Help desk
< February 24	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 26 >

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.

February 25

Zaytoven

I'm not sure if my computer has a problem, or if I'm dealing with an editor who's being difficult. Could someone please have a look at Talk:Zaytoven#Dead link in article? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at talk. But yes, the link works for me. †dismas†|^(talk) 00:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference number 11 is all wrong. The date of the article is NOT from 2017. It is earlier. I cannot work out why there are 2 dates. Please fix. Thanks 101.182.96.231 (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Eagleash (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Middleton

3 things please.

I have failed to correctly add a relative - (father-in-law) - to the box on the right at the top. It looks wrong. I have tried.
Also, I have failed to added the immediate link in the box to the section "Michael Francis Middleton" which is on the page Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.
The same problem with Captain Peter Middleton - also in the Carole Middleton box - who has his own section on the page - Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.

I have really struggled here. Please fix Thanks so much 101.182.96.231 (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of splitting your comments in three numbered question to make replying easier.

The problem was that the html <small> tag was not opened. Instead, the father in law section war encapsulated in two closure </small> tags.
(and 3.) These had the same type of problem. If you wish to link to a section on another page that pages name must be added before the section name. Eg: [[Carole_Middleton#Early_life]] will link to the "Early_life" section on the "Carole Middleton" page. Just adding "#Early_life" works, but in that case a link will be created to a section on the page you are currently on.

Hope this helps!

Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 01:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Middleton

I am so sorry - I see that I have also stuffed up the immediate link to "Olive Chistiana Middleton, nee Lupton" - (in the section "Business success and husband's inherited...") which is on the Lupton family page where Olive also has her own section. Please fix - Thanks 101.182.96.231 (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - Same issue as point 2 and 3 in the section above. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 01:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Middleton

This is embarrassing - in the "Business success..." section of this article - the line reads: "...were both Carole and Michael and was so successful that it's headquarters had moved to a...".

We are not sure if the apostrophe is correct in the word "it's"..... Please correct. Thanks

It's not correct. You can remove it. †dismas†|^(talk) 05:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SOCIAL MEDIA PAGE SUPPORT

Good morning,I am trying to login to my facebook account but I cannot be able to do it.If you can help me I will be happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamad olatunde (talk • contribs) 08:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. This is the Wikipedia helpdesk. Wikipedia is nothing to do with Facebook, so I'm sorry, we can't help with that. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamad olatunde:

Have you tried the Computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with graphic

In the following table and graphic, the table extends to 2015=6, but the graphic only extends to 2015. Would someone with grapics-fu be willing to update the image?

Year	Support and Revenue	Expenses	Net Assets at year end
2003/2004	$80,129	$23,463	$56,666
2004/2005	$379,088	$177,670	$268,084
2005/2006	$1,508,039	$791,907	$1,004,216
2006/2007	$2,734,909	$2,077,843	$1,658,282
2007/2008	$5,032,981	$3,540,724	$5,178,168
2008/2009	$8,658,006	$5,617,236	$8,231,767
2009/2010	$17,979,312	$10,266,793	$14,542,731
2010/2011	$24,785,092	$17,889,794	$24,192,144
2011/2012	$38,479,665	$29,260,652	$34,929,058
2012/2013	$48,635,408	$35,704,796	$45,189,124
2013/2014	$52,465,287	$45,900,745	$53,475,021
2014/2015	$75,797,223	$52,596,782	$77,820,298
2015/2016	81,862,724	$65,947,465	$91,782,795

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file was made by User:Sameboat who is still active so that would be the natural person to ask. Otherwise requests like this can be posted to Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop or commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Note that the above image has changed since I posted the request. The new image contains 2015-2016, but the captions are gone.

The before and after images:

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon:

Done -- Uwe Martens (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citing your own book

Is this allowed? I suspect I've caught someone doing it (repeatedly). See Special:Contributions/79.13.67.222‎. Wildfowl (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but with extreme care as noted on WP:SELFCITE. Didn't inspect that IP's edit history so no opinion on the propriety. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is called WP:REFSPAM. But it would take an expert in the field to be sure. What if this is really a new definitive work in the field? -Arch dude (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the user's (IP) talk page. -Arch dude (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the contributions I looked at added references to the same article. The authors are associated with the University of Catania, which is located on the same island of Sicily as the IP Address. See this map. I for one recommend reverting all edits by this IP. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boxed text

What is the reasoning / meaning behind all the boxed, light gray text in this article? C. S. Lewis I've never seen it before. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an older means of adding 'citation needed'...assuming you mean the dotted lines around some passages of text and not the boxed block quotes. Eagleash (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eagleash. Never saw it before. It's not coming through as dotted lines. Regardless, is it something an OP can go in now and update with a proper CN tag? Maineartists (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks dotted to me, unless I enlarge it muchly. There's no reason why it can't be updated; the usefulness of it is, that it indicates a larger passage of text needs a source. Eagleash (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Good to know on all accounts. Maineartists (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cnspan}} is not archaic or deprecated as far as I know. It is just an alternative way of saying "citation needed" which 1) allows you to mark exactly what text you are specifying, and 2) allows you to write the a reason you're concerned about the text. I've used it on (rare) occasions.

In my opinion it's not being used well at C. S. Lewis. It's being used to mark whole paragraphs and whole great swaths of paragraphs. It's intended as more a precision instrument, I think.

For instance if you have a passage "Smith took his show to Denver, Omaha, Kansas City, Waco, and Los Angeles [ref]" and you think that the ref is unclear just over whether he went to Omaha, you could mark just that one word. You can't really do that with just the {{citation needed}} template; placing that after "Omaha" could be taken to imply that you're asking for citation for Denver as well as Omaha. And so forth. Herostratus (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael W. Smith certainly did what Michael W. Smith does, if that's what you're hypothetically wondering. If Ralston doesn't count as Omaha, Patti Smith rocked the city proper back in the day. If it's the future of show business you're thinking of, keep an eye on The Smiths out of Omaha. Only days old, and they already have their archetypes settled. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

question on AfD's

I nominated a page for deletion. It is an article about a living person who also has a BLP on Wikipedia. Some editors at the AfD are suggesting that the contents be merged into this person's BLP. Since I nominated this sub-article for deletion, am I supposed to now let them know on the main BLP that a merge is being discussed or just let it happen, if that is how the decision goes? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well no need to be coy: the page in question is George Soros conspiracy theories. One solution would be for everyone reading this to go over there and vote to delete it (it obviously should be deleted), and everything will be all Sir Garnet. Herostratus (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I agree it should be, but I'm asking because a long time ago, on an article I was editing, someone came along and dumped this enormous amount of material into the article. And I didn't know what to make of it. The editor explained it was the result of an AfD which ended with merge. And I thought they should have given a heads up as I would definitely have voted not to merge it. It was a bit of mess to sort out. So far the articles I've nominated have been deleted, or kept, so when I saw these merge votes, I didn't want to be the one doing that to others without a heads up but didn't see anything in the rules. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC),[reply]

And did enjoy the all Sir Garnet. Never heard that one. Thanks for it. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's because you don't live in 19th century Britain, something we all should at least aspire to.. Herostratus (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the red link above shows, the particular case has been answered. But yeah, sometimes editors of the target article are unhappy about "a wild merge appears" situations. Unless you are yourself advocating the merge, there is no good solution around it - if you want a delete but the discussion leans towards a merge, asking for input from the target page could be seen at best as giving the dice another roll, at worse as straight-out WP:CANVASSING. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]