Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 April 16

Help desk
< April 15	<< Mar | April | May >>	April 17 >

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.

April 16

Warning about huge PDF

I'm copy-editing City of Heroes#Reception, and I found a source for the citation-needed for the Computer Gaming World quote. Problem is, it's on page 71 of a 28MB scanned PDF of a magazine, which can be found here (note! it really is that big). May I give a warning about the size when I link to it in the reference, or is that not done? Ignatzmice•talk 02:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I ended up using {{cite journal}}, with the parameter |format=28MB PDF. Ignatzmice•talk 03:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Because there isn't an electronic file format called 28MB PDF, I moved the file size info into a {{link note}} after the citation and set |format=pdf.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

STARTING A PAGE

How do we start a page on C d Yasso - Author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doe1550 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Your first article. Make sure you understand the notability guidelines for people. Ignatzmice•talk 02:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

And who are the "we" of whom you speak?--ukexpat (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

How should ideas be considered “significant minority views” as in WP:RS?

Currently Chinese wikipedia is warring about whether Richard Wurmbrand's view that Karl Marx is a satanist should be included in the article. I just wonder how would this kind of problem be solved in English wikipedia?--Inspector (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Without looking directly at the discussion taking place over at the Chinese WP page, generally there isn't a significant problem if an individual is quoted as making a claim about someone else, if there is reliable sources which are verifiable. There was an issue I helped out with regarding Joan Crawfords alleged bisexuality, you might find the discussion that took place insightful. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Inspector: In the early life section, there is (unsourced) content that says, "As an adolescent, he was sent to study Marxism in Moscow, but returned clandestinely the following year." Then, in the achievements and influence section, it says, "He compiled circumstantial evidence that Marx was a satanist." Therefore, assuming it is indeed a fact that Wurmbrand studied Marxism, his view about Karl Marx would certainly be relevant and worthy of inclusion. So I'm not sure what the problem is. I also don't understand what you mean by "minority view"; it is his (the subject's) view about Marx, not a third-party view about Wumbrand. Or, are you saying that there is debate about whether Wumbrand actually claimed that Marx was a satanist?

1. Wurmbrand, Richard. Marx and Satan. Bartlesville, OK: Living Sacrifice Book Co., 1986.
2. Sobran, Joseph. "Marx and satan." National Review 15 Aug. 1986: 42+. General OneFile. Web. 15 Jan. 2010.

--76.189.111.2 (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

How do I request an article be written?

I'm stumped. Searched through all your FAQS and archives and cannot discover how to request that an article be written. I do not wish to write an article; my facts are based on third hand accounts and I have no idea how to go about doing the research neccesssary. tks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.110.177 (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:REQUEST. Btw, please be sure to always sign your posts on user talk pages, article talk pages, and any other discussion pages, such as this one; see WP:SIGHOW for easy instructions. Good luck! --76.189.111.2 (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

WTAM (1100 AM) – branded Newsradio WTAM 1100.

This article(and accompanying photo citation) under 'the early years' cites Gene and Glenn radio team incorrectly. The men in the famous radio team are Gene Carroll and Glenn ROWELL, not Glenn Rowling. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.101.72 (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed I found reliable sources to confirm it's Rowell, not Rowling, and made the corrections in the body and photo caption. Surprisingly, the error in the body had been there since August 2, 2005, which was just the fourth edit in the article.[1] And the caption error was there since September 24, 2011.[2] Thanks for reporting this. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Data dump error

I have All of Wiki Offline. When trying to download an update, the process stops at 3.5%, the download stops stating a "connection error". I need assistance in resolving this issue. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.15.75 (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to contact the authors of that application, as the application is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Article Tabernacle parameter "copyright ignored"

After I corrected the isbn number for "Sacred Monsters" (footnote 16) the CS1 note "Unknown parameter|copyright = ignored" remained. I checked the edit page text again, and the parameter |copyright = 2007 by Natan Slifkin| is present. So—why does this CS1 notation appear on the page? Thanks. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The template {{cite book}} doesn't support a copyright field - what the message is telling you is that the software is ignoring what it considers to be an unknown parameter. You can get rid of the message by removing the |copyright= segment in the reference entirely. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Not necessary to include so much publisher / distributor information. This citation –

{{Cite book |first=Natan |last=Slifkin |year=2007 |title=Sacred Monsters: Mysterious and Mythical Creatures of Scripture, Talmud and Midrash, ''Chapter One: Unicorns of Different Colors, pp. 55-79 "The ''Tachash''"'' |copyright=2007 by Natan Slifkin |isbn=9789652295811 |publisher=Zoo Torah http://www.zootorah.com. Distributed by Yashar Books/Lambda Publishers, 3709 13th Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11218, Tel: (718) 972-5449 http://www.yasharbooks.com. Distributed in Israel by Judaica Book Centre, 5 Even Israel Street, Jerusalem 94228, Tel: (02) 622-3215 http://www.jbcbooks.com }} View text at [[Google Books]] enter title of book in search window. (''retrieved 26 August 2012'')

– can be simplified to this:

{{Cite book |first=Natan |last=Slifkin |year=2007 |title=Sacred Monsters: Mysterious and Mythical Creatures of Scripture, Talmud and Midrash |chapter=Chapter One: Unicorns of Different Colors |pages=55-79 |isbn=9789652295811 |publisher=Zoo Torah }}

which gives this:

Slifkin, Natan (2007). "Chapter One: Unicorns of Different Colors". Sacred Monsters: Mysterious and Mythical Creatures of Scripture, Talmud and Midrash. Zoo Torah. pp. 55–79. ISBN 9789652295811.

I isn't clear to me what the purpose of this text is: "The ''Tachash''". The google books page for the specified ISBN does not allow for preview or even snippet view. For that reason I left out this: View text at Google Books enter title of book in search window.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Good result.

Re your question purpose of text "The Tachash": I got curious, followed through, went to Google Books, entered the full title "Sacred Monsters: Mysterious and Mythical Creatures of Scripture, Talmud and Midrash". That text "The Tachash" is a subheading of the first chapter "Unicorns of Different Colors"—it appears on the table of contents. Google Books has feature "next page" at top of window displaying text, and I was able to read the whole section "The Tachash". I'm guessing, of course, but it seems like the editor who made the footnote gave us a ready means to check the source. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing a navbox

How can I achieve that the navbox at the bottom of my draft here shows in collapsed state? It is transcluded as {{Number-theoretic algorithms|state=collapsed}} but appears uncollapsed on the page. Is that because the template markup contains | state = uncollapsed or is there another reason why this happens? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: you should be able to fix it by <noinclude.ing the | state = parameter. I think changing it to | state = {{{state<includeonly>|uncollapsed</includeonly>}}} would achieve the desired effect, but I'm not a technical whiz, so I'd recommend checking with someone who is first. It's a pretty well-transcluded template, so any changes will have to be right first time... Yunshui 雲‍水 13:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Short answer: yes. Longer answer: {{Number-theoretic algorithms}} calls {{Navbox}}. {{Number-theoretic algorithms}} did not have it's own {{{state}}} so it wasn't passing your |state=collapsed to {{Navbox}}. I have corrected the issue by replacing |state=uncollapsed in {{Number-theoretic algorithms}} with |state={{{state|uncollapsed}}}. Technical 13 (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

(↑ that's why you should always get a second opinion from a tecchie!) Yunshui 雲‍水 13:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks to both of you. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm glad I could help. Technical 13 (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

need to know the price of a book by ENID BLYTON.

i am trying to find out how much one of her books from 1953 is worth today.

the book is called ( the island of adventure )

can you help please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.201 (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This forum is for questions regarding the editing and use of Wikipedia. You may want to try asking at the reference desk instead. Speaking purely in my personal capacity as a bookseller with some experience of antiquities buying, I'd expect a good condition 1953 first edition to go for around the £300 mark. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

(except The Island of Adventure was published in '44, so it's not going to be a first edition - in which case you might get £50 for it, if you're lucky.) Yunshui 雲‍水 13:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

1944 on EBay $C117.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Titanic page.

States that the Titanic was built in 'Belfast, County Antrim, Ireland', it is in fact in Northern Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.200.221 (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

... but not in 1913. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Touché, David. Very nice. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I should, of course, have said 1912, but you knew what I meant. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I knew, but I didn't want to detract from your clever reply. Haha. However, you can still strike and replace it. ;) --76.189.111.2 (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there an easy, single-click way to unlink a link?

Or is manually deleting the square brackets at the start and end the only way?—indopug (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If you could do anything with a click, the computer would do anything when you click, rather than what you want :) --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Same person, two User IDs?

If one has reason to think the same person is posting to an article under two different User IDs, what should one do? Is there a procedure for checking into this sort of thing? NinaGreen (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• WP:SPI is the process for this. Bear in mind, the onus is on the case filer to demonstrate the suspicion and provide the evidence, not on the people that man the process. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Would it be appropriate to simply ask the question on the article Talk page? One of the Users has provided not only his real name but a great deal of other personal information on his User page. The other User is using an IP address. Both recently joined Wikipedia, and both have taken an unusual interest in a very obscure point, so I have some reason for thinking that the two Users might be the same person. However I don't want to stray into anything which could be construed as attempting to 'out' the User who is posting under an IP address (I don't see how I could 'out' the other User since he's already 'outed' himself fully on his User page). Would it be permissible to simply ask on the article Talk page? NinaGreen (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Two relevant policies with regard to your concerns are WP:SOCK and WP:OUTING. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Having read over these policies just now, I can't see that simply asking on the Talk page whether the two users are the same would be construed as 'outing'. But before doing that, I'd really appreciate confirmation from someone that it would not be construed as 'outing' to do that. NinaGreen (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If the registered user has an associate email address, you could ask in an email. If not, the proper thing to do is simply send it to WP:SPI with the username(s) and IP you think are involved, and they can quickly using WP:CheckUser determine if there is possibly a connection or not. Technical 13 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Nina, WP:OUTING is very clear about what is and is not considered outing. And WP:SOCK is very clear on what constitutes proper and improper usage of mulitple accounts, and fully explains how to report suspected inappropriate sockpuppetry. "Give a woman a fish and you feed her for a day. Teach a woman to fish and you feed her for a lifetime." I'm confident you'll make the right decision. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A CU wouldn't work - they Will not accociate IP's and accounts. Mdann52 (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Does on all of the wikis I administrate. Not sure why it wouldn't here. Technical 13 (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia CU policy stipulates that CUs will not reveal or publicly comment on the results of a checkuser finding with relation to IP addresses. The tool will technically work, but it won't be useful, since CU policy disallows CUs to use that info. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

All very helpful. Thanks! NinaGreen (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty in Inner Asia

In the "Tang Dynasty in Inner Asia" an expert needs to insert a reference to the Battle of Talas which happened in 751. The Dynasty article is written in chronological order so that a paragraph can be inserted about the battle. I have no skills about editing articles so someone else needs to do the editing. Battle of Talas — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElkeWylie (talk • contribs) 18:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

wikipedia page

I am trying to make a page for Todd Lieberman, but it says that I am not providing "reliable sources." All my credits are listed on IMDB and Studio System. Can you please clarify?

thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tliebermanwiki (talk • contribs) 18:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:IMDB is not a reliable source because most of its content is user-generated (like Wikipedia). You may also wish to read Wikipedia's guidlines on editing with a conflict of interest. Livewireo (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL <--- This is one template we use to find sources, if that is any help.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Travis Blackley

Travis Blackley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the bio box when you immediately type "Travis Blackley", you show his spouse as Arynne Tiller. I am Arynne's mother, Monica Tiller, and as Travis' wiki bio states, he is divorced from my daughter Arynne and therefore she is no longer his spouse. I have clicked on the "Feedback" tag many times and when I click "Wrong" to correct the info I find that it still remains to be changed/removed. His other info has been updated such as his move from the Oakland Athletics to the Houston Astros, but not the Spouse information. Can this be corrected? Thank you. Monomt (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is correct. I think you are referring to the content on the right hand side of the search results when you Google his name. That should be corrected when Google's index is next updated but we have no control over that.--ukexpat (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Google's Knowledge Graph has a layout which can easily give the false impression that all the data is from Wikipedia. The part which is copied from Wikipedia ends when Google says "Wikipedia". They didn't get the spouse field from us and we have no control over Google. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Use Pictures From BBC Documentary

Would it be acceptable under our fair-use of copyrighted material policy to include pictures from the BBC's undercover documentary on North Korea (see [3]). I know in most countrys, it wouldn't be allowed. However, seeing as editors would be risking their life to take a picture of the 'hidden side' of the country, can we use the pictures as there is no reasonable way to get a free-use alternative? Oddbodz (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a question for WP:MCQ where they specialise in copyright and WP:NFCC issues.--ukexpat (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have asked over there. Oddbodz (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Problems Editing/Updating Viable Info on Pages

In trying to edit pages on numerous artists/bands (to provide most current bio/touring and imaging info.) we submitted, but the next day none of our changes were reflected on the page. They weren't even red flagged, just removed.

Is there a verification process we need to go through in order to update content and images?

Is there a limit to how much you can change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLGPress (talk • contribs) 21:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no limit to how much you can change. But material in Wikipedia is required to be neutral in tone, not promotional, not copyrighted, and referenced to reliable sources. If you look at the history of Casting Crowns, for example, you'll see that User:Walter Görlitz reverted two of your edits with the summary " Peacocking, unreferenced material. More promotional", and three more with the summary "This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license". Please see WP:PEACOCK and WP:COPYRIGHT for explanation of more of these terms. If you disagree with Walter's evaluation, please discuss the matter on the article's talk page or his talk page.

I also note that you say "we". Please note that it is a violation of Wikipedia's rules for several people to use the same account: if there are several of you editing, you should have individual user accounts. See WP:ROLE. --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

(Later): I've just seen that Walter has already posted on your talk page explaining his actions and inviting discussion. --ColinFine (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

How do I get the title of an article I created changed?

Hi, how do I get the title of an article I created changed? I created an article about a region of Greenland called "Kronprins Christian Land" but erroneously entitled it "Kongprins Christian Land." Thank you.

Larry Grossman (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You actually named it "Kongprins Christian Land". There shouldn't be quotation marks around titles. I have moved it to Kronprins Christian Land. Your account is not autoconfirmed yet so you cannot move articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, thank you so much for doing that. Do you know how I might get autoconfirmed? I've been a user for years and have edited tons of articles. Thank you. Larry Grossman (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I must have been looking at something else. You should be autoconfirmed since long ago with Special:Preferences saying "Member of groups: Autoconfirmed users, Users". PrimeHunter (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, wow - I see that now! Thanks also for linking the page that explains how to move articles. Thanks to your help, my Wiki powers are growing ever stronger! lol Larry Grossman (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Very Poor Experience with Editors Bagumba and Muboshgu

I am a Padres fan and over the past months I've tried to add detail to the "Jeff Moorad" article. The article seems to have been stripped of a great amount of detail. Not sure I understand the rationale behind this? Removing the entire Community Work section seems especially strange: almost as if there were a personal campaign against Mr. Moorad by some editors... Honestly, I am done editing this article. Over the past months I've tried to add detail to the article, much of it coming from an MLB.com biography and some from more recent news articles, etc. I feel cheated as a Wikipedia user that my edits have been stripped in the name of mere technicalities. There seems to be no protection from the tyrrany of Wikipedia editors. Pretty interesting that when the community tries to get involved in editing an article, there is this harsh a response from Wikipedia editors. Of course, I understand fully: Editors Bagumba and Muboshgu have found niches here on the baseball sections of Wikipedia, and someone trying to help with the articles would take some of their power. The editors used seemingly every tactic to remove my edits, including accusations of slanting sources, etc. Yet, it seems that the editors are slanted in the very opposite direction to which they accuse me of being. Practically every edit I made would be removed and I would receive a message directing me to the "Welcome Page." I will not study the welcome page as I do not plan to spend hours on end editing Wikipedia articles, and I don't think that Jimmy Wales' intention was to have every user known every technical detail, but rather to come together and share our knowledge and create a great resource for the world. I've tried to do that and found that I haven't been able to do so.

This is not what Wikipedia has been to me, and I'm sorry that it has had to be this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What you call "technicalities" another editor may feel are important principles by which the project is built: verifiability, neutrality and exclusion of promotional content. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)