Help desk
< February 6	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 8 >

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 7

Consistent Misspelling

Hi. Although no longer so amazing as everyone has become so dumb, the disease name "Downes Syndrome" is not shown in Wikipedia and even WORD's dictionary does not list it. Inasmuch as it is a man's name, substitute spelling like "Down Syndrome," "Downs Syndrome" and Down's Syndrome are simply unacceptable evidence of ignorance. 0— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.112.192 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 7 February 2015‎

There is no "e" in John Langdon Down. MarnetteD|Talk 04:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Any issues regarding an article is best raised at the talk page of the article, in this case Talk:Down Syndrome. You'll need reliable sources to back up your claim. That aside, Down Syndrome (or Down's Syndrome) is spelled as such because the name of the physician was John Langdon Down, and the spelling we use is the same as the one used in the medical field.--Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 04:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely unacceptable evidence of ignorance. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stunning. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an entry to disambugation page

Pardon my newbie ignornance, but I want to add an entry to an existing disambugation list:

add http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erle_Cocke,_Jr.

to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocke

I guess the entry would be something like:

Egbert Erle Cocke, Jr. (1921-2000), WWII combat vet, Natl. Commander of American Legion,and intl. banking consultant/lobbyist.

Shouldn't be too tough. ;)

Bane of Glaurung (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I shortened up the description. You could have done that yourself, though, I just added this: [1] Rwessel (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I went back in and added year of birth and death. Bane of Glaurung (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

editing the article on RaheQamar

Hi, I would like to enhance the article with loads of more information to increase it's notability. We have our own pictures as well as references and external links. 1) Is there any particular easy to understand tutorial on how to improve the layout of the article and add images? 2) How do I communicate with HausterBot/User ? I received some talk that the article may be deleted if not updated soon. I have updated and shall be updating further weekly now. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohdify (talk • contribs) 10:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Article layout should be modeled on other articles of a similar nature at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight. The guidelines for assessment of Spaceflight-related articles an be found here. Tips on image formatting and use can be found by navigating the menu at Help:Image tutorial.

2 - HasteurBot is operated by User:Hasteur and he can be reached at User talk:Hasteur.

I hope that helps. -Thibbs (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding information to an article will never affect its notability because notability resides almost entirely in what other unconnected people have written about it. If a subject is actually notable, all the article needs to do is cite the independent reliable sources upon which this is based; if it is not, then no amount of work on the article will make it so.

Having said that, once you've established that the subject is notable, you might want to look at User:Yunshui:images for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actor credited under different name

How do you correctly mention that an actor/actress in a film was credited under a different name than being rememberd for? I'm afraid I didn't it do right here, but

Dorothy Bridges as Dorothy Simspon as Olivia Sutterlee

would have hardly been better. --KnightMove (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could say:

Dorothy Bridges (credited as Dorothy Simpson) as Olivia Sutterlee

or

Dorothy Bridges (née Simpson) as Olivia Sutterlee

if you want to show that "Simpson" is her maiden name instead of an AKA.

Another way to handle it would be by creating a redirect from Dorothy Simpson (actress) to Dorothy Bridges and then just saying:

Dorothy Simpson as Olivia Sutterlee
(here you would pipe the link as [[Dorothy Simpson (actress)|Dorothy Simpson]])

Readers clicking the "Dorothy Simpson" link will find themselves at the Dorothy Bridges article with an explanation for the name change. The instructions for redirecting can be found at WP:REDIRECT. -Thibbs (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the pipe would be [[Dorothy Bridges (actress)|Dorothy Simpson]])? Britmax (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well use [[Dorothy Bridges|Dorothy Simpson]] in that case, but from KnightMove's link above it looked like the question was how to avoid that... Creating a redirect at Dorothy Simpson (actress) could potentially be used to see how many incoming links this term has and per WP:NOTBROKEN it could be used as an argument for renaming the article down the road. I guess the answer is that there are many options here. -Thibbs (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a redirect helps, but I've changed it to

Dorothy Bridges as Oliva Satterlee (née and credited as Dorothy Simpson)

and placed a template in Dorothy Simpson

Feedback & improvement welcome. --KnightMove (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i want to add information on wikipedia

what can i do to add information on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitedmissionboard (talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a welcome template to your talk page. I hope you find it useful. Britmax (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it. I think you are a spammer. Britmax (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FUR upload

An editor wants to use a logo in an article, but it is not free. I plan to suggest uploading as a non-free logo with a FUR. It used to be that when you uploaded an image to Wikipedia, the wizard asked if you wanted to do an FUR and prompted you. I just uploaded File:University_of_Pennsylvania_Libraries_resized.jpg but did not get the questions. Is there a way to do that, or do I have to manually fill out the FUR templates?--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you're looking for? -Thibbs (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. I looked at that, saw the Commons image and rejected it, too quickly, I guess. Thanks.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an article

I am asking this on behalf of another editor. An editor has created a draft in his sandbox of an article which is really a rewriting of an already existing article. The title of the draft article is the same as the title of the existing article. Can this draft be uploaded into the mainspace by copy-pasting and simply deleting the original article? I would have thought so, but have learned that practically nothing can be taken for granted in Wikipedia! ~ P-123 (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to look at the current article and at the draft before offering an opinion. However, you refer to copy-pasting a draft over an existing article. Copy-pasting is in general deprecated because it loses the history. If the draft article should replace the existing article (and that is an "if"), then it should be done by moving the draft to the article rather than by copy-pasting. What article, anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon: I did not realise until after writing the above that the editor has already done what looks like a copy-paste of the draft and deleted the main article, but I cannot be sure. What is certain is that the edit history of the draft has not been copied over. The article is Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya and the editor who created the draft is User:M.Sakhaie. I have not been in touch with this editor yet. (I was asked by another editor to copy-edit this article and it is going to be extremely difficult!). The wikilink is to the article in the mainspace, and the link for the sandbox draft you will find at the beginning of this extract from a fellow-editor's talk page. Thanks very much for looking into this. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the editor replaced the article by making multiple edits to it today, not by a single copy-paste. I agree that the article needs copy-editing, and have tagged it as needing copy-editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon: So I assume the absence of the draft's edit history in the main article's edit history doesn't matter. I got the impression from WP:MOVE - "Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so fragments the edit history" - that it would need to be transferred over. Thanks for tagging the article. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a copy-paste move, which, as you note, is deprecated. He apparently moved multiple pieces from the draft to the article, which is all right. (The content of the article isn't all right, in that the English is not good, but that is why it has been tagged.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon: As my next task is to copy-edit the article, I was far too distracted by trying to understand it that I didn't study the two versions and notice that it was not a copy-paste move! (Although I am not very good with wikitext at the best of times, tbh). I keep saying thanks, but thanks. :) ~ P-123 (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent IP user (73.171.187.134) vandalizing article

Please can an administrator look into administering a block on IP user: 73.171.187.134. As you will see from the history of the Green Day discography article, he or she is continuously vandalizing the page by putting in false chart positions that are not as per the sources. His or her edits have been reverted on many occasions by other users.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected the article for a while to encourage talk page discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't think the IP user is interested in discussion.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True but we must assume good faith and give them a chance, I did leave a message on the IPs talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC

Hi, it would appear that the IP User has reverted back to using username: User talk:S10787091, because if you check that user's contributions, he has made the same edits to the same articles as the IP address userQuintusPetillius (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Get Image to Appear in InfoBox

I am trying to edit the Tracey Scott Wilson page and I have uploaded her image to Wikimedia Commons but can't get the pic to appear on her page.

This is the link to the photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tracey_Scott_Wilson.jpg

Not sure what the problem is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugaredpeas (talk • contribs) 17:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears for me (Vector skin, IE11) - Arjayay (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is because a local wikipedia image has the same name as the commons one so the system will display the local one. To make the commons one appear you need to change one or other file name. MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improper image of salher fory

I have visited salher fort . I want to tell you that the image you have for the salher fort is of Salota fort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.187.25.155 (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming that you are referring to File:Salher Fort.jpg. Can you prove that it is of the wrong fort by some means? Rcsprinter¹²³ (gas) @ 18:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Connected User?

Where would I go to ask if Wikipedia has a position on a user "managing" an article (Talk:Wappinger, New York)? Mannanan51 (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The policy that you are looking for is article ownership, which is not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for the use of Template:Archive top and Template:Archive bottom

Template:Archive top and Template:Archive bottom can be used to close a discussion with a message. Example:

DISCUSSION CLOSED

The consensus is that black is white. --Editor A (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2000 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Black is white! --Editor A (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2000 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. Black and white are completely different things.--Editor B (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2000 (UTC)[reply]

Can we compromise and just say that they are both gray? --Editor C (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2000 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What I am looking for is the specific Wikipedia policy or guideline that defines when a discussion may or may not be closed, and who may close it. I think Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Closing discussions is the policy, but are there any other relevant policies?

Also, the lead paragraph of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says "When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." and "All guidelines here also apply to Wikipedia discussion pages, such as articles for deletion." Am I safe in assuming that this same guideline applies to discussions on noticeboards?

Please note that I am purposely using a made-up example because I want to be clear in my mind as to exactly what the guidelines say before getting into specifics. Plus, of course, this would be the wrong venue for discussing a specific example. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a very good question because the "archive" templates are used for multiple purposes differently. They are used for the formal closure of certain types of threads requiring formal closure, especially Requests for Comments and proposals at noticeboards, such as for bans at WP:ANI. They are also used for the "boxing" of threads at talk pages when the thread has become tendentious or disruptive. In the case of formal closure, the guidelines for RFCs define who may be an uninvolved closer. The different uses of these templates figured in a recent request to "reverse a close" at the fringe theory noticeboard, for instance, when it appeared to me that the closer was boxing the thread because it had become tendentious, not to make a finding as to whether a topic was fringe. I don't know where there are guidelines for the boxing/closure of threads that are either answered or have become disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor A, B, and C are not entitled to close a controversional discussion where they stated their opinions, unless they close it as no consensus or stalled. Now find a policy or guideline backing up my € 0,02…

–Be..anyone (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added difficulty: find a policy or guideline forbidding the following slightly modified version:

DISCUSSION CLOSED

The consensus is that they are both gray. --Editor C (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2000 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Black is white! --Editor A (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2000 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. Black and white are completely different things.--Editor B (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2000 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This version makes the closer previously uninvolved, but still shuts off user A or B from presenting evidence for their assertions. In my opinion, the basic problem here is using archive top/bottom to suppress disagreement with a particular POV. You really need to allow time for an actual consensus to form as to whether black is or is not white, which in my made-up example wouldn't take long, and the closer really does need to post a closing statement in the box at the top that reflects consensus. Even "the consensus is that black is not white" would seem inappropriate for the closing statement given the lack of consensus so far in my made-up example.

Good luck finding a policy or guideline that supports what I just wrote, though. I can't find one. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a policy or even a guideline, but this is the same sort of situation that WP:SUPERVOTE talks about. —Cryptic 08:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref

I am told I am missing a reference tag? What does this mean, and where do I find it?

Hi, I fixed the problem [2]. You start a reference by typing <ref>, then add your reference, and end the reference by </ref>. See WP:REF for more information. SIncerely, Taketa (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you merge users from different wikipedias?

Althought a single userid/password lets me log in on all and edit the different wikipedias, I have noticed that the userids are separated, they show different home page, different contributions etc...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dorfsmay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dorfsmay

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Dorfsmay

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/Dorfsmay

Is there a way to merge them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorfsmay (talk • contribs) 20:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dorfsmay, it is not possible to unite this further, since these projects are seperate projects. You can use Special:CentralAuth to see all your edits. Other tools: [3] [4]. I hope this helps. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion Request

Can somebody please mark the following image for Speedy Deletion? I was able to successfully-upload a PNG version of the image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mytvstlouis.jpg DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's already tagged for deletion. Dismas|^(talk) 01:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Orphaned non-free" should not need a speedy, but you could tag it anyway with {{speedy|unused allegedly non-free dupe of free [[File:KMOV-DT3_MYTV_St._Louis.png]]}}.

Caveats: You are not the original uploader, add an info on their talk page as explained on {{speedy}}. You overwrote a "fair use" JPG with a bigger JPG, this could be very wrong if "low resolution" is an important point of the "fair use" rationale (not the case here.) And actually I don't see the point to kill a "fair use" image before the replacement arrived on commons and survived for some weeks. The "fair use" business is hard work (somebody wrote the rationale, somebody else checked it), don't throw it away prematurely. Admins might believe what I suggested, because it sounds very plausible, but there be dragons. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]