Help desk
< March 20	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 22 >

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.

March 21[edit]

Please fix broken Simon Singh[edit]

Resolved

Hi! oldid=414358018 has a problem with <ref> tags. Please fix the page because interlanguage links are not showing up. Thanks in advance! Regards
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 00:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where, exactly, do you see the broken tags? I can not seem to find anything unusual in the article. Sumsum2010·T·C 00:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I closed that tab. The page renders fine now. The previous broken rendering was ending with a red warning message about the mandatory usage of a ref-parameter. I should have made a sceen copy. Closing this with "works for me". Regards
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 00:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for the clarification. Sumsum2010·T·C 00:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative Historical Project[edit]

I am a former member of an performance collective/company that was active in the 80's and 90's and we have been approached by an individual who would like to write a Wikipedia article on the company. Is it possible or appropriate for us to collaborate directly on the content of the article and how might this be referenced or acknowledged? It seems that the gathering and editing of the historical information about the group would benefit from being collected and edited in an editable Draft Article on a User page, and conversely that the documentation of this now-historical group's work would be appropriately done in a collaborative fashion.

Or is Wikipedia just completely the wrong frame for the gathering of this information and any personal contributions of members of the group to the historical record should be done outside of wikipedia first (say as documented interviews) that can then be appropriately referenced in a standard Wikipedia format? Thanks Jess Curtis (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us more about this individual who wants to write a Wikipedia article - how many Wikipedia edits does he or she have? Wikipedia is for summarizing and collating material that has been published elsewhere. It is not for personal recollections, even if people can remember facts accurately, because that would be original work and difficult to verify. Members of the company can provide reliable published sources like anyone else. Sitting for interviews with journalists who would then reliably publish them is also perfectly acceptable. In fact I have recommended that approach to previous questioners who lacked published sources for the things they wanted to write here about. See WP:COI and WP:BFAQ. There are many other wikis that do accept original work. See WikiIndex. --Teratornis (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, She is a grad student at UC Berkeley. I'm not sure how much wiki editing she has done before. Seems like this project might fall into a more 'original work'category at this phase, depending on how she wants to go about it, but clear that Wikipedia is not the space for the individual narratives of company members to be collected directly. Thanks againJess Curtis (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unable to edit[edit]

I'm trying to edit this page due to an obvious typo but I don't see an Edit link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_syndrome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.123.39 (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see the typo? If it's the in the very first paragraph, you would need to click on the "edit" tab at the very top of the page in order to correct it. TN X Man 02:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ADHD[edit]

is there any medicine under homeopathy to improve the "mental focus" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.216.9 (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot offer medical advice. Please see the medical disclaimer, and contact an appropriate medical professional. Goodvac (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

flag of malaysia incorrect[edit]

the flag of malaysia is pictured incorrectly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.36.176 (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific about what is wrong? Looking at the history of File:Flag of Malaysia.svg, I think it has been drawn to match the specification here. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mean File:Flag of Malaysia.svg then also be specific about which file it is or on which page you see it. commons:Category:Flags of Malaysia shows many images. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references to a 'BLP poposed for deletion' entry - now what?[edit]

Hi - I'm a newbie editor, and helped create and edit the page for Sarah Gillespie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Gillespie

It is categorised as a BLP proposed for deletion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:BLP_articles_proposed_for_deletion - but now it has 11 references.

Could someone please remove it from the category, or confirm that it will be?

Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzchantoozie (talk • contribs) 13:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Chzz ► 13:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help Chzz! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzchantoozie (talk • contribs) 13:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category page alphabetizing--did it change? Permanent?[edit]

It seems there's been a big change just in the last week in how articles are alphabetized on Category pages.

It has been the case--and it's still explained this way on several pages--that articles with upper case sortkeys would be arranged in one alphabet, then articles with lower case sortkeys would be arranged in a second alphabet following the one for upper case. Thus, a Category page with articles with both upper and lower case sortkeys would arrange the page A, B, C, ... Z, a, b, c, ... z.

But about a week ago, all that changed. Now, such Category pages are showing the articles interfiled in one alphabet.

Is this a permanent change? I've vaguely gathered that there's some big update going on, and it's causing certain temporary glitches. Although I don't understand what the update is about, I get the impression that it has something to do with alphabetical order.

The old sort feature--two different alphabets--was very handy. I could be used--I've used it myself many times--to make complicated Categories more clear and readable. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

The new category sorting is permanent. See mw:MediaWiki 1.17/Category sorting. I like the new system. I have spent time fixing lots of sortings where capitals were incorrectly used (mostly after the first letter) and caused wrong sorting. Can you give an example where the old difference between upper and lower case was deliberately put to use? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given time, I could come up with lots, because I've spent hours doing it.

What I've dealt with mainly is pages for genera of plants--species in a particular genus. On those pages most, if not all, of the articles will begin with the name of the genus, so it pays to set the species name as a Sortkey; then you don't get the whole category under one letter (some of them go onto several pages).

But then beyond that, setting those Sortkeys as lower case had them alphabetize under a lower case alphabet. (It is traditional, anyway, to give a biological, binomial--i.e. scientific--name with the genus capitalized and the species lower case, but of course, that's not necessarily a reason to do it.) Under the old system, one certainly wanted them all done one way or the other. The advantage of using lower case became obvious on such pages as had other articles besides ones with binomial names for titles. Some of them have a fair number of common names as well. So those would be sorted in one alphabet at the beginning, and the binomial names were sorted in a second one.

I've spent hours tidying those up, and while some people reverted me for vandalism, every one without exception came to see that I was doing something useful, and thanked me.

An example is what was probably the first one I ever did, Category:Pinus, the pine trees. That's one that has both common and scientific names. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

The old sorting of Category:Pinus is currently still visible at Google's cache on site:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pinus. It seems odd to me to split articles like this. I suspect it confused many readers who didn't know the system. Is there a WikiProject guideline or similar to support this? I assume you are only interested in the ability to sort the first letter of an article name like this. You could make a Bugzilla request for such a feature but I doubt it would be successful. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Google cache page apparently has caught up with the times. Actually, Category:Pinus might or might not have been the best example. It's the one I can think of, offhand. Most of the Category pages for a particular genus, where the articles had the binomial names for titles (the preferred way for plant species, according to the project page) include ONLY articles with the binomial names for titles. So in those cases, if you were sorting the page by the species name, it didn't make a lot of difference if you used capital or lower case for the species Sortkey--PROVIDED you do them all one way or the other. And there has been a preponderance of them done with lower case, so it was worthwhile to bring the others in line.

Those Categories that DID include articles that were other than species under binomial name--be that common names or some other relevant article--typically had only a handful of those others. They'd be neatly listed under a couple of capital index letters at the beginning, and the species would have a neat alphabet of lower case. It really did make it more readable. And what I've read here about using capital or lower case did, more than anything else, emphasize common sense--and somewhere, I think, DID say that the trick could be used to advantage in a complicated category.

Category:Pinus got a run of common names--and probably shouldn't have. Most (not all) of the articles themselves have the scientific names as titles; MOST (not all) of the common names on the Category page are redirects. When I was working on it, the question was raised as to whether common names could be on the page. A few such redirects were already there, and I added a lot myself. Since then, I've learned that the more accepted procedure is probably to make a separate category page for the common names. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

Is there a template for elapsed years (similar to the birth date and age template)?[edit]

HowardMorland (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If {{Age}} doesn't do what you want then please be more specific. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I found it: 24 years. HowardMorland (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article[edit]

i have created an account and started to create an article in what i thought was my user page. i know however can't get back in to update the original account.

please help i feel i am going mad!

ClaireMG OMD 17:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolascupcake (talk • contribs)

Your new draft article is here. Provided you are logged in, you can find it for yourself through the "My Contributions" link at the top right of each Wikipedia page.

But please read WP:CORP for the conditions that make a company notable enough for a Wikipedia article; the draft needs much more work to show this. And since you have signed as "MG OMD" you should also read the policies on conflict of interest and advertising; the FAQ page for organisations will lead you through these. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Film Theatre[edit]

After I updated an article it changed back to the old version, although I saved it and the new version was online for a while? What can do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by QFT2011 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions were removed by a software program that detected the addition of a link to Facebook. For details of this, please see User:XLinkBot/FAQ.

Looking at your addition, I can see that it is also not suitable for Wikipedia because you copied it straight from the theatre's web site. Wikipedia must respect the laws of copyright. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the copyright violation issues, the text was also worded like an advertisement, which is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Your user name also seems to be in violation of our username policy. Rehevkor ✉ 17:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...or at least an indication of a conflict of interest. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to suggest a subject for a new entry?[edit]

Hi - can anyone let me know how I can suggest a new subject for an entry that I haven't found on Wikipedia? I was looking for some information on IndexUniverse, the leading independent authority on ETFs, indexes and index funds and I can't find anything on Wikipedia. They are the publisher of Journal of Indexes and ETFR - Exchange Traded Fund Report and provide info on sophisticated investment strategies. I am not an editor or registered user so where should I go to request that someone write a new entry on this subject? Thanks! Nycsanfran (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Forgive me, but I see a curious similarity between the wording of your question and the wording of the IndexUniverse web site, which suggests to me that you've already found the information you are looking for. Please read the FAQ page for organisations; among other things, section 7 tells you how to request an article. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been created at IndexUniverse, and tagged for speedy deletion as spam. – ukexpat (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Your talk page explains why your new article IndexUniverse has been tagged for speedy deletion, and gives some links to pages which you should read. If your material is similar to the web page mentioned above, you may also need to read WP:COPYVIO. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

changeing image comments in file history[edit]

Hello I am just wondering if its possible to delete or change the comments inside a image that i uploaded

the two files are http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%AAer:Visrivier_%28Fish_river%29_Nambia.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zebras_in_Etosha_Pan.jpg

i saw that it is possibly to have the file deleted though the former is used in a few places.

cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musan (talk • contribs) 18:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a page for every image, with all the information about it - the description, licence, source, etc. You can edit those pages just like any other.

The zebras picture was uploaded to English Wikipedia, so you just go to the page - File:Zebras in Etosha Pan.jpg - and click 'edit'.

The other picture is stored on Commons, so you need to go to Commons:File:Visrivier (Fish river) Nambia.jpg and edit that page. Chzz ► 18:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible to change the "Comment" field in the file history like at File:Zebras in Etosha Pan.jpg#filehistory. Lots of files have irrelevant content in the comment field and I wouldn't worry about it unless there are privacy concerns. The file including the comment can be deleted and then the file can be uploaded again with a new comment which will have the date of the new upload. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are problems with those images. File:Zebras in Etosha Pan.jpg contains the following in the upload comments: Jamie Terrin, www.earthling.za.org, inform me if you wish to use this image - such permission appears to be incompatible with Wikipedia; a TinEye search of Commons:File:Visrivier (Fish river) Nambia.jpg shows it appearing in a number of places on the internet, so we will need an unambiguous release from the copyright owner communicated per the process at WP:IOWN to verify its copyright status. – ukexpat (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

uploading images[edit]

I tried to upload images of the inside and outside of a public relations flyer from 1940 to the New England Telephone page, but as a new user, it wouldn't let me add the images. You will need to delete the "blank" spaces and the caption I made for the images since I was not able to add them. I uploaded them to WeRelate.org instead. I just thought it would be neat to have these pieces of history on your Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawne1962 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can't display externally hosted images for copyright reasons so I have reverted your edit to New England Telephone. – ukexpat (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright opinion[edit]

Would you say this image looks like it is unnecessarily high resolution? File:GarageBand_App.png --Thekmc (Leave me a message) 20:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is unnecessarily high, but, it could always be less resolution. CTJF83 20:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longpage[edit]

Where do i go to ask for this feature to be reinstated? I also left a message about this at VPT with not much response. Simply south...... 20:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how relevant it is any longer. Please see Wikipedia:Article size#Technical issues which now starts "In the past, because of some now rarely used browsers, technical considerations prompted a strong recommendation that articles be limited to a strict maximum of 32 KB" which resulted from this discussion. As for where to ask, the technical section of the village pump was the right place to ask about how to reinstate it but the policy section seems to me the right place to discussion whether it should be reinstated.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Create a Wiki l[edit]

I would like to know how I can create a few new Wiki's for some new companies I have found online. I have seen they have asked for one in the past but do not currently see one on Wikipedia I would like to do so in order for people to learn more about these companies and their artists. There has not been any created and the companies have attempted to contact Wikipedia to have a page created about their business so online users can learn more about the new upcoming business that helps young teens make it in the music business. This company has very good intentions and can be very good for others. This is a good organization and after researching their organization I have found that it would be very helpful to the online communities that they have a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happycat123 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to create a new Wiki, then you'd need to install the MediaWiki software, or an alternative, on the machine on which you want to run the Wiki. If, however you don't want to create a new Wiki, but want to create a new page on Wikipedia, then first look at the notability requirements for companies: WP:CORP. If the company of which you are thinking doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, you might want to consider WikiCompany. - David Biddulph (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]