Help desk
< March 7	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 9 >

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 8

recent changes

The definition, "Left-wing" Politics, is inaccurate. It states left-wing supports social equality, and that is not a truth. Look at the behavior today. I wish to have the definition changed to match the "real" behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.25.60 (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not your own opinions. If you can find enough credible sources supporting your changes, you are welcome to start a discussion on Talk:Left-wing politics. – Teratix ₵ 01:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just look — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.25.60 (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looked. Follow what Teratix mentions above. Thanks, Lourdes 08:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a photo

Hello. I would like to add a historical photo. How can I do this? Thank you, Peter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strafrag (talk • contribs) 12:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Strafrag:, the basics are as follows:

To use an image on Wikipedia, follow these steps:

Ascertain carefully the copyright status of the image. If in doubt, ask. As a rule of thumb, images that you did not take yourself are almost always under copyright, and images that you took can be released under a free license.
If the image is in the public domain, or under a free license compatible with Wikimedia Commons' license requirements, or if you hold the copyrights and are willing to release the image under such a license, upload it on Wikimedia Commons using the Upload Wizard.
If the image is neither public domain nor available under a free license, check whether it satisfies all non-free content criteria. In particular, photographs of living people almost never qualify. If it does not, it cannot be used on Wikipedia; do not upload it. If it does, upload it on Wikipedia (not on Wikimedia Commons).
Once the image has been uploaded to the Wikimedia Foundation's servers (either to Commons or Wikipedia), follow the steps in the picture tutorial to place the image in an article.

But please feel free to ask here again, if you have any further specific questions. WP:Media copyright questions is also a good forum, if you are unsure about the copyright status of a specific image or have other copyright-related questions. GermanJoe (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change Page name

Hello, the Museum I work for has recently rebranded and we would therefore like to update our Wikipedia listing by changing the name on the landing page. I don't seem to have the capacity to do it myself, can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Faretra (talk • contribs) 13:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe, there are a number of points you need to be aware of:

You don't have "our Wikipedia listing", Wikipedia has a page about you. You have no more control over the page than any other editor.
Before editing further you must read, understand and apply the following policies: WP:COI and WP:PAID.
Because you have done so little in Wikipedia (3 edits including the above) you have not yet reached "Autoconfirmed" status and have restricted rights. This is to protect the encyclopedia against people creating an account purely for vandalism (not in your case of course).

Once you have set up the required disclosures for COI and PAID, then the correct course of action is to request changes on the article's talk page. An uninvolved editor can then review the changes and implement them. Please don't try to cheat or "game" the system; it leads to unpleasantness whereas following the correct procedures makes life easy for all. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we are not here to support your re-branding. We are here to provide reliable information. If your museum is still known primarily by its old name, the article name should not change yet. Once your new name is in common use, the article name can change. This may not be important in this case. -Arch dude (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joe Faretra, keep in mind what Martin of Sheffield and Arch dude have mentioned for future edits; for now, I have gone ahead and rebranded your page name. Thanks, Lourdes 06:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source

Hello, I wondered if this website would be considered as a reliable source for a biography. Transdiffusion's stuff does get used for television programme related articles, but I'm less sure about a biography. The subject doesn't currently have an article on Wikipedia, but I feel that as an early female television producer she would be notable enough for one. I know we have WP:RSN for stuff like this but that seems to deal with existing articles and existing sources. Thanks in advance, This is Paul (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TV Times certainly had a good reputation so I would assume reliability. I'd be careful with the Dennis Vance issue though unless you can find corroborating evidence. Both appear to be dead, so WP:BLP isn't an issue except where it touches on living people (like the daughter). I'd certainly feel she was notable. Quite apart from the attack her achievements seem pretty significant. Just my 2d worth though, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks for getting back to me. I'll make a start on the article, but leave the Dennis Vance thing out. From a quick Google search I'd say there don't seem to be any sources we can use. Alamy has a stock photograph taken of Vance in 1962 that appears to come from an accompanying news article discussing the incident, but does not name the source. There's also a couple of other things, but again, nothing I think we can use. This is Paul (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't leave Vance out, just be very careful to only report citable facts and keep a WP:NPOV. The Google search you quote above does have a useful link. I don't know about the reliability of the Flashbak site, but the newspaper reports it carries would certainly satisfy WP:V. The Avengers Declassified admits it is a fan website, so probably can't be cited. Random Cutting is uncited and hence unusable. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't really thought of that, not being sure about the website, but a newspaper story is definitely usable. There's actually two newspapers they quote from, the Express and the Glasgow Herald. The Express tends to be viewed a little bit like the Daily Mail by some, so I'm guessing it's the Herald one that could be used. This is Paul (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even those that got the DM banned a year or so ago admitted that old clippings were acceptable. Personally I'd be happy accepting the Express from that date, but it's your baby. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok I decided to go for it. There's some useful information in there, and it was better regarded as a journal back in the day. This is Paul (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement tagging

Is there any way to get a list of articles that I have created that have been tagged for improvement so that I can work on improving them? Adamtt9 (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For cleanup tags there is Category:Articles needing cleanup. Does this help? RJFJR (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RJFJR: I was kind of hoping for a list that would be exclusively articles that I created. Adamtt9 (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how many articles you have created? Is is a number low enough that you can compare that list against the list mentioned above? If not, then surely there is another editor whom you can enlist to assist you in locating the articles. Someone with whom you have edited in your area of interest? As articles are not "owned", that may explain why your quest is not automated.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lol no. I have created around 2500 articles though a user has recently started tagging some of them as under-referenced. I was just wondering if there was an easy way to determine all of the articles that the user tagged since they didn't post on my talk page for each article they tagged. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there isn't.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adamtt9, yes it is possible. You can probably get it done easily using WP:AWB. If you don't know how to use it, post at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks requesting assistance. Someone would create the list and dump it in your sandbox. If you can share which user has done the tagging, the user themselves may be able to give you the list (as they would have probably created the list using AWB). Thanks, Lourdes 03:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

how to send letter to congressman regarding medicare insurance that is being delayed due to their error

How to contact my congressman regarding medicare issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorcenter (talk • contribs) 20:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google their office for contact details. Send an email or postal mail (postage free by the way) Legacypac (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Taylorcenter Per the notice at the top of this page...

This page is only for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia.

Sorry but you'll have to look up the answer yourself on how to contact your Congressperson. Shearonink (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Book sources

Hi, regarding the above document, is there any way to create a "regular" (i. e. visible) heading paragraph line spacing before the two headings Bookselling and swapping and Non-English book sources, which is to say without using new line tags such as <br> (creating a line spacing larger than usual)?--Hildeoc (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But I would suggest not to do that. The spacing looks fine. If it doesn't look fine to you, take the discussion to the respective talk page. Thanks, Lourdes 06:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: Thank you for commenting. But don't you think a regular heading spacing would be better – not least for the sake of consistency with respect to layout? According to your suggestion, I have now added a referece to this inquiry on the talk page.--Hildeoc (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite Americana

In the above template, why is the Wikisource logo included twice (see the relevant cases in the template documentation as well as transclusions like in Fur#External links)?--Hildeoc (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One icon is to represent the superset (e.g. the Encyclopaedia Britannica), and the other icon is the represent the actual article being referenced within the encyclopaedia. You can suppress the leading icon by using the code |noicon=1 within the template. I've used the noicon code for your benefit in your example of the article on Fur. Please revert my edit after you've seen the same. Thanks, Lourdes 07:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: Thank you very much. Wouldn't it make more sense, though, to generally use one icon and simply place it before the specific Wikisource article link? In this particular case, there is only one link actually leading to Wikisource, since the given "supersets" Encyclopedia Americana and New International Encyclopedia only link to Wikipedia articles – so we don't need a second Wikisource icon, right?--Hildeoc (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What actually counts as a reliable source?

I mean something like BYU.edu Or only article from Fox News? My real question is, if a magazine in the Uk is reliable and notable within its industry. Ex: fashionthirst.com Is this a reliable source or is it only about Fox News and Bloomberg? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.100.141 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS and WP:RSN. What counts as reliable can vary according to the viewpoint of the person assessing it. I've had NOAA, UKHO and RYA dismissed as unreliable because they conflict with the accademic BIPM. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I mean the person I am writing about has a lot of sources by small magazines which are viewed as blogs. When they have offices and a real outlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahloha989652 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be confusing two things here. Sources are reliable or otherwise. Pages are notable or otherwise. If a lot of reliable sources mention a person only in passing, then they are probably not notable, and no page is needed. If only a few reliable sources mention a person in detail, he may be notable (editorial judgement is required). If multiple unreliable sources mention a person in detail then you need to go looking for better sources. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References problem

Does anybody have an idea how to fix that references section?--Hildeoc (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The place to raise the problem is Talk:Dead Sea Scrolls. The problem with ref 108 arises in the transclusion of some (but not all) of the information from List of manuscripts from Qumran Cave 3. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could also ask User:JohnThorne. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hildeoc and David Biddulph: Sorry for the problem. I fixed those related to the reference [used to be] #108. Please check and, if it's good, you can remove the tag. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnThorne: Thanks a lot. Ref #108 now looks fine. However, some of the jump up links still don't work, and I can't figure out why that is. Does anybody find the fault?--Hildeoc (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hildeoc: Jump up links from references only work if the position is visible. For example, the link at reference 121 only works if the table in Dead Sea Scrolls#Caves 4a and 4b is expanded by clicking "show". PrimeHunter (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Oh, I see! Thank you for clarifying that. I guess I can remove the tag, and we can close here, then?--Hildeoc (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if such links are the only known issue. People usually don't click those links anyway. It's worse when a table of contents link is broken because a section header is hidden. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]