Help desk
< October 19	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 20

Creating a new page

How to create a new page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monojbddotcom (talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Your first article. --Jayron 32 01:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing word in message that appears after clicking on certain redlinked articles

The message that appears is missing the word "search" after "Please" in the 2nd sentence. Example, for Buzz Buchanan:

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please for Buzz Buchanan in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

Note that this message is produced with only some redlinked articles (maybe those alreadt redlinked in mainspace?). Random examples not redlinked in mainspace produce a different page, e.g. Quick brown duck, which (as of right now, as I preview the redlink) results in a page entitled Creating Quick brown duck and a different message.

Thanks to whomever is sufficiently clueful to fix this, and happy editing. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI)

Hello Middle 8, I for one have never experienced this issue (and neither am seeing it right now while clicking on the red link that you mention). As long as it doesn't interfere with your experience of using Wikipedia, I guess it's okay. You can report it at phab if you feel it's something that should addressed. Thanks. Lourdes 15:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I just checked it again, and now the problem is gone! Go figure! Thanks for checking this out and for the phab link. cheers Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 15:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The pages with that message are presumably those that call Template:Wiktionary redirect (assuming that the message goes on to refer to Wiktionary on the next line), but it is not clear why the word "search" would disappear, nor is it obvious why you saw that for Buzz Buchanan, which is a page that has apparently never existed. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Middle 8: A red link like Buzz Buchanan gives me the url https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buzz_Buchanan&action=edit&redlink=1 with a completely different message made by MediaWiki:Newarticletext. If the page did exist then the url would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_Buchanan. This gives me a message with "Please search for", made by MediaWiki:Noarticletext calling {{No article text}}. I looked at the template code and the generated html and see no reason "search" would be missing. I guess it was removed by your browser for some reason. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although the message I was getting said Wikipedia, not Wiktionary, it was (iirc) otherwise identical to Template:Wiktionary redirect. Odd...

And now, unlike before, I'm getting the same result that PrimeHunter described in their first sentence, both for Buzz Buchanan and Quick brown duck. Previously, I was indeed getting a page called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_Buchanan, at first without the word "search" and then with it. Weird, weird, weird, but if there was a problem on WP's end -- which is what I was worried about -- it seems to be gone. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Thanks y'all. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 06:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the icon on the right of image cation boxes

How do I remove the double box link icon to the right of the caption to this image? I want to be able to centre the caption but the icon throws the centering off. Sandbh (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One way... Lourdes 11:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crystals of osmium, a heavy
metal nearly twice as dense as lead.

Thank you, I'll try that. Sandbh (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting eyes to a discussion

Just a quick question: recently I made a contribution that was quickly rv'd by an editor that has a long standing history of rv'ing edits. I started a discussion on the talk page. However, the talk page itself is long outdated with participation (the last few entries being 2011 and 2012). I could wait for eyes to join the discussion, but since there really aren't that many on the page already, I'm worried it will just sit there. I believe strongly in my contribution and the sources to back it up; but I do not want to get into an edit war and simply revert it back. I'd rather support my contribution through discussion - or - if I am wrong, by consensus, remain rv'd. How do I invite more editorial eyes to join in the discussion when there are so few on a page that is rarely seen? Here: [1] Danny Wells "Charlie the Bartender" 1975-1985 Thanks in advanced. Maineartists (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maineartists, you could try out the steps documented in dispute resolution. Thanks. Lourdes 14:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lourdes. I think I may have to since the only set of eyes that has joined the discussion has not offered any enlightening counter-case for removal of material versus that which is already included. It's just not adding up. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maineartists - Give collegial discussion your best shot, but if that proves unfruitful, I'd take it to a noticeboard next. Moderated discussion won't work if one party is unreasonable, and I'd skip WP:3 since more eyes are better than not. Either way, keep a cool head and omit needless words -- on WP, less is more. The less you say, the more people will pay attention, and the more credible you are. For example, you'd want to prune your above remarks by 50%-80% in a WP:DR setting, omitting the "meta" stuff such as why this is important to you: not that that doesn't matter, but WP:DR is not, I repeat not, generally the place for it. (See also WP:IAD and WP:DGAF.) It took me a long time and much hassle to learn this; just trying to spare you the same. :-) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 05:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Middle 8 Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello. I am developer and every day i working at my website JamesPrada.NET / I am developing now some special techniques how A.I. can help us to write love letters. To do that i need to access from a level of my home page to all source of wikipedia becouse i need only a some part of text from your all global database. Can you help me to find a best tool to perform such a operation. I am PHP user. I need to log in from script to you server / connected to you database / perform some operations with fetching some amounts of data and that's it. / Please help me because ongoing experiment will the atomic bomb for understanding how A.I. works and can help us in daily use.

Greetings and thank you very much! James Prada <email redacted>

Hello James Prada, you could go through our database download and use whichever form might be helpful. Lourdes 14:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Populism portal

I have noticed that there is Portal:Right-wing populism, but not Portal:Populism, to cover as well the left-wing (with several noteworthy examples in South America, mainly in Venezuela), or general concepts that apply to both. Should I leave it as it is and create the missing one, or move it to the broader name? My concern is that if we had the 2 portals there would be overlap between both. Cambalachero (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cambalachero, a good place to take this up would be at Portal talk:Right-wing populism, as interested eyes would be watching the page. In my personal opinion, what you say makes sense; however, given the expanse of the subject, perhaps someone might want Portal:Populism to simply link separately to other portals focusing on left wing or right wing populism... As I said, the talk page might be a good place to start this discussion. If you don't get responses, you might consider an Rfc... Thanks. Lourdes 15:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nancy hemenway barton

The University of New England is planning a retrospective show of this prominent woman textile artist in 2017, Ahead of her Time and we would like to have her bio with links to her Washington Post obituary and links to a number of videos on Wikipedia. How do we do this? Best, Rick Barton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.178.155 (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rick. Welcome to Wikipedia. At the outset, I would suggest that you should read our conflict of interest guidelines, which would strongly discourage you from what is termed coi editing, including perhaps trying to create articles where you or your institution may have a personal interest. Having said that, the individual you mention has an interesting legacy. Let me see if I can churn up an article in the coming fortnight... You'll see it at Nancy Hemenway Barton if I am able to do something out of the material available to me. Thanks. Lourdes 15:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Submit a sandbox page for pre-evaluation

I am writing an article on a scientific working group that I would like to have evaluated to see if it meets the publication criteria for an organization. I wish to have it evaluated before I continue any more work on the page so I know what needs to be done to assure it will be published. How can I have an editor review this work-in-progress without having it publicly published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skire913 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a references section, and re-corrected section heading formats (which another editor had corrected previously but you had changed again to be non compliant with the Manual of Style). One thing you need to do is to remove all the misplaced external links from the text, see WP:External links. Other editors will hopefully point out any other relevant points. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to decide what your proposed Wikipedia article is to be about. The opening section of the sandbox is about an association of cardiologists, but most of the rest of its content is about various techniques that cardiologists use. This mix of subjects may be acceptable in some contexts, but not in an encyclopedia article. Maproom (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain

In gathering information for another article, I stumbled across this photo: [2] I am still very new to uploading photos to WP and know the hoops that one needs to jump through to get one uploaded (and keep) on Commons; especially under the status of Public Domain. Could someone please explain to me the steps and procedure this particular editor went through in getting this CBS publicity photo through as PD? I am baffled. Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link you give to that image is in a form I have never come across before, and do not understand. If you use this more standard route to it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Damon_Evans_Berlinda_Tolbert_1976.jpg , you can read "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice". Maproom (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Maproom says, content published in the US between 1923 and 1977 needed to contain a copyright notice or it would end up in the public domain. See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Published_works. However in terms of hoops, process, and proof, it seems to be a little light. I would suggest it would typically require a little more support. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I did read all the descriptions and entries. I guess I really am learning more than I thought, since I never knew this could be a legitimate acceptance for uploading a photo. It seems to be a lot of "assuming" going on. During my first initial uploads, mine were taken down very quickly (but for good reason) - now I know what to do and the proper channels in which to proceed. I never knew a CBS publicity photo being sold on eBay that has a property stamp on the back with dates linked to a national television show could be considered "public domain" simply because it was taken between 1923 and 1977 and lacked copyright notice. Hmm. Good to know. My only question is: just because an uploading contributor says it: does it make it so? Maproom When one clicks on any thumbnail photo within an article, that is the direct form that you are linked to ... from there, you can click on More details which will bring you to the page you listed. Standard. What's not to understand? Maineartists (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it seems to be a little light on evidence. It would require some effort to pursue the truth behind it which, I can't speak for others, I'm not going to bother doing. Regarding the image format, I think most old-school editors probably have the media viewer turned off in our preferences. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to link to a free pdf, e.g. via Springer Sharedit, as part of of journal cite?

The paper [3] is available for free in pdf format at [4] via an "author-access-token" as part of the Springer Nature Sharedit. That is, you can't get to the free pdf via the normal Nature url, but you can get directly to it via the sharedit link, which Springer says can be "posted anywhere". It seems to me we'd like to include both the regular Nature link and the sharedit link as part of a cite, but I don't see any clean way to do that now. Am I missing something, or should we add this somehow to Template:Cite journal? ★NealMcB★ (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally you want to maximize the verifiability of sources. I'm not sure I understand the rationale for also including a link to the version that the vast majority of readers are not going to be able to access. TimothyJosephWood 21:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: did someone check the fine print of that sharedit policy? Reasonable sharing is encouraged for non-commercial, personal use (emphasis added) can certainly not be pleaded on WP. On the other hand, we might slip under the clause of "social media" (like it or not). Probably worth a question at WP:CQ... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@[[User:Tigraan, That would apply only to copying material from the article into a Wikipedia article (beyond fair use limits). WP:ELYES specifically handles this: it says its OK to link to "Sites that contain... material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues".

As to how to handle the link -- you basically want two URLs in a single cite -- I don't think {{Cite journal}} handles that. What I would do is hand-write the ref, something like this:<ref>{{Cite journal|''Nature'' article info blah blah, including the Nature URL}} cited at [http:SHAREDIT_URL Springer Nature Sharedit]<ref> This is pretty kludgy but it's the best I can suggest. Herostratus (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't seem to edit the image description in the Tau_protein info box.

The image shown on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_protein Tau_protein is actually an amalgamation of many protein structures (not just Tau). This created a bit of confusion for me, thus I wanted to add the following label for clarity:"PIN1 WW DOMAIN COMPLEXED WITH HUMAN TAU PHOSPHOTHREONINE PEPTIDE^[1]" so that others wouldn't have to suffer similarly. However, I cannot seem to figure out how to edit the image description for the info box.

References

^ https://www.ebi.ac.uk/pdbe/entry/pdb/1i8h

Jasonhfuller (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jasonhfuller. Assuming you mean the image in the infobox, I'm not surprised you can't find where to set a caption. If you look at the source, it uses the template {{infobox gene}} with no arguments, which is puzzling. Looking at that template, it says "The data in the infobox is sourced from wikidata"; so if it is possible to place a caption on the image, then it would have to be done by adding a suitable field to the Wikidata item d:Q14865307. But what should the field be called?

Looking at the Lua module which encodes the template, Module:Infobox gene, I notice that above the line p.renderImage(image) there is a line p.renderCaption() which is commented out. It therefore looks as if the module does not support a caption (if I am reading it correctly). I suggest you ask at Module Talk:Infobox gene. --ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding information

I am writing to establish how I might add to a " Notable Alumni" section, namely my husband whose service has been recognised in the Queen's Honours List.

What information do I need to provide - and indeed what evidence, and how do I provide it?

Thank you!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenonline (talk • contribs)

Such lists only include people who are so notable that there articles about them in Wikipedia already. While theoretically you could create such an article, your obvious conflict of interest makes this a bad idea. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenonline: What Orangemike said (with links to Wikipedia policies) is basically that (1) your husband would need to be "notable" enough (in Wikipedia's definition of "notable") for an article about him before being included in such a list and (2) your close connection with him will probably cloud your judgement when writing such an article.

This being said, if you think your husband verifies WP:BIO, you can write an article about him via the Articles for Creation process. A veteran reviewer will have a look at your draft once submitted, and possibly reject it if the notability is too thin. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Swinton of Kimmerghame

Ref number 14 is all wrong - I have failed. Please help Srbernadette (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Thanks[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion regarding John Swinton of Kimmerghame. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Ppp ery 23:24, 20 October 2016 (UT

Please help. Ref number 13 is now all good - but I accidently got rid of the "Peerage " ref in the "family" section. Srbernadette (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, "ref name" all goes inside the brackets. :-) Crow^Caw 23:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morgellons Disease

Why does Wikipedia continue to allow the elite government CDC and co-hosts, i.e. Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins and others to post Morgellons as "Delusional" when it is listed on that NIH (National Institute of Health GARD website)? Recently, ILADS, International Lyme and Associated Diseases was added to the Morgellons NIH website. This is factual information and debunks the government's "delusional version" of Morgellons Disease on Wikipedia.

I have tried to add this information but it is has been deleted. My info is sourced from the NIH website. https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/9805/morgellons

Thanks, Jennifer Jordan-Troklus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spectral intricacies (talk • contribs) 01:15, October 21, 2016 (UTC)

You should read WP:FRINGE and our guideline on reliable medial sources. All of which says that Morgellons is a disease of the mind. Not something that actually exists. --Majora (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slight precision: notable psychosomatic diseases, like Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, can have articles, but clearly describing their psychosomatic nature. Which is exactly what there is at Morgellons. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.ebi.ac.uk/pdbe/entry/pdb/1i8h

[1]