Help desk
< May 16	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 18 >

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.

May 17

Claiming a automatically generated page/place by wikipedia on facebook

HI, My name is Bardh. I manage the official page of my employer on Facebook. Lately, I came across an automatically generated Facebook place run by wikipedia.

Unfortunately, there are many of our followers who are misguided by the fact that there are two different pages with the same name (my employer's name) on Facebook. I would appreciate it, if we could merge the unofficial page which was generated by wikipedia with our official fane page.

Could you please support me with this? Thank you very much and kind regards Bardh Hoxha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA11:1180:EE80:ACB0:E41:E45:D5F1 (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you have things backwards. Wikipedia does not generate anything on anybody else's website. Instead, what you have run into is something which Facebook (or some third party) has created, drawing in part on the Wikipedia article about your company. We have nothing to do with that, and can't help you in any dispute you may have with Facebook. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone not associated with Wikipedia created that Facebook "page". Since Wikipedia uses a CC-BY-SA copyright, then that is perfectly acceptable as long as they attributed the Wikipedia source. You are also free to add information from Wikipedia to your page on Facebook if you attribute it. -Arch dude (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to upload my biography so it can be on Google search.

Please how can I upload my biography and pictures on Wikipedia so that people can easily find out more about me and my music. Or can I give you my full information so you can upload it for me. I have been trying to do it with the fees samples but no way. Can you help me please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceme419 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iceme419:Hello, unfortunately, the short answer is *you don't*. Wikipedia is not a form of social media or a place where persons or companies can promote themselves. Wikipedia contains articles on persons who pass the notability guidelines (see also WP:NMUSIC). These articles are written by individual ediotrs with no connection to the subject and report upon what has been written about them in wholly independent, reliable sources. autobiographies are not encouraged and may not always be a good idea. If you are truly notable (in the Wikipedia sense) Wikipedia would like to have an article about you and interested editors will create one in the fullness of time. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia and good luck with your career. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Eagleash (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iceme419: You can "get on Google search" without having a Wikipedia article, since Google searches the whole Internet, not just Wikipedia. Please take a look at WP:OUT for some alternative sites that will be more suitable for your biography. -Arch dude (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copying Wikipedia for questions on a question answer college test

My college final exam has 10 questions some of which are to define a term. Can I copy the definition as is from Wikipedia or is this considered plagiarism?

Example of a criminology test question: What is a search warrant?

    Can I copy Wikipedia’s exact definition of a search warrant!

If not, why?

If so, do I need to site Wikipedia on my test as my source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.215.137.18 (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can learn all about search warrants at the Wikipedia article Search warrant, but copying directly from Wikipedia would be plagiarism (and your professor can easily read the Search warrant article too). I suggest you answer your exam questions in your own words. GoingBatty (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To enlarge on GoingBatty's answer, professors and other educators routinely use computer applications that search the internet for wording that matches, to varying degrees of closeness, text in their students' essays or exam questions, so such copying is usually detected. (This is of course after they've compared each of their students' work to that of their classmates, to see if one has copied another or both have copied the same source.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.24.23 (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia's side, you can cite or copy most material freely from Wikipedia, as long as you say where it came from: see reusing Wikipedia material. From your examiners' side, they may be unwilling to accept material from Wikipedia, so you would probably be better citing the sources that the Wikipedia article cites. --ColinFine (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete my wikivoyage page and remove me from that program

i can see my wikivoyage page when i search my name on google but i do not want to be its part, i signed up to that by mistake. please delete my page, but not my wikipedia account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.215.243.10 (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Wikivoyage and Wikipedia are separate projects (though they are related). You need to ask at Wikivoyage:WV:Pub. --ColinFine (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potternewton

Refs 11 and 14 are exactly the same - should they be doubled up? Please do what is necessary. thanks 175.32.219.132 (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners#Re-using a reference, again and again. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lupton editor! At the top of this page, you will see If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page. Therefore you should bring up the matter at Talk:Potternewton, not here. -- Hoary (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query about Indian locomotive class

Hallo I have written this line Note-Before updating the information here anybody should check out the railways current official data first in the Source link then change the data Under the list of loco sheds of some Indian locomotive class articles where there is loco shed so, that anybody who wants to update the loco shed details will do that by seeing the official data in the Source link and then suddenly today this user:Field Marshal Aryan (talk) has removed that line and telling me that this line will confuse any body who will read the articles and prevent users from editing the loco shed details. Can you tell me that this line Note-Before updating the information here anybody should check out the railways current official data first in the Source link then change the data will confuse any body who will read the articles and prevent users from editing the loco shed details. If you think that this line will confuse any body who will read the articles and prevent users from editing the loco shed details, then you should tell me asap I will remove this line from all the Indian locomotive class articles where I have written. Can you confirm me quickly.Suvadeep Saha56 (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following additional question (and response) also copied over from talk page. Eagleash (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explicitly giving instruction to editors within the content of the article

Hello, this is with respect to railway locomotive articles of India. This one in particular: WDP-4. In India locomotives have their own sheds in various cities where they are maintained and come back for servicing. Basically, the shed is the home of a locomotive and is responsible for it. When any of the factory churns out a loco, they are assigned to any of the existing sheds. The data for this is available here. My friend here, user:Suvadeep Saha56 says that many people edit the shed section without checking the official data, thus adding wrong information. To prevent this, he added the following line right under the table that shows the loco sheds

Note-Before updating the information in loco shed anybody should check out the railways current official data first in the reference link 8 then change the data.

My question is, is it OK to add such an instruction which will be visible to so many readers and possibly confuse those not familiar with it? We are supposed to write articles so they can be understood by laymen too right? Can you guys (more experienced editors) tell us what to do now? --Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Field Marshal Aryan:@Suvadeep Saha56: Yes, advice can be left within articles, but it should be as concise as possibe and it can be 'hidden' between 'copy-out' tags () so that it is only visible upon opening the source to edit. Eagleash (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The saltwater crocodile distribution section is full of factual errors but cannot be edited

Hello,

My name is Brandon Sideleau and I am a crocodile specialist with CrocBITE. The distribution portion of the saltwater crocodile page is full of inaccuracies and falsehoods, yet it is listed as "semi-protected". I would like to edit the section to allow for a more accurate distribution description. The new changes state that the species is present in areas where it is known, without question, to be extinct. This is dangerous misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cporosus1 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cporosus1 and welcome to Wikipedia! I see you found the talkpage, you can keep making suggestions there, and if you stick around a bit (see WP:AUTOCONFIRM), you can soon edit the article yourself. However, make sure to cite reliable sources, see WP:TUTORIAL. I also recommend WP:EXPERT. Thanks for helping! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cporosus1:Welcome, and thanks. Even though you are an expert, you and all of the rest of us are effectively anonymous by policy. Therefore, like the rest of us, you will need to cite reliable sources. An expert can say "I know that's wrong and I know how to find and cite sources to prove it", and that's why we value your input. In the saltwater crocodile case, if there are old cited references for a live population and you now have references that the population has become extinct, then I think it's better to add the updated information and then put the old stuff into the past tense rather than removing it. This will prevent some over-eager later editor from "finding" the old source and replacing your more accurate information, and it is valuable information for the reader. -Arch dude (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to upload Info about a writer.

Hii My friend is a writer.. he published 2 books. how can i update his page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4055:30F:D775:B4D9:81FF:FE33:3B57 (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your friend does not have a "page", there is an article about your friend. If there is already an article about them, you should propose edits on the article talk page, as an edit request. If you want to create an article about them, and you can show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that they meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable writer, you may use Articles for creation to create an article. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations for a simple explanation on how to behave on Wikipedia if you are to edit anything about your friend. This is because you have a conflict of interest due to your personal relationship with them. Seagull123 Φ 19:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to see my wikipedia posts?

In contributions tab, I can only view date,bytes added etc. Please help me. Ram nareshji (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ram nareshji- at your contributions, click "diff" to see the differences from the edit in question. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I click this link : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Wrong_information_about_me.

It is not jumping to this section **Wrong information about me**.

It just opens the wikipedia help desk. Ram nareshji (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The mobile app has some limitations, it sometimes won't divert to a 3rd level subsection, if you are using desktop, remove the "en.m.wikipedia" with "en.wikipedia" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google and Facebook sometimes link to these "en.m" pages even when I use a desktop computer. I have to go to the URL bar and remove the ".m" by hand to get to the proper version of the page. Why isn't there a link "view full version" or something on the mobile version? JIP | Talk 21:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is JIP. Check the bottom of the page for "Desktop version" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JIP, there is, but you have to scroll to the very bottom of the page to get to the "desktop" option. Schazjmd (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information about me

Sir,

       I am P.V. KALYANASUNDARAM .

In Wikipedia a page is created about me. In that page a wrong information is given by some unknown person to me. I am not chairman and managing director of Polimer media.

 Kindly delete the information please.

with regards, P.V. Kalyanasundaram — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.198.84.225 (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Try to create account here before posting a question . Ram nareshji (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ram nareshji - you do not need to have an account to ask a question here, nor to edit in general.

IP User - I could not find an article by that title, was it spelt differently? If it is an article about yourself, please post an WP:EDITREQUEST on the talk page of the article in question. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that the chair and managing director of Polimer TV is not a person named P. V. Kalyanasundaram? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OrangeMike: It's also possible there exist two or more people named P. V. Kalyanasundaram. --CiaPan (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes; that's what I've already said twice now in my edit summaries. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:: OrangeMike I see. Alas, I didn't see your edit summaries. I read a talk and I reply to what people said in the talk, not to edit summaries. --CiaPan (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeMike Fixed a ping. --CiaPan (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help with formatting citation

Hi! I added some new info to the page below, but the citation I used went weird and I don't know what to do about it. My changes start with the paragraph on "optical density" and the paragraph after that has the cite. But the cite appears in-line, and I thought it would be better at the end of the full article. Not sure how to do that. If you just want to fix it up yourself, that's fine.

Here's the page, my edit is about 3/4 of the way down this section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefront_.obj_file#Material_template_library — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markspace (talk • contribs) 16:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Markspace:

Fixed! In order for the cite to appear in the References section, you need to use the <ref>...</ref> tags. For more details, please see Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: the basics. GoingBatty (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Danke! And I'll read up! Markspace (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to put in a link on an edit summary?

I tried putting in a link but it would not be a blue link (It needs to be blue in order for you to click it). Did I put it in wrong? Here is title=United_Airlines_Flight_93&diff=957214978&oldid=957214060 The link. Thanks. By The Way, I haven’t been on Wikipedia in like 2 months so I may not be able to edit correctly. Signed by The person who should not be named (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An edit summary is totally the wrong place to put an external link. If the link is that important, put a note on the talk page of the article, with an explanation of why it's a link to a reliable source, even though it seems to go to a YouTube video. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The person who should not be named: I suppose you meant this diff: Special:diff/957214978... --CiaPan (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CiaPan: Yes, FYI I haven’t been on Wikipedia since COVID-19, so I might not remember some things The person who should not be named (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The person who should not be named: Your original post has a space insted of a question mark in the url. It should have said The link. Url's in edit summaries are deliberately not clickable in order to protect against issues like spam, copyright violations and unsafe sites. Only wikilinks [[...]] are clickable in edit summaries and you can only make wikilinks to sites at meta:Interwiki map. YouTube is not there and meta:Talk:Interwiki map#Proposed additions says to not propose it. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike was exactly correct to say that the edit summary was not the right place for that link, but I do want to push back on the notion that one should never include an external link in an edit summary (Perhaps they narrowly mean links in an External Links section.) I'm making this point in case someone else read this advice and thought it is never appropriate to place an external link in an edit summary. I include an external link in an edit summary a dozen times a day.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since it doesn't actually produce a link, it's more accurate to say you can put a url in an edit summary. I also do it sometimes. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter, fair point.--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

font that Wiki uses

I used to get Wikipedia info in some "normal" business font. Abruptly, without rationale, the font changed to Papyrus. I use a lot of Papyrus in an artsy COOKBOOK that I am writing, but it is a hideous font for business and speed reading. I hate that Wiki now use it for me. I can only assume Wiki has mined my computer and discovered the high usage in that cookbook, "decided" that works for me. How do I get back to a normal font? Am I correct that some software mined my docs and decided I would "enjoy" receiving Wiki articles in that cumbersome font??? Can I manually change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynn Sherwood (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a business, and its lovingly crafted and discursive articles are intended not for speed reading but for deep, thoughtful perusal. But anyway, you want to change the font. I don't think for a moment that either Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation has snooped inside the cookbook in your computer: you attribute curiosity (indeed, busybodiness) and skills that both lack. Whether some software has decided this is a different matter. Does it happen both when you're logged in and when you're logged out? Is it specific to Wikipedia or does it also occur at, say, The Guardian? If it's specific to Wikipedia, does it occur in French-, Igbo- or other-language Wikipedias or just in English-language Wikipedia, etc? (And [cough] if Papyrus [with which I'm unfamiliar] is such a pain in Wikipedia, will your readers enjoy it in a cookbook?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS Papyrus (typeface) -- now that I see it, I recognize it. And not in a good way. -- Hoary (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lynn Sherwood: I'm assuming it does happen when you're not logged into Wikipedia (meaning it is not a Wikipedia setting that you've made (not that I know of one that does this)). Have you perhaps set that font in your browser? For example, in Firefox, at about:preferences#general (Tools→Options→General), under Fonts and Colors, you can set a font, and Advanced gives more options, including "Allow pages to choose their own fonts". Have you perhaps set this font there and unchecked the "Allow ..." checkbox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanM1 (talk • contribs)

@Lynn Sherwood: Wikipedia doesn't choose a font but uses a browser default (see Wikipedia:Typography), so the browser "Allow ..." setting shouldn't matter. But please link an example page so we can check it doesn't set a font. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The Guardian" and all news sources are shown in normal typefaces. Wikipedia is always in Papyrus now, though it was not before, and it comes up in Papyrus immediately (i.e. it doesn't appear in another typeface and then switch). Thanks for the suggestion about setting the browser, but this font is not set in my browser. A very small number of completely separate (from Wiki) ads appear in Papyrus now and then. They don't look like they were designed in Papyrus. I think from these answers here and the fact that some ads also appear in this unwanted font, that I may have some kind of malware playing with my equipment. Will pursue elsewhere. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynn Sherwood (talk • contribs) 01:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to link an example page (not very computer savvy here). But I do not think this would help because I have tried to send a sample to a friend who received and read the sample I sent in the normal Wiki font. In other words, the problem did not stay linked to the content. The content is affected only when the material is viewed with my computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynn Sherwood (talk • contribs) 02:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lynn Sherwood: Many other websites do choose a font and will not be affected by the font setting in your browser. Wikipedia doesn't say absolutely nothing. It says "font-family: sans-serif". Sans-serif is not a specific font but just means a type of font. My Firefox has default fonts for three types of fonts: Serif, Sans-serif, Monospace. It's Arial for sans-serif. What is your browser and have you checked whether it has a sans-serif setting? In Firefox you have to click "Advanced" to see it if you are in a menu only showing one standard font. I made a minimal example here: http://primerecords.dk/Wikipedia/sans-serif.html. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, you all have figured it out! The clue to why it is only Wikipedia (and a few ads) is that, as PrimeHunter said, "many other websites do choose a font and will not be affected by the font setting in......" and Alan is also right because I was able to locate a font setting in Chrome, my browser, that I had no idea existed. (chrome-preferences-appearance-customize fonts) where I found I have FOUR "authorized fonts", one of which was Papyrus. I replaced Papyrus with a readable font and Wikipedia changed immediately. The peculiar thing is that I have used Wikipedia, gratefully and respectfully, for many, many years, and this is new. I have never touched my font settings and had no idea I could do that. I would not have entered Papyrus in this limited selection of preferred fonts if I had known I could choose. It appears that Chrome programming automatically put Papyrus into my favorite font selections, perhaps because I have used it extensively as an art font in a cookbook, and when Wiki didn't force any font, Chrome deferred to Papyrus. However it happened behind the scenes, you all have fixed the problem. The annoying Papyrus is gone and I can read Wikipedia again with ease. Thank you very much for your patience and perseverance and ultimate triumph! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynn Sherwood (talk • contribs) 07:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]