Help desk
< December 4	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 6 >

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.

December 5

Can I cite Urban Dictionary as a source?

The reason being, I noticed that the phrase "Manifest Destiny" is used a lot as a term that says, "If you think about/believe in something hard enough, it will happen". However, doing a quick google search shows that the most prominent place in which this is semi-formally defined is Urban Dictionary. If I were to edit the page to add a section including the slang definition, could I site Urban Dictionary? Or would I have to do something like collect video clips of people using the term in that context? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BananaWithAPlanna (talk • contribs) 00:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. It's crowdsourced, so it isn't a reliable source. I wonder if your contribution would be better in Wiktionary? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those, I'm afraid, BananaWithAPlanna. The only way you could add that meaning is if you can find an article talking about that use, in a reliable source with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking. Urban Dictonary isw not regarded as a reliable source, and to write something on the basis of your own observation would be original research, which is not accepted in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or to rephrase what Colin says: the only situation in which any unreliable source should be cited is when you're saying "Source A says X". A further problem happens with the Urban Dictionary, since anyone can change it: maybe it says X today, but tomorrow it might say Z, so there's no real point to referring to it at all, unless (as Colin notes) you have a solid reliable source referring to it and giving a precise date. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Request For Donations

Earlier today (PT) a message popped up requesting financial contributions. I did not follow the link using the device I had. Now I am unable to find the correct URL. Please provide that - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:D300:6455:40D3:28F:35DB:D04 (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in contributing. If you log out and close your browser, and then come back to Wikipedia, you should see the alert again. There's also a permanent donation page. [[1]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

We are close to homeless I am sorry I can’t send you money at this time. Maybe in the spring. I do enjoy find info I need on your site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C64:507F:E6F8:9083:747D:7DA4:F26 (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it's really not a personal message, everyone sees it.

You do you and take care of yourself. That message was really meant for people who can give so that you don't have to. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"You do you"? Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: wikt:you_do_you Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Properly creating an RfC after non-neutral introduction

Hi,

I have initiated a discussion at WT:RFPP#Reduce size of instructions with a non-neutral, personal opinion statement. I have also announced the proposed changes at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#WP:RFPP_proposals, not neutrally either. However, before being able to implement the requested changes, I assume that creating a neutral RfC is either necessary or highly recommended. Ideally, I believe that someone else should do this, but if I have to, how should I continue? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I am now doing this correctly. Can someone verify if this is RfC-able and add {{rfc|prop}} to the section WT:RFPP#Reduce size of instructions? Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved per WP:BOLD, let's see how this works out. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Featured pictures

Are there any featured pictures that were taken by a phone camera? 128.119.202.196 (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @128.119.202.196: I found two featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons taken by mobile phone cameras (click to enlarge). – Teratix ₵ 05:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Louise, Alberta, taken with a Blackberry Priv
Brickmaking in Madagascar, taken with a ZTE S2004

Name change of page

Hi there,

I represent St Joseph's College, Lochinvar - here is the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Saints_College,_St_Joseph's_Campus

It currently has the wrong school name at the top of the page labelled 'All Saints College, St Joseph's Campus'. I have tried to edit this but it wont let me fix it, can you please fix it?

It needs to read: St Joseph's College, Lochinvar

Thank you, Gabbi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.141.116.189 (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should be on the article's talk page. In the meantime, I can make the change tomorrow if nobody else has time. Here's a source for the name change. [[2]]. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done! SportsFan007 (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]

How to open a new page

Hello I was wondering how to open a new page/article as I would like expand Wikipedia and provide knowledge to many people Thank you for you time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okrados (talk • contribs) 04:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Okrados: great to hear that you're interested in contributing! Creating an entire article from scratch can be tough, especially for new users who may be less familiar with how we do things on Wikipedia. I would recommend editing some of our five-million-odd articles first to learn more about the interface and good editing practices such as citing sources and writing from a neutral point of view. However, if you carefully follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Your first article, you should be fine. Lastly, please remember to sign your talk page comments with four tildes: ~~~~ – Teratix ₵ 06:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect (opposite) information on this page

Hi, The information presented on this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_Am%C3%A9rica_Centenario_Final

is totally incorrect. Chile won the Copa America Centenario on penalties not Argentina 4-2 as claimed. The original page on Copa America Centenario is correct the the "Final" page linked from there has wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaspv (talk • contribs) 06:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved: Vandalism reverted. – Teratix ₵ 06:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can I change the name of a company's Wikipedia page that has rebranded to a new name?

This is the name of the company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accera,_Inc. they have since rebranded to http://cerecin.com/

101.127.254.146 (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page you want to change the name of does not seem to exist. SportsFan007 (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]

It is red-linked in Axona, as the manufacturer of that product.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia as a non profit in Canada

Is it possible for Wikipedia to establish itself as a nonprofit in Canada as well as the US so that any donations made to Wikipedia from Canadians can be claimed on Canadian taxes instead of only on foreign income earn from the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.123.230 (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You would probably have to address your concerns to the Wikimedia Foundation itself, as they handle that end of the operation. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikimedia chapter in Canada. They may take donations directly. See here for their website. --Jayron 32 17:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is fastest way to get a wikipedia page edited?

Do you post your request here, or who does one contact. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.251.136.34 (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Fastest is to be bold WP:BOLD and make the edit yourself. See WP:TUTORIAL for how-to. RudolfRed (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am concerned that I have a bias and want to make sure I do not violate any ethics rules. Is there an editor page where I can submit my request for 3rd party, true vetting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.251.136.34 (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By bias, do you mean a conflict of interest, i.e. you are the subject or related to the subject in some way? If so, this page might be helpful for you; generally, COI editors are strongly discouraged to not edit articles directly and instead propose them on the talk page using {{request edit}}. Or do you mean something else by "bias"? Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes! That is exactly what I mean -- all changes that I would request are factual and I could provide links to show but I don't want to make them myself due to my relation with the subject. Do I just go to the subject's page and can I confidentially submit them and then an editor will either accept or not? Or is there a way to have a dialogue? Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.251.136.34 (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you're willing to admit your conflict of interest (COI) upfront and follow the instructions designed for people who have a COI; getting your edit made will be much easier this way. :-) WP:COI describes the process in the most detail, but for specifically making a necessary edit to an article, you should use {{request edit}} on the talk page. The instructions for how to do this are described on the documentation page, but I'll just copy them here to make things easier, with a bit of modification for clarity:

Click the "new section" button on the talk page of the article and type something like Some proposed changes in the "Subject/headline" field.
In the large field of blankspace below that, type {{request edit}}
Underneath this, write out your request. For editors looking at your request, the following can be helpful:
- Indicate if information should be added to the article or subtracted from it.
- Explain in clear words what needs to be changed about the article. Add a suggestion for the changes that can be copy-pasted by the editor :if you can.
- Provide links to sources which support any claims made.
- Bear in mind that the editor responding to your request might not be familiar with the subject.
At the end, sign the post using four tildes: ~~~~
Click on the Show preview button and have a look to make sure the request appears the way you want it to
If you wish to make any corrections or additions, you may do so in the edit box below the preview (scroll down to see this box); preview your post as many times as you wish, and when you are satisfied, click on the Publish changes button

Afterwards, an editor without a COI will come along and either accept or decline the request. This may take a bit of time, so just be patient. I hope this clarifies things a bit. Just out of curiosity, what article is it?--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I cite published magazine articles that no longer have a web presence or link?

I have citations in physical, published form, but can no longer locate links as the publishers have since removed them. Brandonbrandkelly (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)brandonbrandkelly[reply]

@Brandonbrandkelly: See WP:REFB for how to do the citation for this. It is not required that the reference be online. RudolfRed (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RudolfRed. Would you also be able to explain why IMDB is not considered a professionally-published journalistic source as all credits are first verified by independent staff review before being published to the site? IMBD constitutes the gold standard of film credit reporting, and professional entertainment journalists writing about actors conventionally cite IMDB. Brandonbrandkelly (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)brandonbrandkelly[reply]

@Brandonbrandkelly: See Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb. Using it in some cases for writing credits and film rating is allowed. Other content is user-generated, so it is not a reliable source. RudolfRed (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

9jashows.com.ng

i want my site history to show on search engines when it demands according to Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngkorzy (talk • contribs) 19:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Youngkorzy, I don't understand what you are asking. I will point out, however, that WP:promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia, and that includes any attempt to use it to affect your site traffic. --ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia won't let me publish newly added media and photos

I keep trying to add media/photos to a page. These are my photos AND I am the person in the photos. I have been able to make minor edits to the page in terms of content but every time I try to publish the photos I get a message that says: "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error. Disruptive editing may result in a block from editing." I'm new to all this. PLEASE HELP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OG2EOC (talk • contribs) 20:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OG2EOC, you have uploaded three pictures of people in bear costumes to Wikimedia Commons. I can see no evidence there that they have been rejected. It is odd that two of the filenames you used for your uploads include the words "All Rights Reserved", as you surrendered most of your rights in them when you uploaded them. Maproom (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@OG2EOC: There's one issue with the name of your uploaded files which caused your edits to be disallowed. Looking at File:SHSU Bearkat Mascots Sammy 1989-90 (Cindy Coe & Ryan Rose) All Rights Reserved.jpg, the file name contains the name "Ryan Rose" and edit filter 860 (hist · log) is set to disallow any addition of the words by non autoconfirmed user in mainspace articles. You would be able to add it after you made your tenth edit and become autoconfirmed user and also if the files remain undeleted. Since likely there might be another issue with the files like copyright status as hinted above. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

articles without talk pages

Is there a hidden category for articles without talk pages? Or another way to find them?--MainlyTwelve (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no category. New pages, in particular, are likely to have a redlinked talk page, if you go to https://quarry.wmflabs.org/, log in, and run the following SQL query, it'll give you a list, but it takes quite a long time to run (just under 13 minutes for me), and the output file is massive (168,489 articles when I ran it just now).

Extended content
`SELECT DISTINCT article.page_title FROM page article LEFT JOIN page talk ON article.page_title = talk.page_title AND talk.page_namespace = 1 WHERE article.page_namespace = 0 AND talk.page_id IS NULL AND article.page_is_redirect = 0`

It's a start, I guess. Might be one to ask at WP:VPT where they may have a slicker way to do this. Fish+Karate 10:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MainlyTwelve and Fish and karate: I guessed that you are looking for articles without a WikiProject, so I created a quarry query documented at Wikipedia:Request a query#Articles without WikiProject on talk page. It is sorted by oldest article first. --Bamyers99 (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish and karate and Bamyers99: Sorry for my delayed reply. Thank you both for your help!--MainlyTwelve (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are the rules around turning an article into a redirect?

Hi

I've seen several people turning articles (which wouldn't fit into the speedy deletion criteria) into redirects rather than nominating them for deletion, it seems like they're doing it as a short cut to deleting an article without having to consult other contributors. I guess this is against the rules but I'm not sure how to search for the rules on it because I don't know what its called.

I wonder also if there is a way to spot this by looking for edits where a large number of characters have been removed and a redirect has been added.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: I don't think there's any guideline that talk about that explicitly, likely because there's no need for it. That's no long-standing issues that necessitate spelling out the rules. If a page is turned into a redirect it's basic BOLD action and you object, you just revert it and then discussion can happen if there's need. But if there's abuse, say an editor converting several pages in a day then that's a behavioral issue and the editor can be asked to explain their actions. Then, creating new redirects or converting existing page to a redirect are tagged by the software. You can monitor that here in Recent changes. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect: Is AFD the Vehicle?

I was just about to ask a similar question. I think that if there is a dispute about turning an article into a redirect, it should be decided by AFD, but some editors disagree. There is a dispute about an article that came to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but it doesn’t belong at DRN. The question is whether Tha Hla Shwe should be a biographical article, or a redirect to the Myanmar Red Cross Society. There has been redirect-warring, and a request was made at DRN. The suggestion has been made, and I have concurred, that an Articles for Deletion discussion is in order, with the choices between Keep and Redirect. However, one editor has argued that AFD is not appropriate, because no one is suggesting actually deleting the entry, and deletion is not cleanup (so maybe edit-warring is a better way to resolve the issue). It isn’t about to go to 3RR because the edit-warring is tag-team reverting on both sides. An admin has provided an edit-warring warning. If there is a dispute as to whether an article should be made into a redirect, is AFD the appropriate vehicle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)

@Robert McClenon: In your post alone there exists the answer. If you want to redirect a page, be bold and do so. If someone objects and reverts, discuss on the talkpage. If you can't come to agreement then follow the procedure at §Resolving content disputes with outside help. That's basic logical steps, disagreement on whether to turn a page into a redirect or not is a content dispute; typical one for that matter. It's the same as removing/pruning only half or the content which happens on more number of pages daily. AfD is an avenue for deletion not content dispute and nominations which are not seeking deletion are routinely subject to speedy keep. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ammarpad - Thank you for trying to help, but your answer does not help. I am not one of the parties to the dispute, and the parties could not come to agreement on the talk page, which is why I was asked to provide the outside help. Redirection is not a typical content dispute, in that it is not a dispute where compromise is possible; either the article is kept or the article is redirected. Redirection is different from deletion only in that the original is still in the edit history and it can be reversed by a non-administrator; in other words, it can be edit-warred. In other respects, redirection is back-door deletion. Perhaps you have answered, in that you have said that a redirection dispute requires 30 days to resolve rather than 7 days. In that case, maybe the scope of AFD should be expanded so that it includes disputes over back-door deletion. Thank you for trying to help. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a standard process and guideline for this. See Wikipedia:BLANKANDREDIRECT. I usually resolve a contested blank-and-redirect via AfD. If I didn't want to do it there, I'd tag it for merging. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: My answer is generic. I don't know where you got the impression that I implied you're personally currently involved in an article dispute. If the parties cannot come to agreement then they should seek third opinion from uninvolved party. If that doesn't suffices, try other dispute resolution methods I already linked above, except if only they feel their dispute is so important that it's beyond these measures. I disagree that it's not content dispute and will show you why. There are 3 broad logical steps that I laid out above.

First, there has be an existing article before to speak of redirection. If someone boldly redirects an article (for all the reasons people do), then there're two things two bound happen.
If another editor is watching/comes across the page, they can either agree (by silence) or disagree (by reversion).
What will follow after is either or combination of two things: 1. editwar, and/or 2. discussion on the talkpage.
1. Escalated edit war finally will land on WP:AN3
2. Failed discussion on the talk should lead to trying other standard DR methods.

Your comment "...it can be edit-warred." further corroborates the fact that it's a content dispute. You can't editwar on nothing or on deleted article, edit warring in mainspace only and only happens on content, and sum of editwarring and corresponding discussion on the talk or elsewhere is "content dispute." Nothing more, nothing less. Of course you can choose to not call it contest dispute but that cannot make it to not be so, unfortunately. Also I never said a "redirect dispute" requires 30 days to resolve. I don't how you got this from my comment above. If you want change scope of AfD.... WP:RfC is the way. Anyway this is Help Desk, probably not best venue for this sort of meta discussion. If you disagree, then we can agree to disagree. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I am reading two different viewpoints. User:Ammarpad says that it is a content dispute, and so it should be discussed on the article talk page, and then dispute resolution used, and AFD is not applicable. I agree that it is a content dispute, but it is not a typical content dispute, because a blank-and-redirect is a backdoor deletion. User:NinjaRobotPirate says that it can be addressed by AFD. The reason that I said that a redirect dispute would take 30 days to resolve rather than 7 days if AFD could not be used is that, if the listed methods of content dispute resolution do not work, the last method of resolving a content dispute is normally Request for Comments and that takes 30 days. That is why. AFD takes 7 days.

One editor says AFD cannot be used, and says to discuss on the article talk page, and tells me less than I already knew about how to try to address content disputes, and I know that if all else fails content disputes are resolved by RFC in 30 days. Another editor says that AFD is what can be used in a redirect dispute. Thank you. A literal reading is indeed that AFD cannot be used if hard deletion is not actually being proposed. A more commonsensical reading is that AFD, or a process like AFD that runs for 7 days rather than 30 days, should be available. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the exact guideline that tells you what to do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Things that are "not helpful or constructive" vs "humorous and creative"

What is the difference between "not helpful or constructive" and "humorous and creative?" I made an edit that was not incorrect, but not helpful, but indeed funny. I am just wondering the differences and similarities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Lynn (talk • contribs) 22:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should understand that hundreds of people every day try to make Wikipedia articles funny like this. While it may seem like a harmless joke, it's very frustrating for people who are reading the articles for information, not entertainment, and also for the volunteer editors who undo all of these edits. We are trying to build an encyclopedia, not Uncyclopedia. So anything that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia – no matter how funny – is treated the same and removed. – Teratix ₵ 23:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Pro Bowl Logo

What No 2019 Pro Bowl Logo upload it now. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it yourself. If you know the file you can request for its upload at Wikipedia:Files for upload/Wizard even without an account. The logos are non free and used under fair use. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]