Help desk
< March 14	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 16 >

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 15

Alex Mapelli-Mozzi

Please remove the emblem/picture of the man on the skies at the bottom of this page - many new refs have been added to this "stub". Thanks175.33.125.158 (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The emblem/picture of the man on skis at the bottom of the page denotes that the article is still a WP:STUB, in other words, too short for this project. It's not the number of references, but the amount of material contained within the article that can ensure that this article moves from being a stub to a graded article. Thanks, Lourdes 05:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please change the info. box on the side - his age would NOT be 67. Thanks175.33.125.158 (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it not be 67? There is a source which confirms the same (or do you have a problem with the source and the date)? Thanks, Lourdes 06:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, my mistake!175.33.125.158 (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The refs look convincing, but most don't actually link to pages that confirm anything in the text, so removed. One is also copied verbatim from the Telegraph, complete with its copyright notice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, hope you're doing well. Are you referring to Pressreader (which is a consolidator of sources like Telegraph and is a good go-to site when you cannot break the Telegraph paywall)? Thanks, Lourdes 18:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes, only one was a pressreader ref, which linked to an invitation to download the app, rather than verifying any of the content. You are welcome to restore any or all of the refs if you think they are helpful. As I said, they look convincing, and the editor might have accessed that content, but if so, they haven't provided links for us to do the same Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User: Srbernadette, is there some reason why you are not signed in to your account and are editing anonymously?--Quisqualis (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption can't be edited

In Marcus Gunn phenomenon, one image portrays a woman with the condition. The caption appearing with the image refers to the phenomenon, which is nondisabling, as an "affliction". I am trying to change "afflicted" to "affected". Where is the version of the image caption I cannot change actually stored? It isn't in the Infobox, nor on the image page, nor in the body of the article. How do I access the caption and get it to change? Bizarrely, I did manage to change the latter part of the caption in my first edit to the caption, but "afflicted" seems to be hardwired in. Explanation, please?--Quisqualis (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quisqualis, I had no problem editing the caption and do not know why you did. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you were editing the "alt" field, not the caption field. The alt field is used for text for visually impaired readers using voice synthesis or others who have images turned off for various reasons. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images for more information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Always read the fine print, I guess!--Quisqualis (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

article i donated to your site called (I think) Donald Danforth, IV

Good day to whomever gets the, well call it luck, of reading this request. Earlier this evening, I created an article about one of the more elite members of the St. Louis, Missouri families. The article is woefully short, and perhaps insufficient, as I am poor with technology and this was the first Wikipedia article I have ever gotten the chance or opportunity to publish. Anyway, I hope you please publish the article created by myself titled Donald Danforth,IV. I would much appreciate it, as I have spent way more time working on this than I have spent doing several other very important things. I know the article is disappointingly short, but I promise and guarantee that I will add to it and make it a very large page on this website that absolutely everyone I know uses for important information. Whoever got the joy to read this, thank you for your time, and I hope you have an absolutely wonderful rest of your life. And also please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandawg1! (talk • contribs) 07:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kind sir for your generous donation. Tragically, it is not usable in its current form, and may not be about a WP:notable individual. I advise you to read this article. Thank you, and best of luck.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one "owns" a Wikipedia article

Doesn't Wikipedia have some type of rule or guideline that says "no one individual owns an article"? Where can I find that rule? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it! Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archive box with image?

Have I seen such a thing or imagining it?! The latter != impossible... ——SerialNumber54129 15:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Template:Archive box#Image? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much PrimeHunter, that's the ticket! ——SerialNumber54129 18:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update logo

We recently updated our logo. How do I replace the old one with the new? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boston Kids (talk • contribs) 15:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Kids, I see you uploaded a new logo, so I updated the article for you. In the future, find the existing file(by clicking the image on the page) and upload a revision to it, rather than a new file. This will auto-update all pages that use it. Also, you may want to fill out a WP:COI Declaration WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google books

Hi, I am still not very clear about using snippet views from google books as wikipedia sources. Can someone point to me a wikipedia article that talks about using them and the restrictions that apply. I see conflicting opinions among editors with some supporting their usage while others not. Thanks and cheers Sharkslayer87 (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Best not to link just snip views pls see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Linking to Google Books pages..... we also have an auto filler....see this tool.--Moxy (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know if there is any wikipedia article that discusses about using snippet views. I see plenty of articles that use snippet views as references. I am not very clear about using them and the restrictions that apply. Can you be more clear with that pleaseSharkslayer87 (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharkslayer87: I think Moxy gave you the link. Basically, however, the reference is to the actual book itself, not to the Google snippet. Wikipedia has no requirement that a cited book have any link at all: it is supposed to have an ISBN and the other appropriate fields in {{cite book}}. If there is a copy of some or all of the book on the web, the editor may choose to provide it, but the link is a "convenience link" and not a required part of the ref. -Arch dude (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude: Thank you very much for the response but that was not my question. I want to know if we can use snippet views from google books as sources to articles on Wikipedia. If yes, are there any restrictions towards using them. Thanks Sharkslayer87 (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharkslayer87: No, you cannot cite the snippet as a source. You must cite the book itself, with a complete {{cite book}} for the book. That cite may include a URL to the snippet as specified in Moxy's link. If you find a cite to a snippet that is not a full "cite book", you should not declare that a "better reference" is needed in the article. Instead, you should expand the {{cite book}}. We don't need a "better citation", we just need a better-formatted citation. -Arch dude (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharkslayer87:, conceptually, it is the book itself that is the source, but the snippet is often a useful tool that allows the casual reader to easily navigate to the proper section of the book, and read a few relevant pages. What we want is a reference formatted to provide complete bibliographic information for our readers. For books, title, author, publisher, date, page number, ISBN number, and perhaps a brief quote. Adding a link to a relevant snippet view is just another useful bibliographic tool. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

how to get rid of the 'cite' error message

I have created page called Kilburn Grammar School which was then taken down by moderators because it lacked references. I have now added references but am stuck with an error message in line one that says there are references with no content. I cannot see any. I can find no way round this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RBJunction (talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RBJunction: I have fixed the error, you had an empty ref tag at the start of the article. You should probably find some more reliable sources to make the rest of the article verifiable. --Danski454 (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should I cite sources from another language?

I plan to edit Korean Wikipedia once I learn the language. How would I cite sources that were written in English on there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelda120! (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zelda120!: I think your best bet is to wait until your Korean language skills are good enough to contribute, and then if you're stuck you can ask on the Korean language help desk. Here's the link - and it roughly translates to Echoes. [[1]] Good luck! TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Each Wikipedia language makes its own policies, practices and templates. I don't know Korean but many English Wikipedia pages have a link to Korean under "Languages" in the left pane. This includes many policies and templates like Wikipedia:Verifiability and Template:Citation. Based on machine translation, the Korean pages mention how to deal with sources in other languages. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zelda120: Are you asking if you are allowed to use other language‘s sources in the Korean articles, or are you asking how to use/format them? As for the formatting, I'm not sure about Korean, but I edit the Japanese wiki, and it seems they just do a regular citation format like we do in the English wiki . But as far as how to use the language= parameter when using citation templates like <ref>{{cite web|title=xxxx|url=xxxx.xxx|author=xxxx|language=xxxx}}</ref> in the other languages’ wikis, I’m not sure on that one yet. I know language= Japanese, English results in both languages being added to the ref in the English wiki. You could try the same formatting method, but use the Korean word for the language ("영어" = "English") instead of the English word.
As far as answering whether you're allowed to use an English source in another wiki; of course! Just be sure to use the correct formatting, as I mentioned above.

— Tha†emoover†here (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]