Help desk
< July 9	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 11 >

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.

July 10[edit]

uploading a picture[edit]

To whom it may concern: Hello. I recently tried to upload an image (a logo of an organization for which I've written an article Secret Society of Happy People), but, as I am new on Wikipedia, I don't understand why I can't connect it to the article, or wether the file is uploaded. Can you, please, help me? Thanks

Ruzhica (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it for you with this edit. Dismas|^(talk) 01:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Milicent Bagot[edit]

Regarding your article on Milicent Bagot, I believe there is a reference in The Fourth Protocol, a novel by Frederick Forsyth. Thanks. Ravi

Hi! I'm sorry, but what's your question? Do you want to add something to the Milicent Bagot article? I can help you with that, if that's what you want to do, but I need just a little more information about what you have in mind. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia No Longer Honors User Preferences[edit]

About two weeks before the new editor was brought online, I went into my preferences and ensured the preference for the new editor was off. In fact, I cycled it to ON and then OFF to ensure OFF, NO, or FALSE was written to my preferences.

Lo and behold, I am forced to use the new editor. The new editor is broken, so I'm befuddled why I am forced to use it despite my preferences. (To test the broken editor, simply try to wikify a link by adding '[[' and ']]' and see what you get out of the damn thing.)

+1 to the idiots who thought it was a great idea to force the broken s**t on us. And great job on trying to fix something that worked great to begin with... (-preceding unsigned comment by Noloader 05:31, 10 July 2013‎)

Disable wp:VisualEditor under Preferences > Gadgets > Editing ([x] Remove VisualEditor). It is puzzling how the "idiots" imagined 100,000 monthly prior editors wouldn't go beserk changing from the wikitext editor to VE. Thanks for suffering with the rest of us. -Wikid77 09:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The clue's in your question: "two weeks before". When it was brought online, everyone was given access to it automatically. Go to your preferences and disable it, and you'll be fine. The option to disable it before was for the test version, not the final version that has been pushed out project-wide. drewmunn talk 05:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is on, I still get an "edit" and "edit source" link next to section titles. Is this not what you're seeing? And the box to turn it off is now at Preferences > Gadgets > Editing. It's the first in that list. Dismas|^(talk) 05:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, with that first box checked, the edit source button should (and does for me) disappear, and the edit button should direct you to the original interface. What browser are you using? I've tested it on the latest versions of Chrome and Safari, and both operate in the manner I've described. drewmunn talk 06:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Noloader: In some interfaces, when you check a box, the change is automatically applied. That is not true with Wikipedia preferences. You must save your changes (button at bottom of the page) for them to stick. After you do that, you can confirm that the change is in place by exiting preferences, then going back into it: at that point, the checked box (at Preferences > Gadgets > Editing, as noted above) should still be checked. If you confirm that VE is checked to be off, and you're still seeing that as an edit option, then definitely let us know. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you can't disable it from your preferences but, VE doesn't work with the code the first editor had. So, if you try to use the brackets to make a link on VE, it's normal that it won't recognize them and won't make the link. To make a link, you have to click on the link icon from the toolbar. TeamGale (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Preferences → Gadgets → Remove VisualEditor from the user interface -- Gadget850^talk 09:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I go to suggest that the preferences entry should be changed to "Nuke VisualEditor from orbit have a goat perform physically impossible actions with what's left"?Naraht (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#"Opt out" of VE needed under preferences the English Wikipedia has already shown support for an option to really remove VisualEditor instead of merely trying to hide its interface, but the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't want to make the required change to the software. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"everyone was given access to it automatically". I'm grateful that I didn't even see Visual Editor and I've followed all the directions to make sure I never do.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done with this problem article?[edit]

Dear editors: I came across this article: Genuine wealth assessment which has several paragraphs which are copyright violations, a large section which is promoting a point of view and presenting original research, has been heavily edited by a person with a conflict of interest, the co-creator of Genuine Wealth, Inc., and also has no independent sources. My question is, should I delete the copyright violations and propose the rest for deletion, or should I send the whole thing to Speedy deletion? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest sending the whole thing to speedy deletion. The content is horrifically bias and nothing more than marketing speak. Also, a quick bit of research on my part calls the notability of the subject into question; almost all results are either from the official site, their Facebook page (which includes information from this article), and a few other, not particularly reliable sources. A speedy delete under copyvio, followed up by a non-notable subject defence should anyone try to reinstate it is, in my opinion, the best way forward currently. drewmunn talk 06:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks line someone did this for me already. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)thanks[reply]

Policy on settlements.[edit]

I am trying to find what Wikipedia policy on the notability for settlements. At present it seems that Wikipedia has a different way of dealing with the issue for different countries. Is it logical that settlements in the U.K. or Germany are entitled to articles and similar settlements in other countries are not? Is this not a discriminatory system which implies that some countries are better than others? What can be done to eliminate such discrimination and to adopt the same policy for all countries? Afil (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point us to where it says we have different standards for different places? That's not my understanding. I believe all settlements are deemed inherently notable, wherever they are, in the English wikipedia. Other language wikipedias may have different rules, as is their right, as each sets their own policies. Of course, that doesn't mean that a particular place is as likely to be written about as any other, as we are all more likely to write about what we know. Rojomoke (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely the notability of a settlement will derive from it being mentioned in a state-sponsored census or such like. If that's true then it should be fair game for an article here (using the census as a reference of course). CaptRik (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an example. Articles for villages in Romania are not accepted. Any reference to any village in Romania is redirected towards the commune (district) in which the village is located. We thus have the situation in which totally similar villages in neighboring countries such as Serbia or Hungary are accepted, but not the ones in Romania. Also, there are villages in Romania who have articles in other language Wikipedias (hungarian, ukrainian, esperanto and others), but not in English. If some Wikipedians write articles on certain villages there are deleted or merged into the articles of the district. Please look at the talk page User talk:Gexge79 for the Padeş article, in which the user gets the answer:

"Second, while I wouldn't say there is a single approach for every country, I do know that editors on English Wikipedia interested in Romania (and Moldova) have concluded it makes more sense to cover all the information about a commune in a single article, rather than dividing up the article into several tiny, disparate articles and leaving it to readers to guess how the information is related. It's easier to manage (~2800 articles instead of ~13000 ones) and there's more potential for coherent, well-developed articles on communes rather than on villages"

It is not true that this is a conclusion of "editors interested in Romania and Moldova" and the entire statement is a fallacy. There definitely are villages for which well-developed articles can be written. It is absurd to state that this is not possible for any village of Romania and Moldova. The same argument could be made for any other country. And it still does not explain why there is a different policy for some countries and a different policy for others.

If this is done for Romanian villages, we could have a different policy for Hungarian politicians (for instance merging all references to them in the article of their political party), for the mountains in Mexico (merging all references into the article of the mountain range) and there would be no end to such differences.

And this leads to my initial question: What can be done to eliminate such discrimination and to adopt the same policy for all countries?Afil (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, let me state that Afil and I (he doesn't name me, but he's talking about me) have gone through this before at great length (see here) - by now he's both beating a dead stick and forum-shopping. However, I will engage the argument.

In rural areas of Romania (and Moldova), the administrative unit is the commune, and these are further divided into villages - sometimes just one, sometimes a few dozen, usually around five. Currently, every such village is accessible through a redirect or a disambiguation page. Someone who wants to find them is able to. And every commune article lists the component villages. So they're there - no one is suppressing information.

Having said that, it simply makes more sense to cover everything under one heading than to chop up 2800 commune articles (mainly stubs) into 13000 village articles (which, for the most part, would be permanent sub-stubs). For one, the villages have no administrative powers - they are informal districts of communes. For another, rather than making readers chase around various village articles and guess how the information in them relates to the other articles, everything is presented coherently in one place. And third, if one creates articles on villages A, B, C, D and E of commune A, one must also have an article on commune A as a whole (in addition to village A) - this is the solution ro.wikipedia found, and it's a pretty awful one, given that the "commune A" articles are destined to remain shells containing only the most basic data. Like I've said, it's far better for everything to be in a single place.

Now, to the objections raised.

I did indeed write that comment to new user Gexge79. Oddly, Afil fails to quote his reply, so I will do so myself. "OK, agree with you about villages problem". Seems like a pretty sensible fellow with no interest in dredging up years-old pointless disputes.

"There definitely are villages for which well-developed articles can be written. It is absurd to state that this is not possible for any village of Romania and Moldova." How about starting with well-developed sections in commune articles, and if they really get too big, spinning out new articles? I don't see Afil attempting that. Sure, there is material out there, but as of now, all the expansions I've seen fit nicely into a single article. (E.g., Coronini, Bazna).

"What can be done to eliminate such discrimination and to adopt the same policy for all countries?" For one, Afil is fond of throwing up this "discrimination" charge against me, as if I'm on some sinister anti-Romanian mission. Of course that's absurd and should be disregarded. For another, there is, I suppose, a single policy for every country. That doesn't mean the application will be precisely the same. For Romania and Moldova, it's quite clear what works most smoothly. For other countries, well, let involved editors sort that out.

I hope this clears matters up a bit. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion quoted above, simply indicates that there has been an exchange of opinions on the matter. The debate has not addressed the general policy regarding settlements. Also there has been no consensus reached. If any one Wikipedian has a certain opinion, there is no reason to impose it without a debate in which several Wikipedians present their argument and a consensus is reached. This is not the case.

I raised a general question and mentioned the case of Romania just because user Rojomoke asked me where I identified such discrepancies, without accusing anybody. I did not use discrimination in a pejorative sense but simply indicated an example of differential treatment of settlements in various countries.

I have only asked a simple question. Does Wikipedia have different policies regarding articles for certain countries? Should the policy not be the same for the entire world. What is the rational of singling out one or two country for which Wikipedia has a different policy that for all the other countries in the world? For what reason are the arguments presented applicable only for Romania and not for Turkey or Bangladesh where upazillas also include several villages? I do not attack anybody and do not want to make this a personal issue. I simply request that o policy should be defined an that the same rule be applied everywhere. Afil (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume you're asking in good faith, and I will answer accordingly. There is no universal standard on which geographic locations should have separate articles and which should not - Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) was proposed, but never adopted. Nor is a policy likely to be adopted any time soon.

No one is "singling out" one or two countries. The Barangays of the Philippines generally do not have articles. Neither, as a rule, do French villages. In fact, our approach to France is quite similar: we have articles on the French communes and stop at that point, even if they happen to be subdivided into several smaller quarters. As I've stated many a time, that just happens to work better for Romania and Moldova as well. "Smallest administrative unit", the status quo standard in this case, has a nice, clear, neat, neutral ring to it, try as you may to portray it as arbitrary or unequal. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly aware that we have different positions. The administrative units can be counties, districts, communes or have different names. They are not localities. Villages, towns, hamlets etc. are localities whether they have an administrative independence or not. Let us not confuse the issue. I do not attempt to convince you and you cannot convince me that it is logical to accept an article (stub) for a small village in Germany and not for the Republic of Moldova. Assuming you are right and your rule makes sense, applying not applying if for all countries constitutes a preferential treatment of Romania and the Republic of Moldova, which is also inconsistent with the principles of Wikipedia. Neither of us has the right to impose his views on the other. This should not be a dialogue. I suggest that neither of us continues this dispute until other wikipedians express their views on how this matters should be solved. I simply try to generate a discussion so that a solution can be reached by consensus following this discussion. Afil (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but let's clear up two points. First, "smallest administrative unit" seems to be the general rule for Germany as well. We stop at the level of municipality (Gemeinde); that is the smallest administrative unit in Germany.

Second, you seem to have trouble grasping that, for better or worse, there is no single policy saying either "every populated place, regardless of administrative status, must in all cases have a separate article" or "every populated place that has a separate article must have administrative independence". Well, neither of these is policy, nor will they be in the near term. Different models work best for different countries - it's not that difficult a concept, and there is no "preferential treatment" or "discrimination" involved; it's simply a matter of ease of organization. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New text section vs. existing diagram[edit]

On the The Breast Cancer Research Foundation page I just added an External links Level Two heading and a link to the Foundation's official website. The way the page now appears (with my present display settings, anyway), the header is off to the right of a large diagram, and the text falls below the diagram. Is this unavoidable? Any action to take? I have little experience and no success with text wrapping. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've resolved this for you. For future reference, add {{clear}} at the end of the section containing the image to force later headings to appear after it. drewmunn talk 06:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's slick! And I hadn't mentioned above that also the previous section heading was similarly affected. I'll try to remember the {{clear}}. - Cheers! -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the difference between <ref> and {{Cite}}?[edit]

So far I've just used <ref>. At first I was under the impression that {{Cite}} was mostly used for proper books and periodicals, not random webpages, but I've now seen several pages use {{Cite}} where I would've thought <ref> was to be used. My question is this, what is the difference between the two? Are there are specific cases where I should (not) use one of them? Cake~talk 08:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For webpages, the cite web template should be used to ensure you get all of the information in the reference that's required. I personally don't like bare references that don't use a cite template, and I believe they're frowned upon more than if they used a cite template. Also, as a side note, I've fixed your content here as your text invoked the reference and citation templates by mistake! I hope this helps. drewmunn talk 08:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, there are no circumstances in which <ref> is preferred over {{Cite}} (or {{Cite web}})? Thanks for fixing it up, I had completely forgot to escape it Cake~talk 08:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They do different jobs; {{cite}} formats a citation and <ref> creates a footnote. If you want a citation to appear in the body of the article you just use the {{cite}} template or one of its {{cite xxx}}cousins; if you want to put the citation in a footnote you put the {{Cite}} template inside <ref>...</ref> tags. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)They are two parts of the referencing systems. You create the Footnotes using <ref> tags(which is just one way of doing this). You optionally format the content of Footnotes using templates such as {{cite web}}, which is part of the Citation Style 1 series. {{Cite}} redirects to {{citation}}, which is a similar template but uses a different style, the it should not be mixed with CS1. -- Gadget850^talk 08:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that explanation. I hadn't realized <ref> only turned the text into a footnote. Lastly, just to be sure I understood this properly, I'd like to ask that you look at this edit I just made. Thanks! Cake~talk 09:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit looks good. Note, the Swedish article on this person looks much more complete. You may want to check there for additional information and references. I've added the expand Swedish template to it.Naraht (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Name[edit]

Hi I created a page on wikipedia. But now, when its appearing in results it shows with a term 'User'. Suppose the name was XYZ so it shows as 'User:XYZ'.

How do I solve it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.13.38 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 10 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

What you created was a userpage. Without having a look at it, it's hard to say what you should do from here but maybe Wikipedia:Your first article will help. Dismas|^(talk) 09:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best results will be obtained if you linking to the specific page in question. CTF83! 10:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mold[edit]

Mold

someone has altared this page to read the word "FAKE" over and over again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.198.93 (talk)

The article has been reverted.--ukexpat (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article about American Institute of Certified Planners is okay. Wikipedia has a warning box saying it appears to be an ad or a testimonial.[edit]

The warning box is unnecessary and incorrect. AICP is to urban planners what medical board certification is to physicians. Companion organizations are the American Planning Association, 40,000+ members, and a separate entity, the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. ACSP certifies universities throughout the US offering degrees in urban and regional planning. AICP is the legitimate certifying mechanism for this profession. The language of AICP's listing on Wikipedia is factual, not promotional. The warning box should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.215.68 (talk)

As an aid to anyone reading your question, this is the article American_Institute_of_Certified_Planners. CaptRik (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article to fix some wording that was not quite neutral, or at least not adequately supported by sources, and removed the related article tags. The article still needs better sourcing. Looie496 (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciating of Reference[edit]

Can I use documentary such as Seconds From Disaster as resource? For instance, "Superstore Collapse" about Sampoong Department Store collapse. If it can't, why?--Reiro (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it fits the criteria for notability, certainly! You can use the cite episode template to make this easier. drewmunn talk 16:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor not working for me[edit]

Resolved

I'm probably not going to be particularly interested in continuing to use it, but I was interested in seeing it and how it worked. I know it's been disabled in Internet Explorer, but has it also been disabled in Opera? Or is it disabled in Monobook? - Purplewowies (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is currently disabled for Opera. Apparently that's close to working but not quite there yet. Looie496 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also rechecked the page about it, which I had previously only skimmed, and caught a sentence I missed about Opera not working. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone's curious, VisualEditor is disabled for a little less than 20% of users at the moment. About half of that is people using older versions of Internet Explorer and should be fixed before long. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help with old Afc submissions[edit]

Dear editors: There are thousands of old declined submissions lodged in the Articles for creations Wikiproject, and many of them have been abandoned by their creators. A new Speedy Deletion category has been created to delete some of these from previous years. However, there is some wheat among the chaff, and some of these articles were abandoned when they were close to being acceptable. A few people have been going over them and deleting the hopelessly promotional or copyvio articles, and picking out a few to improve. I've had four of these accepted at Afc so far. If anyone would like to help, There's a utility called Catscan that will find these old potential articles. The link

here

will find articles declined as an advertisement, and

this

will find articles that need better sources. Anyone is welcome to improve and resubmit these old half-finished articles, or, if you find some spam or copyvios you can use Twinkle to get rid of them. By the way, this is a good time to submit the fixed-up articles, because there is currently no backlog at Afc. Happy editing! —Anne Delong (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I have no idea why the links look so funny; if you do, feel free to fix them. They work, though.) —Anne Delong (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The external link format doesn't handle things that contain [ and ], but I've tweaked your message to make the links easier to use. Looie496 (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should work if you use the URL-encoding %5B instead of [ and %5D instead of ].--ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help me optimize[edit]

Can anyone help me optimize my wiki post? I don't know what to do... ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaysweet (talk • contribs) 18:26, 10 July 2013‎

If you know what the company actually offers, you could describe it, instead of repeatedly writing about "solutions". But the article is likely to be deleted anyway, as you have provided no evidence that its subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the author of this question (User:Khaysweet) has been blocked indefinitely as a wp:sockpuppet. XOttawahitech (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edit in 2013 protests in Turkey[edit]

hello, someone destroyed the article and i don't know how to restore it. i posted a message to the user but he does not reply. --18:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed -- I reverted those two edits to the last one by the IP editor. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to learn about how this was done, please see Help:Reverting.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

upload[edit]

my photo won't upload to wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnewsnet (talk • contribs) 19:19, 10 July 2013‎

You cannot upload files until your account is autconfirmed, ie is 4 days old and has made 10 edits. If you created the image yourself, you can upload it to Commons.--ukexpat (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]