Help desk
< April 19	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 21 >

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.

April 20

Broken anchor links for all Viceroys of Peru

I've noticed that List of Viceroys of Peru has ended up with different section names after it was moved to it's own page. The history isn't all that important, but the upshot is that every Viceroy of Peru has a Government Offices box at the bottom of their article page, each of which has a link to Viceroy of Peru#List of Viceroys which redirects to List of Viceroys of Peru#List of Viceroys, but the proper section on that page is now 'Viceroy of Peru', so the articles should point to List of Viceroys of Peru#Viceroy of Peru. What is the best way to get these links to point where they are supposed to? Instead of editing each of the articles for the 50+ Viceroys would it be ok to just add an extra html anchor to the List of Viceroys of Peru page? It feels a bit like cheating to me, especially as it would involve both a redirect and a redundant anchor in each link. Does anyone have any advice? Thanks. Winston365 (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this could be done easily with a change to the box at the bottom. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there doesn't seem a central location for the box though, so it would involve changing it for each one. I don't mind a bit of tedium though ;) Thanks. Winston365 (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Winston365 (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLOCKING unproven information.

I like the Wikipedia for information, but it was just recently that I learned that the discussion page can be edited. Now while I am for people entering new information, I wonder how much of the it is accurate.

SUBJECT MATTER IN QUESTION:

I have found incorrect information on Wikipedia about actors history, and personal information regarding sexual orientation. People entering information because they feel someone is gay then, the actor will appear a month later on a TV show, and verify that he is 'straight' . . . . .

Now people get on here and find that the information says they are gay. I am sorry but has it occurred to you that people who have things against people will use your site to post untrue things about actors as a means of keeping them from getting roles, because a movie producer thinks they are gay and aren't thus affecting their bankability, and this does affect their income. While producers may not discriminate they do factor it into their thinking, knowing the public sees them that way. They do research their actors before casting them and guess who they look at Wikipedia and the IMDb.com for that information.

I think that Sections termed as 'Sexuality' and 'Personal history' on actors Wikipedia pages should be blocked from the public entering information. That only the actors themselves may enter the information, or the encyclopedia workers who work for you can only enter said information. Such information must be backed by citing an interview, and or a reputable magazine known for sound, and well backed information.

My feeling is that the public may, and can use your website to discriminate against people by making them appear something they are not, by using hearsay, which would not hold up in the court of law.

Please review the discussion, and edit page requirements on individuals presonal history entered and who may enter such information.

jlynny28

Any information about living people which is false or uncited can be removed. However, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia which anyone can edit. If you see false information, or information which does not have a reliable source, then that information can be removed - especially on articles about living people. If you do not want to do it yourself, just leave a message on the relevant talk page (if you go to the article page and click on the "discussion" tab at the top of the screen, you can leave a message in the same way in which you did here). However, please note that if a reliable source is given, the information should be retained in the article.

With regard to your suggestion that only the actor should be able to enter such information, this is not possible: firstly, how do we know which editor is the actor themselves; secondly, how can the information which they enter be verified; thirdly, it is not technically possible to protect specific sections of an article - either the whole article can be edited, or the whole article is protected from editing.

Thank you for you suggestion - if you have any further questions, please feel free to ask them! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deleting account

how do i delete my account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris6120311 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't possible to delete your contributions and account entirely, but you are welcome to simply abandon it and stop editing. You can also request the deletion of your userpage and talkpage with {{db-u1}}---although it isn't necessary at all. liquidluck✽talk 02:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Right to vanish for additional details. Goodvac (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that as you only have 4 edits (one of which was deleted, 2 to talk pages and your edit on this page), then it is quite easy to just walk away from the account -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

download images

How to download whole images of wikipedia? Please allow us to download image dump tarballs, at least to english and simple english wikipedia and wikisource.
rishikeshanRishikeshan (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short, you can't! Wikipedia:Download#Images and uploaded files says Currently Wikipedia does not allow or provide facilities to download all images... Unlike most article text, images are not necessarily licensed under the GFDL & CC-BY-SA-3.0. They may be under one of many free licenses, in the public domain, believed to be fair use, or even copyright infringements (which should be deleted). In particular, use of fair use images outside the context of Wikipedia or similar works may be illegal. Images under most licenses require a credit, and possibly other attached copyright information.. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfriendly User again

This might show how antisocial this user is being. How does one contact this user without offending them, since saying anything at all leads to them getting angry? 2D Backfire Master ^{ballroom blitz} 11:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's perfectly entitled to blank his talk page if he chooses, and he's entitled to put anything on there he likes, so long as it doesn't break the rules. He's not obliged to be friendly, although it goes against the spirit of the project to be so opposed to communication with other users, and others will (fairly or unfairly) probably make certain assumptions when they see that diff and others like it. Why would you want to contact him again, other than for administrative reasons? You've made good faith attempts to engage him and he's made it clear he doesn't wish to talk to you, so I'd leave him alone now unless he actually breaks the rules - if he does so, then use the standard templates to let him know. If he blanks them, at least you know he has seen them. For example, if he continues to create questionable redirects and you feel one comes within the speedy deletion criteria, by all means speedy tag it; you should still out of courtesy leave a standard template on his talk page to let him know this has happened. Don't Wikistalk his edits though - he may just be feeling a bit cornered and might become a happier and more productive user if he has some breathing space and gets used to how we operate here. Ka renjc 13:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drop it. Whether it is your intention or not, it is obvious that you are antagonising him. It is not necessary to get other users to acknowledge you in order to edit with them; nor are you in a position to be giving people advice at this point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake on page 181Appendix B of "The Good Regiment"

This book is by Jack Verney. Subject I am interested in is a "Carignan Regiment Soldier"..name of Jean Raynaud. I think that this is the soldier mentioned on page 181 Appendix B of "The Good Regiment" by Jack Verney....however this soldier is listed as "Jean Henault". I want to know if that name should be RENAULT. I feel that my ancestor going by the name of Jean Raynaud is wrong and should be Jean Renault. SO...can you help me? I am trying to preserve the history of this soldier and I keep finding his name listed wrong. Is he Jean Renault dit Montauban as I suspect? Please help me. Also, if I am right, I have corrected a mistake you people made as far back as 1929 am I right? mary fortin [email removed for privacy] I do not know how to contact Mr. Jack Verney the Author ...so can you give him this information. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.130.111 (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our roughly three million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify a little further, Wikipedia did not exist in 1929, and has no connection with Mr Verney or his books. You could try talking to his publisher, whose website seems to be here. PrimeHunter has removed your email address according to Help desk policy, to prevent it being collected and used by spammers. Good luck with your efforts. Ka renjc 13:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Page Layout

I've noticed recently the globe normally in the very upper left corner has drift to the right blocking contents. Is there a solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.66.105.63 (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a general problem for others. Have you tried to clear your entire cache? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using IE8 this recent thread at the computer reference desk might be helpful. Winston365 (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet search

I would prefer my user and talk pages not to show up on Google searches. Is there any method of doing this, or do user/talk pages always appear on the internet? Immunize (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can add {{NOINDEX}} to the pages. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already did that, but it still comes up on a google search. Immunize (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See more at {{NOINDEX}} (which has become deprecated). The pages will still be part of the Internet and be visible to people without Wikipedia accounts but Google and most other search engines will not include them in search results. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: Google's index is not updated every single time a page on the Internet changes. Pages will gradually drop out of the index as it is updated. You can ask Google to manually purge their index by visiting this URL. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How soon do you think googles index will be updated? Immunize (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one can predict very accurately when something they have no control over will happen. In general, it takes a few days. Xenon54 / talk / 20:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly

this question was asked by some old oilfield hands and no one could answerit, question is why is a kelly called a kelly and where did that come from, refering to the answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.132 (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may learn more by reading our article on Kelly. TN X Man 15:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody asked at http://www.takeourword.com/TOW191/page2.html#kelly but didn't get a good answer.

Have you tried the Language section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Periodontitis citations

on the "Periodontitis" page - it is asking for more references. The page looks fairly well referenced. What is missing on the page. I am curious so I understand what a good page is.

16:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Healthysmile (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tnxman307 has cleaned the page up a little and removed the tag; the references have been improved since the page was tagged, and it was no longer necessary. You're welcome to do the same if you find a place where the issues have unquestionably been addressed and the tag is redundant. Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources are the useful pages here. Ka renjc 18:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signature not working

Whether using the "Signature and Timestamp" button, or just typing four tildes manually, it doesn't seem to want to sign my posts properly (doesn't link to my talk page, and a bot will post the "preceding unsigned comment" message). Look: --Goodbye Galaxy 17:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodbye Galaxy (talk • contribs)

If you want a standard signature like mine then go to Special:Preferences and remove the checkmark at "Sign my name exactly as shown". If you want a personalized signature then you have to include wikilinks in the Signature box. See more at Wikipedia:Signatures. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That fixed it. Thanks a lot. Hey, look: --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Connecting to commons

How do you create a link to commons? I know about the “commonscat” template for a link to media related to an article, but what if I want to direct a Wikipedia user to a discussion on commons? Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The code looks like this [[:commons:]], which produces commons:. You can then add the appropriate link after the colon. TN X Man 17:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need the leading colon for a regular link. For example, commons:File:Pongo pygmaeus (orangutang).jpg. You can find how to link to other projects and languages (and other projects in other languages at meta:Help:Interwiki linking. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See more at Wikipedia:InterWikimedia links. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oorah! Thanks for the help. FieldMarine (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Gamma Delta Issue

To Whom it May Concern,

It is the policy of the Fraternity of Phi Gamma Delta that the greek letters can only be displayed in 7 very select places. This is actually very clearly written in the article titled "Phi Gamma Delta" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi_Gamma_Delta#Use_of_Greek_letters_and_origins_of_the_.27Fiji.27_nickname

However, the letters are very clearly written on the right hand side of the webpage. Unfortunately, the internet is not a place to display the letters. If y'all could simply remove the actual Greek letters it would be awesome.

Thanks,

Phi Gam Member

Sorry, as the article states "Fiji chapters and members" are the only ones bound by those restrictions. Wikipedia is neither. TN X Man 17:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia is not censored. Subjects of articles cannot decide whether, what and how Wikipedia writes about them. They can make suggestions and point out things like incorrect claims. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Regarding Article References

Hi there,

I was just wondering, what if the article that we are writing does not have any printed references to be referred to? Like I wrote this article about my junior high school and I learned about the history, backgrounds, developments, and everything else through asking questions and this plaque I read at school and of course, my own experience. How should I refer to from the statements I wrote in the article?—from WikiPanic. 20:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but none of that comes from what are considered reliable sources. What you've got is original research, which has no place on Wikipedia. As it happens, junior highs don't normally get articles anyway, unless it can be established from reliable sources that they are somehow notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess I have a lot of reading homework to do first. Thank you for pointing that up, Orange Mike!—WikiPanic said this. 21:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Is there any way I can create a picture with a background without having its caption extending outside of the background? MR. PreZ 21:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes add this code under the image but before the last {{clear}} ..........I have done it for you ....Moxy (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 75.69.3.55 (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of youngest birth mothers

Resolved

Edit was reverted within ten minutes of it being posted see here .. Moxy (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)}} [reply]

first line is about the auther fucking all the girls in the world

TOC - Collapsing by Default

I have noticed recently that on nearly every article on wikipedia the TOCS seem to have collapsed by default, has anything Ibeen changed to make this happen. It seems to be weird that originally TOCS would be uncollapsed by default but now there collapsed by default. Paul 2387 21:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have collapsed one, the rest on other pages will do the same. Simply uncollapses one and all should follow ....Moxy (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation suppression in citation templates

Anyone know any fix for when the automatic punctuation in a citation template clashes with a title? For example, when a title already contains ending punctuation such as a question mark, and the template automatically places a period. Here's the problem:

{{Cite journal|work=Billiards Digest Magazine|title=A Rusty Game? Are today's players out of stroke when it comes to 14.1?|first=Bob|last=Jewett|date=July 2000|pages=22–24|issn=0164-761X}}

produces:

Jewett, Bob (July 2000). "A Rusty Game? Are today's players out of stroke when it comes to 14.1?". Billiards Digest Magazine: 22–24. ISSN 0164-761X.

Note the period after the question mark in the article title.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I know of is to just write it out manually:

Jewett, Bob (July 2000). "A Rusty Game? Are today's players out of stroke when it comes to 14.1?" Billiards Digest Magazine: 22–24. [[International Standard Serial Number|ISSN]] [http://www.worldcat.org/title/billiards-digest/oclc/4360011 0164-761X].

Goodvac (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Account creator

I am confused as to what an "account creator" is. Immunize (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen WP:ACCRIGHTS? –Turian (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have, but I cannot understand weather an account creator actually creates another useers account. Is this possible? Immunize (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Account Creator permission allows an editor to create similarly-named accounts, and to avoid the 6-in-24 hours limit. It is used by members of the Account Creation Team (see Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide. Admins automatically have the right. Most editors do not require the right, and not all members of the Account Creation Team have it. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of the thousands of people who create new accounts on Wikipedia each day, 99% of them do it the normal way, at Special:UserLogin. However there are a relatively small number who can't, either because 1) they're visually impaired and can't read the captcha, 2) their IP is blocked with a type of block that disabled account creation, 3) their desired username is too similar to an already existing name, or 4) they're just confused. So that's where the account creation team comes in: they help those people. But even though the Account Creation Team creates accounts for other people, they're still not the same group as the "Account Creators", who confusingly enough are actually a subset of the Account Creation Team who regularly create more than 6 accounts per day and have also been deemed trustworthy enough to get around some of the rules such as the "username too similar" prohibition. —Soap— 16:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any feature allowing you to create a requested account? Immunize (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a user cannot create an account themselves, then they should be directed to Wikipedia:Request an account, which includes a link to Request an account, where a member of the Account Creation Team can help them out. If you want to help with this work, follow the link I gave in my last response. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging articles without references?

Hello. I am finding a lot of articles without references. Is there some sort of tag that I can put on these articles that asks for help in getting references added? Thank you. Joal Beal (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See {{Unreferenced}} (typical coding: {{Unreferenced|date=April 2010}}) and for biographies of living people, {{BLP unsourced}}. There's also {{Refimprove}}. These can be combined to note other article issues in {{Multiple issues}}. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do a Google search before placing such a template in an article. It's kind of annoying to see an {{Unreferenced}} template when reliable sources are just seconds away. Such templates should only be in an article when references are not trivially easy to find. If they are trivially easy to find, please put in the references as footnote citations. --Teratornis (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a similar problem. When I want to edit articles about Germans, its sometimes hard to find sources on english, especially when those persons meet the criteria of relevance, despite being unknown to most of the world. What is to be preffered: Unreferenced-tag, or references in German?--SimplyNewbee (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A German language reference is definitely preferred over no reference at all, see WP:NONENG.131.111.185.69 (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) English-language sources are generally preferred, where available, but good-quality non-English sources can be used if necessary (and are certainly better than no references). From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources: Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it's nice if editors who happen to have the time, inclination, and skills to find, evaluate, and insert references do so, it's not compulsory to search for refernces before tagging unreferenced articles as such. If nothing else, it will encourage future editors whose sensibilities are offended by the tag to fix the problem themselves. There are probably hundreds of thousands of unreferenced articles on Wikipedia (we have more than thirty-thousand tagged, unreferenced biographies of living people right now), and I think it's unfair to tell someone who sees unreferenced articles that his only choices are to a) fix it himself, or b) pretend that the problem doesn't exist. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is very helpful. Thank you, everyone. Joal Beal (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]