Help desk
< April 5	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 7 >

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.

April 6

Table problem

List of leaders of North Korea includes this table:

Name	Offices held	Period		Ideology
Kim Il-sung 김일성 (1912–1994)
	Supreme Commander of the KPA	8 February 1948 – 24 December 1991	9 September 1948 ↓ 8 July 1994 (45 years, 302 days)	Juche (Ten Principles)
	Premier of the Cabinet of the DPRK	9 September 1948 – 28 December 1972
	Chairman of the Central Committee of the WPK	30 June 1949 – 11 October 1966
	Chairman of the Central Military Commission of the WPK	1950 – 8 July 1994
	General Secretary of the Central Committee of the WPK	11 October 1966 – 8 July 1994
	President of the DPRK	28 December 1972 – 8 July 1994
	Chairman of the National Defence Commission of the DPRK	28 December 1972 – 9 April 1993
	Eternal President of the DPRK	5 September 1998 – Incumbent
Kim Jong-il 김정일 (1942–2011)
	Supreme Commander of the KPA	24 December 1991 – 17 December 2011	8 July 1994 ↓ 17 December 2011 (17 years, 162 days)	Juche Songun (Ten Principles)
	Chairman of the National Defence Commission of the DPRK	9 April 1993 – 17 December 2011
	General Secretary of the WPK	8 October 1997 – 17 December 2011
	Chairman of the Central Military Commission of the WPK	8 October 1997 – 17 December 2011
	Eternal General Secretary of the WPK	11 April 2012 – Incumbent
	Eternal Chairman of the National Defence Commission of the DPRK	13 April 2012 – Incumbent
Kim Jong-un 김정은 (1983–)
	Supreme Commander of the KPA	30 December 2011 – Incumbent	17 December 2011 ↓ Incumbent (12 years, 353 days)	Juche Songun (Ten Principles)
	First Secretary of the WPK	11 April 2012 – Incumbent
	Chairman of the Central Military Commission of the WPK	11 April 2012 – Incumbent
	First Chairman of the National Defence Commission of the DPRK	13 April 2012 – Incumbent

There's a superfluous blank row at the top of Kim Jong-un's part of the table. But I can't figure out how to edit the table to get rid of it. Could someone help me, or do this for me? JIP | Talk 18:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it. Dismas|^(talk) 19:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do. There are five rows to the right of the light blue box with Kim Jong-un's picture. The first of these rows is blank. JIP | Talk 19:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it. I have four rows to the right of Jong-un. Supreme Commander, First Secretary, Chairman, and First Chairman. There is no blank row for me. Dismas|^(talk) 19:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took a screenshot of the problem. I would assume I'm allowed to upload this as all the content was on Wikipedia to begin with. I mistakenly uploaded it to Commons when I was supposed to upload it to Wikipedia directly, but I guess this is OK. JIP | Talk 19:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - on my desktop the blank row goes away if I horizontally resize the browser window narrower and reappears if I enlarge the window width. MB (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to do that for me too. But I noticed that when I gradually shrunk my browser window horizontally, the blank line got narrower and narrower. So I figure it didn't disappear, but instead shrunk to less than one pixel, making it invisible. JIP | Talk 19:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jong-un has rowspan="5" and there is a row with no content. Browsers will usually make such a row invisible by rendering it with height 0 but some of you apparently see an empty cell in some circumstances. The solution is simply to remove the empty row. I have done this in the article.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's working now. JIP | Talk 04:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISLISP site

There is a reference to PRIME-LISP.net on the ISLISP article. That site does not contain any information related to PRIME-LISP. PRIME-LISP (as a version of ISLISP) and its implementation has been created by me. PRIME-LISP.net was its original site. I have changed it now to http://www.mikhailsemenov.co.uk/im.html. It you are not happy with it delete the whole reference. The implementation is not commercial. The problem is that other sites copy prime-lisp.net link, which contains rubbish. Look at it yourself.

Referencing errors on FreeBSD

Reference help requested. Hi, I recently updated the article on FreeBSD to reflect the newly added support for 64-bit Linux binaries in FreeBSD 10.3 and got a Cite error: A list-defined reference named "linux-64-bit-freebsd10" is not used in the content (see the help page). I'm not sure what I should do to fix this - the previous reference doesn't seem to be relevant anymore because it was just a road map of possible future features, but some of the help pages on references say I should leave the reference there (but then that creates the problem of the cite error). Thanks, Transfat0g (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I fixed your error in the placement of your reference. You did not close the reference (in other words, you did not add the closing </ref>), and the reference was not in the reference template (it was outside the }} closing brackets that are used to transclude templates). Now, in dealing with the error that the reference is not used in the content, this is because you removed the <ref name="linux-64-bit-freebsd10" /> from the content, without removing <ref name="linux-64-bit-freebsd10"> (reference) </ref> from the location in the ref template (where it is defined). I have fixed both of these things. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text

i couldnot insert name in pradeep subedi account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohanwa (talk • contribs) 02:06, 6 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

The page (Pradeep subedi) appears to be a test page and is currently tagged as such under criteria for speedy deletion and will be removed in a short time. If you want to experiment with Wiki mark-up, please use your sandbox as doing so in the main article space will result in deletion. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a template

Template:Oil and gas companies of China I am trying to edit this template. I would like to merge the two rows for oil companies into one large row which accommodates two sub-rows (for major oil and other oil companies). Likewise I want to merge the two two rows for natural gas into format. I've seen other templates in this format. Can anybody help me with this edit? Thanks. Insightfulswipe (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Insightfulswipe: I used {{Navbox subgroup}} in [2]. Does that look as wanted? I omitted "exploration and production" which seemed too long with the new design. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and thanks for the editing tip. Insightfulswipe (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User rights log

This statement has appeared on my watchlist -
(User rights log); 13:52 . . Tony Holkham (talk | contribs) was automatically promoted from (none) to extended confirmed user
- but what does it actually mean? Thanks, Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony Holkham - Please see WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED - it basically means that, as you have had an account for over 30 days, and made over 500 edits, you can edit the pages with the new higher level of "30/500 protection" - but it could have been better explained - Arjayay (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently some editors are worried that, although they should have that additional right, it has not been allocated to them. In order to avoid overloading the servers, by doing them all at once, (there are lots of editors with over 30 days and 500 edits) it is being added to editors accounts when a qualifying editor makes an edit. - Arjayay (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arjayay Thanks for that explanation. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A sock puppet has got to my page

I had it removed and it came right back on - it is the header that questions the information right at the top of the page. Here is what I found in the conversations regarding this problem:

User:GreenDaySun92834 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Multi-user icon This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock puppet of FlowerStorm48 (talk · contribs · logs), and it has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sock puppet for evidence. This policy subsection may also be helpful. Account information: block log – current autoblocks – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth A CheckUser has confirmed that this account is a sockpuppet Categories: Wikipedia sockpuppets of FlowerStorm48

Please help Wikipedia to get this message off my page.

Pamela McColl13:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)184.66.117.29 (talk)

It is a standrard maintenance tag found on probably dozens of Wiki pages where an editor feels that a major contributor to the page might have a close association to the subject. It was not added by 'GreenDay' (who hasn't edited the page sine April 2015 as far as I can see) but by a completely different and experienced editor in September 2015. Eagleash (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has also already been raised at the BLP noticeboard here. Eagleash (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page is also watchlisted at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Watchlist (No. 4206). Eagleash (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what options, if any, do I have here??

For future reference..I made a "RfC" in a talk page...it basically became vandalized and filled up by people (who sorta followed me over to my RfC) adding things of absolutely no relevance or substance to the RfC..(ie not following the guidelines for RfCs) and filled up even more by me asking them to stop their improper behavior...so it was ruining and distracting discourse from the RfC (and therefore hurting the Wikipedia process)...there's lots of people contributing properly but it's all getting mixed up with the improper contributions....is there anything I could have attempted to do about this? for example, would I have been permitted to simply undue (ie erase) their contributions...or edit out the improper portions of their contributions?? Or would this have just caused more problems? Or is there really nothing much that could be done that would be at all practical?68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC in question — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 15:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You created an RfC, and received more responses that you may have expected, some of them very well-informed. Deleting the responses that you disagree with would do nothing to increase other editors' respect for you. Maproom (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wasn't at all interested in deleting anybody's substantive posts..but wondering about improper posts...like the first response...which didn't substantively address the RfC and just belittled me personally...as this seemed to color other people's view of the RfC...suppose there's nothing that can be done in real time about this, as would have to go through whole dispute process over it??68.48.241.158 (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC was then closed about four hours after this post, as No Consensus for what the original poster had said. As the close indicates, a more neutrally worded RFC might be appropriate, although some of the respondents think that the RFC should be at Formal systems, because the RFC isn't specifically about Godel's incompleteness theorems, a formal statement of the limitations of formal systems. The OP is cautioned to read what is not vandalism before using the word "vandalism" to characterize what the OP does state is a content dispute. (Some of the respondents have not been able to determine what the content dispute is, which is one of the reasons why the RFC received so many responses.) The OP is cautioned that the use of the word "vandalism" in disputes that are clearly not vandalism is considered a personal attack and may result in a block. The OP asks, in their edit summary, what options, if any, they have here. Engage in constructive discussion at the article talk page with other editors, many of whom do understand the technical subject matter (rather than insulting them by saying that they clearly don't understand). If another RFC is necessary, discuss how to word it neutrally. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the problem was that your first response, which was unsubstantive and just belittled me personally (and therefore improper) colored other people's impression of the RfC who followed you...it's pretty easy to establish that this was your intention as you followed me over to my RfC because you were previously mad at me...so you were successful in damaging my RfC...I just wonder if there was anything I could do about it in real time, like delete it or page an administrator or something.....68.48.241.158 (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny font in Chrome edit box

Hi,

When editing a page, the edit box shows text in a reasonable size in Firefox but it's much too small in Chrome. I can increase the text size using keyboard shortcuts, but to make the edit box text legible I have to increase text size until everything else on the page is absolutely huge. Is this a known issue? Any solutions?

Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What version of Chrome and operating system do you use? Ruslik_Zero 17:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome for Mac, version 49.0.2623.87. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting Sierra Academy of Aeronautics permanently

To Whom it may concern,

We've been experiencing some internal matters where users and employees are posting some damaging information, this info can delay current and future financials for our company. What would be the best way to resolve this issues on editing to site until we get this matter resolved? Is it possible to Lock this page, we are the owners of this page, shouldn't we have access to this options?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castlesierra (talk • contribs)

We don't permanently protect articles unnecessarily - and if it's a small group of users, we can block or ban them and solve the problem that way. But I am posting your request to Requests for protection, where admins more involved with page protection can evaluate it on the merits and see how best to assist. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you do not own the article. See WP:OWN. Also, please see WP:COI. Dismas|^(talk) 16:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pinging Castlesierra (talk · contribs) so they get a notification of these replies. Dismas|^(talk) 16:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please try to understand you are NOT "the owners of this page" see WP:OWN
This is Wikipedia's page about The Sierra Academy of Aeronautics and will contain whatever information has been published in reliable sources, be that good or bad, presented from a neutral point of view.
I note that the page was temporarily protected at 02.28 UTC today and all the disputed material was removed from both the article and the page history. Although that protection has now lapsed, there has been no further edits, other than your (misplaced) request and my removal of it. I suspect the page is being closely watched, but if further unsourced edits are made you should apply to request for page protection - however, we do not usually act preemptively, so a request before any further edits are made is likely to be refused, and could delay protection if it is required. - Arjayay (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a request at RPP on behalf of Castlesierra, if only because they would have done so anyway had they known to. I agree that full protection really isn't an option, and said so at RPP - but the removed material was bad enough, honestly, that I almost added a week of protection outright. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So all you can do is monitor content? I am afraid that this permanent request to protect the page is necessary for the time being. can you add a longer block say two weeks. Until we figure this out, How can I summit a request for IP address?

If it's a few editors posting inappropriate content, generally it's better to block them rather than lock the whole article. But the editors over at WP:RPP know their business and can give you a better answer. For my part, I've watchlisted the article and will deal with any problems that I notice. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been semi-protected for a month, so only confirmed users can edit it. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been proposed for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read

How to read the page of wikipedia book?

Why I can't read a page through action=read parameter? [3] UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to read it in this way? Ruslik_Zero 19:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What were you hoping would be on a page with such a parameter? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tuberculosis&action=view redirects to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosis which is the normal place to read the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Hello,

Are there other templates like [[1935 in the movies|1935]] regarding theater, classical music, jazz, literature, poetry etc? Thanks in advance for helping out; LouisAlain (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you are asking about are categories, not templates. Ruslik_Zero 19:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help but what about the answer? Does something like 1935 exist ?LouisAlain (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, see Category:1935 in theatre, and regarding your original request, there is Category:1935 in music. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[[1935 in the movies|1935]] is not a template but a link so your quesion is unclear but I think you are interested in articles about 1935 in the arts. Special:PrefixIndex/1935 in shows all article names starting with "1935 in". Italics indicate redirects. Category:1935 organizes various categories and articles about the year 1935. Category:1935 works may be of special interest to you. Some of the arts don't have an article about the year but do have a category listing articles about specific works. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from the French Wikipedia I was thinking of 1947 or 1891 and 1967 but since I understand you seem perplexed with my query I gather that such models don't exist in the enwiki; Was just trying to do a better job (friendly smile) and thank you, LouisAlain (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've slightly changed your links so that they point to the articles in the French Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind. Dismas|^(talk) 01:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blackhillsguy

Hello,

Whew........!!! It is really difficult to navigate around the Wikipedia!!! Especially for this older guy who does not use a computer often. It seems like it is very hard to get a straight answer to any question but I hope that this paragraph thing may help me. I recently made an historical entry for the topic of 'REDFERN, SOUTH DAKOTA'. Redfern is a historic gold rush area located in the Black Hills of western South Dakota. I own the 14 acres that comprise Redfern and I am quite knowledgeable about the area. Apparently my 'entry' worked because I can see it when I Google 'Redfern'. But, on two occasions, I tried to make an entry for 'HISTORIC GALENA CREEK SCHOOL, BLACK HILLS, SOUTH DAKOTA', and nothing has appeared. Please, why did my first entry work but not my second entry/subject? Is there an easy way to do this??

Kenny

Blackhillsguy (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at your contributions list, it will show you everything you've edited. In your case, as of this writing, it gives me two edits - one to create Redfern, South Dakota and the question you posted here. Administrators (sort of like janitors, we clean up messes) can see if you've had edits that were deleted, but you don't seem to have any. So my recommendation would be to go try to make that second edit again and see what happens. It looks like maybe the browser didn't send it properly or something. Best guess. If it still gives you problems, leave me a message at my talk page and I'll have a look. Thanks, and welcome! UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to write a music on wikipedia

Like ♫♬♩🎵🎶♭🎶♬♩🎵🎶♩🎵🎶UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ: Check out Template:Music--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to set a music password

how to make a password with ♫♬♩🎵🎶♭🎶♬♩🎵🎶♩🎵🎶 UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

how to ...

Is it true that time and space are calculated by the direct ratio of interplanetary magnetism to solar radiation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:1412:5f:cc1c:c3d7:6f8e:d224 (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2016

First off, please sign your posts using four tildes (these things ~). Second, your question would be better answered at the reference desk for science. This page is for help editing Wikipedia. Although, you might find Space time interesting to read, I'm not sure it answers your question. Thank you. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I request a draft review?

Hello. How do I request a review of my draft Draft:Phineas Stearns? I'm looking for input as to whether the topic meets our notability requirements, as I don't want to move it to article space if it's at risk for deletion. Kirk Leonard (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Kirk Leonard:. The way to do it is to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft- I've done it for you. The process for people reviewing articles is currently semi-backlogged, so it'll probably take a few days or longer to get a review. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Joseph2302. Kirk Leonard (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

African American vs. Black

I see that you have a latino vs. hispanic page. I think you should have a african america vs. black page too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.70.120 (talk • contribs)

I think OP is referring to Hispanic–Latino naming dispute but I'm not sure. Dismas|^(talk) 22:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming majority of black people are not American. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]