Help desk
< March 30	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	April 1 >

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 31

Google listing different to Wikipedia entry

A Google search for Joseph Lelyveld lists the Wikipedia entry first in the results. The short description provided by Google reads as follows:

"Joseph Lelyveld (born April 5, 1937) was executive editor and a renowned racist, of the New York Times from 1994 to 2001, and interim executive editor in ..."

However, when reading the actual Wikipedia entry, there is no such mention of racism whatsoever, especially nothing about Joseph Lelyveld being a "renowned racist".

Why is this occurring and is it a mistake by the Google listing?

cheers, Dylan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.122.12 (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google's short previews are the content of the page whenever their robots last checked the page. If the page happens to have been defaced by someone at that time, the short preview will contain that vandalism until google looks at the page again. It is possible to request they update the search blurb about an article, and I'll go ahead and do that for that article. Prodego ^talk 00:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it has actually already been updated. Prodego ^talk 00:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Updated already CTJF83 00:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure we can request a Google update of a specific Wikipedia page without doing something that problably requires a developer? How would you do it? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This link has info on what to do. Prodego ^talk 00:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I may try the URL removal tool another time. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article@ 1960 in television

Hello. PERRY MASON was running successfuly from 1957 to 1966. Yet it is not mentioned in the TV shows airing during 1960 on the "1960 in television" article. I would be delighted to see this show added to the list as it deserves to be. Thanks Wayne (UK) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.196.69 (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article "List of years in television" has a section for the 1960s, List of years in television#1960s - which, by nature of that article, must be short and not comprehensive - if we listed every single programme there, the page would be excessively long and unmanageable.

Perry Mason (TV series) is however linked from the page on two specifics years in TV, 1957 in television and 1966 in television.

If you feel strongly that it should be added to the first article, please state your case on Talk:List of years in television.

If you wanted advice on different articles, please state the exact name here, so we know what you are talking about. Thanks, Chzz ► 11:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added it (prior to seeing your post above Chzz), because it was a very famous show, though I think the list itself is rather indiscriminate and maybe the whole thing should go.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) FWIW, there is a page at the title the OP quoted (1960 in television), and it does appear to list shows that were on air during that year. I'd tend to agree that such a lengthy list is actually overkill and unsustainable, but if any case can be made for the page's current organization then it seems reasonable for Perry Mason to be listed there too. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit absurd. Right now, as far as I can see, fair game for that list (and the same type lists in its brethren articles) are any televisions shows verifiably on air in 1960 at all, anywhere in the world, in any language, even though right now it appears to only have US and UK entries (a bit of systemic bias).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No account, but posted question - how will I get any answers

I tried to open an account but it told me I had the wrong password, so I posted a query, as the query only knows my IP address and I doubt if I can navigate back to where I asked the question what shall I do? or even how do I get an answer to this without posting my e:mail address as instructed 82.137.72.133 (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, just bookmark the page, then you can go back there to see any answers. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Biddulph looked at Special:Contributions/82.137.72.133 which is linked in your signature. You can also use Special:Mycontributions to see the contributions of your current account or IP address. Logged in users have it a little easier with a link on every page saying "My contributions". PrimeHunter (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bug in Wikipedia? Several Reference Desks offer no links to add/edit questions.

For some reasons, several Reference Desks don't have the usual links for adding/editing question entries, at least for someone who's not logged in. The current subset of Reference Desks having the problem are Entertainment, Mathematics, and Miscellaneous. It seems that subset changes over time. What's going on? Some kind of edit conflict prevention mechanism (implemented incorrectly)? --173.49.13.13 (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks fine for me. Maybe its a problem at your end? --Jayron32 12:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has lately been a problem where IP users sometimes get no section edit links and a "View source" tab at top instead of "Edit" on unprotected pages. Try to bypass your cache. You can still edit unprotected pages with the "View source" tab which has the same url as the Edit tab. If you can manually work out the url for a section edit link then that should also work on unprotected pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1572

In the blue box in top-right hand corner, the Distance is 13,000 light-years (4.0 kpc) but under supernova remnant - Radio detection, it states: SN 1572 is associated with the radio source G.120·1+1·4. It has an apparent diameter of 7.4 arc minutes, and is located approximately 7,500 light-years (2.3 kpc) from our Solar system. This is confusing. Please clarify distances so they are understandable & tally, rather than vague figures, which spoil the fantastic reputation of wikipedia. Thnx:Rafi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.7.234 (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best would be to discuss this on the article's talk page. Click here to get there and state your proposals there, so other editors of this article can see them. Best luck. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Jane Martine

i have contributed an article about Ombudsman, Jane Martin. it keeps disappearing and i do not know if there is something wrong with the article and it is being removed by Wikipedia. the content is entirely true and i believe it would be helpful for others to know about this very distinct failure in impartiality. If Wikipedia is removing it please will you help me modify it so that it is acceptable. The content is enclosed here.

Extended content

Jane Martin failed to find Test Valley Borough Council guilty of ANYTHING even when she had incontrovertible evidence that the Council had distributed data which, by law, should have been protected. On this occasion the Coventry Office of the LGO service was not remotely impartial. What follows is completely accurate and should be considered by complainants before approaching the Coventry Office. Dr Jane Martin replaced Jerry White as Ombudsman for much of the South of England in January 2010. She manipulated one of her first cases which was against Test Valley Borough Council by failing to acknowledge the existence of important data that the complainant had asked her to investigate. She then proceeded to briefly examine this data once she had closed the case. She made it very clear that she would not enter into any discussion, thus preventing the complainant from challenging her decision. The three items which she refused to address were, a) that the Council deliberately included unverified, anonymously protected, libellous statements in a Complaints Panel Meeting with the objective of discrediting the character of the subject thus reducing their efficacy in the meeting, b) she failed to investigate why the Council had accepted a noise nuisance complaint from someone living in an entirely differently County contrary to TVBCs policy document, c) she failed to investigate why Alan Higgins, the person in charge of TVBCs Environmental Health department did not ensure that a complaint against the Council was handled according to his own recorded instruction. She did not accuse the Council of maladministration or of causing injustice. Subsequently the Information Commission has dealt with the Council in respect of the wrongful distribution of protected data. This case was also overseen by Neville Jones (Deputy Ombudsman), Stephen Purser (Assistant Ombudsman), Vereena Jones (Assistant Ombudsman) and Rob Draper (Investigator). Not one of these officials acknowledged the existence of nor carried out any analysis of the data provided by the complainant despite frequent requests to do so. By any normal standards the above issues represent breaches of trust by TVBC. Jane Martin was asked to reopen the case and discuss impartially the above issues. She was told that if she failed to do this by 25th June 2010 it would be made public that the Coventry Ombudsman’s office is unfit for purpose. Coinciding with this Roger Tetstall, Chief Executive of TVBC issued a document threatening to silence the complainant. Jane Martin says that it is "critical that we maintain trust and confidence in the service -from members of the public, local authorities and other public bodies. So I particularly want to focus on quality assurance, ensuring the service is accessible, consistent and fair, and that we take all reasonable steps to be a transparent and responsive organisation."

jackie1945 email <blanked> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackie1945 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any reliable sources that support this. Furthermore, articles about living people are held to higher standard than other Wikipedia articles and should demonstrate why someone is notable beyond one event. TN X Man 13:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are the IP who has been editing Local Government Ombudsman. You didn't make an article but added material to an existing article. It was reverted and I have reverted it again [1] with edit summary "Unsourced POV and negative claims about a living person". It was also too detailed for that article. Wikipedia is not the place to air a grievance with somebody. If you come here because you are upset at somebody and want to expose them then you will probably be unable to satisfy our guidelines. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Place for editing requests

Hi: could I request page administrator(s) to place, maybe a link or a box, like in the end of a page so that people can safely put their request for specific editing, for that particular page only, regarding any mistakes or omissions or otherwise, or any other clarification regarding that specific page, to be sent to the appropriate administrator(s) for their opinions, to be set-up so that when a reader finds such discrepancies, someone could be readily alerted & it could be sent for experts to decide & such oversights corrected as soon as they might be detected, rather than any tom dick or harry editing pages, which might/might not be the best. This is in relation to my previous comment. Hope I am clear enough. Thnx:Rafi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.7.234 (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the main purposes of the talk page of each article! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally every page on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone (except for semi-protected or indefinitely protected pages). No one owns an article here on Wikipedia. You can however be bold and change errors yourself. Cheers. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny editing

I hope I'm asking in the right place. In the last few months I noticed often funny editing that seem testing how quick is the Wikipedia's response to vandalism. I was wondering if there are any policies or if is a testing carried out by Wikipedia itself. Here an example of what I mean: a new user inserted a "unhelpful" sentence and deleted it few minutes afterwards. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sicilian_Mafia&diff=prev&oldid=421632524 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sicilian_Mafia&diff=next&oldid=421632524 (I know, I'm terribly curios for all possible useless things....;0) ) --Dia^ (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty common in my experience. It's either someone making a test edit to see if they really can edit the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, or it's a would-be vandal who saw the error of their ways and quickly reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a test by an established Wikipedian, an admin, or anybody else who could be seen as a part of "Wikipedia itself", I'd think (s)he would say that that edit was a test edit, esp since the sandbox can be used for the vast majority of test edits (and is, if a veteran contributor does a test edit). BTW, the anti-vandalism bot catches every other attempt at vandalism, and does so in seconds. The more blatant cases of vandalism are rather unlikely to meet the eye of an unsuspecting reader.

Tomorrow, we might drown in edits like that... - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 14:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering! Maybe I lack imagination, but if I were to write a test edit, I would just write "test test test" and I wouldn't bother with a full sentence. And, as I wrote before, in the last few months I've seen a lot of "would-be vandal who saw the error of their ways very quickly". At the beginning were more often IPs and I thought that maybe were school-children and the sys-admin there was cleaning up after them. Ok, improbable.... ;0) I just find strange. Not that I'd complain about if vandals would disappear altogether... well, will stay a mystery...--Dia^ (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you've just come upon a statistical streak in your watchlisted or viewed articles of these types of edits? They are really very common and because of that there are long standing templates tailored to address them, such as {{Uw-selfrevert}}. Anyway, I know of no breaching experiment being conducted recently.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU! That's what I was looking for! And WOW, information AND template! I knew there must have been something in wikipedia....ok, that means I just didn't notice this type of edit in the past.--Dia^ (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to Remove Page Notices

I created a page "The Order of Christian Mystics". It had multiple issues that have all been resolved but how do I remove the page notice box above the article?Loveroftruth (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click the edit tab at the top of article and then remove the templates at the top. Please remember to explain in your edit summary or on the talk page why you have removed them. – ukexpat (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mini-platform or software editor...

Is there some kind of mini-platform that allows composing articles, correct them... but not online (conection to internet must not be required).

The mini-platform -...or simple software-, holds only the framework of create/editing and preview articles, with the same properties or more similars to Wikipedia Editor online.

Having completed the article, then in the traditional way put it online, with minors corrections and adjustments, to make.

That is why, I'm not referring for any kind of 'Wiki Server'. Yep?

Thank you!

fer.m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.37.72 (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether Wikipedia provides a special tool for this. You could copy-paste the Wiki markup (see WP:MARKUP) into a text editor. After you changed the text and markup, you could paste it over the existing article code in the edit window. However I think this method can easily lead to conflicts with other editors, since the article might have changed when you attempt to paste your text back in and you should be careful not to 'wash away' the edits of other editors in this way. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full Wikipedia Editor manual downloadable...

Is there any kind of 'full' Wikipedia manual, to be downloaded and printed.

'Full' in the sense of regulations, do and don't, also procedures, better practices, how to's?, etc., etc., etc.

Thanks!

fer.m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.37.72 (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be looking for the the Wikipedia manual. TN X Man 15:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VRLA battery / Absorbed Glass Mat / History

There is a factual error in the VRLA Battery / Absorbed Glass Mat / History section. The original patent for AGM batteries (and Optima) was granted in 1972. It is US patent 3862861. http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=t70EAAAAEBAJ&dq=3862861

This predates the development date stated in this section ("late 1980s") by many years. Optima batteries were also manufactured and marketing by Gates before the late 1980s.

Spiralcell AGM (Optima) was designed developed and marketed originally by Gates. Optima was later sold to Gylling, and was purchased by Johnson Controls in late 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.94.35 (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source for this correction, you are welcome to be bold and edit the article yourself, citing your source. I see you have linked to a US patent, which certainly seems to be a reliable source, and certainly relates to a lead-acid battery (though it says it was issued in 1975, not 1972). I do not have the expertise to say whether or not it is (or is relevant to) a VRLA battery, and it may be that you need something further to establish that relationship; or it may be obvious to somebody who knows about battery technology.

The other information you mention should have a reference if it is to be added to the article.

If you prefer not to edit the article yourself, its talk page is the best place to post the information about the patent. --ColinFine (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to find icons?

It should be simple, but it's not. How do I locate galleries of the common icons used in templates on discussion pages? I searched Wikimedia and Wikipedia help in vain for a couple of hours.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 16:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia:List of Discussion Templates what you need? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are also the messages at WP:TTALK. Clicking on the images in the templates will bring you to the corresponding image page. Hope this helps. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above page aggregates many, but if you want to know a methodology to actually hunt down where a particular icon is with others, then here's a not-so-simple explanation. Most of the free media content used on Wikipedia is hosted at the Wikimedia Commons, not on Wikipedia, which includes most if not all of these "icons". When you see a discussion template and click edit this page, you will then see the name of the image file used in the template or possibly have to go the the template page itself (if its not substituted). You can then take that name and navigate to the image's page, which will have the text "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below", with "description page there" linking to its Commons page. That commons page will inevitably be categorized so, just look at the categories it is in.

So for example, say you see template uw-test1 on a user's talk page. If its substituted (as it should be) you would see in edit mode that the icon it uses (

) is called Image:Nuvola apps important.svg, or if not substituted you would go to the page for the template itself, {{uw-test1}} then click edit to see the name of the image file. You would then drop the image's name into the search box and find this page; then click on the Commons link to bring you here; which in turn would show you that it is in this Commons Category, and that that category is a subcategory of this one.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. In some ways I'm almost glad there wasn't a simple answer because it means I wasn't just being a sleep-deprived moron when I found nothing after so much searching. The tip about the categories is a good one, as is the advice about stopping at every icon I think I might use at some stage to ID what and where it is. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 00:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hogging the sandbox

Hello. I'm a bit concerned about a user hounding WP:SANDBOX. They're undoing all other edits to the page rather quickly in order to keep their version - an old, now deleted Wikipedia article there. The actual damage is rather minimal but a sandbox that constantly looks like an article is unwelcoming, as is having one's sandbox edits reverted within seconds. Should something be done? Zakhalesh (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have been warned by several users, and has desisted for now (has not edited in 45 minutes or so). If it fires up again, let us know... --Jayron32 17:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! Cheers! Zakhalesh (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best way to work on a draft page/facelift for existing WikiProject?

For the last month or so, I have been learning on how things work on Wikipedia. I now feel that I would like to at least make a facelift of an existing WikiProject, in this case, World's Oldest People. I feel that both the project home page and subpages can be dramatically improved via better categorization of longevity areas and articles (both in article mainspace and in project subpages). There are several WikiProjects out there that have amazing categorizations and formatting such as Star Trek. Kudos to those projects!

My question is how best do I present a possible draft of the facelift of the entire WikiProject? In my userspace subpage such as CalvinTy/WOP for example (not existing yet)? Or put it under the WikiProject subpage, such as World's Oldest People/Draft as a fictitious example? I have looked at how moves work but they typically talk about situations where userspace draft articles are appropriately moved into article mainspace when they are ready -- not much on WikiProjects themselves.

For me, several concerns with either idea above is that if I put in my userspace, I'm not certain how the move would be integrated, or usurped, for lack of a better word, into the Project's home page that already exist? (of course, only after I bring this up in discussion soon, and get consensus -- or at least, lack of objections due to the small membership of the project). Alternatively, I could propose a new WikiProject with a similar goal, i.e. Human Longevity, and then work on the parallel WikiProject's draft/format until there is a consensus on which WikiProject to keep, if not both.

If I make a draft/facelift under the current WOP WikiProject, the advantage is that project members can provide feedback to my draft, while the disadvantage is that for the first efforts on my part, I rather to create a 50,000 foot point of view first and get the categories down before getting any feedback (suggesting that my userspace may be better suited).

Thoughts from anyone, but in particular, those who work extensively with WikiProjects would be most appreciated. Cheers, CalvinTy 17:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not particularly familiar with WikiProject organization but WP:COUNCIL and WP:COUNCIL/G might be of some help. Haven't read through it though. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that the starting point would be to discuss your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People? - David Biddulph (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Toshio, thanks for the links. I must have glanced at these links in the past, but hadn't done so recently.

@David, that is my intention. I felt that I wanted to discuss my thoughts to the project by presenting the concept visually by showing my draft to the project members. For that, I needed to see how/where I could make such a draft first. Does that make sense? Thanks, CalvinTy 18:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox 4 login

I check the remember me for 30 days box, but each time I go in, Wikipedia makes me log in. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have Firefox clearing cookies each time you close it. Wikipedia stores the login information in cookies and if you clear them you lose the login information. GB fan (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had it set to accept cookies for the session. When I changed it to allow all the time, it fixed the problem. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use images

May I use the following images in an educational course (taken from space elevator, Wikipedia)?

Wikipedia 220px-SpaceElevatorClimbing wikipedia 646px-Space_elevator_balance_of_forces_svg Wikipedia space elevator 300px-Space_elevator_structural_diagram_sv

98.94.134.80 (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you click the images in question, it will bring you to an image information page which descrbes the licensing of the images. If you have more questions, you should read Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content#Images and other media and Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. --Jayron32 19:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello there. I collect movies and I notice that you no longer show "Followed By" on a film page. For example, when viewing Star Wars film info it would show "Followed by Empire Strikes Back", etc. This was very useful in finding out what movies had sequels or movies related to it. Do you think you could look at adding that back to movie pages? Thanks for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.152.101.229 (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fields were removed about a month ago, following an extensive discussion at Template talk:Infobox film. If you would like to read about the process whereby the information was removed, you can read it there. If you would like to comment and request that they be added back, you can also do that at Template talk:Infobox film. --Jayron32 21:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMdb

Is the Internet Movie Database, as a general rule of thumb, considered a reliable source and/or reference? Buster Seven Talk 20:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a page for that! – ukexpat (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find technical info, e.g. credits, release date, etc., to be pretty reliable, but we still don't cite it as a reference. Under no circumstances, however, are the biographies and trivia to be trusted on their own. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks X 2..Buster Seven Talk 21:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Van

Ava Van is a beauty queen who won Miss Seattle Teen USA in 2007 and competed in the Miss Washington Teen USA 2008 pageant.

Ava is of Vietnamese and of Chinese decent. She graduated Lindbergh High School in Renton, Washington where she was class president and captain of her fastpitch team. She was top five students in her junior class in addition to representing her class as top 12 seniors.

Today, Ava is a photographer at Ava Van Photography and pursuing her dreams to become a TV reporter. In 2010, she interned at the KING 5 (NBC affiliate). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.233.180.192 (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you are trying to create an article, so please read the following:

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

You will need to first register an account, which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles. Once you have registered, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is available to walk you through creating an article, but you will need to create an account to use it. if you don't wish to do so, you can submit a proposal for an article at Articles for Creation. – ukexpat (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article incorrectly PRODded

Re IAR 36 - an editor has attempted to WP:PROD this article, but failed because they put a space at the start of the line, and also forgot one of the two closing braces. Should I (a) remove the space and add the missing brace so that the PROD takes hold; (b) remove the {{subst:proposed deletion}} entirely (would this count as a disputed PROD?); (c) send it to WP:AFD? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest fixing the Prod unless you disagree with the reasoning for the Prod. GB fan (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) IMHO, just reinstate the PROD. Then everyone gets that neat 7 day period to raise any objections, and no-one loses. You can also second it, or properly contest it, as you see fit. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 21:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEIGHLEY WIKIPEDIA PAGE

Dear Wikipedia,

Just recently on Thursday March 31st 2011 when I was reading the wikipedia page about Keighley West Yorkshire I noticed that there was some information about the supermarkets that are in Kieghley town cenre, It said that that Asda opneed in August 2009, but I know this infromation is incorrect, because I applied for a job at Asda and I know that Asda actually opened on Monday July 13th 2009, I also tried to create an account with wikipedia but it would not let me do so, so can this information about the opening date about the Asda store in Keighley.

Yours faithfully, Janeyt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.252.28 (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(q formatted by another editor) IMHO the reference to an ASDA store should probably be removed from the article completely; or, failing that, any specific date is like to be unnecessary. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 21:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, why not just "opened in 2009"? – ukexpat (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources confirm it was July 2009 but the month is not needed and I have changed it to "opened in 2009".[2] You could have edited the page without an account. However, what exactly went wrong when you tried to create one? Can you try again and copy an error message here if you get one? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing help required.

Could you please advise - after adding an entry to an article I have tried to include a reference. When following the Help instructions for entering the appropriate code it places and in-text [1] however there are already 15 references against this article. Clearly I'm going astray somewhere and advice would be most welcome. The page I have added edited is 'Darlington' (Co. Durham, UK) with the main entry referring to the Library within the Culture section.

In addition, I was not aware of the edit summary requirement until after making edit entries - is it possible to do this after the event?

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.148.55 (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You added the reference to your user talk page. You should add it instead to the article after the fact that the reference verifies. —teb728 t c 23:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC) I copied it to the article for you, here. Is that the place you intended? —teb728 t c 23:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - many thanks. I did actually attempt putting it there on the live page but in preview it showed as [1] as opposed to [13] therefore I didn't save the page. I have another reference to add so I'll try again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.148.55 (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you are seeing is a limitation of the Wiki editor. If you are only editing one section, the editing software does not know about the rest of the article, so starts with [1] at the beginning of the section.

The article you are interested in seems to use the {{cite xxx}} family of templates. Ideally you would use those templates to give full information about the sources, rather than just a URL. That way, if the URL goes dead, the description may allow editors to figure out where the source has moved to, or where the information might be found in a paper version of the source. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]