw your report and wrongly concluded that you'd not made an actual report, or something like that. Nyttend (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Same thing happened when I reported Ryulong for edit and flame warring a few months ago. Thanks for telling me. 118.209.172.194 (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And as you saw, my IP changed. It changes for no reason, and I can't do anything about it, so if I were in a flame war, someone would mistake it for sockpuppetry. Just so you know. 118.209.172.194 (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can do something about it: you can register and use an account. I doubt the bots will care, but it would make things easier for everyone else involved. Maproom (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make an account. This guy also involved in the huge GamerGate edit war that was banned from here when the case closed has destroyed my life and all I have left is a blocked account. this WAS my account, until that guy got in the way and added that stupid multiple account abusing template, even know I only lost my cool at him.. But still, I apologize to these guys for pissing them off when they were doing the right thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:117:C080:520:5E26:AFF:FEFE:79A4 (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not just me whose dealt with him and was treated unfairly with. I believe Ryulong was rightfully banned to be honest. He's had a long history of abuse, newcomer biting and whatnot. Ryulong was that guy I dealt with by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:117:C080:520:5E26:AFF:FEFE:79A4 (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content adding

How to add contents in an article.

Hi, the table of contents is automatically added after there are enough sections in an article (I believe it is 4). Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 13:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Magic words. If you want a table of contents that wouldn't otherwise appear, you can add __TOC__ on the page somewhere. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not "somewhere": it needs to go immediately before the first section heading. Point 2 at H:TOC#Floating the TOC applies to all TOCs, not just those that are floated. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia v Wiktionary integration

It seems obvious to me that Wikipedia and Wiktionary should be properly integrated. Just about any word in Wiktionary could potentially have a Wikipedia entry if you describe the word in context. Words not in Wikipedia are normally in Wiktionary so i dont know why a link straight through to Wiktionary isnt always given if a reader searched for a word not in Wikipedia. Also Wiktionary entries should include a link to to the corresponding Wikipedia article if there is one. Links within Wikipedia article should be permissible to Wiktionary articles, including in Wikipedia templates and categories - replaced by Wikipedia links should they be created at a later date. I cannot see any reason why the two are not integrated except for political reasons.--Penbat (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Penbat. The best place to make broad proposals like this is at the Village pump: you can make the suggestion, and try and garner support for your proposal. For myself, I disagree. Most words in a dictionary do not merit an encyclopaedia article, and the kinds of information given are quite different (summary of what people have said about a topic, vs the meaning, usage, and examples of a word). Links between the two are perfectly possible, and do get used sometimes; I think it is rarely appropriate to link a wiktionary term in the text of a Wikipedia article: if the ordinary reader is going to need to look up a word, then either it should link to a Wikipedia article, or a more common word should be used instead. --ColinFine (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not WP:VPP, that's policy. WP:VPR (proposals) is best. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ColinFine. If we integrated the two, how would we handle synonyms? As an encyclopedia, we have one article that covers wood as a commodity: it's called "lumber", and the functionally identical term "timber" redirects to it, since it's the same concept. Wiktionary, however, has different pages for the two, because it concentrates on the words themselves rather than on their meanings. How would you reconcile this basic discrepancy? Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:ClueBot III/Indices/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T87645

Can anyone imagine why this is showing up in CAT:CSD? Its sole contents are:

[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica/Archive 1| 1]]

[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica/Archive 2| 2]]

No categories, no templates, etc., and it's been around since 2013, so I can't see why it's only now in the category. RHaworth already tried to fix it, but he self-reverted because even blanking the page didn't solve the problem. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's also showing up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as importance or significance not asserted. Null edit and purging didn't fix it, either. —Cryptic 15:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just now deleted it and immediately recreated with the same contents, wondering if the system would start over if it were created by someone else, but that didn't work either, so I restored what I'd deleted. Nyttend (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may just be a coincidence, but this is one of the pages referred to at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#ClueBot III and Cyberbot I created pages in the wrong namespace. Although its name begins "User:", it is included in this list of pages that the software thinks are in namespace zero. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But if it's in mainspace, why is the page tab "User page" instead of "Article"? And if you click the tab for the nonexistent talk page, you have the opportunity to create User talk:ClueBot III/Indices/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica, while if it were in mainspace, shouldn't it go to [[Talk:User:ClueBot III/Indices/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica]]? Nyttend (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there are two pages, with identical names, one incorrectly in ns:0 (main), the other correctly in ns:2 (User); the one in ns:2 has preference, so that is the one that you see when you click the relevant link, but the CSD template is actually on the one in ns:0. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks like two pages. I tracked down a diff which explains the CSD category and a mainspace entry at [1]. I still don't know how to delete the mainspace version. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mainspace one has wgArticleId 45227575; the userspace one's is 45266427. It can probably be deleted via the api, but I'm not brave enough to try. (I was able to get it out of the csd cats, though, by editing from that diff page.) —Cryptic 17:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can two pages exist at identical names? I've moved the userpage to a different title, using move-without-redirect, and it didn't affect the A7-tagged one, since I can still view https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=645010876 without using any admin tools. However, I can't move or delete the still-existing page, as when I go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ClueBot_III/Indices/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Encyclopaedia_Britannica, it only shows that there's no userpage by this name, and if I go to the diff and click "move" or "delete", it only notes that there's no userpage by this name. I haven't a clue how to delete through the API; where can I find someone who does? Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess pages are stored as a (namespace, pagename) pair, and the two pages are effectively (mainspace, "User:ClueBot III/Indices/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica") and (userspace, "ClueBot III/Indices/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica"). The first pair shouldn't be allowed and cannot be reached by features which only give a pagename and not a (namespace, pagename) pair or an ArticleId number. There is API documentation at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=help&modules=delete but I don't want to mess with it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) My theory is that the two pages share names because the names are stored in different ways that appear to be identical to any passing human, but are different for a computer. If I go to the correctly-named page, and hover my mouse over the (redlinked) "talk" tab, and right-click to copy the link, it is
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ClueBot_III/Indices/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Encyclopaedia_Britannicad&action=edit&redlink=1
- the namespace prefix is shown as "User_talk:", as we would normally expect. But if I go to the diff mentioned above, and do the same, I get
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:User:ClueBot_III/Indices/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Encyclopaedia_Britannica&action=edit&redlink=1
- notice the presence of "Talk:User:" instead of "User_talk:". So this suggests to me that for the page in error, the "User:" part is not being treated as the namespace prefix, but as part of the actual pagename. I read somewhere that for pages outside mainspace, the namespace prefix (and its colon) is not stored as text, but as an integer; pages in mainspace don't have a namespace prefix, but are still stored with a namespace value, and that value is zero. So, the page that is correct has its namespace stored as the value 2, and its name stored as the string "ClueBot III/Indices/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica"; whereas the the page that is in error has its namespace stored as the value 0, and its name stored as the string "User:ClueBot III/Indices/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica". The names differ, one is five bytes longer than the other. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with unified login

Regarding a question I posted previously on the Help desk, I have followed the instructions and requested for a username change on the French Wikipedia. However, as previously predicted, since the two accounts, which are automatically global and unified, already exist, there is nothing the people who do the renaming can do. Stewards will be required to take such action. In this case, how should I proceed? Although options seem few, I still do not wish to give up this account. Is it possible for anything else to be done? For example, will it be possible to discuss this with people more familiar with similar procedures on English Wikipedia? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Average Wikipedian: The whole process for changing and usurping usernames has been altered in the last few months, and is no longer a matter for local action: you probably need to go to meta:Steward requests/Username changes. Explain the whole situation, all usernames that you registered, which wikis that they were first registered on. Where applicable, include links to threads here and on other wikipedias where your problem was discussed. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you didn't follow my suggestion to ask for a rename or a local creation of the blacklisted name. I have done so at fr:Wikipédia:Demande de renommage de compte utilisateur#The Average Wikipedist → The Average Wikipedian, but I don't know what the answer will be. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: I asked for a rename, as your instructions said so. If the local creation of the blacklisted name is a way out, how do I do it? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 December 30#An overheated BLP noticeboard debate and login for other languages I wrote: say something like "I created The Average Wikipedian at the English Wikipedia and mainly edit there but would like to also edit here without logging in and out to another account. I cannot create The Average Wikipedian by myself because usernames containing 'Wikipedia' are blocked here by MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. If you can create the account for me then I don't need a rename of X."

I don't know whether they are able to do it in a practical way (an impractical way would be for a local admin to temporarily change the blacklist while you create the account yourself). I suggest you wait for a reply at fr:Wikipédia:Demande de renommage de compte utilisateur#The Average Wikipedist → The Average Wikipedian before going to meta:Steward requests/Username changes. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currently I am trying to solve the problem through meta:Steward requests/Username changes. Since the name is blacklisted on a few Wikipedias (examples include French and German), should I request for such a rename of my new account globally or do it separately for each Wikipedia? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-statement on Ella Fitzgerald page

Below states that the child Ray Brown, Jr. was raised by HER aunt. In fact the child is a boy/male. Just fyi.

Her second marriage was in December 1947, to the famous bass player Ray Brown, whom she had met while on tour with Dizzy Gillespie's band a year earlier. Together they adopted a child born to Fitzgerald's half-sister, Frances, whom they christened Ray Brown, Jr. With Fitzgerald and Brown often busy touring and recording, the child was largely raised by her aunt, Virginia. Fitzgerald and Brown divorced in 1953, bowing to the various career pressures both were experiencing at the time, though they would continue to perform together.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cylloyd (talk • contribs)

"her" refers to Ella Fitzgerald and not the child. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has reworded this to make it clearer. RJFJR (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Law Journal

Dear sirs, The page Russian Law Journal was created twice and deleted also twice. Could you please explain our faults and suggest how to create it in the best manner? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarik1949 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 January 2015‎

As has already been made entirely clear to you, your journal does not meet Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Brier

Reference help requested. Hi there,

I don't totally understand what the ReferenceBot is asking me to do. Any assistance would be appreciated!

Thanks, Verybrightly (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You added |url=www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqHJ4V893e0. As the help page notes, the link is missing the URI scheme. This should be |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqHJ4V893e0 to create a proper link. -- Gadget850^talk 21:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see my confusion now...I understood that I needed to add the "http://", but then I when I went to look at it, the "http://" was already there. Which led me to realize that someone else had already added it. Am still new and getting the hang of how this all works. Thanks, Gadget850! Cheers, Verybrightly (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Verybrightly: - Suggest keeping a close eye on the page history, one of your most important tools for understanding what's going on with an article. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

Hi, I corrected the spelling of my fathers name. Moe Moskowitz was the founder of Moe's books and A very important person to the Print Mint. Don and Alice Schenker were is very good friends and the Print Mint shared an address with Moe's Books at 2476 Telegraph Ave in Berkeley until 1969. These I things I know because of what I have been told over the years. I am Doris Moskowitz, Moe's youngest daughter. I own and operate Moe's Books today.

How can I correct the spelling of his name?

Doris

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorisjom (talk • contribs)

As noted in the help page, you added an empty <ref></ref> to Print Mint. -- Gadget850^talk 21:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Dorisjom:. I fixed one problem with a stray pair of reference tags for you - and also removed the "iconic" part of your addition. Such phrases are listed at WP:PEACOCK and are usually not suitable for an encyclopedic text. Editors with a close connection to an article topic should read WP:COI and avoid any non-trivial edits. It's better to post additional suggestions on the article's talkpage in such cases, including links to reliable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]