Help desk
< February 13	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 15 >

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.

February 14

Would it be possible to delete an article I gave the wrong title to?

Hello, I'm very new to the wikipedia community, and I was wondering if there is an way to delete an article. I searched for "Latin american cities by GDP", and upon finding that it didn't yet exist, I decided to translate the Spanish page. Unfortunately, the spanish page is a ranking of South American cities by GDP, so I was wondering if there would be a way to delete the improperly titled article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_american_cities_by_GDP. I have created a new one that is properly entitled "South American cities by GDP" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_American_cities_by_GDP . I know this was a faux pas, because after a bit of searching I found out that there is a way to rename an article, but I can't seem to find a way to delete one. Cheers, Dmerker (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPEEDY for the criteria for speedy deletion. This case would fall under G7, "Author requests deletion". In order to request deletion, you delete all article content and place the template {{Db-g7}} on the page. — Eru·tuon 08:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted Latin american cities by GDP. You were the only contributor so in this case it was OK to make a copy and delete the original. If there had been other contributors then the page should have been moved to satisfy the license conditions for credit to contributors. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing statistics

Hi

I am writing articles on Swan 36 and Swan 65 sailing yachts and a while ago the statistics went missing. Why is this and can it be repaired?

Sami Lehtonen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sami P. Lehtonen (talk • contribs) 11:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sami P. Lehtonen. Which statistics is it you're missing? The articles themselves don't seem to have changed recently so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Sam Walton (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Oh I see what you mean, you can't see some of the information you placed in the infobox. Infoboxes work by filling out specific fields in a template, in this case Template:Infobox Sailboat Specifications. If you click that link you'll be able to see the fields which are allowed; you can't add more by simply writing them in the article. Sam Walton (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

signature

I use four tildes, but my signature does not work correctly, what should I do? M.Sakhaie 13:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Sakhaie (talk • contribs)

I replied at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 134#signature. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to fix recent edit box font problem (Windows 2003, Vista, 7, 8 ,8.1)

After security update 3013455 people may have some text quality degradation in edit screens. The problem occurs on systems that are running Windows 2003, Vista, 7, 8 and 8.1 . The solution is easy.

Start->Control Panel->Programs and Features->View Installed Updates
Give PC time to load them all
Then..Search for KB3013455 (search box is top right of window).
Then..Right-click then select Uninstall
This requires restart of your system (will ask automatically)

-- Moxy (talk)

This is a help desk for among others clueless users. Your recommendation to uninstall a security fix to bypass some font issue with Wikipedia is IMHO on the wrong side of WP:BOLD. I have the fix on my Windows 7 box, there are no obvious problems, and so far Microsoft only admits that there is a font problem with older versions (notably Vista), cf. KB 3013455. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing op responses.

I have not used Wikipedia Reference Pages for ages, but recall being able to edit any appropriate articles by hitting the associated edit button. But now that word does not appear. So where has it gone? Clearly, other users are able to do it so clearly it must be my fault?~ 92.239.221.31 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some refdesks have been semi-protected. See discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Semi-Protection. —E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that you are asking about the Reference Desks. You are editing from an IP address rather than using a registered account, and, as another unregistered editor mentions, some of the Reference Desks are temporarily semi-protected due to disruptive editing from IP addresses. It is not your "fault" that the Edit button is not displayed so much as that of other unregistered editors, but it is a problem that you can resolve by creating an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a problem that I could resolve by creating an account (for me:71.20.250.51), since this is a problem noted by 92.239.221.31. Btw, one of the reasons that I choose not to register is to experience Wikipedia from an IP's perspective. —Try it! —E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, you subject yourself to unnecessary restrictions if you want to edit Wikipedia as an unregistered editor, and you can still read it. So why not use an account? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That means you're more exposed than if you had a registered account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically perhaps, one reason that I abandoned my account (created 18 December 2006) is to reduce my "exposure". — Preceding ironic comment added by 71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ironically, as an account hides where your IP originates, unless you were to give yourself a user ID of JoeSchmoeFromRichmond. And we're assuming that you're playing by the rules otherwise - no socking for a banned account, no open proxy, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do understand the reason for partially protecting certain pages, but cannot help wondering if that doesn't have the effect of folk like myself thinking that Wikipedia is a bit of a closed book, reserved only for "the likes of us" if you see what I mean . I mean Wikepidea is not the only source nowadays of online information. 92.239.221.31 (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia partially protects pages when it is the easiest way to preserve their accuracy, because anyone, including unregistered editors, can read any part of Wikipedia. Is there a reason why you choose not to create an account (or to ignore your account) and then to complain about the limitations? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia has 24 million user accounts. Some are abandoned or have the same owner but it's hardly a small closed club, and the large majority of pages can be edited by unregistered users. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, every time the idea of stopping IP's from editing comes up as a proposal (see WP:Perennial proposals#Prohibit anonymous users from editing) the majority is against it. Britmax (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refuting Deletion

My page has been entered into discussion for deletion. Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atholl_Highlanders_(USA)_Pipes_%26_Drums_of_Stone_Mountain Supposedly on basis that it is "a non-notable pipe band." I've looked through info on refuting this and it is very vague. The page is off a pipe band in Georgia that is included on the page about bands, Clan Murray and The Atholl Highlander's Scotland. Any info would be appreciated. Piping Bear (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Atholl Highlanders (USA) Pipes & Drums of Stone Mountain. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not provide information on notability of the band, in the sense used by Wikipedia, which is articles in reliable secondary sources mentioning the band. If you want the article kept, you should add references, such as to newspaper articles about the band or its performances. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BAND for the guidelines on notability of bands. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct addition of reference supporting my edit to the <in popular culture> section in the Button Gwinnett article

Button Gwinnett. I have tried over and over again to add the reference to my edit, without success. Please help!--Geordie abroad (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is Button Gwinnett. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the current text is that you didn't enclose the reference with the tags <ref> and </ref> . (I assume that you are asking about today's edit, not the one that you made a few days ago that was reverted because it was unsourced. I see that you are trying to correct that problem by adding the source.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the referencing in what I hope is the approved style. I have no opinion on

whether the item is too trivial to include even in an "In popular culture" section
whether a book can be cited as evidence of what itself says (after all, it's not a secondary source)

Maproom (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]