Help desk
< March 25	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 27 >

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.

March 26

i published the page then for warning gave sources

Hey today i published a page and i got this warning After that for relable sources i added some articles from times of india

What should i do now ??

extended content (Prod notice)

This article is about a living person and appears to have no references. All biographies of living people must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. If no reliable references are found and added within a seven-day grace period, this article may be deleted. This is an important policy to help prevent the retention of incorrect material. Please note that adding reliable sources is all that is required to prevent the scheduled deletion of this article. For help on inserting references, see referencing for beginners or ask at the help desk. Once the article has at least one reliable source, you may remove this tag.

Find sources: "Anshul Trivedi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR

Reviewer tools: policy project (talk • bio • log) Move: draft space

The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days, i.e., after 00:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC).

Nominator: Please consider notifying the author/project: ==Proposed deletion of Anshul Trivedi==

The article Anshul Trivedi 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.

Funky Developers (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Funky Developers: I have removed the 'Prod' notice as there are now sources. I have also tidied the page some. The lead needs re-wrting in a more understandable manner. Eagleash (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Citation?

If an author is sourced in a specific article, is it ok to source a youtube video where this writer is being interviewed within the context of the article at hand? Can the youtube interview information add to what this author has already said? What would be the citation code for adding a youtube video? Fivejohnny5 (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fivejohnny5: Unless there is reason to believe the video has been fabricated, or that the interview was taken out of context etc., Youtube interviews are as reliable as any other self-published source, i.e. it is reliable for what someone said, but not for factual statements exposed in Wikipedia's voice. However you must pay care not to link to copyright violations; see also WP:YOUTUBE. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When is the right time to create a standalone article for a movie sequel?

The Top Gun movie has a subsection on a sequel coming out next year. When is the right time to split off that section of the article into a separate Wikipedia article? The sequel does have a release date (July 19, 2019). Thanks for any assistance. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David, WP:SPLITTING has quite a few pointers to when you should do that. Come back here if you need more support. Warmly, Lourdes 05:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films. Has production started yet? Has it been cast? Those are usually good solid milestones for standalone film articles. Based on what's in the Top Gun article, it hasn't reached that point yet IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the assistance; it seems like the sequel should not have its own article yet. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

image upload

Hi,

I can upload images to a sandbox page but it complains if I try to do that to a Wikipedia page I'm editing. I have over 10 edits, perhaps I need to wait some more time or do I have to go through Commons, which seems like a bit of extra work? The auto response seems to think it may not be my picture (which it/they are). Topic Monterey Institute for Research in Astronomy or Oliver Observing Station. Weaverwb

thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaverwb (talk • contribs) 07:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To use an image in en:Wikipedia, you (or someone) must first upload it to en:Wikipedia, or, better, to Wikimedia Commons. Can you explain what you mean by "upload images to a sandbox page", and show us a page where you've done that? Maproom (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weaverwb, just follow the instructions here, it's no more work than posting to en-wiki and makes the images more widely available to other language wikis Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Donat's Castle

Am I in the right place to ask a question about citing a pdf? I'm having a problem making Source 28 in the above article work. I want to refill it and then use it multiple times. But I keep getting an error. Any advice on how to cite a pdf properly would be much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor's helpfully resolved this. KJP1 (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translation to my language

Hi! I would like to know, how to add translation of some articles to my language. I found many articles that I can easily translated into my language but unfortunately I cannot see that option anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duba91 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advice is available at WP:Translate us. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image / headline interaction in infobox

I filled the infobox at Muninnbot yesterday on Firefox and it looked fine. The infobox code is something like {{Infobox bot|Bot name=Muninnbot|image=[[File:Ravencloseup (Munin at London tower), zoomed POTY 2016.jpg|thumb]]|caption='''If you do not know where that archived discussion went, I can help you.'''|(etc)}} However today on Chrome on a different computer, I see the image on the right: the caption starts ("If") left of the image instead of below.

I am guessing on yet another screen/browser the results may still be different. What is the best option for image inside infoboxes? I arrived at thumb by trial and error (not specifying a size makes the image gigantic). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: I am using Chrome, too, and have just accepted an update from version 64.0 to 65 – in both versions the infobox displays correctly, with full caption below the image. However, when I log out, the error appears, just as you describe it. After logging-in the infobox looks correctly again. Same effect in Internet Explorer, version 11.309.
So, it seems to depend on logged-in/out status rather than a specific browser. --CiaPan (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: Try removing superfluous formatting and leave a pure file name instead:

image = Ravencloseup (Munin at London tower), zoomed POTY 2016.jpg

CiaPan (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that [1] is a good solution. The caption could also have been placed inside the image code but never combine thumb with a caption parameter outside the image code. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on 65.0 logged in and still see the if on the left.Naraht (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the above diff [2]? This help desk section displays a permanent screenshot File:Ugly text Muninnbot.PNG where everybody see "If" on the left. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are looking at the page and not the screenshot (caption added for clarity), have you cleared your browser cache? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was looking at the image. On the page in question, after the diff mentioned, I see the "if" below. Prior to the diff, I see it on the left.Naraht (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

help with edits in Wiki page: "KIC 8462852"

I have made a few short edits of text and references that have been published on the Wiki page titled "KIC 8462852" and are fine. But I have repeatedly tried to enter a new subsection under the section called "Hypotheses" and any text I enter there has promptly disappeared. I've tried entering one line first to test, and that appears after I press "Publish". But when I enter a few more lines and try to "Publish" the whole entry disappears. I've checked the rules but I wonder what's going on. Thanks. 14:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvfoukal (talk • contribs)

@Pvfoukal: Click the "View history" tab to see what happens.[3] Your edits are being reverted by other users. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Pvfouka: Hello, your earlier edits to the page seem to still be extant, albeit with some further editing by others. However, your edits today firstly added an empty section heading (which was quickly reverted) and then you re-added the section heading with some additional content. This was also reverted in this edit as it duplicated existing content. You should have received an alert at the top of any Wikipedia page (a red number by the bell symbol) to draw your attention to these changes. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How do I get rid of my past attempts and start anew? It's hard to enter anything substantial, with references, if others are changing it in real time. Is that normal? Pvfoukal (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When a page is fairly active, editing by small increments does not work well. If the other editors are friendly, you may be able to place the {{in use}} template in your new section. If things are a bit hectic, it's better to build your new section elsewhere (e.g., on you user talk page) and then copy/paste it. If there is any chance that your contribution is controversial, it's better to discuss it first on the page's talk page. Please don't get discouraged. You are working with about 100,000 other editors, all volunteers and all with different skills and perspectives. -Arch dude (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There is also no need to 'get rid' of past edits. Your edits form part of the page history and unless they are a severe violation of policy (copy-vio or grossly abusive etc.) will remain visible. As AD says don't be discouraged, your edits were in good faith and will not reflect badly upon you. Eagleash (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] You don't need to "get rid" of your earlier attempts: all edits to all article pages are permanently recorded and findable via the 'View history' tab unless they have to be removed for legal reasons, which surely won't apply here. This is fundamental to the way Wikipedia operates, and good faith edits, even if reverted by others, carry no stigma.

It might be a good idea to describe the amendments and/or additions you want to make (mentioning your sources) on the article's Talk page a day or so before actually implementing them, so that others will know that you're engaged in editing and can respond with their opinions, offer suggestions, etc. You can also mention that you'll be adding the appropriate references, which can indeed take some time to get right.

A useful working method is to first compose substantial additions on your own device, preferably on a non-formatted program such as Notepad. Once discussed, and if appropriate amended in the light of Talk page discussions, you can then copy a given addition into the article "in one go", rather than piecemeal over an extended period. For example, your added new Section heading sat without text for half an hour (visible to anyone who happened to consult the article in that interval), before it was reverted by @Huntster:, who can be forgiven for not realising that further text would eventually be forthcoming. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"COATRACK"

Heya! I'm trying to help with the creation of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Twistlock_Inc It was written at first by someone in a rather advertising, which I changed for the better, including information about their competition and background. I resubmitted the article and got a strange comment: " WP:COATRACK Ringbang (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)" I'm not sure what I got it, as it's not a coatrack article from what I can gather - It talks about what the title says. Can anyone help me with this? I really want to improve it.

Help? :)

~T — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsideshow (talk • contribs) 16:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ringbang: I think in light of this a more thorough explanation is in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For an explanation of "coatrack", see Wikipedia:Coatrack articles. I don't see how that applies here. However, the draft is still excessively promotional. If you want to get an article on the company accepted, I recommend getting rid of everything in the draft, and starting again making use only of what has been written in independent sources. Maproom (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I rejected the article because it is promotional. My intention in linking WP:COATRACK was only to draw attention to the promotional emphasis on the company's product. But yes, I erred in called it a coatrack since it is just as promotional in regard to the nominal subject. —Ringbang (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref

Trying to add Walla Walla WA http://www.union-bulletin.com/news/march-for-our-lives-takes-to-walla-walla-s-main/article_bda15ff8-2fc5-11e8-8808-a35792ff1d76.html

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkGal (talk • contribs) 18:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkGal, an IP fixed the reference error for you. I added Walla Walla to the map. NZFC^(talk) 19:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to publish an article publicly

Hello!

I was curious if I need to send an article on my talk page for a review? How do I publish this article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmehta10/sandbox#The_Economics_of_Specialty_Pharmaceuticals_%E2%80%93_The_Value_of_High-Cost_Therapeutics

Thank you! -MishaMmehta10 (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mmehta10:, to be honest with you, that article wouldn't last very long if you moved it to the main Wikipedia space. It is written like a user essay, and the policy on original research would cause it to be removed quickly. I suggest editing some existing articles first to understand the Core Content Policies in action before attempting creating an article of this depth and breadth. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Determining consensus?

There has been a long-standing debate over whether the disease Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis (GPA), which has also been called "Wegener's disease" in the past, should have Wegener's be described as the "former" term vs "also known as":

Talk:Granulomatosis with polyangiitis#"Formerly known as"

This controversy likely stems from the association of Wegener with Nazi politics:

List of medical eponyms with Nazi associations

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be a way to "prove" that GPA is the more commonly used term; there are many recommendations to use the new term, but no studies showing that GPA is now the most common term for the disease. I'm thinking that the next step to take is to get consensus (one way or the other), and I'm asking here how to do that. Myoglobin (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Myoglobin:, you may want to try creating an Request for Comments on the article talk page. That allows for a formal assessment of consensus. The instructions for creating one are on the linked page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with replacing or delete an existing page that is outdated which I did not write

1.) How do I replace or delete an existing page that is outdated which I did not write?

2.) Also, what are the safeguards for ensuring the accurate updated information that I do end up replacing this page with is not changed by someone else? Or will I at least be notified if changes are made so that I can contest the changes if they are done and are again inaccurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medwriter77 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Medwriter77 (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You want to replace other peoples' work by your own, and have everyone who contributed to the original accept that your version is better. That's quite an ask. But it can be done, if your version cites cites enough reliable sources, confirming that the new version is correct and the old one was mistaken. Maproom (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your second question, Medwriter77, there is (by design) no mechanism to stop other editors from changing an article after you have edited it. You can put the article on your watchlist and I believe you can set your preferences so that you will be sent an email if articles on your watchlist are changed. Please see BRD for how collaboration is supposed to work in editing Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax?

User:DDCS/sandbox

Seems to be a rather elaborate hoax. It's on a user page so it's not a huge problem. What should we do with this, if anything? Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only working refs are all fake:

@Mduvekot: I already knew that. It's fake. No doubt about that.

But we may have bigger problems.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Secondarywaltz&oldid=285637730#Help_upload_photos_to_Wikipedia_without_breaking_the_copyright_laws

"I've noticed that you've marked my photos, as copyright. I can understand, so please let me explain. I am doing a project for my school, (I know) weird way of doing a project, and this is the way my professor asked me to do it. I must keep all the photos in, I've uploaded the photos through the public view thing on Wiki, and your the only thing stopping me from completing this project on time."

I believe this professor is having a project telling his students to vandalize Wikipedia for whatever purpose. We need to track down his classmates. Dear professor: you're busted. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible student meatpuppets putting hoaxes on Wikipedia

This should be interesting. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of involved editors

@DDCS:, makes contributions, own sandbox
@Jayydeeeen:, created the sandbox, made significant contributions. Looks like might be the professor.
108.18.33.114, long term IP contributor
96.5.110.34, recent IP contributor
@Devereaux0772:, contributed a month ago, has warning for hoaxing in different matter
Unlisted stale IPs

∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]