Help desk
< October 21	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 23 >

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 22[edit]

Editing an article based on magazines[edit]

Hi there,

I am a video games collector of all things PlayStation and in my possession I have over 300 magazines with lots of juicy information that I can use to expand stub articles and generally articles that don't have much information. I consider myself a connoisseur of PlayStation and I am very knowledgeable about it and games released on its platform.

But if I was to expand the Alien Trilogy article for example, using information from these magazines, how exactly would I reference the material since it isn't electronic? Equally I written articles before with plenty of information and sources and they've still been deleted, so I would very much like advice and guidance. Would it be similar to referencing something using the Harvard system?

Many thanks all. 81.110.228.229 (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2011 PlayStationConnoisseur (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)PlayStationConnoisseur— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.228.229 (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited magazines many times. I use {{cite journal}}. A problem that you might run into is using too much trivia and fancruft which may be why your previous efforts were deleted. Dismas|^(talk) 00:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to be taken seriously you should register with a username. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no requirement that editors register to be "taken seriously". Please don't suggest otherwise. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contact Wikipedia[edit]

How on earth do you contact wikipedia? There seems to be no way to do that, every time I click on a "contact" button, there is absolutely nothing there about contacting Wikipedia. Put an email address or phone number some where.

Why make it so damn hard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.150.145 (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a website of the Wikimedia foundation. You could try their contact info at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us GB fan 01:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There is a Contact us link at the foot of this page. Remember that Wikipedia is produced by many editors, so a single email address or phone number would be meaningless. The Contact us page explains what to do in which situation. - David Biddulph (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You found a way to contact Wikipedia: Right here. Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website with billions of monthly pageviews. It is run by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation which has a small staff for running such a large site and many other sites. Many things are handled by volunteers like us here at the help desk. If your issue can be discussed in public then you can post it here. Or you can say what it is about and we may be able to direct you to a better place. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error[edit]

Resolved

At Wikipedia talk:Sandbox, the template's “clear this page” link clears Wikipedia:Sandbox, instead of Wikipedia talk:Sandbox. Is there a fix to this? 71.146.20.62 (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The sandbox is located in Wikipedia:Sandbox, not on its talk page. You don't need to clear the talk page...--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 14:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do. When someone wants to use the Wikipedia talk:Sandbox, they would want to clear it, such as what I had attempted to do the other day. The link on the template on Wikipedia talk:Sandbox leads to Wikipedia:Sandbox. 71.146.20.62 (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages: out of topic discussions - should we archive or simply delete them?[edit]

I refer to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG, which I read thoroughly. One of the guidelines regarding talk pages is that out of date discussions should be archived and not deleted. I agree with this, mainly because, even when today a discussion about a subject seems to have ended, tomorrow the same subject may be raised once again. What should we do though with discussions that have nothing to do with the editing of the article? For instance, an article about Paris, and people start a discussion about how beautiful Paris is, or that they think that the authorities of Paris should rather change the traffic direction on a particular street. And then they develop these subjects further. This kind of discussions has nothing to do with the development of an encyclopedic article about Paris. These discussions should not even ever have started, less they should be continued or restarted in the future. I think such discussions should simply be deleted from the talk page, and not archived. Is there a policy in wikipedia about this? I couldn't find anything about it. Garsd (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the note at WP:TPG on "Refactoring for relevance"? I don't know of any additional formal policy or guideline other than this and the note at WP:NOTFORUM that such content is "subject to removal". As indicated at TPG, some users delete them outright, some don't, but we do act to end them and archive them if not deleting. What the page doesn't say as far as I can see is that many time such discussion are closed to forestall continuation with one of a number of templates sets for doing so, e.g. using {{archive top}}/{{archive bottom}}, often with a note that says why, maybe referring directly to WP:NOTFORUM, and many times they are closed and collapsed to hide the discussion from view using a template set like {{Hidden archive top}} ({{Hat}})/{{Hidden archive bottom}} ({{Hab}}). There is a how-to page: Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. Also note {{Not a forum}}, for placement on talk page where treating it like a forum is a problem, and the user warning template series starting with {{uw-chat1}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Garsd, I've left some comments on your talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 23:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double-neck guitar player Ian Ethan[edit]

Ian Ethan is a musician who plays the double-neck guitar. He has produced a CD in 2008 and will release a new CD in 2012. He obviously is not as well known as Jimmy Page, so does that mean an article about him should not appear in Wikipedia? He is coming to our college shortly to give a concert and we were wondering why there was not anything in Wikipedia about him. Thanks. FYI: The is the link to his website http://ianethan.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItascaCC (talk • contribs) 11:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want to create the article "Ian Ethan". If so, please first read our notability guideline about musicians. It also must meet WP:GNG in any case; if not, someone might put a CSD tag on the top of the article, and the admin decide whether it is true it doesn't meet the notability guidelines or not. If you are new, try WP:WIZARD. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 13:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant question is whether he is notable, as we define that word on Wikipedia, generally meaning whether there are multiple third party reliable sources that have published material about him, and whether there is sufficient information in those sources that can be used and cited to write a verifiable article. When a topic meets these policies, but no article exists, this generally means nothing more than that no one has yet created the article. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort. Our articles are written by people who have the ability and are interested enough in some subject to sit down and start writing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under-edited articles[edit]

Hi,
I'm just wondering if there is a list of articles that have no or few editors other than the article's creator and bots, or if there is a tool to generate such a list.
Thank you. Claret Ash 12:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is a list of pages with low edit counts, but you can see Wikipedia:Pages needing attention

Please reply on my message boards! Larsona 18:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll see what I can find there. I may even wander on over to the Village Pump later, for a chat with the techies. Thanks again. Claret Ash 03:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

miscellaneous[edit]

This morning i am attempting to locate information concerning a photo that i located when researching a specific suybject. The subject in question is as follows. while researching military "parachutists badges of the world",i, was shown a picture with the necessary information being searched , I am attempting to locate any information as to were this poster in the picture might be located as it is to be a gift for someone retiring from the military. Are you able to provide me with any assistance or direction?12:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)68.9.147.58 (talk)

I suspect you're referring to the image in the Wikipedia article Parachutist Badge. If that is the case, you can find further information about that image at its page on Wikimedia Commons, here. Unfortunately, the person who uploaded that iamge no longer appears to be an active user. Nonetheless, you might still be able to contact them via their talk page, located here. Best of luck. Regards, Claret Ash 13:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why was the reference i added removed[edit]

why was the reference i added to rolex sea dweller removed, it was new well researched and detailed information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikivdb (talk • contribs) 13:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you were adding links to blogs, which are not regarded as reliable sources for an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the link to the website removed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikivdb (talk • contribs) 16:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read what Orange Mike said, blogs are not allowed to be linked to for a reference. -- AGWolfpack55 | 17:41, 22 October 2011

Well, blogs can be used in some circumstances, so it isn't quite right to make the blanket statement, but the exceptions did not apply in this case, so the removal was warranted.--SPhilbrick T 12:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article with no references[edit]

Is it appropriate to create an article with no references and hope that that will attract people looking at the article to add references and more information, or are you supposed to just put an article request in on the appropriate pages and hoping it gets made by someone else?500Afs (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a very few very obviously notable subjects that could be reasonably accepted without references. The vast majority of those subjects already have articles, so chances are your topic is not one of those subjects. It might help if you told us the subject in which you are interested in writing. Powers ^T 15:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is never appropriate. It will sometimes be effective though, and other times not depending on the subject. Is your question related to Afghan Baseball?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.500Afs (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization error in the Title[edit]

Hello, I entered a biography page for Jens Klok but the last name in the entry was not capitalized. I cannot seem to be able to change the small (k) to a capital (K). Can that be corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venturawiki (talk • contribs) 16:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:GB fan corrected it for you. For future reference, you can visit WP:MOVE about moving an article. -- Luke (Talk) 17:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative for Reflinks[edit]

hello,

I search an alternative tool for Reflinks, which isn't working correctly. Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 21:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a little more specific? What are you looking for? A way to cite a outside source? If so, you can just use the template tools for that. For a link, I would put it in one bracket and [(URL) what you want it to say]. It will look like this with the example of wikipedia:

Wikipedia

Thats what I find works. If you can be more specific, maybe I can get a little closer to what you want.

Larsona 22:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not that stupid. I need a tool which converts bare urls into {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}}, etc. For example <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=43]</ref> into <ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=43...}}</ref>. Of course I know how to put external links. The creator isn't very active, and hasn't answered on the talk page. This tool has just too much errors, some of the issues were pointed out on the talk page, including the error in which the tool put the work into the "publisher=" parameter, which is totally incorrect.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 10:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Citation bot? It's the only one I can find off hand. I can't vouch for how well it works though. Яehevkor ✉ 11:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just tested out reflinks on Watch and it seems to be working. I do however see some bug reports at User talk:Dispenser/Reflinks. I know of no proper alternative tool. User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js will convert naked urls, if they are in ref tags, to cite web only and will try to recognize and convert other information into the fields such as title and date if they are provided by the citer but it will not mine the external source for data to fill in.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that script. It seems to be working, but you can see that it doesn't correct all bare urls, just a few. On Halloween (1978 film), it didn't do it for all references, just for one, although it has a lot of bare urls.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 12:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tab:Talk or Discussion[edit]

A number of years ago I was part of a group trying to get consensus to change the "Discussion" tab to "Talk" because that's what everyone calls the pages. We were shut down hard. I just noticed today that User pages now have "Talk" tab instead of a "Discussion" tab, though all the other pages, as far as I have checked, are still "Discussion". First, does anybody know when this happened and why now? Second, does this signal a new attitude towards the talk pages of users? Was this discussed somewhere that I just missed? Thanks Bielle (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Page top tabs and [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, PrimeHunter. Interesting how just the passage of time (and the intervention of the techs) brings about something that I thought would have been argued about forever. Bielle (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

article shows old version[edit]

According to the version history of Magic: The Gathering, ClueBot reverted some vandalism on Oct 18 (repeated "GAY"); when I visit the page, it is still there. Why is that? --MarioS (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try to bypass your cache or purge the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to restrict access to a user subpage[edit]

I want to find a way for me to have protection on one of my pages so that only me (the account creator) and I'm open to admins, being able to see the page. Is there such a protection?

Larsona 22:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, no. What would be the purpose of such protection? "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here" applies just as much to a user subpage as to anywhere else. This is not Facebook or LiveJournal; you do not own any of the space here for use only by you. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a private page which still uses Wiki markup, you'll need to create your own wiki - see MediaWiki for information about that. Otherwise, you'll have to use off-wiki means to store information which only you can see/edit -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 05:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems user:Larsona is trying to discourage other people from editing their user or talk pages. It is currently a confusing mess of links to other subpages, and each page has a request to "Do not post here" or similar wording; something I, and I suspect most others, will ignore if a message needs to be left. I notice they have also spent some time creating templates for use on these subpages. If someone wants their own templates, shouldn't they be stored in the user or user talk space rather then the main template space? Astronaut (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned down previous requests to protect Larsona's user and talk pages - he gave a very peculiar reason. He claims to offer some facility to check people's edits. If he doesn't like them, he claims he will report them to an admin. He doesn't want IPs to use this facility. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the benefit to the project of this confusing morass of sub-pages? It seems the aim is to make conversation with this editor difficult. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]