Help desk
< June 24	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 26 >

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.

June 25

Let It Be Piano Intro

Dear Wikipedia Can you please tell me who supplied the Let It Be piano Intro sheet music Sample which is on your site i dont think this sheet music intro supplied is correct. Hope you can help me in this matter. Regards paul allen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goshawk57 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Let It Be.jpg, this one? From the article Let It Be (song). It was transcribed by Carlos Chahin in 2008, but he hasn't edited since 2009. jonkerz ♠talk 00:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You could leave a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music (click on the tab "New section" on that page), maybe they can help you. jonkerz ♠talk 00:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global user manager

I have a question about the global user manager (no problems, I am just curious about how it works). When I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACentralAuth&target=Jimbo+Wales I see several values for "Method" which I assume means authentication method.

I see a lot of "created on login" which appears to happen whenever you read the other Wikipedia while logged on to the English wikipedia and I see "home Wiki" and "not attached" which are pretty obvious.

I also see "confirmed by password" and "confirmed by email". I am curious as to under what circumstances those are added. Is it because some wikis require an email or a password to log on while others don't? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It indicates how accounts were attached to the unified login. You will mostly see this on older pre-SUL accounts (all new accounts are unified by default) but also on accounts that were merged for some other reason. An example of the latter would be when accounts from Wikitravel (not Wikimedia) were migrated to Wikivoyage (Wikimedia's fork of Wikitravel) and merged to the users' SUL accounts. From the (?) tooltips "confirmed by email: Indicates that the local account was merged because its email address matched the email address of the main account." "confirmed by password: Indicates that the local account was merged because user specified a valid password for it.". jonkerz ♠talk 02:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the output of the global user manager, how does one get a "Hidden Level"? While it sounds neat, if Jimbo doesn't have it, I don't know who would. 1/2 :)Naraht (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't as cool as it sounds ("I killed the dragon and unlocked the hidden level!") it just means that the username is hidden from global user lists. Not sure if you can just ask for that or whether you have to have a reason for wanting it.

Why doesn't that page have any documentation attached? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Special pages aren't (in some sense) pages - they are database reports. As far as I know, none of them have a talk/discussion page. That's probably something that could be designed around, but it hasn't been, so far, apparently. But they can have information at the top of the report - see, for example, the Recent Changes "page". I'm not sure who (an admin, at minimum; perhaps a developer?) would be able to modify a page (report) to add such information. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admins can edit the MediaWiki namespace which contains many interface messages. The top of Special:RecentChanges displays MediaWiki:Recentchanges-summary and MediaWiki:Recentchangestext. If you add ?uselang=qqx to a url (or &uselang=qqx for urls' which already have a ? earlier) then the names of used MediaWiki messages should be shown in parentheses. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ARecentChanges&uselang=qqx shows "(recentchanges-summary)" near the top, but for unknown reasons it still displays the content of MediaWiki:Recentchangestext instead of displaying "(recentchangestext)". At Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#uselang=qqx displays message instead of its name I have asked why. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACentralAuth&target=Jimbo+Wales&uselang=qqx shows lots of message names but none of them are in a good position for documentation. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is it permitted to restore a dispute resolution noticeboard issue, which was auto archived

Hi, this dispute resolution noticeboard issue was auto archived while active.

Is it permitted to restore it?
OR, should I open it again? Ykantor (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. First, let me answer the general question, then I will get into the specifics of your case. In general, dispute resolution volunteers can do whatever they think will help to resolve the dispute, so either re-opening or refiling is an option. It is generally a bad idea for someone in a dispute to do things like unarchiving, because others in the dispute may object. I will be happy to do it for you, but first let's talk about it a bit and discuss why you might or might not want to. As for refiling, anyone can refile at any time. The only question is whether you want to do that. The rest of my response is about this specific dispute, and that isn't really the kind of thing the help desk does, so I am going to continue this on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One Person - Two Entries

Hello.

Both articles describe the same person:

Please redirect to article: Aktan Abdykalykov

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:66:8F87:DE01:12DD:B1FF:FEB3:C7F7 (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is properly referenced and we'd have to find a reliable source to resolve the disagreement about the person's name. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it may be worth, the IMDB link from Aktan Abdykalykov is titled "Aktan Arym Kubat" but credits him as "Aktan Abdykalykov" on about half the works. —teb728 t c 10:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added merge templates/tags to both articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And i've wrote a short section encouraging a discussion. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 14:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Anthony Salyers II

I would like to receive instructions on how to cite references on Wikipedia. I have had much difficulty in finding such instructions. I am requesting that someone familiar with this process provide the necessary instructions I need to complete my submissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telxon04 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The place to start is WP:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There's Referencing for Beginners and also the tutorial. I hope that helps you get on track. RudolfRed (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt about editing & requesting edit

A page that is about a star has not mentioned a few things about him & the page is semi protected so i don't know how to add those things to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloom Cheryl (talk • contribs) 07:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can post your information (with proper sources) on the article's Talk page - click on the "Discussion" tab. What article is it? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

another user fixed it. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloom Cheryl (talk • contribs) 16:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's my mistake?

So, I want to edit an article. Link: The Severing Crime Edge#Episode list I just copy pasted the format and I have no idea how it can turn out that way. Please Help by editing the page and tell em what's the problem. Thx in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimmichelle7 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the table format. You had missed out the closing tags "}}" and "|}". Gandalf61 (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Offer of paid editing in China?

Hey there, I am not a Wikipedia editor, but I do read it often. I am on a business trip in Chengdu, China with my legal firm, based in Newark, New Jersey. When I was in Starbucks, in Chengdu, I was approached by a smartly dressed Chinese man, asking if I wanted paid work in editing Wikipedia profiles for people. I declined naturally, but I just thought I would let you guys know that this is going on.

All the best, Ralph. --Ralph McCulsky (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this notification. We're aware that there are many editors who are paid to edit, but the Wikipedia rules do not strictly ban such behaviour. Instead, paid editors are strongly discouraged from editing if there are conflict of interest reasons. However, when paid editing is benign, Wikipedia takes no action at all. — Richard BB 10:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing may be a good way to encourage more people to join Wikipedia in a few years as regulars are declining. If what's wrote is neutral and notable then personally i don't see a problem. Much better that it's in the open than hidden. That way it can be watched over at least. I believe some Wikipedians take a more harsh view though. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 3:13 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Knowledge Graph

When one searches for a person who has a Wikipedia page using Google one usually gets a so-called knowledge graph/panel, on the right-hand side of the page displaying the search results, which links to the Wikipedia page of that person. However for some people no knowledge panel shows up in a Google search, despite the fact that they have a Wikipedia page---Can you please clarify why this is so? My guess is that this might happen for people with recently created Wikipedia pages, as Google might need some time to link to them, but I might be mistaken.Dspinside (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to ask Google, it's their baby, not ours. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia pages about me or my work

The pages about me or my work--Frank J. Popper, Locally Unwanted Land Uses and the Buffalo Commons--are all stubs that I'd like to make more complete. I'm having trouble, though, doing the editing. Would a volunteer be able to help me? Thanks and best wishes,

++++ (no tildes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpopper (talk • contribs) 15:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:COIU. Mlpearc (powwow) 15:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might find someone to help you at relevant WikiProjects - look on the Talk pages of the articles concerned - click the the "Discussion" tab. The first question you'll be asked is "Do you have good reliable sources?" because "I say so" is not a verifiable citation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a really good idea to (a) post your sources to the article talk page (even if not online); and (b) do a rough draft of what you'd like to add - limiting this to what is contained in acceptable sources, again, posting this at the article talk page. You're a lot more likely to find a volunteer if you've done these two things first, and you mention having done them, when asking for editing help. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a Wikipedia page for Alloy Digital

Good Afternoon,

I work for Alloy Digital (http://www.alloydigital.com/). I am having a difficult time getting through to the e-mail address info-enwikimedia.org.

Our company is trying to create a master Wikipedia page (named Alloy Digital) as many of our owned and operated brands have created them. I began editing a page for Alloy Digital last week and it was immediately flagged by a couple of users. A couple of minutes later, it was taken down. So, a few colleagues and I edited the wording to prevent it from being “promotional”…It was then purely factual. I hadn’t even had the chance to cite my sources before it was taken down again…and then again. I was then blocked from creating this page. Hundreds of other media companies have Wikipedia pages, and I was just wondering if there was any insight you could provide me with in order to create ours. Thank you in advanced for your help!

Best, Marissa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me bernstein (talk • contribs) 15:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a reference, [1]. Dru of Id (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the note from User:WikiDan61 on your talk page? That user is already offering to help you. Rojomoke (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia containing articles about notable subjects, supported by references from previously published reliable sources. An article about your company will not be your page - once created, articles are open to editing by anyone. The presence of articles on "hundreds of other media companies" is irrelevant to the question of whether Alloy Digital should have an article written about them. We also discourage writing about something you have a close personal connection with. Some guidance can be found in Wikipedia's policies covering conflict of interest and the notability of companies. Finally, Wikipedia is not a place to promote your company. Astronaut (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "I hadn’t even had the chance to cite my sources before it was taken down again…and then again", that's why we encourage people to write drafts of articles in user pages (as WikiDan61 has done), rather than where real encyclopedia articles exist. Because as well-intentioned as you might have been to cite sources, not surprisingly there are lots of people who don't have sources to cite, or expect others to add the citations - and it's really difficult (as in, impossible) to distinguish between your case (citations later) and their case (citations never). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new page has been created (see Alloy Digital). Non-promotional, and based on published sources. Feel free to expand. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logo

Hello,

In March we had our logo updated in our wiki page (File:St._Thomas_University_(Florida).gif). We have had a very difficult time trying to get our Google results to show the new updated logo. In Google results the old thumbnail of our old logo is still showing and when the image is hovered it is showing us the wiki url of the image. We have already removed the urls with Google and we have deleted the old logo image from our site. However it is still showing. We were told to wait until the site was recrawled but we think this is not the problem. We need the old logo image purged from wikipedia. How can we do this? This is really important to us, we are a university and our logo is imperative for our prospective students. Can someone help us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onl9onl9 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 25 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

The new logo is correctly placed in the article - there's nothing else we can do. Perhaps Google can help you, it is after all their page that is showing the wrong logo, not ours. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The old logo image was purged from Wikipedia months ago. We have no control over when or if Google replaces their old copy with the current image. You are right that Google displays a Wikipedia url when you hover over the image, but this does not mean their search page is actually displaying the image at Wikipedia. They are displaying the image they once copied and the url they copied it from. It's simple to code a page so any chosen text is displayed when you hover over an image. Google's search page with the image has a "Feedback / More info" link. If you click that then you can click "Wrong?" at the image. I just did with no effect, but if many people do it then Google may eventually remove the image. I don't know how they process feedback of this type but maybe it's best if they get the same feedback from multiple IP addresses. Note: If they actually remove the old image then I cannot say whether they will replace it with another image. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Article of the Day'

How do I nominate an article for 'Article of the Day'? -Kind Regards --Trimmed Steok (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to "Today's featured article" on the Main Page? Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests is the page for that. jonkerz ♠talk 17:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir, I am. --Trimmed Steok (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it works in detail as I've never proposed or requested an article myself. But only featured articles are considered, Sir, and as you can see on the request page, the process is kind of bureaucratic. jonkerz ♠talk 17:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have a range of criteria; anniversaries or things otherwise related to a specific day have a better chance for that day (for example, FAs on major candidates were together the Today's Featured Article for the day when the 2008 US presidential election was held), and due to the number of featured articles, an article really doesn't have a chance if it's appeared in the past. The other criteria are more subjective, if I remember rightly. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URLs for citation warning still up

Full citations have been added for the Wikipedia article "Michael Pliuskaitis" but the following error message still appears at the top of the page: "This article uses bare URLs for citations. Please consider adding full citations so that the article remains verifiable. Several templates and the Reflinks tool are available to assist in formatting. (Reflinks documentation) (April 2013)". Any assistance is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowswimmer (talk • contribs) 17:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove the template message - but I think there may well be other problems with the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - These tags must be removed manually like I did in this edit. jonkerz ♠talk 17:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any advice, assistance with the "other problems with the article", please? Thanks for assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowswimmer (talk • contribs) 17:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with chronological order would really help. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wikipedia, I did the best I could with the basics. Any clean-up assistance from Wikipedia experts is appreciated to make article better with the referenced material provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowswimmer (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem is that the article dedicates very little space to the supposed reason that Pliuskaitis is notable in the first place, and a great deal to subsequent matters. Frankly, it is bordering on being seen as an attack page, and certainly needs substantial editing to comply with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies. The whole thing is poorly sourced, and there is little justification that I can see for the long paragraph relating to the libel case. I am inclined to think that the article should be deleted unless it can be established, using better sourcing, that Pliuskaitis meets the notability guidelines, and if it is to be retained, the material concerning his ban etc will need substantial rewriting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In particular, the long paragraph is incoherent – it all hangs on "concern over Pliuskaitis’ approach to competitive swimming", and it does not even explain what was alleged to be wrong with his approach. Deleting that whole paragraph would improve the article. Maproom (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the answer to the OP's question about a tag regarding bare URLs is because this version of the page had several bare URLs as references. This is susceptible to linkrot, so the more info we can add about references the better, most importantly the title and URL. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have suggestions on how to make it appear less as an attack page? What do you recommend removing from the page to keep it from appearing as an attack page as you say it does? I am open to suggestions.

What “substantial editing” needs to be completed to comply with the Wikipedia:Biographies of living person policies? Please be more specific in your answer. Please elaborate on why “the whole thing is poorly sourced”, especially when news sources such as the Fairfax Times, Swimming World, and Reach for the Wall of the Washington Post are among the sources provided? Finally, please be more specific in your assertion that “substantial rewriting” is needed on the material concerning his ban. What “substantial rewriting” is needed? I will rewrite the paragraph concerning the court case Pliuskaitis v. Jotautas (1999) 47 O.R. (3d) 227 per your suggestions. Thank you for your feedback Snowswimmer (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's essentially an attack page, with a WP:BLP1E issue. If Pliuskaitis had not been banned by USA Swimming, there would be zero chance of this surviving as a Wikipedia article: There is a total of one local newspaper article about him that is cited in the article. (I exclude his being given an award, or his legal case being analyzed in a magazine, or the notable people he coached, none of which gets at the notion of notability as Wikipedia uses it.) In other words, the only possible reason why he's "notable" is because of one thing (the ban).

Right now, it looks to me, we have an article about a guy who just (February 2013) became publicly known as having done something wrong, and - probably not coincidentally - a new editor, who is or was at the club (SNOW) that Pliuskaitis founded, wants there to be this Wikipedia article, so that the shameful information shows up really high in search engine results. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could be an attempt to clear Michael Pliuskaitis's name by making more people aware and asking questions? XOttawahitech (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of the author of the article seems clear - see, for example, the final sentence of the initial version of the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original intent of the article was to dispel rumors (rumors that are much worse than what was and is in the Wikipedia article) circulating within the swimming world of the Northern Virginia area. The intent was to make others aware/give what was known based on news sources, not on rumors that were circulating on the pool deck and were vicious to the subject. My intent may have been skewed trying to create this entry (first time creating a Wikipedia entry) but as you can see I worked to eliminate the skewed sections with edits as I became more aware of what was expected of a Wikipedia entry and asked others for input to eliminate the skewed sections of the article. Another more experienced Wikipedia editor has offered to watch the page and has done a better job presenting the information correctly where I was admittedly not able to. I have previously informed the individual now watching the page that I will no longer be making any edits as I see that the screen name I created to make the page in the first place is a conflict of interest (I chose the screen name because I created the screen name just to make this entry about 1.) Snow and 2.) swimmers. in order to dispel the rumors circulating within the Northern Virginia area). Thank you all for your input, suggestions, and time. I am now done with my brief experience with Wikipedia. Snowswimmer (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Episode's plots/summaries

Just wanted to ask about the plot section on television series' episodes. If an editor writes a plot about the episode, by not using any sources but after seeing the episode, is that wrong? I mean, the source is the actual episode and the editor is writing a summary of it using their own words. Is it wrong to do it? Is this a "bad use"? I just suppose most of the plots are written that way since the majority of the plots I've seen don't have any sources on them. Same happens to the movies' plots that I had checked. Can't check every episode or every movie seperately but in almost all the ones I've checked, there are no sources for the plot. I was just wondering after a conversation I had with another editor and we both didn't know the answer. Thank you. TeamGale (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, primary sources can be used for summaries, but you have to make sure your write-up doesn't incorporate personal interpretation of themes, metaphors, meaning, etc. That's where you run afoul of the original research prohibition. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Got it! No personal interpretation, just describing the events of the episode otherwise is a foul ;) Thanks for your help! Really appreciate it. TeamGale (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TeamGale: You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@John Broughton: Wow! That's really helpfull! Thanks a lot for it. I didn't even know it was there. Thanks everyone for the help! :) TeamGale (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TeamGale: A pleasure to assist! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zaid231/sandbox/

Hello Wiki editors! I'm writing in regards to an article in progress; If someone has a minute to look at my Sandbox (link is below), it'd be much appreciated. I have provided new 3rd party references and revised the content, per suggestions from other editors. Also, I was wondering if it'd be more advantageous to make 'Franchising' the focus of this article, as I'm able to provide add'l neutral (& informative) content on this subject, which is becoming increasingly popular. Thanks in advance for any help or feedback.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zaid231/sandbox/

Zaid231 (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. (1) Normally, we don't put a slash at the end of the pagename (for example, my sandbox is User:Nyttend/sandbox, not User:Nyttend/sandbox/), but that's entirely a personal choice, so you should keep using this name if you feel like it. (2) As of right now, the page has no reliable sources providing substantial coverage. There's really not much in the article published by wsRadio, and our article on wsRadio makes me think that they're an opinion source, which isn't something upon which encyclopedia articles should be based. Right now, you need to expand the page to demonstrate why the company is important and why it passes our inclusion standards; the current version makes it sound like a small no-name company without a chance at qualifying, so if you think it qualifies, you need to demonstrate that it's much more than what it sounds like right now. Bits about franchising would be a bad idea, unless I misunderstand what you mean: it sounds as if you're meaning adding a section about "Franchise Opportunities!", which generally isn't encyclopedic. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tables with empty spaces

I'm trying to create a table in wiki code, but for some reason the "empty" cells aren't showing up. For example, I'm trying to create a table that looks like this[2] but it ends up looking like this:

Header 1	Header 2	Header 3
Stuff 1	Stuff 2	Stuff 3
			Stuff 4
				Stuff 5

It says on this page that you can use   to fill an empty cell, but how do you do that exactly? Thanks. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 22:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this?

Header 1	Header 2	Header 3
Stuff 1	Stuff 2	Stuff 3
			Stuff 4
				Stuff 5

Just make the cells and leave them blank. Scarce2 (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you defined a table three cells wide, but only define cells for one column. Then you specify rowspan="5" but there are only three rows to span. The parser is just so confused. -- Gadget850^talk 23:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's take the example from the help page.

Column 1	Column 2	Column 3
A	B
	C	D
E	F
G
H

It says below that table that if you "use rowspan="2" for "G" and rowspan="3" for "F" to get another row below "G" & "F" won't work, because all (implicit) cells would be empty." If you do it anyway, it looks like this:

Column 1	Column 2	Column 3
A	B
	C	D
E	F
G
			H

It also says that you can "use   to fill an empty cell with dummy content". How do I do that? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 23:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By writing   in the cell. That's it. The cell must exist already. Writing   in a cell doesn't change the structure of the table, but it may make the column wider. I have tried to make a table like your link [3]. I can only do it by making a fourth column either before or after the other columns. Without a fourth column, I don't know whether it's possible to make different top borders for Stuff 4 and Stuff 5.

Header 1	Header 2	Header 3
Stuff 1	Stuff 2	Stuff 3


	Stuff 4
	Stuff 4	Stuff 5

Header 1	Header 2	Header 3
Stuff 1	Stuff 2	Stuff 3


	Stuff 4
	Stuff 4	Stuff 5

PrimeHunter (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess it isn't possible after all. Thanks for your help nonetheless. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 00:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]