Help desk
< March 26	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 28 >

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.

March 27

Category being added to my talk page by another user

Resolved

A user is adding a category to my talk page through HotCat, even though it's not an appropriate category. What is happening with his scripts? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was resolved on its own WhisperToMe (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Error that made it into Russian Wikipedia -- how to alert them?

Resolved

At Cockcroft–Walton generator an incorrect schematic was just fixed.[1]

Looking at the file for the incorrect schematic, I see that it is used at ru.wikipedia.org.link How do I alert them so that they can fix their page? I don't speak Russian. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ru:Википедия:Посольство is the link to their Meta:Wikimedia Embassy. Ryan Vesey 04:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! See link --Guy Macon (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reply at ru.WP is a bit cryptic if you're not very familiar with working with images. The corrected schematic cannot be used on ru.WP because it exists only on en.WP, please move it to Commons so that all WPs can use it. Roger (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Warren Masters V

Steve Here. I Joined the Masters V in 1983 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.105.24.222 (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide us with a reliable source. If you provide us with a reliable source, then we could change it easily. --Ushau97 ^talk 04:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party hosted source

Resolved

I've stumbled upon a source I'd like to use. The problem is, it's not hosted on the publisher's website, and most likely never was. Instead, the only available online copy exists on a privately hosted website by a third party ([2]).

Obviously, it would be possible to use the privately hosted web copy for my own reading (trusting the host that his copy is unaltered from the original), and only use the original source data (title, author, publication date etc) for the reference in the article.

I'd like to include the link with the reference for the obvious purpose of easy verifiability for the reader. My question is, would it be possible to use this link in conjunction with the reference, or would it be advisable to leave it out due to the questionable situation regarding it being hosted by a third party in this manner? --89.0.245.24 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best if you could get a copy of the original print source. You shouldn't link to websites that host copyright violations, and there's no requirement that a print source have a linkable online version, so it's best to do as you say: use the original bibliographic information about the original print source, and avoid linking to the questionable online reproduction of it. --Jayron32 04:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for my own reading purposes I don't need another copy. I see no reason not to trust the available copy. So that's what I'll do then, no link. Thanks for your advice, --89.0.245.24 (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppets

What are the guidelines on sockpuppets? I had a few a while back at Commons because I was trying to shake off a stalker, but now someone tells me I'm being naughty and could be blocked for sockpuppetry. I always thought they weren't a problem unless they were being abused.

Sardaka (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK is the policy at English Wikipedia regarding sockpuppets. You could report them at WP:SPI --Ushau97 ^talk 06:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using for a purpose listed at WP:SOCK#LEGIT, then it would be okay. --Ushau97 ^talk 07:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using a legitimate alternative account but don't want to disclose it publicly for whatever reason, it's a good idea to inform the Arbitration Committee about it confidentially, to avoid any future problems with suspected sock puppetry. Chamal ^T•C 08:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Libertarian Party

Resolved

Update, Michael Chambers is the newly elected Vice-Chair. Please update — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.58.155 (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If you provide us with a reliable source, then we could change the information without any delay. I came up with this after doing a web search. However since it is not from a reliable source, I have not updated it. Their official Facebook page have not been updated so far and I don't think their official web site https://www.alaskalibertarian.com/ has been updated even once this year. Please provide us with a reliable source so that we can change the information --Ushau97 ^talk 10:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the "About Us" page at https://www.alaskalibertarian.com/ doew show Michael Chambers as the vice-chair. It's not independent, but I guess that's reliable, so I've made the change. Rojomoke (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Ward

I have a verification from the Referees Officer of the Football Association in London, yet still my entry states it needs verification, can you assist please. Tony Ward Referee - Wikipedia. <email redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.175.84 (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you are referring to the article Tony Ward (referee), the template at the top is currently appropriate, because there is only a single fact in the article that is referenced. If you have another published reference, it may be added, following the procedure in WP:Referencing for beginners. Anybody may remove the {{refimprove}} if they believe that it is no longer applicable - but if you or anybody else remove it at present, it is likely to be reinstated by somebody else, because the article does lack references. It is not that anybody is doubting that you are a referee, only that (especially for biographies of living persons), Wikipedia requires all information to be verifiable.

Since you appear to be Tony Ward, judging from your question, you should also read about conflict of interest: your best course is to mention the reference you have, and any others you may have, eg newspaper reports, on the article's talk page Talk:Tony Ward (referee) so that an uninvolved editor may edit the article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Nolan

YOU HAVE PUT THAT BERNIE NOLAN DIED YESTERDAY, HOW COME IT HAS NOT BEEN ON THE NEWS!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.239.77 (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On what page did the information appear? Please don't SHOUT!. Roger (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was Bernadette Nolan. The unsourced information has been removed several hours ago though. Chamal ^T•C 14:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is unreliable. MEXICO CITY KID (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

right-clicking h2;mw-headline opens the edit page ?

When I'm logged in, on every page with an editable section, right-clicking the header of that section opens the corresponding edit page for me. There seems to be some kind of script connected to either the h2 span tag combination or the mw-headline class. If this only happened with the actual title text, I wouldn't further think about it, but it also does that on the white-space right from the "[edit]" span, which I find rather irritating. I often right-click there because I want to open my browser's context menu and I don't want it to relate to text, images or anything on a page, that's why I'm clicking the supposedly empty space on that page. (Tested this with Firefox, Chrome and Opera, which all seem to extend the span tag to 100% available width when undefined.) - Is there any way to turn this feature off or at least prevent it from responding to my clicks? (except from staying logged out when not intending to edit) -- Harl (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go to your Preferences → "Editing" tab, and uncheck the "Enable section editing by right clicking on section titles (requires JavaScript)" checkbox if it is checked. Chamal ^T•C 15:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The checkbox wasn't checked. I just: checked it, saved settings, unchecked it, saved settings, reloaded an editable page, to see if that would change anything, but right-clicking section titles still acts as if the checkbox was checked either way. (Thanks for trying to help though.) --Harl (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make a link to google books appear in the list of references?

I am using textbooks to edit wikipedia. Some editors have said that this is bad for verifiability, because most people do not have easy access to these textbooks. How do I integrate a link to the google books preview to the relevant page with the reference, to appear in the list of references? Here is the article where this issue was raised: aphthous stomatitis. Thanks in advance, Lesion (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be easy to access, they just have to available somewhere. Please do not use Google Books links. Even a unique source (only one "copy" exits) is acceptable as long as it can be accessed. College textbooks are not hard to access, at the very least the library of the college(s) where they are used will have them in their collection. WP:Verifiability does not require everyone to be able to access a source, only that it is possible for someone to do so. Roger (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you say please do not use Google Books links? Even if I read something in a hard copy of a book, I'll include a link to Google Books or Questia if it exists there. Here is a tool you can use to semi-automatically create a Google Books reference. Ryan Vesey 15:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Ryan says, there is no reason to not include a link to a legitimate online copy of a book (you shouldn't link if there is a copyright infringment, but that issue doesn't even arise with Google Books considering that they only provide books under the necessary permissions). If you use the {{cite book}} template, it has a parameter for including a url as well. Chamal ^T•C 16:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it you are suposed to cite the source you have actually used. If you used a physical "dead tree" book then that it what you cite. The Google Books version could be a different edition, so you should only cite it if you actually sourced the information from Google Books. Roger (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that context, yes I agree. But from the OP's question, it looks like he wants to reference the pages in the book preview itself. Chamal ^T•C 17:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read the OP (and the relevant article talk page topic) Lesion is using actual books as sources but wants to add "convenience links" to GB as he/she has been told incorrectly "Some editors have said that this is bad for verifiability, because most people do not have easy access to these textbooks." WP:V does not require sources to be easily accessible, thus the reason why he/she wants to add the links is bogus. Roger (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses. 2 separate editors advised me that when using textbooks it is good to use a link to google books (neither went as far as saying mandatory though). I had a look at the links and I still don't fully understand how to do this as I am imagining. Sorry to be a pain, but if someone could show me how to do this eample then I could apply this to the rest and in future.

So e.g. this is the source on google books [3] which defaults to the TOC. The existing markup from the article is <ref name="Scully 2008">{{cite book|last=Scully C|title=Oral and maxillofacial medicine : the basis of diagnosis and treatment|year=2008|publisher=Churchill Livingstone|location=Edinburgh|isbn=9780443068188|pages=151–157|edition=2nd ed.|chapter=14: Aphthae (recurrent aphthous stomatitis)}}</ref> If I wanted to link to page 151 (assuming it is included in the preview), is there a way to do that? Thanks again for help. Lesion (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I was once told that Google Books links were discouraged: User talk:Bzuk/Archive 5 § Removed Google Books link.3F and User talk:AlanM1/Archive 1 § Google books link. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bzuk doesn't know what he's talking about. It's certainly not spam. The editors above who state that you shouldn't use a google book link if it is a different edition or version are correct, but if it is the same, then including it is unnecessary but better than not including it. As far as using a link to a page, for some reason when I try to link to any page using &pg=151 or any other page number it either links me to the cover if the page is previewable or to a plain page saying the page is not available for viewing if it is not. In any case it's fine to cut off the URL at the end of the id (before the first ampersand). Put it into the cite book template using |url=. Ryan Vesey 21:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This preview is not a good example because the pages needed don't seem to be viewable, however I can now use this any time I use a textbook as a source, thanks. So you would add &pg=151 to the end or the url to make a link straight to page 151. A link to the book on google even without the actual page is still a step up in accessibility... Lesion (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The url in the reference seems a bit untidy...could someone show me an example of linking to google books in any page so I can copy it? Lesion (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no wait, my bad... put the url outside the template close brackets. It looks correct now, thanks again! Lesion (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Not exactly to the end of the URL. Like I described earlier, the URL should be stripped to everything before the first ampersand. You can append &pg=151 to that. Here's an example of a Google Books reference without a page number at Botik of Peter the Great.

<ref name="Hughes2004">{{cite book|author=Lindsey Hughes|title=Peter the Great: A Biography|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=-Ag2bbYzgacC|accessdate=19 January 2013|date=1 April 2004|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=978-0-300-10300-7|pages=22, 141, 178}}</ref>

Ryan Vesey 22:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: The access date is not needed since that book is never going to change. --— Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 00:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Macular Disease Society page

Resolved

Good afternoon,

The Macular Disease Society has this year refreshed its look and removed the word 'disease' from their name. I have updated their Wikipedia page to reflect this, but cannot change the main heading of the page from Macular Disease Society. Please could this be updated to show as Macular Society?

Here's the link, Macular Disease Society

Thank you for your help.

Tim Goddard

Macular Society — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.120.193 (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page to Macular Society. Maproom (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carl B. Squier

To Whom can Assist:

I am the grandson of Carl B. Squier. I am aware that is not his picture attached to the biographical article.

I phoned my mother, his youngest daughter, and she also is aware that the picture attached to his on-line Wikipedia biography is not my grandfather.

As my mother is elderly, and upset by this error, it is of the utmost importance to me personal that the Wikipedia encyclopedic content be corrected immediately if not sooner. Please be sure to display an appropriate photo of my grandfather, he is my hero.

It is of interest that the incorrect photo is a friend of my grandfather and taken from a photo that has my grandfather standing near the gentleman in your incorrect photo. Please research this and if needed my mother or I can submit a photo of my much beloved and dearly missed grandfather.

Sincerely,

Thomas Squier Jones, MSCP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.164.50.212 (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the image from the article. It was cropped from this image. Is one of the other people shown there your grandfather? This may just be a case of someone cropping the image to isolate the wrong person.--ukexpat (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The identity confusion on the original photo is discussed at http://www.lockheed.adastron.com/altair/h71vhusb.htm. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I read that correctly, Squier is on the far left? If so, it's an easy job to recrop the image and upload the correct one, assuming that there is no copyright issue (the full image has a copyright notice).--ukexpat (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I re-cropped and uploaded. The online file was corrected in 2008 and our image was uploaded in 2006. We should have the ~~right~~ correct person now. It would be nice if the family were to upload a free licence one so other Wikipedias can use it as well. Admin can delete the older version anytime.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK looks good, I have tagged the image info page for the older version to be deleted.--ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Table simplification

I want to simplify the first table at Citroën C3 Picasso#Data tables as a graph or image to save space. The problem is that i can't decide on a good layout and wanted a few tips. I was thinking a data graph of some kind but i'd like more opinions. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 17:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think my best bet is a Brick chart {{Brick chart}}...Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 17:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the data belong in WP? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's factual. It's not majorly important to the topic though and could certainly be trimmed to either CO2 or just mpg with no real impact.

Due to the time and effort invested though, i'd prefer a solution which doesn't involve huge deletions of cited content. What do you think of a Brick Chart? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 17:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately "time and effort invested" is not a valid argument for keeping anything on WP. Entire articles that might have taken dozens of contributors years to construct are routinely deleted. Roger (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Roger, i'm well aware of that...but if you wouldn't mind answering my question for my third attempt now? This is the help desk right? Or better yet can i get a response to my question without having to find an actual editors talk page? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 09:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not a tables and charts expert - I tend to avoid editing them. Roger (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes no longer collapsible

For the past day or two, I've noticed that a lot of pages with multiple navboxes aren't designed to collapse upon each other, most notbably pages like New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. I've also seen Talk page tags with To-Do lists that can't be closed, like Talk:Brandt House (Lafayette, Louisiana). Is this just on my PC, or is this a problem that should be reported to Bugzilla? -------User:DanTD (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I know nothing at all about it, but I believe they switched to a Lua version of the navbox template yesterday. You might perhaps report your problems at Template talk:Navbox, where there seems to be a "bugs" discussion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using templates

I use what seems to me a very laborious method to insert templates into wp pages. If, say, I decide to add an {{infobox person}} to a biography, I open a new tab, load a random wikipedia page, type the template name into the search box and go to that page, copy the code, go back to the article page and paste it in. OK, it only takes a minute or so (or a good deal longer when I can't remember the name of the template), but I feel I must be missing something and am being even more than usually dumb. Is there any way to call the template, with its parameters, directly from the edit window? I've read the help, and it's no help. Or is there an add-on, a script or whatever, that gives you, say, a pull-down list of templates you've recently used, or of templates you have chosen to add to it? Any advice welcome.

By the way, has anyone else noticed the "new-line" and "redirect" arrow symbols hanging down off the "Advanced" toolbar into the edit window rather than sitting on it with all the other stuff like they used to? I think that began about three days ago. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do it the same way you do. I just discovered Template:Quicktemplates and added it to my talk page. Perhaps someone could add infobox templates to it as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I use a clipboard manager called ClipCache Pro that I bought years ago. I have a folder of Wiki-useful clips stored there such as ibox templates that I use a lot, talk page project templates, etc. Very handy - also useful IRL for storing boilerplate text that I use when drafting agreements.--ukexpat (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, two very helpful suggestions both worth serious consideration. I will think about creating a personalised version of Template:Quicktemplates in my userspace, that could be a good way forward. ClipCache is not useful to me (my tent is pitched in the other camp), but I found a freeware called ClipMenu which offers some similar functions and looks promising. I think what I was sort of hoping to find was a script that would sit in the Move tab in the same way that the addpersondata script does. Maybe I should talk to the author of that script... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Twinkle too. It can add all kinds of maintenance templates, do CSDs, PRODs and AFDs etc (but not iboxes unfortunately).--ukexpat (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find an image selection guideline/preference an editor claimed existed

In one of the edit history summaries, a user said that in selecting the lead image in history and biography articles, that a photo automatically takes precedence over a painting. However, this seems to contradict WP:MoS/Images (particularly WP:LEADIMAGE), where it says that for the lead image, a painting can often be better than a photo when it is of higher quality and clearer depiction, and seems to establishes no such automatic preference. Looking elsewhere, I can't seem to find any policy, guideline, or archived discussion that supports the editor's proposition. (My main curiosity involves subjects from the very early era of photography in the 19th century, when the choice is a poor-quality photo or a high-quality painting). If there is, I would like to know so I can try to make it more prominent for others like myself to know; if no such policy/guideline/consensus preference exists, then I will feel free to propose the edit changes with that knowledge in hand. Thanks! Morgan Riley (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the painting is of higher quality than the photo, and accurately depicts the subject (according to the photo), I would use it as the lead. If the painting is inaccurate about something important, use the photo and mention the discrepancy in the prose. Either way, I'd try to get consensus on the talk page. This doesn't answer your question directly, but I don't think a guideline is necessary for every possible situation. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Searching in history

Is there a way to search for phrases or texts that exist in the previous versions of articles? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBlame will do this. I think I saw somebody mention another tool recently. --ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a way to search in general, rather than one page? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're wanting to search all former versions of all four million pages? That seems a bit excessive. --ColinFine (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was an interesting phrase that I found somewhere, though I can't remember from which article it came. But sorry that I asked. --66.190.69.246 (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to apologise. I have two suggestions: Google's search engine is much better than Wikipedia's, even for Wikipedia content; and, if you tell us here what the phrase is, it's possible that someone here will know where it appeared. Maproom (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that Google can search in article histories, can it? Anyway, the interesting phrase that I remember is ‘Black people are gay and should still be slaves.’ --66.190.69.246 (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

citation requirement

When editing an article a citation if requested. I found a page that was incorrect, but I only know this because I was there in person. I'm getting old and for years I have been seeing the incorrect observations. The event is kind of really important. How do I "cite" my personal observations?19:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)98.28.70.200 (talk)

You are probably out of luck. You would need your observations published in a reliable source and then have that source cited. Otherwise it is called 'original research here. See: WP:RS and WP:OR.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your observations are correct, then it is likely that you can find a reliable source that also has written about them. Of course, you too have the right to ask that a given statement be proven with a cite, which is generally done by adding a {{Citation needed}} tag and/or posting at the article's Talk page. Can you mention the specifics of this particular case? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]