Help desk
< December 20	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 22 >

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 21

DYK articles in certain categories

Hi, is it possible to find articles in a certain category that have attained DYK status? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Icebob99: Depends on what you are trying to do. There is a way as long as the category you are looking for is on the talk page. So if I wanted to find all the WikiProject Chemistry articles that have been on DYK I would search for incategory:"Wikipedia Did you know articles" incategory:"WikiProject Chemistry articles" in the talk namespace (under Advanced options). Does that help? --Majora (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly does. Thank you! Icebob99 (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tricia Santos

This redirect was protected years before, but there is now an article for the same person: Tricia Santos (volleyball). I can't tag it for a speedy deletion/page move, so what should I do? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: You could put it up for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for Discussion, but I think the best thing to do would submit an edit request for the redirect to be moved to Tricia Santos (volleyball), which I did. Icebob99 (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the page move is indicated, as I have noted in the request discussion. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I use the convert template for the numbers 1–9?

The MOS states that the numbers one–nine should be written out but the {{convert}} template uses digits. So how do I convert three feet - ignore the MOS and use digits? Leschnei (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the spell element of the template so {{convert|3|ft|spell=on}} generates three feet (zero point nine one metres). There are variables of spell that allow you to have only the input number displayed as a word (three feet (0.91 m)) and various capitalisations of the words. Nanonic (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfect, thanks. Leschnei (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

orphan subject

the page for Laszlo Szombatfalby says it is an orphan. He runs the Global Challenges Foundation, which is offering a major prize for detailed suggestions on improving international governance, called U.N.2.0. That is at least one linked article that could be created. ALSO, I have donated multiple times to Wikipedia and will again. But if I was really interested in creating articles or editing I WOULD BE TOTALLY OVERWHELMED BY THE DIFFICULTY OF UNDERSTANDING WHERE AND HOW TO BEGIN. I once considered writing a piece on "Cross-eye 3-dimensional illusion" (as I am one of a very few people who has worked and created with it) but got immediately discouraged. So, make it easier? David Heintz dheintz at cca dot edu. AND NOW I CANNOT FIND HOW TO SUBMIT THIS SUGGESTION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.51.98 (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The orphan tag on László Szombatfalvy has a wikilink to WP:Orphan, which explains what an orphan article is. If there are other articles which could appropriately link to László Szombatfalvy, you can add the links. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that the process is intimidating for somebody who does not do it regularly. But you managed to submit your comments successfully. If you have any suggestions to improve a specific article, there is a method to do just that. Each article has an associated "Talk page" where editors discuss how to improve that article. In this case, the page is Talk:László Szombatfalvy. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for donating to the project: that is appreciated. But nobody on the editing side has any knowledge of who has donated and who has not. It is true that editing Wikipedia is not as easy as many people think it ought to be. Partly that is a question of the technology, which could certainly be improved. But a big part of the difficulty is because what we are doing is inherently quite hard, and increasingly out of step with the world (and particularly the Internet) in that we are picky about the existence and reliability of sources, and about copyright. Those are the two issues which cause new editors most difficulty once they have got past the details of editing, and it is hard to see how they could be made easier without abandoning our fundamental standards. --ColinFine (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Account deletion

Hi! I have earlier made an account on Wikipedia, but soon I forgot its password. Now I am using this account and want to continue using this. Here, I request to delete previous one, because it seems that it has been used again. Thanks! M. Bill oo 07:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "it has been used again"? Ruslik_Zero 20:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recently tried to recover it, but was unable. Then I saw its edit history and got shocked... Please delete it, because it has been made by me with my email address. Thanks! M. Bill oo 18:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to edit part of an article

I can edit the beginning of the Iran Air article, as far as the Farsi text (beginning 217) in the Corporate headquarters section. After that, my cursor will only sit at the extreme left of the page and whatever I type appears 25 characters in from the left margin. The Farsi text reads right to left, so I assume this has not been "switched off" or there is another missing format code? Any help appreciated - Arjayay (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see anything unusual. What browser do you use? Do you use any custom user scripts? Ruslik_Zero 20:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruslik - W10, MS Edge and no user scripts.
The problem is specifically in the reference including "217" (the only use of 217 on the page, so easy to find). If I delete that reference, the problem disappears. If I paste that reference onto another page, the same problem appears on that page, after the reference, but not before it. - Arjayay (talk) 08:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried W10 with MS Edge and still do not see anything unusual. Do you use any gadgets? Do you use wikitext mode of the Visual Editor? What skin do you use? Ruslik_Zero 20:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bioggraphy of Song TAKE ME HOME TONGHT SUNG BY EDDIE MONEY

Author/writer of SONG - TAKE ME HOME TONIGHT- is MICHAEL D LEESON - - NOT MICHAEL J LEESON CAN YOU AMEND THIS PLEASE 2A02:C7F:8005:3000:281E:4B8C:2541:CDF4 (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to this page: [1] It has been corrected. It was linked to the screenwriter Michael J. Leeson instead of Mike Leeson the songwriter. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maineartists: Category:Songs written by Michael J. Leeson may need a look as well (but I don't know enough about the topic to be sure). It was renamed from a more generic "Mike Leeson" in February 2015 and still includes the mentioned song. I am not sure which, if any, of the songs were authored by Michael J. and which ones by Michael D., maybe the whole category is currently misnamed. (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GermanJoe You could be right. Other articles stating the songwriter Mike Leeson on WP state his name: Mike Leeson [2], [3], [4]. Oddly, he does not have an article, even though his work is (supposedly) substantial in the industry. See: [5] Maineartists (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maineartists, Discogs has his discography. Most of the songs in the "Michael J." category are listed there for "Michael D.". However, IMDB connects these songs to the screenwriter (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0498775/). I tend to agree with the Discogs version here, IMDB is notoriously unreliable in complex or ambiguous situations like this ==> so we would need to rename the category again and fix the articles' categorization. However, this should be decided and done by someone who knows what they are talking about (aka. not me). GermanJoe (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 College Football Templates

Some Templates Are Still red can you start making them blue right now. 2600:8803:7A00:19:88:C3DD:EC9:CFB7 (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, we've told you how you can do this yourself. †dismas†|^(talk) 15:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFD as first thing for new account?

Is there any policy that says that a brand new account shouldn't do an AFD as the first action it takes on Wikipedia? Truthbene23 did an AFD for Donald Gary Young and I'm feeling a little suspicious that this may be someone with a COI and would like suggestions.Naraht (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dekker Dreyer (3rd nomination). Just nom'd today. All three noms have been from brand new accounts with no subsequent editing history. TimothyJosephWood 15:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that doesn't strike me as that odd. My first action as a new account was to nominate an article for deletion; although I didn't do it properly as I didn't know how. [6]. I'd been reading WP and occasionally fixing minor typos for a while before registering and only registered because I thought that article was absolute garbage that needed to go ASAP and I figured as a registered user I'd be in a better position to make a case for that. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems normal to me. I registered because I didn't want an article deleted. An administrator then decided that I was a single-purpose account and my input could be ignored. That didn't strike me as normal, we all have to start somewhere. Lyrda (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said at first glance it might seem suspicious or sock puppetry, especially when you see them throwing around guidelines in their nom. However, there are a many people who work anonymously for months or years, becoming familiar with these guidelines, and then register jumping right into the fray of complex situations flinging terms, but still appropriately so. In the end, really it comes down to a case by case basis and evaluating if what they're doing is appropriate or not. So far it appears this AfD is going to fail as keep, but this nom isn't completely out of the blue as there has been some controvery over this article to begin with. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the input. I'll just keep monitoring.Naraht (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new wiki page for a personality"

I have a wikipedia account just created by signup button. Now i m still unable to find the path or link from where i can directly create a wiki page. When i sign in ,there is no link availabe there for a new wiki page . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemrald (talk • contribs) 17:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Read WP:YFA for how to create an article. Writing a new article is not an easy thing for new users, so you might instead want to work on improving an existing article. RudolfRed (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a standard welcome message on your talk page that includes a link to your first article, a page about creating your first article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IAT not extension of AT

The International Appalachian Trail is not an extension of the AT. It is a new trail, not connected in any way to the A.T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.46.6.131 (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that information. Did you see the incorrect information in an article here at Wikipedia? If so, could you tell us which of our 5.3 million articles you saw it in? †dismas†|^(talk) 19:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear they're talking about the lead for International Appalachian Trail. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing name/info

Hi Wikipedia.

I'm a Public Relations Coordinator at Anomaly (http://anomaly.com/), an international creative marketing agency. We're looking to clarify our Wikipedia page Anomaly_(advertising_agency), and I am looking for information from Wikipedia Editors/Users for one particular component of the agency's Wikipedia page.

Our current name reads: "Anomaly (advertising agency)". I'd like to change this to "Anomaly (creative communications agency)" or something similar.

Is this change possible? I haven't seen an "edit" button for this part of the page. Does a Wiki moderator need to enact this change? How do I contact one?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emenken (talk • contribs) 21:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emenken. The answer is almost certainly no. You do, in fact, appear to be an ad agency, and in fact, were voted fourth in top ad agencies by Advertizing Age this year. "Ad agency" seems to fairly well be the description of the business area adopted by Wikipedia ([7], [8]). Finally, "creative communications agency" appears, on the face of it, to be...advertising jargon, and otherwise promotional in tone. TimothyJosephWood 21:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yup. I also noticed the answer is already on this page (dec 18(1.7)): "see WP:MOVE" -IPEditor (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Emenken: @24.246.23.7: I wonder if I can just weigh in on this topic. Advertising agencies around the globe are restyling themselves as 'marketing communications agencies'. They have been forced to do this in response to a number of trends that have been occurring in the industry over the past 2-3 decades. The rise of integrated marketing communications is a key trigger - marketers need to integrate their marketing messages across a much broader range of communication media than ever before. This means that marketers are demanding a broader range of services than just advertising and agencies have had to respond by broadening their service offerings. Other factors that are at play include: the growth of in-house communications agencies, the rise of new media, especially digital and interactive media, the need for agencies to provide full services including market research, market segmentation, customer profiling etc and the decline in advertising budgets. Marketing communications has changed considerably - and this has forced agencies to rethink their visions. The term 'advertising agency' is still in widespread use, but it is more of a legacy of past usage than a reflection of current activities. Most industry insiders today would understand that a reference to 'advertising agency' actually means 'marketing communications agency'. Certainly some specialist agencies that only provide advertising services can be found, but these are often styled as 'creative shops' and are generally seen as boutique firms and highly skilled specialists - which incidentally often work in partnership with larger marketing communications agencies on specific corporate communications projects. Most full service agencies today provide services in PR, sales promotion, brochure and catalogue design, internet advertising, web design and web-site optimisation, product placement, branded entertainment, design of corporate logos, design of livery of artifacts as well as advertising. If they did not do so, few would be able to survive in the contemporary competitive landscape. These trends are so well known that they are mentioned in the introductory chapter of almost every text-book on promotion/ marketing communications/advertising and have been widely discussed in academic papers for at least 20 years. Indeed, very few texts today are titled 'Advertising' without mentioning other types of promotion. Almost all texts refer to 'Advertising and Marketing Communications' or 'Advertising and Promotion' or just simply 'Integrated Marketing Communications'. In the current climate, it is virtually impossible to talk about marketing communications without mentioning integrated marketing communications. These trends are NOT controversial and there would be NO difficulties finding ample, reliable sources to support each of the specific trends mentioned in this post, if required to do so. If Wikipedia is still using "Advertising Agency" as a category descriptor, perhaps it is time that Wikipedia considered the prospect of changing this category descriptor to include all facets of marketing communications? BronHiggs (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a discussion either for the category page or for the Wikipedia:Village pump, and currently, has little bearing on whether this page should be moved. TimothyJosephWood 22:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: Great! The question was whether the page could be re-titled, not whether it could be moved. Part of the response was that the title creative communications agency sounded "promotional in tone". Very few marketers or advertisers today would consider the descriptor to be 'promotional' in character for the reasons outlined. And, once again any attempt to raise serious issues that might lead to change are either ignored or side-stepped because the person has raised them on the wrong page. BronHiggs (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's some confusion on this, there is no rename function on Wikipedia. The name defines sortof "where the article is in space," like coordinates, and so to rename an article, you move it to a location defined by a different name... different "coordinates". And the issue is not at all whether marketers would see it as promotion. Promotion is their business model. That's what they do, but it's not what we do. A janitorial company may very well see and define themselves as an "environmental hygiene" company, but that doesn't really mean anything for the purposes of Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 11:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: FYI. Promotion is not a "business model." The term business model refers to the method(s) a company uses to generate revenue There are many different ways to generate a revenue stream; Retail sales (e.g. supermarkets, department stores), Online sales (e.g. Amazon), Commissions (e.g. travel agents, realtors), Donations (e.g. Wikipedia, charities, philanthropic organisations) or Government funding (e.g. healthcare services, childcare, courts of law). Promotion is a legitimate activity carried out by many organisations, both commercial and not-for-profit, including Wikipedia, which regularly advertises for the purpose of soliciting donations. Promotion is, however, a cost to the business, not a revenue-producing item. Therefore promotion can never be considered to be a business model. BronHiggs (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if promoting things is the primary method a company uses to generate revenue, then promotion is their business model as far as I am concerned. Beyond that I'm not terribly interested in the pedantic nuances of or legalistic hair-splitting involved in the fact that we are not in the business of helping companies rebrand themselves. TimothyJosephWood 15:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: How very rude! Here was a golden opportunity to improve Wikipedia's categories and bring them up-to-date. Yet, from the outset, you were clearly were not interested. It is indeed unfortunate that administrators who have no interest in specialised subjects, and clearly only a rudimentary to exceedingly poor understanding of specialised subjects, are making adjudications on these very same subjects. If this is how it is to be, then it is no wonder that Wikipedia has so many problems and unlikely to change in the forseeable future. BronHiggs (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Emenken: The following link may be of interest, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Moving_a_page. It explains how to move a page (i.e. retitle it) in step by step instructions. It doesn't look to be that difficult and from what I have read so far, I can see no impediment as to why you should not be able to rename the article in question. BronHiggs (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The impediment is that I will simply move it back, that, along with Wikipedia restrictions on editing with a conflict of interest. If you would like to rename the category, you should start a discussion on the category's talk page. TimothyJosephWood 09:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary_of_cue_sports_terms not displaying correctly. maybe too long?

Resolved

I noticed that this page is not displaying correctly; the end of the list and references are showing links to the templates rather than the text that should be displayed. I think it might have to do with the transclusion limit but not sure. Any help is appreciated. -IPEditor (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I believe the page exceeds the transclusion limit. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @MRD2014:! So, now what? Is the solution to split the page into two (e.g. glossary a-m and glossary n-z) or would it be better to try to remove templates and just hard code formatting in the page itself? -IPEditor (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those seem like good ideas that can be opened up on the talk page. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your reply @MRD2014:! From the talk page it looks like the transclusion limit may have been an issue before. If you're sure this is a transclusion limit issue, or if anyone can confirm, please mark this resolved, otherwise if it's possible the issue is related to something else, suggestions are appreciated. Also, contributions to the the article or talk page(and of course to wikipedia in general :-) are also always appreciated! -IPEditor (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page is in the hidden Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded and also displays a message in preview. The problem is Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size. There is a solution which would keep it in one page without hardcoding templates. Make two new templates and replace {{Defn|1= Definition of term.}} by {{Defn begin}}Definition of term.{{Defn end}} This would prevent Definition of term. from contributing to the post-expand include size. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter Thank you!!!! -IPEditor (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]