Help desk
< May 19	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 21 >

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 20[edit]

untitled[edit]

On the page for Shimmer Women Athletes, the link for Wikimedia is not in a box like it usually is on other pages, including pages for other wrestling promotions. I can't figure this out.

If I just preview the External Links section, it *does* show the box, so I think something isn't closed above. I'll see what I can figure out.Naraht (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the column defining templates to Template:Div col and Template:Div col end and that took care of it. I *think* the error may have been that some of the Colend templates were capital C and others were lower case c. The Div Col template setup is now preferred.Naraht (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't link to commons files[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T99761

Hi,

I can't link to andwhereas it works for :(

Is there someone who understand this problem? Ftiercel (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was that you'd made a typo, but Commons:File:Wolflund - Watching Over Me (feat. Melissa Pixel).ogg and Commons: both go to the correct files, so I don't know what the difference is. Nyttend (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ftiercel: This has been logged as a high-priority bug: phab:T99761. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related thread at WP:VPT ―Mandruss ☎ 06:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Ftiercel (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent Wikipedia link[edit]

If I remember rightly, there's some way to present a link to a Wikipedia page (besides simply giving the full URL) so that, when the page is mirrored, it remains a link to Wikipedia. How does one do this? The context is the Authority control article. This page discusses the different names for Princess Diana that are combined in various authority files for her, and the section concludes with Wikipedia prefers the term "Diana, Princess of Wales", but at the bottom of Wikipedia's page about her, there are links to various international cataloguing efforts for reference purposes. Of course we ought to include a link to the Diana, Princess of Wales article, but in such a way that it remains a Wikipedia link: when the page gets mirrored on academic.ru, we want "Wikipedia's page about her" to go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales instead of to the academic.ru page about her. I've done a temporary fix by doing an EL-style link ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales Wikipedia's page about her]), but I think I've seen another method that works better. Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: The {{Srlink}} template can be used for this. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Committee of the Regions[edit]

Dear all: as suggested by the Wikipedia volunteer here in Brussels, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov, we are writing to ask for your help with the account "CommitteeOftheRegions", which was blocked by one of the Wikipedia users. The reason why we had created this account was that we wanted to change the title of our page (in all languages) from "Committee of the Regions" into "European Committee of the Regions" which is the new name. Please could you help us with that? Thank you very much in advance - the Press team of the Committee of the Regions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.42.3 (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why CommitteeoftheRegions (talk · contribs) was blocked is that the username gives the impression that it represents an organization. Only individuals can have accounts on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEB728 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 20 May 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

The article has already been moved to European Committee of the Regions, as you request. Maproom (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name of an organization is not an acceptable username per WP:ORGNAME. It would be both promotion, and likely imply shared use for editing. The rest of that page describes what usernames are acceptable. Basically have each individual editing create an account. Also consider that there is likely a conflict of interest here, you should avoid all but the most non-controversial changes to that article, rather post edit suggestions on the talk page for the article. In any event, Committee of the Regions was moved to European Committee of the Regions a month ago. Rwessel (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I suggest that it will reduce problems in the future, for you and everybody else, if you remove the phrase "our article" from your vocabulary. Substituting "Wikipedia's article about us" is likely to be helpful. --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion[edit]

How can add to a discussion? When I go to the entry page for an article that's up for deletion I don't see a place to add my input.

Thanks! Kohpatmay (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kohpatmay: If you want to contribute to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramount California University for example, go to that page, click the "edit" link, add your signed comment at the bottom, and click the "Save" button. —teb728 t c 09:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

????[edit]

Where can i find an article on lady bugs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.203.177.177 (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you search ladybug, the article is at Coccinellidae. Bear in mind that ladybug and ladybird are the same thing- ladybird is the British term, which is used in most of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALL IN (magazine) not approved to publish... WHY?[edit]

I have attempted to publish a page for ALL IN Magazine on multiple occasions but continued to get a declined submission. I want to know why this continues to happen and what we/I need to do to get the page approved and published. Thank you

LINK to the draft: Draft:ALL IN (magazine) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTLeclair10 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notice in the pink box at the top of the draft should explain why - we need references that show significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The user who reviewed and declined the draft presumably thought that the references you have cited were not sufficient.--ukexpat (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, saying "our Wikipedia page" implies you work for the company, in which case I strongly advise reading WP:COI. Also, you don't own a Wikipedia page, see WP:OWN. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(EDIT CONFLICT)

@JTLeclair10: The reason your draft has been declined is because the article doesn't show that the magazine is notable. A notable thing is defined as something that has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large". You show a thing (like your magazine) is notable by showing that it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Currently your article cites 6 sources.

The first is a blog entry, which is not considered a reliable source. That blog entry consists of someone saying their old business partner has founded a magazine; that's not significant coverage even if the blog were considered a reliable source.
The second is a website for College Poker Tour. This is not about the magazine at all.
The third is about College Poker Tour and doesn't even mention All In magazine.
5, and 6 are all from the magazine or its website itself and thus are not independent sources.

You need to show that the magazine has received significant coverage in independent sources; not press releases, not advertisements, but coverage. Make sense? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Take a look at some of the articles in Category:FA-Class magazine articles to see what an excellent article about a magazine should look like. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two more points to add to what ONUnicorn has said, JTLeclair10. One is that promotion of any form is forbidden on Wikipedia. When people come to write about their own company/band/magazine they are often really here to promote it. Wikipedia is only interested in a subject if other people, unconnected with it, have already noticed it enough to write about it. Secondly, it is possible that nobody has yet done so: that such independent, reliable sources do not at present exist. (I'm not saying whether they do or don't: I haven't looked.) If they don't exist, then it is at present impossible to write an acceptable article on the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have made several edits, and am wondering if the article now appears as though it would be acceptable? Having been declined twice already, I do not want to repost if the changes I made are not sufficient enough. here is the link again:Draft:ALL IN (magazine)

@JTLeclair10: Source 11, "Scottsdale media company gambles on Super Bowl party". Phoenix Business Journal. 26 January 2015. Retrieved 21 May 2015., is a good source. You need more sources like that. Also, I posted a message on the article's talk page with a good source from an earlier version of the article, "Poker Media Content of the Year Poker Media Content of the Year". American Poker Awards. Retrieved 8 April 2015.. You need to work that source back in. You need to use more sources like those. Also, there's at least one point in the article where the word "our" is used - that's a big no-no. As several other people have pointed out, you should take a look at the guideline on conflicts of interest. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JTLeclair10:: I tried to help move the draft towards an acceptable state, by removing the long list of cover subjects. I see you have put them all back. Well, good luck. Maproom (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^^ I'm Sorry, I was unaware that you made that edit and thought I had accidentally removed it when I was editing. I re-removed it and hope it helps. Thank you all for your help and advice, I really appreciate it — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTLeclair10 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input[edit]

What is wrong with this?

{{refn|"L = time rate of change of momentum of airflow in the downward direction"<ref name="Anderson_Flight_5.19" />}}

It was recently changed by a bot from #tag:ref to refn and it appeared correctly before the change. I'm not sure why the error has now appeared. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Burninthruthesky. What seems to have happened is that Gadget850 has changed the unusual syntax {{#tag:ref}} (which I had never heard of and had to look up) to {{refn}}, without realising that the reason for using #tag: is to get round nested HTML style tags (in this case <ref>. But {{refn}} explicitly doesn't support these. I think you can simply undo the change, but I hope that my mentioning Gadget850 will bring them into the discussion. I had it backwards. --ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{refn}} use #tag:ref internally, so this should have worked. I reverted for now until I can sort this. -- Gadget850^talk 17:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Burninthruthesky and Gadget850: Since the text of this reference contains an equals sign, the coding needs to be

{{refn|1="L = time rate of change of momentum of airflow in the downward direction"<ref name="Anderson_Flight_5.19" />}}

-- John of Reading (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just figuring that out. Thanks. -- Gadget850^talk 18:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for incorrectly assuming this was done by a bot. Thanks for your help. Burninthruthesky (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

submit new information[edit]

How do I submit some information on my 30+ year musical career? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.15.94 (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. If you are a genuinely notable musician, then somebody without your obvious conflict of interest will write an article about you. At that point, you can identify yourself, and then offer further information (only if published in reliable sources on the talk page of the article, for other editors to examine. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Employee numbers[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Support Team,

I am interested in historical data at the quarterly level on the number of employees for a list of US firms. It occurred to me that most of these firms have Wiki webpages which contain the current number of employees (e.g. Google). I am wondering whether I can follow the history of changes of this particular piece of information on a firm’s Wiki webpage to obtain a time series at the quarterly level. I tried using Wikiblame but I was not able to track any changes in the number of employees for Google.

Would you please let me know whether this strategy can actually be implemented and work or suggest alternative ways for obtaining these data? Any insights would be greatly appreciated!

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

With kind regards,

Katrina Kevtimova (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevtimova, There really isn't any "Wikipedia Support Team". What there is are various volunteers, more ore less experienced, who try to help others here out of the goodness of their hearts. None of us is paid to respond to questions here.

It might, in theory, be possible to devise an automated script to look at the history of various company articles and extract the stated number of employees on a regular basis. Since this information isn't presented in a consistent form across such articles, it would be a non-trivial task to write such a script. And of course this information could be extracted manually by visiting the history tab, if the list wasn't too large.

However, even if such a script was written, I don't think the results would be of much value. Employee counts are typically not updated on a quarterly basis in such articles, and would normally only be updated when a reliable source has published such information, and a Wikipedia editor chances to use that source to update the article. Furthermore, employee counts in Wikipedia articles are often rounded to fairly low precision -- one or two significant digits -- introducing further error into any data set based on the articles.

I understand that in the US large companies report employment numbers to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and there are probably similar government agencies collecting such data in other countries. I don't know if they provide quite the breakdown you are looking for, but they would probably be a better source for such data than Wikipedia articles. Good luck. DES ^(talk) 21:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When is an article too long?[edit]

I can't find anything in the MOS, but at what point is an article considered too long for summary style? RO ^(talk) 22:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Article size. Dismas|^(talk) 22:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, see the section Wikipedia:Article_size#Size_guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys! So anything less than 50 kB should be okay? I'm not sure the average attention span for internet users is really that long though. How old is this standard? RO ^(talk) 22:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases the practical limit is not the size guideline, but the amount of significant things there are to say about a subject which are appropriate for a Wikipedia article and supported by reliable sources. DES ^(talk) 22:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To your attention span point, please don't cater to the idea that attention spans have decreased in the Internet age. If we are to be an encyclopedia containing all the knowledge, then we can't start saying "Oh, people will be bored with all this." If it's notable and can be reliably sourced, it should be here. Dismas|^(talk) 23:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant more that few internet surfers will come here to read one article for 45 minutes straight. They are more likely to skim it and read the sections that interest them the most. That's was just a quick opinion after reading the guideline. I haven't thought much about it, so I might be wrong. RO ^(talk) 23:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they don't read the whole article at one sitting, that doesn't mean that it is necessary to split it into articles that can be read at one sitting. Also, some readers will read a whole article at one sitting. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]