Help desk
< May 2	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 4 >

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 3

Can we use Wikipedia text for analysis?

Hi,

I am with a research center of a non-profit public university in US. I want to use some Wikipedia text for our text analysis (my research work relates to finding/using the frequency of English words in large text databases such as Wikipedia). This work is university research and not commercial research.

Can we use Wikipedia text for such analysis? Thanks a bunch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.47.102.51 (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REUSE. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...so, yes - as long as you say where it came from. Also, to get copies of all the text for your work, see WP:DUMP. Chzz ► 08:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Hello

I have authorisation to update some content with some external links

All links:

Hanson Brothers Facebook OFFICIAL]
Hanson Brothers on Twitter OFFICIAL]
Hanson Brothers Website OFFICIAL]

Are only being applied to the following: Jeff Carlson, Steve Carlson, and Dave Hanson Slap Shot (movie), Slap Shot2 (movie), and Slap Shot3 (movie)

There is no intentional spamming, and that these above are the only pages of concern.

Yours R Jones Behalf of Jeff Carlson, Steve Carlson, and Dave Hanson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ra2009 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are working for these people, you have a major conflict of interest and should not be editing these articles. Additionally, external links to twitter, facebook, and the like do not meet our standards for useful and appropriate external links. So by our standards, the addition of these links IS spamming. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that "authorisation" from somebody outside Wikipedia is completely irrelevant. If information has been stated in reliable published sources, it may go into Wikipedia irrespective of whether the subject 'authorises' it or not. Contrariwise, if it has not appeared in reliable independent published sources, it may not go into Wikipedia, however much the subject would like it to appear. --ColinFine (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even I attached the reference links to the content, why was that still altered or deleted by others?

Anything I can do to avoid this situation appearing again and again? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.178.0.214 (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it would help if you could tell us which page you were referring to. Many times, users revert edits which are contrary to policy, or which do not add anything new to the article, or in case of pages which have reached high quality (Featured articles) for not getting consensus on the talk page before making the edit. This may be done in some cases for referenced edits too. Each case of reversion is unique and I could only tell you why after seeing the edit and its reversion.

Don't be discouraged :). Do keep at it. Its best to start with a low profile page and add one referenced fact at a time. I sincerely advise you to register, it will then be possible for other editors to post messages to you and you can learn about Wikipedia and editing effectively. Hope you stick around. Happy editing. AshLin (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Yeung> and tell me what its all about. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.178.0.214 (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content on Wikipedia is in a constant state of flux. Our articles are never finished; material you add will be built upon and developed by others. Sometimes you may agree that the alterations improve the content; other times you may not. But there is nothing that can be done to prevent material being altered; it is one of our foundational principles. That's why it says at the bottom of every edit page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." (See particularly point three of Wikipedia:Five pillars.)

If you disagree with changes made, you have the option to discuss and persuade others. (See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. In this case, you added a great deal of subsections to the article ([1]). The editor who altered the material explained his reasons in edit summary ([2]). If you'd like more explanation of what he meant, you might want to approach him at his user talk page and politely ask him for more information. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

0.02 from an disinterested Hong Konger: Dr Yeung is per se too controversial to edit without impunity.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 12:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Landy Sheridan

Wickipedia Italy and wickipedia Japan have articles about Sonia Landy Sheridan, but there is none in English. In the English language Wickipedia there is a reference to me and Generative Systems, but that is not sufficient. Can you put a translation of the Italian or the Japanese items into the English Wickipedia? Sonia Landy Sheridan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniasheridan (talk • contribs) 03:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no such things as "Wickipedia Italy" and "wickipedia Japan". There are, of course, Italian-language and Japanese-language Wikipedias. For what do you believe yourself to be notable? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles at it:Sonia Landy Sheridan or ja:Sonia Landy Sheridan do not exist. —teb728 t c 06:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And please do read Wikipedia:Autobiography.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 15:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading Image

How do I put an Image on a Page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.17.120.142 (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Files. If the the image you want to use is not already hosted here, you need to create an account and login in order to upload it. —teb728 t c 07:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ransomes & Rapier publications

The Narrow Gauge Railway Society has published a book on R & R locomotives (steam and diesel). Can this be added to the list of publications available? 89.243.224.249 (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page isn't protected, so you should be able to do the edit yourself. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how i add my grand parents

i want to add my grand farthers in wikipedia they also have some contribution in wikipedia. wts tha procedure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.153.115.132 (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot add your grandparents yourself, because you have a conflict of interest. If your grandparents are notable, as defined by Wikipedia:Notability (people), then you can request that someone create an article about them at Wikipedia:Requested articles, so that someone else may create an article about them. However you're going to have to provide their names, and some sources (books, newspapers, magazines, journals, etc) where your Grandparents are the major subject of those sources, so that people have some material to work with. If there's not a lot written in books, newspapers, magazines, etc. about your grandparents' life, however, they probably don't merit a Wikipedia article about them. --Jayron32 15:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't edit/correct a misspelled title in a reference.

Resolved

In the article "Liquid crystal display" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCD), the References No. 11 reads "^ "Optical Paterning". Nature. 1996-08-22. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v382/n6593/pdf/382666c0.pdf. Retrieved 2008-06-13." I was puzzled by the apparently misspelled "Paterning," so I checked the reference and found that the correct title should be "Optical Patterning" — using correct spelling.

I attempted to edit the page to correct the spelling in the reference title, but found no way to edit references, as choosing Edit for that section did not display anything other than "{{Reflist}}" and I don't know how to proceed from there, if that's even possible. So I leave correcting the spelling in reference 11's title to someone more powerful than I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdypediac (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 May 2011

The reference-text itself is actually in the article where the numbered footnote marker is, not at the end where the ref-text actually displays. DMacks (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A quick way of finding where the reference is actually located in the body of the text is to click the tiny caret ^ beside each. Once you get there, simply edit that section and find the text written within <ref> and </ref> tags. They are placed exactly where those tiny numbers are (e.g.^[1]), the numbers that connect to the previously mentioned carets. Hope that made sense LOL. And yeah, do read referencing for beginners.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 16:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now Chzz ► 06:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a certain timeline template...

I remember that somewhere there is a template that lets you make a visual timeline that has several different bars. I'm trying to improve the article List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico by court and I want to be able to reflect the changing composition of the court using different overlapping bars in different rows. Thanks in advance if you can remember the template I'm thinking of! Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Graphical timeline}}? -- John of Reading (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it makes horizontal lines and it is way simpler. I think there are just bars of a solid color that can be labeled with text. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was it the <timeline> extension, as used on Template:Timeline ALP Leaders, for example? See also: Help:EasyTimeline syntax — Bility (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was it - probably something more like Template:Timeline of Major Record Labels. It looks a bit too complicated to deal with, though -- I may just hack up something like this.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help correctly formatting italic title (with brackets)

Resolved

– Just discovered and ~~stole~~ borrowed the resolved template from the next subject. Amazing!

Yes, well, in the course of my reading I wandered over to Rada (fiqh) and wikified the title and a couple of other elements to comply with MOS:Ety and WP:ITALICTITLE, initially I tried using the {{italic title}} template but this resulted in Rada (fiqh), so I did some reading and came back with DISPLAYTITLE which is fine and gives Rada (fiqh). So both of the Arabic words are in italics but so are the brackets and I would assume that they should be straight. Although I have read through several sections on titles, boldface and so on, I can find no specific reference to this title format.

Should the brackets be straight?
And if so, how does one operate this particular piece of wikimagic?

Thanks in advance Captain Screebo (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Rada'' (''fiqh'')}} would do what I think you're talking about. Can't say whether that's the right way to display the title though. — Bility (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks, that's what I thought but wierdly when I did preview with this setup, the preview title was normal font, whereas if I did {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Rada (fiqh)''}} I got the full-on all-italicised title in the preview. Some sort of software thing I guess. Oh and by the way it works, I have modified the title in question. Captain Screebo (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with design

Resolved

– Thank you! You are amazing!

hello,

please have a look at User:GreatOrangePumpkin/Sandbox6; why I can not click "User:Tiptoety" and the green tick (with link parameter)? Why if I move them, so that they are somewhere outside the table, I am able to click them; what's the problem? And how do I move the hidden template a little bit to the left. Please help. Thank you.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 16:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've positioned the Tiptoety link so it is appearing behind your userboxes. Where are you trying to put it? — Bility (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok look one more time; why is it so?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's so because you've positioned the link 245 pixels from the right side of the page and 710 pixels from the top of the page. Depending on the resolution of your screen and how your browser is sized, it could show up anywhere, which is the downside of using absolute positioning like that. For your other concerns, I can click the green checkmark and it takes me to your userboxes and you can move the hidden template by changing the width to 95% from 100% in the style parameter. If you say where you're trying to put the checkmark and Tiptoety link, I could probably help you out a bit more. — Bility (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; so position=absolute is not a good idea... can you tell me a better one, so that all screens shows the same? I see the tick at the right corner of the babel and "Desing by..." at the right corner at the bottom inside the table. The position is great, but it must be viewable exactly the same like on my screen. My screen resolution is 1440 x 900 px. Look at this pic I uploaded.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does this look? — Bility (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit--What happened to the "Cite" menu?

Resolved

I noticed that there was a cite menu on the edit page for articles (next to the drop-down menus for Advanced, Special Characters, Help) where I could add and format references correctly and easily insert named references. It really helped, because it allowed me to easily add info for a citation and, best of all, PREVIEW it. But now the Cite menu is gone. This is really unfortunate; it really helped with adding and formatting citations correctly; it also establishes a uniform system for how they look. I do not see why the Cite menu got removed. What happened to it? Why was it deleted? Please tell me why this wonderful addition to Wikipedia editing was deleted.

Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It still works for me. Try restarting your browser or purging your cache (in Firefox: Tools>Advanced>Network>Offline storage>Clear now).--Obsidi♠n^Soul 18:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it still appears at my computer at home that has Firefox, but not on another computer w/ IE. Seems strange why that other computer won't show the Cite menu. Maybe it's just because Internet Explorer SUCKS! --Compdude123 (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check the version you should see and ask on the proper talk page; see Wikipedia:RefToolbar. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion sorting

I'm attempting to use the Delsort tool to sort Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holmes County District Public Library into the "libraries and museums" and "Ohio" lists, but the tool won't work. It keeps saying "Can not determine article name for "Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Holmes_County_District_Public_Library", aborting: Error". How do I fix this so that I can sort it and the last article I nominated for deletion into the appropriate lists? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, fixed it. It appears that the deletion sorting tool doesn't work in Safari browsers, cause I was able to use the tool once I got on a computer that had Firefox. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Court of Human rights (page or disambiguation or nothing?)

...there are numerous organizations that go by that name, such as the United Nations (student) World Court of Human Rights, and others, various websites etc.

One question is, do these see themselves as separate organizations, hence in need of a disambiguation page. If they are not different entities, would it be then an article that is called for about 'the' world court of human rights.

It would of course be convenient if there were only one article about 'the' world court of human rights, but I am not sure if this is just laziness/negligence on my part.... Createangelos (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages should only be created if there are multiple (3 or more) articles that could be referred to by a name. I can not find 3 articles that can be referred to as World Court of Human rights. I can't find even one article that is called that. Do you have specific articles in mind that can be called World Court of Human rights? GB fan (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for your kind answer. Thinking now... Createangelos (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is there anything of less status than an article, and less definite such as a 'discussion wiki' or something, which could discuss the question of starting an article or not? In other words something less stressful and awful than the arguments about deletion etc. In other words, no one and certainly not me is going to start such an article and face having arguments and disputes about its meaning. Is there any kinder forum for discussion the existence or non existence of universally agreed principles? Some things are tautologies, such as that this text is made of ascii characters. I am not talking about research or 'philosophy' but about how we agree that a disambiguation page isn't appropriate, here on the help desk, and this could be annoying to continue on the help desk but I am not sure if I am completely satisfied by the guidance you've given up to now. Createangelos (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, maybe it's not annoying to discuss this on the help desk. It isn't annoying to me but the concern is that I worry that if may be annoying to other people and also I worry about things like possible automatic deletion of eg the answer you gave above. Createangelos (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant wikiproject's talkpage would be the best place for discussing something like this, since you can find editors who will be interested in the subject. Try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights. Chamal ^T•C 10:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights is great, thx! I'll go over there. Bye Createangelos (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic wikilinking to an articles AfD discussion

I am in the process of creating a talk page template. I want it to have a wikilink to the AfD discussion of the article, when it is placed on that articles talk page. How can this be done? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}]] do the trick? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs)

Yes, this seems to work. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished the template. It is at User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Template:Inherent notability. However I have difficulties in finding suitable categories for this template. What categories would be appropriate for this template? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it's in your userspace? None, since draft templates in userspace shouldn't be in categories for "live" templates, for the same reasons that userspace draft articles shouldn't be in categories for mainspace articles: because it mixes things up. Did you see the suggestion at the discussion on the same point above that you should raise this suggestion at WP:VPR before going live with such a template? I'd suggest doing that, and getting input on the need for / wording of such a template, before worrying about categories for it. If not, it wouldn't surprise me if your template ended up at WP:TFD quickly. (Three quick issues that occur to me: you say that "consensus has determined", as if that's a once-and-for-all result when the reality is that consensus can change; you link to an essay, WP:INH, which might also raise some eyebrows; your template might work better if it allowed easy linking to a related page's AfD, or to a talk page discussion, or to a discussion on another talk page, or a discussion on a WikiProject talk page, rather than assuming that notability will only have been determined at an AfD for the article in question.) --Bencherlite ^Talk 23:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:HD#How to handle inherently notable one line stubs?. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you suggesting that I read something that I've obviously already read, because I link to it in my reply to you? (i.e. "Did you see the suggestion at the discussion on the same point above that you should raise this suggestion at WP:VPR before going live with such a template?") --Bencherlite ^Talk 23:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that, and the template already does link to the AfD discussion. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you are going with that template, but I would reconsider going live with it, at any point. Perhaps you could explain the purpose of the template and what it is hoping to accomplish? --Jayron32 00:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My explanation is at WP:VPR#Template for articles inherenting notability. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you just put {{Old AfD multi}} on the article's talk page to take care of this? GB fan (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This template is useless for this purpose in my opinion, as anybody could put it on any article without any evidence for its appropriateness. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what stops someone from putting your new template on any article without any evidence for its appropriateness? GB fan (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template I created contains a wikilink to the AfD discussion, which will be a redlink if this AfD discussion doesn't exist. At least that makes an inappropriate placement easier to recognize. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this template would be quite controversial; it seems to assert a claim to keep the article based on an essay, which is not supported by policy. It is highly unlikely that an AfD will show clear keep based solely on the concept of inherent notability (and, if it does, something has gone wrong). The policy is, that If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. - WP:V. The guideline is, that something is deemed worthy of an article if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - WP:GNG. Both of those are far more important than an essay; see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I'd definitely suggest discussion before making it live. Chzz ► 06:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this template is appropriate for articles like for example Der König verneigt sich und tötet. The result of the AfD discussion was , that this book is notable under WP:NBOOK#Criteria No 5 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Der König verneigt sich und tötet). Therefore it seems, this article inherents its notability through the fact, that its author has received a Nobel in Literature. Since it is impossible for a reader to verify this, because of the article lacking sources confirming this, there should be at least an explanation why the subject of this article is considered notable enough for having an article in Wikipedia. And thats what this template does. Otherwise the arguments brought up in the AfD discussion by those supporting to keep this article would be totally unfounded and I would have been right in my decision to delete the article. If I am missing something here, I welcome any clarifying explanations. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This confusion of "inherent" and "inherit" makes this proposal unsalvagable. While inherent notability and inherited notability are completely different things, neither of them exists.—Kww(talk) 14:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should get rid of that criterion at WP:BK and like many people I do not believe in any form of inherited or inherent notability (they are not the same thing). Unfortunately, I wrote WP:BK and even that that criterion, but my beliefs on notability have evolved greatly since then and I would get rid of all of the subject specific notability guidelines entirely in favor of just the GNG.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal by Fuhghettaboutit to remove subject specific notability guidelines Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is the wrong venue for such a proposal, for one, but what always gets me is the belief that passing WP:GNG is, in itself, justification for creating an article. I would support removal of all SNGs that attempt to bypass the GNG, but there is a pressing need for guidelines about when it is more appropriate to insert material into existing articles rather than create standalone articles.—Kww(talk) 14:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh certainly, no proposal was intended, at least by me in this forum, and I doubt such a proposal could ever succeed without quite a shift in the culture first, so I would not bother proposing it elsewhere. Regarding your observation, passing the GNG is a threshold, not an entitlement and just because that threshold is met does not mean an article is warranted. In that regard, WP:NOT is vastly underused.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for example "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (see WP:IINFO). I think this also means Wikipedia is not a collection of non-notable facts, like for example in Der König verneigt sich und tötet, which nevertheless is kept because of the fact that its author has received a nobel price in literature, which simply seems to negate WP:IINFO. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]