Help desk
< July 13	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 15 >

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.

July 14

Ay-Rock page deleted

I dont understand why my page was considered copyright infringments when the article you quotes as the source was taken FROM THE BIO THAT I CREATED AND IS ON MY WEBSITE WAY BEFORE THEIR POST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayrockmusic (talk • contribs) 00:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who wrote the text in the first place, it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to copy it into an article from another source except for brief quotes that are clearly attributed. There are some limited exceptions, which you can read about at the relevant policy page, but it is unlikely they apply in this case. The article in question was actually deleted for two reasons: the copyright issue and because it was unambiguously promotional in nature. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for advertising or publicity, and that in the case of topics that meet notability guidelines it's best to let someone else write the article when you have a conflict of interest. I know that's a lot of links to follow, but it may save you some wasted time and effort to read them now, in case you're thinking of recreating the article. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 02:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to embed parameters in a template

I am working on creating a few parameters for Template:Episcopal lineage and am not sure how to solve a problem. I would like to create a set of three parameters that, when all used, will generate a citation using Template:Cite web. I have inserted the following into the episcopal lineage template: {{#if:{{{source_CH_title|}}}|Source: <ref>{{cite web|title={{{source_CH_title}}}|url=http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/{{{CH_url_section}}}.html|website=[[Catholic-Hierarchy.org]]|accessdate={{{CH_access_date}}}}}</ref>}}. My goal is that when "source_CH_title", "CH_url_section", and "CH_access_date" are entered, this will be produced (for example): "Source: ^[1]". However, with the current code, those parameters are not filled in when entered. Does anyone know how to solve this? Thank you. Ergo Sum 01:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try using {{#tag:ref}} instead. Ppp ery 01:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Pppery. That works much better. The only problem left is that when the citation generates in the {{reflist}} area, it generates as "title=whatever is entered under title", rather than as it would if it were a normal cite web citation. Do you know how to make it display conventionally? Ergo Sum 02:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Pope Francis". Catholic-Hierarchy.org. Retrieved July 8, 2017.

@Pppery: I've made an edit. When you changed from <ref>...</ref> to {{#tag:ref}}, the call to {{cite web}} should have been left intact. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ergo Sum 06:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About talk page

Someone left message on my talk page. How can I send him a response ? To leave the response under his message on my talk page or leave message on his talk page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esther1213486 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most users prefer to keep a given conversation in one place, which means replying on the same page—in this case, on your own talk page. In the very early days of Wikipedia, it was common to do the opposite, and conversations would bounce back and forth like tennis balls at Wimbledon (but all too often less gracefully). That has become rare. Some users' talk pages expressly say which method they prefer. When you respond underneath someone's message, it's usual to indent your reply by typing a colon at the beginning of the paragraph, as I've done here. And anytime you post something on a talk page, you should end it by typing four tildes (~~~~), which automatically adds your signature and a time stamp. Here's a page you may find helpful: Help:Using talk pages. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 02:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your answer. It is very helpful. Esther1213486 (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esther1213486, it is also a good idea to ping the intended recipient when you reply on your own talk page, as I am doing here. You can do this with {{ping|Recipient's user name here}} or {{U|Recipient's user name here}} or in several other ways described in the linked page above. They all have the same effect of notifying the intended receiver of the message. Some users prefer not to be pinged, and say so on their user or user talk pages, but most users welcome it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correction on Mayuto Correa's Discography

Mayuto Correa has many more credits to be added to his discography and these credits are clearly posted at the site DISCOGS.COM. When I added 6 of the additional credits I used the same guide lines and symbols that were used to write the previous credits. I don't know why this site is telling me that something is wrong. Now,how can that be fixed and how the remaining 35 credits can be added to Mayuto Correa's discography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.37.149.27 (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@47.37.149.27: I'm not sure what error message you received but there was a set of stray brackets, which I removed, and I also tidied the reference. Eagleash (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a full discography would overwhelm the article, a selected discography of the more significant works is often preferable. See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Error in posting about public figure

The article Katie Danzer has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. —C.Fred (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

CAN SOMEONE HELP US GET THIS UP? WE ARE NEW TO WIKIPEDIA. ~KATIE

Hi Katiedanzer. It is not usually a good idea to write an autobiography here because it is so difficult to write about yourself in an encyclopaedic style. At present, the article Katie Danzer is marked for deletion because it lacks independent WP:Reliable sources. Try to find detailed articles written about yourself in the newspapers, not just interviews or mentions. You also need to read Help:Referencing for beginners. There is some guidance on your talk page. Dbfirs 07:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also understand, Katiedanzer, that if Wikipedia has an article about you it will not be your article, and its contents will be determined by a consensus of Wikipedia editors according to reliably published information. You will be welcome to suggest changes, but others will have the final say. --ColinFine (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

www.lawcancer.cf - Edit

Hi, Please i want to Editing New Section for This Website : http://www.lawcancer.cf So, How to Create an Article for This Website. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveW (talk • contribs) 07:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LoveW:

To create an article, follow these steps:

Read Your first article carefully.
If you don't have an account, consider creating one (it's not essential, but it makes some things easier, especially communicating with other editors) and logging in.
Learn the basics of editing with the Wikipedia:Tutorial
Make sure the subject is notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article
Gather reliable sources to cite in the article
Make sure no article on the subject exists under a different title by typing the subject into the search box and clicking 'Search'
Use the Article Wizard to create a draft.
Create the article, including all your references, making sure you adhere to the Manual of Style and our article layout guidelines. Base the article on what the references say, rather than on what you know.
Once you believe that your draft meets Wikipedia's requirements, submit it for review by picking the "Submit your draft for review" button in the draft.
Be aware that many drafts are not accepted the first time, or even the second time they are submitted for review, for failing to adhere to our policies and guidelines. New articles by new users are particularly likely not to be accepted, due to new users' unfamiliarity with our rules. Consider gaining experience by editing existing articles before attempting to create new ones.
Please also read the notability requirements for companies and organisations. Seagull123 Φ 10:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing journal template citation errors in editors name

Hi, I have been searching for references for this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_Bayes_spam_filtering For some reason a couple of the editors names, the first on the list,Blamethemessenger (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC) (the references at the end) are in red, and I have been unable to fix this. Please advise. Many thanks and best wishes.[reply]

If you are adding just general references, places them after the <references /> or {{reflist}}.

You wrote:

{{cite book|last1=Hristea|first1=Florentina T.|title=The Naïve Bayes Model for Unsupervised Word Sense Disambiguation|date=2013|publisher=Springer- Verlag Heidelberg Berlin|location=London; Berlin|isbn=978-3-642-33692-8 (Print) 978-3-642-33693-5 (Online)|pages=70|url=10.1007/978-3-642-33693-5|accessdate=13 July 2017|language=English|format=Online}}

Hristea, Florentina T. (2013). [10.1007/978-3-642-33693-5 The Naïve Bayes Model for Unsupervised Word Sense Disambiguation] (Online). London; Berlin: Springer- Verlag Heidelberg Berlin. p. 70. ISBN 978-3-642-33692-8 (Print) 978-3-642-33693-5 (Online). Retrieved 13 July 2017. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Check |url= value (help)

|format= describes the file format of an electronic source: PDR, XLS, DOC, etc

books are not ephemeral sources so |access-date= is extraneous

in this example, you used |url= when you should have used |doi=

|pages= describes a list of individual pages or a range of pages; it does not describe the quantity of pages that make up the source

in this example you assigned multiple ISBN and extraneous test to |isbn=; choose the number of the source that you consulted

Rewriting it:

{{cite book|last1=Hristea|first1=Florentina T.|title=The Naïve Bayes Model for Unsupervised Word Sense Disambiguation|date=2013|publisher=Springer |location=Heidelberg |isbn=978-3-642-33693-5 |doi=10.1007/978-3-642-33693-5|language=English}}

Hristea, Florentina T. (2013). The Naïve Bayes Model for Unsupervised Word Sense Disambiguation. Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33693-5. ISBN 978-3-642-33693-5.

Each red error message has a help link. When you follow those links does the text at the help link not explain why it is that you are seeing the red error messages? If not, what in the help text is missing? How should the help text be improved?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Trappist has said there are / were several issues with headings and order. These seem to have been partly caused by the liberal application of 'nowiki' and 'noinclude' tags. A section of text was also moved from within the article main body to after the refs section and the 'see also' section became duplicated. I've fixed it as best I can but there seem to be several 'floating' refs not positioned inline, so I'm hoping someone (maybe the OP?) knows where they belong? Eagleash (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly provide steps of making page

Sir, kindly provide steps of creating wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Ashok Kumar Gadiya (talk • contribs) 10:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is quite correct, Dr. Ashok Kumar Gadiya. Here are some more detailed steps that may help. Please remember that creating an article from noting is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia. It is advisable, if possible, to edit some existing articles first, to get a better feel for how things work. And remeber that Wikipedia has encyclopedic articles, not just pages.

First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on verifibility, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answers above address your question as you've stated it. However, your problem as you've experienced is that you're trying to publish your autobiography. It's strongly advised that you don't. Cabayi (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Error on map

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctic_Region.png - I see only a misprint here that the possessions of Norway do not reach the poles and for some reason instead of a normal triangle, like the rest of them, they break off with a broken line - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctica,_Norway_territorial_claim_(Queen_Maud_Land,_2015).svg . --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a misprint. See Queen Maud Land#Legal status, the last half of the first paragraph. Basically, when they signed the Antarctic treaty, they deliberately hadn't claimed a north or south edge, just east and west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs)

Why, then, on what grounds does a clear border in the south appeared? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean, the squiggly line indicates uncertainty. Given the lines used to indicate claims on the map (because the overlapping claims on the Antarctic Peninsula would make shading ugly), I'm not sure that a better solution exists for indicating the lack of definition of the Norwegian claims at the time of signing.Naraht (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertainty is usually denoted by shaded areas, and clear lines denoted certain boundaries. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but the claim is for lack of a better term one dimensional, not two. I'm going to bow out of this thread and simply recommend that you bring this up at the talk page of WikiProject:Maps, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps, the members of that Wikiproject can speak to it much better than I.Naraht (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question About New Page Creation - Invictus

Hello help desk, I'm a new user to WikiPedia after a decade or more of hesitance. I've been editing articles as I go, and attempted to make my first page yesterday, I was curious how I could see if it was rejected/accepted? I'm not even sure if I submitted it correctly. To my knowledge, it followed all guidelines, even if the page itself necessitated some minor edits itself. The article was titled 'Invictus Inc.' or 'Invictus Security Inc.', I'm not certain which it was (or wasn't) submitted under. Thank you very much! Daveortrud1 (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it is sitting in your sandbox at User:Daveortrud1/sandbox. I've cleaned it up some, but to submit it for review, you need to click the "Submit your Draft for Review" up near the top.Naraht (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Naraht! I clicked that yesterday and put something in the subject headline so I was unsure if it went through. When the automated bot reviews the page, will I be notified of any decisions one way or another? Or should I continue checking in? Thank you for your prompt response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveortrud1 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an automatic review, but rather by an experienced editor approving in in the WP:AFC process. A message will put on your talk page when it is either accepted or rejected. (As well as notification of comments, I believe)Naraht (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I see the information at the bottom of my sandbox now, you've been a great help sir. Have a wonderful weekend! Daveortrud1 (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daveortrud1 it will help show that it meets the notability guidelines if you can add hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, turnover or profits. Also note that if you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must declare it. In particular, if you work directly or indirectly for the company, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are 'required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where would I put those things? Such as employees or profits, I've never seen those on a page before! And I may have an indirect conflict, I studied at the academy and did a brief project cleaning up their Powerpoint content, I'll mention that... but where? Lol. Thanks! Side note while I'm here... How do you create a heading table that are on most pages? Daveortrud1 (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daveortrud1: The table of contents automatically appears when there are more than four section headers. If there are less than four headers, but you want a table of contents, you can add __FORCETOC__ to the page (with two underscores on either side of the word), and this forces a table to be included. Seagull123 Φ 16:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for a simple explanation of COIs, you can read this page, but the main guideline is here. Seagull123 Φ 16:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seagull123: Thank you! For the table, I was referring to the right side top of a page, not the table of contents. Daveortrud1 (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daveortrud1: Oh! Then I presume you mean the infobox - see this page for more information about them. There are many different infoboxes depending on the type of article it is being used on, and a full list of them is here. Infoboxes are templates, and use special code, there's a video about how templates work here, or you can read the page, Help:A quick guide to templates. Seagull123 Φ 17:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're all god-sends, thank you various Wiki users. I believe the article is as good as it's going to get (w/ a COI mention just in case), now it's time to wait and see. Daveortrud1 (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of source to show that a phrase is not in widespread use?

I just edited the Wavenumber article, adding a paragraph noting that ISO recommends the term repetency over wavenumber. I also added a note that the word repetency is not widely used. This can easily be verified by <100 Google Scholar hits for the former, and >1 million for the latter, but such would be original research. There is no reliable published source for this uncontroversial piece of information. Is there any Wikipedia policy that would make basic original research permissible for statements that are unlikely to be challenged, such as the term repetency is not widely used? --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 17:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerrit, Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue may apply. Seagull123 Φ 17:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerrit: indeed, there is the ignore all rules policy which permits minor rule-bending (and you seem familiar enough with the policies and the reasons behind them to use it sensibly).

But I think the better solution is to look creatively for sources. For example, Google's Ngram viewer allows us to draw the same conclusion and, unlike Google Scholar, it's a durably archived tool which is explicitly designed for drawing these type of conclusions. I think it's definitely good enough to cite, particularly if you qualify it as "...not widely used in Google's Ngram dataset of published books."

Happy editing!—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could also cite the fact that the word does not yet appear in any major printed dictionary, not even in the big OED. There has been an entry in Wiktionary for eight years. Dbfirs 21:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking categories are over-inclusive

I am having a few issues with tracking categories on Template:Episcopal lineage.
1) Three of the tracking categories (those tracking the use of parameters "bishop50", "lineage_started", and "lineage_terminated") are capturing pages for which the template is not using those parameters. I do not know why this is. Does anyone know how to fix this?
2) Also, does anyone know how to make all of the tracking categories capture only pages in the mainspace? I know it involves using Template:Main other, but I am not sure the exact syntax.
3) Lastly, I would like to create a preview warning for when "bishop50" is used, but "bishop1" is not. Does anyone know how to do this?
Thank you very much in advance. Ergo Sum 19:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You resolved the issue yourself. As to {{Main other}}, you only need to put an expression that you want to work in the main space in its first argument. Ruslik_Zero 19:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ruslik for your help. So, it would read as: {{#if:{{Main other|{{{denomination|}}}||[[Category:Pages using episcopal lineage template and missing denomination]]}}}}? Also, I mis-wrote and fixed the question for number 3; would you happen to know how to do that?

It currently says: {{#if:{{{denomination|}}}||[[Category:Pages using episcopal lineage template and missing denomination]]}}. It's all this you place in {{Main other}}: {{Main other|{{#if:{{{denomination|}}}||[[Category:Pages using episcopal lineage template and missing denomination]]}}}}. You can place multiple tests in the same {{Main other}}.

3) {{if preview|{{#if:{{{bishop50|}}}|{{#if:{{{bishop1|}}}||warning text}}}}}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ergo Sum 22:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deerfoot the runner

Deerfoot was defeated By Dave Ford in Wilmington Delaware in 1859 2 minutes 3 seconds. Written in the Delmarva star newspaper which I have. I have official newspaper articles that are period correct about very important information about deerfoot and it will not let me add them. I did and it says " error " on the edit. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by J66Bird (talk • contribs) 21:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J66Bird: Hello, the error message is caused by the fact that your edit removed the opening ref tag by inserting your addition within an existing inline citation. (See your edit here). You will need to re-position your text so it does not interfere with the existing reference and you will also need to provide a source for your addition... you indicate above that you have sources available. Please see WP:REFB for a guide to adding citations. Come back if you get stuck again. Eagleash (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I have moved the text to clear the ref error. (See edit here). Please add your source. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Pope Francis". Catholic-Hierarchy.org. Retrieved July 8, 2017.

[1]