Help desk
< May 14	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 16 >

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.

May 15[edit]

Bare URLs[edit]

What exactly is a bare URL? When using Reflinks, I stripped down the URL of a newspaper to enter it into the edit text thus: the address in the address bar was "http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2619398/Comedy-super-agent-managed-Jonathan-Ross-Michael-McIntyre-died-heart-attack-snorting-cocaine-inquest-hears.html" which I cut down to "http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2619398" to make a bare URL (and it worked for Reflinks). But what about "http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/science/index.cfm?SciencePageID=55", for example, or "www.infowars.com/howard-stern-on-alex-jones-vs-piers-morgan-debate/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used}" or https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/complicity/article/viewFile/8737/7057? Those were addresses that came up in the address bar for three items picked randomly from Google. I wouldn't have a clue how to turn those into bare URLs. I looked up WP:BARE URL and it doesn't say anything about the sort of stripping down I did, it just seems to suggest that the whole address in an address bar is a "bare" URL. Is that right, wrong, or what? -- P123cat1 (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. They are bare. Bare just means without extra text or markup or anything. So whatever is in the address bar. Something like <ref>[http://www.google.com Google]</ref> would not be bare because it also contains some plain text. But all the links you provided are bare. Dismas|^(talk) 01:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "So whatever is in the address bar". Just to be absolutely sure, if I had inserted the full address in the address bar "http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2619398/Comedy-super-agent-managed-Jonathan-Ross-Michael-McIntyre-died-heart-attack-snorting-cocaine-inquest-hears.html" into the text, it would not have worked because "Comedy-super-agent-managed-Jonathan-Ross-Michael-McIntyre-died-heart-attack-snorting-cocaine-inquest-hears" is "plain" text? --P123cat1 (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy-super-agent etc is part of the address. You can spot them because they don't contain any spaces. As soon as you see a space you know the URL has finished. e.g. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2619398/Comedy-super-agent-managed-Jonathan-Ross-Michael-McIntyre-died-heart-attack-snorting-cocaine-inquest-hears.html this bit after the first space is text] The added bonus with that address is that it ends with .html which is a big giveaway and something you could look for. - X201 (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also you can always put a link you're unsure about on your user page/sandbox and run reflinks on it there as a test. - X201 (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is clear now. .--P123cat1 (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Current events[edit]

Someone has entered an event on this page which is not inside the box for any date. I don't see where the new date box comes from so I don't see what went wrong.Rmhermen (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with this edit. The stray text was transcluded from Portal:Current events/2014 May 15, which didn't have the box template. Thanks for bring it up! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography template questions.[edit]

Hello, I recently created a template for references in the article The Rules of the Game. I have a lot more handwritten notes that I need to edit and transcribe. The template is accurate for all of the books that I used to takes notes, but I was wondering if and how I could use the same template for notes that are derived from a DVD. Specifically from the Criterion Collection DVD, which includes both Special Features and Linear Notes. Just hoping for some suggestions. Thanks.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Deoliveirafan, thanks for your contributions! To answer your question, I'm afraid that {{sfn}} is only for books. If you want to cite a DVD, use <ref>{{cite AV media|...}}</ref> instead. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Error[edit]

Please discuss the content issue on the talk page, not here. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I keep fixing a line in the introduction of the "Cotopaxi" article. I'm an undergrad who studied abroad in Ecuador, studied their geology, climbed and studied Cotopaxi, and according to most geological survey's definition of "active" (having erupted within 100yr) it's considered (and has been for a long time) the world's largest active volcano. I've reedited this multiple times with multiple sources to back up my edition but it get's reverted back each time. Either some other user is eager to alter this fact or I'm wrong (doubt it, based on the overwhelming consensus of geologists on the issue) or it's simply an unknown or disputed matter. In any case please check it out. I'd appreciate even a "disputed claim" header somewhere, even though it basically all boils down to semantics and the definition of active. Nevertheless, the people of Ecuador and most AMerican geologists acknowledge Cotopaxi to be the world's tallest "active" volcano, and I'd like the article to reflect that fact haha. Thanks much! JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.106.134 (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JD - I'd take a look at talk page of Cotopaxi, and see what has been previously said about it. The user(s) reverting your edits have cited the talk page as having the reasoning behind the reversions. If you disagree with whatever is on the talk page, you may wish to start a new topic there to discus the issue, and let the users who reverted your edits know that you wish to discuss it on their respective talk pages. You can see the history of the article by clicking the "View history" tab at the top of the page (or just click here). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources quite obviously disagree here. This is a perfect example of why we have a neutral point of view policy — when sources disagree on the question, we teach the controversy instead of accepting one position and rejecting the other one. Project policy demands that we mention the dispute, so with that in mind, the best thing is to say basically "Some say it's highest, and some say it's Ll..." Nyttend (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear to me what it is that you are disputing. Do you believe that Llullaillaco is not taller, or that it is not an active volcano? Maproom (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's disputing the identification of Llullaillaco as an active volcano. Nyttend (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. In that case, the current state of the opening paragraph seems an excellent compromise. Maproom (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the people who do reverts, and by the way, if we're getting into credentials, mine are a Ph.D. in chemistry who has studied volcanic plumes and ashfall for much of the last thirty years, and I bloody well know the literature. It is quite easy to dig into the literature and come up with numerous citations (for example, regarding Sabancaya, definitely higher than Cotopaxi and illustrated with a photo of a more recent eruption than Cotopaxi's in the WP article) that utterly convincingly refute the contention that Cotopaxi is the world's highest active volcano. This contention is outdated (it appeared in stuff I read as a kid 50 years ago) and no longer reflects, in any way, the current state of understanding in the volcanological community. When information on a subject becomes outdated, it should be replaced by more modern information, possibly with an historical note. That's the way this subject is. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Correction to date of birth[edit]

Vince Lester Former member of Australian parliament Born in 1939 not 1929 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.227.155 (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Found [1], which supports this and added it to the page. Thanks for the note. Connormah (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Searching articles created[edit]

Is there a way of searching the articles I have created that shows results sorted by importance and/or rating (stub, start, C, B, etc)? Hack (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can get a list of articles you have created sorted by date here. I don't know of any way of sorting the list by article class or importance other than a [Wikipedia:Database queries|query to the database]. Spinning Spark 15:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-wiki links[edit]

I am editing the article Talgo, a Spanish train manufacturer. However, I found that the term is ambiguous, and it means both the company as well as a type of train produced by the company. I found that the current page in English wikipedia, talking about the company, links to the wrong wikipedia pages in Catalonia, German, Spanish, Euskara and Nederlands Wikipedia pages, since they are articles about the type of train, instead of the company. In these wikipedias, there exist two related articles, one about the company and one about the type of train. The current English wikipedia page should link to the former rather that the latter.

I tried to edit the links at the English wikipedia page but it was said that an error occurred, no matter I tried to edit the links directly or I tried to removing them first. Can anyone help?

The articles that should be linked are:

Catalonia: Patentes Talgo
German: Patentes Talgo
Spanish: Talgo (empresa)
Euskara: Talgo (enpresa)
Nederlands: Talgo (bedrijf)

The articles (concerning the type of trains) that should be linked to each other but not to the current English page are:

Catalonia: Talgo
German: Talgo
Spanish: Talgo
Euskara: Talgo
Nederlands: Talgo

Thanks, Salt (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed at Wikidata. I clicked "Edit links" at Talgo to get to the Wikidata page. There I clicked "Edit" at the enwiki entry, clicked "move" and entered Q1100969 which is the Wikidata ID I got to from de:Patentes Talgo. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copying a Wikipedia article[edit]

Is there any way, apart from printing out or taking screenshots, of saving a copy of a Wikipedia article before starting to copy-edit it? It would be very useful to be able to compare the original version as a whole with the final edited version. I find using the "User Contribution" and "View history" pages extremely fiddly to work with when trying to see the original state of the article. There seems to be no way on these pages that the whole of the article can be viewed in its original state, or perhaps I have missed something. --P123cat1 (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In broad terms, the whole of the article can be viewed in its original state just by clicking the relevant link in the history. The foregoing has its limitations, in that changes to embodied templates or images will mean that what we see now isn't the same as what would have been seen at the relevant time in the past. Perhaps I don't understand the question which you are asking? Are you saying that you want something equivalent to diff but showing the difference in how the page is rendered rather than difference in the wikicode? If so, I doubt whether it is possible because it will be rendered differently for different readers. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make that clear, clicking on the date of the version you want in the history will show you the old version of the article. Spinning Spark 16:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "original state" - If you mean, the article as it stood before you started carrying out incremental alterations, then try opening the article in two separate windows, before you start editing, and only edit one window (that can be harder than it sounds). The unedited version will remain "as was" until you refresh or re-load that version of the page, whatever you do to the one you are editing. In many browsers e.g. IE, you can set the two versions side by side for line by line comparison - I often do this when dealing with lists including red and green links - you can de-link the red ones, and re-link the green ones, very easily. - Arjayay (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am new to Wiki editing and onscreen work (not editing) and have used your method in a limited way, Arjayay, (I have IE) but cannot edit a whole article in one sitting, so have to save before I can come back to it, which means losing the "original" version, i.e. the article as it stood just before I started working on it. I want to be able to see the text of the whole article, in one clear run, as it was before I started on it, and it is the wording rather than the wikicode that I want to see. I don't mind if it is one of the diff versions in the "View history" pages, because I can set that beside the final version in normal view. How do I pinpoint the version in the diff list that will give me that clear run of the "original" article from beginning to end? I looked at the Wiki Help on the history pages but it didn't help. If you can find the version I am after, could you tell me what you pressed ("curr" or "prev") and the date and time? --P123cat1 (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like this [2]? (Go to "history", find the date you want to see, and click on the date), or like this [3] (go to history, find the dates you want to compare, click the circle in front of both and click "compare selected versions")? Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Problem solved. Both versions are useful. Thanks. --P123cat1 (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:182.225.181.183's recent edits[edit]

182.225.181.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would someone who understands the subject matter please review this IP's recent edits. The have made some edits to articles, including changing articles into redirects, that do not appear to me to be correct. I am a lawyer not an economist so I don't have the confidence to edit or revert further, though I did roll back the edits to List of countries by distribution of wealth which did not appear to me to be appropriate. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the other (as well as the removals of the redirects on the navbox) on the basis that the redirect was undiscussed and the articles aren't really duplicates so far as I can tell, so the summary on the redirect was unclear. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes of articles in category[edit]

How can I view all recent changes of articles in a certain category including articles in all subcategories.

For example, if I use Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Video games it only shows changes of articles of the main category but not of articles in subcategories. --Fluffystar (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fluffystar: I don't think there is a way to do this, but for the example you give there is a workaround. Most video game articles have been tagged by Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, so their talk pages contain a link back to the project page. Thus you can use Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games to see the most recent changes to any of them. You may want to filter that list to show only articles. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article Gone[edit]

My article on Green Status Pro is missing or deleted. I think? It is not in the deletion list and there is no history. I just disappeared after being published and waiting for approval for over a month. It looks like it was never there? Any help would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven correia (talk • contribs) 19:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only edit your account has saved. I guess you refer to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Green Status Pro which was created by User:Steve Correia. It is still waiting to be reviewed. There is a large backlog. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is likely to be rejected when it is reviewed unless some serious work gets done to it in the meantime. I predict that it will be rejected for either or both of "reads like an advert" or "references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. Please follow the links for further information on how you could improve the submission. Spinning Spark 20:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Brown Wikipedia Page[edit]

I have attempted to edit the Wikipedia page regarding my mother Elaine Brown. My edits are not accepted and I would like to take down the page to replace with accurate information. I've made several attempts to remove the bigot-based accusations, unfounded sexist attacks and libelous agent provocateur racist inaccuracies. From small errors (Misspelling my name and having my grandmother's name incorrect) to fabricated lies in the fashion of J. Edgar Hoover. I would like a reply about removing the page entirely or edited to reflect reality. If that is not possible I would like to know why not, and who is the author of this page of lies, slander and error so that I might address them directly. If the coward will not discuss this page with me, nor take it down, I would like to know my options for dealing with this type of hatred for women of color, and why Wikipedia would promote this kind of hatred of black women.

20:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC) --Ericka88 (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the substantive changes on the article's talk page, Talk:Elaine Brown. In the meantime I have removed the completely unsourced section.--ukexpat (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the question of who the author is, it may have been more than one person who added the information you consider inaccurate or unflattering. To find out who, in order to discuss the situation, you can click on "View history" at the top of the page. You can click on any date to see a past version, and if the problems are not present in that past version, you can click on "diff" and then "next edit" until you see the questionable edit or edits in a "diff" (Added text appears on the right side).— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please also be aware, Ericka88, that this article is now being discussed at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard and most editors commenting there agree that the article has had serious problems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Kovchegov and formulas[edit]

I added a research section to the above article, but I have difficulty to move the formula from reliable source to the Wikipedia page. I think either the site is protected or I just don't know how to put it into Wikipedia. Can someone please help me? Will appreciate any advise.--Mishae (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Yuri Kovchegov is not protected. Wikipedia:MATH gives guidance on how to use the <math> tags which Wikipedia uses to format mathematical formulae. Maproom (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, this is a WP:copyvio, even if it was apparently added by the organisation?[edit]

I'm working on Scottish Ballet, adding references. I've just discovered that the section on their Headquarters is a copy from here. Presumably that's a copyvio even though it was apparently by the copyright owner? If so, I'll probably revert it to the previous version and use the link as a reference, probably added a few points.--Otus scops (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be asserting it is a copyright violation to copy from one version of a Wikipedia article to another. If you are asserting material was copied into Wikipedia from an external source, please specify the external source. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google finds the same text here. I ~~will delete~~ have deleted the section as a copyvio. Maproom (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I've fixed the "here" link above (to their own website). Thanks Maproom - I've no idea if britishdanceedition wrote it or copied it, but presumably it's a copyvio even if it originated with ScottistBallet.co.uk? Looking a bit more at their changes, they appear to have changed quite a lot, removing some historic information. I'm tempted to reinstate the historic information too.--Otus scops (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Material copied from elsewhere is generally a copyvio, even if the owner of the copyright is the one doing the copying, unless they have explicitly donated it. Material copied from another website is not often appropriate in tone for Wikipedia anyway. --ColinFine (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to see the former content of deleted articles?[edit]

Is there a way to see what content a deleted article included? Thanks in advance. Voyaging^talk 22:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only administrators, checkusers, and oversighters can view or restore deleted content. There are a few options for regular editors, though:

If you'd like an article's content restored to your userspace, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion (assuming the deleted content wasn't an attack page, copyright violation, etc.)
If the article was fairly established and was around for a while, the Wayback Machine may have an archived copy of the page.
Deletionpedia.org may also have the article; I'm not sure how inclusive Deletionpedia is, though, or if it is even active anymore.

Hope this helps. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is very helpful, thanks! Voyaging^talk 22:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original Deletionpedia has shut down (Superhamster's link is dead), but has been reincarnated here. Spinning Spark 00:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing I know of that we can do about sites like Deletionpedia but it and some others like it enshrine copyvios, defamatory attack pages, utterly incorrect, unsourced biased information, hoaxes, blatant advertising, utterly non-notable subjects, mixes of the all of the above and more. There's good reason deleted content is not accessible to view here and these end runs should be burned to the ground with extreme prejudice, should not be linked to and we should not be giving advice about where they are.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the Definition of a Circle[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia and it's provided me with much knowledge. My query concerns the definition of a circle. A circle is defined as; a point revolving around a point(Wikipedia;Circle;Definition). I felt the need to add to the meaning by describing a circle as; the shortest distance between two points, whereas those points remained an equal and opposite distance apart. In the formal meaning of such an elemental geometry, it is important to be precise. Certain aspects of science have the need to be updated. Even though I have no formal references, I ask you to put the latter meaning to the test as it describes more scientific aspects of ratio's and geometric patterns. An example includes a tetrahedron, which has no centre point, yet when it revolves at a balanced rate to form a sphere, there is no point revolving around a point. The circular definition must be more elliptical as the second, updated description provides, Thank-you Fridayjunior (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that your definition is either 'precise' nor particularly clear - but in any case, Wikipedia is based on material which can be cited to published references. We do not include contributor's own definitions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for identifying a poorly written part of that article. I've added the definition from Euclid's Elements. It's stood the test of time.LeadSongDog come howl! 01:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]