Help desk
< April 26	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 27[edit]

Padlock[edit]

I usually see a padlock next to the titles of pages. What does it mean? --Sonusmarty (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Sonusmarty[reply]

You could click on the lock for an explanation, I believe. Or see WP:PROTECTION. Dismas|^(talk) 04:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this compared to this? The first uses http and the second uses https. --Otus scops (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean a padlock next to the url in your browser address bar then it's added by your own browser because it's a https address like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk. Many browsers used to display a favicon there but that has apparently gone out of fashion. See Favicon#Limitations and criticism. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology and related problems.[edit]

Dear Wikipedia people,

I do want to question in the widest sense the concept of the common use of Mythology. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the word myth as such:

myth noun \ˈmith\

an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true

It would be deeply insulting to talk about Christian Mythology, Jewish Mythology or Islamic Mythology but yet we allow ourselves to talk about Norse Mythology. This is a religion (not mine but bear with me) that is in active practice and very similar to Hinduism in shape. It would indeed create an uproar were Wikipedia to speak of Hindu Mythology. Let´s treat all alike with same respect and stop talking of Governments and Regimes which in itself is loaded with opinion shaping elements.

Tolli. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.161.30 (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"myth" and "mythology" does not imply false. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth actually gives three definitions where you only quoted the first:

: an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true

: a story that was told in an ancient culture to explain a practice, belief, or natural occurrence

: such stories as a group

See also mythology. And we have articles about all your examples: Christian mythology, Jewish mythology, Islamic mythology, Norse mythology, Hindu mythology. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This page is for help in editing Wikipedia, so your posting is not really on topic here. If you want to argue that Wikipedia should change the way it talks about something, the best place is on the talk page of the subject (eg Talk:Mythology, or if it is more general than one article, find a suitable WikiProject and discuss it there). But you should be aware that Wikipedia's policy is to use the terms for things most often used in reliable sources. Unless you can show that different terminology is in widespread use outside Wikipedia, you have very little chance of getting it accepted inside Wikipedia. Wikipedia is explicitly not for new ideas or new approaches, but only for those that have already been published. --ColinFine (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Costly" in school-district athletic programs[edit]

There is obviously a "template" used when entering school districts. Part of that "template" is the use of this opening entry:

"**** School District offers a wide variety of extracurriculars, including clubs, organizations and an extensive, costly sports program."

"Costly" is an opinion. And not all sports programs are extensive. Should this be an option for a templated entry? Jrshooter (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are jumping to conclusions. Your contributions show you have removed "costly" from three Pennsylvania school districts. Use the page history to find when it was added. It appears User:Raindrop73 is manually editing a lot of Pennsylvania school districts and has added "extensive, costly sports program" to some of them. If you disagree then you can contact that editor. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jrshooter, I think you are right to delete these, and it is up to the user who added them to discuss it with you if they don't accept your deletion. In my view, an evaluative term like "costly" violates the principle Neutral point of view, and should never appear in a Wikipedia article unless it has been used in a reference being cited. --ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I'm more in line with ColinFine on this. The conclusion I'm jumping to is that "costly" is evaluative and not backed up by facts. Also, I'm seeing that User:Raindrop73 appears to no longer be active. So how do I arrange to get a manual, repetitve edit changed? I don't have enough hours in the day to edit every school-district entry in Pennsylvania.Jrshooter (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant you jumped to the conclusion that it was added indiscriminantly by a template. And you are still jumping to conclusions by talking about "every school-district entry in Pennsylvania" after I already said that Raindrop73 added it to "some of them". And I meant that if you want to prevent "template" additions like this, your apparent reason for posting here at all, you can contact Raindrop73 who is actually very active. Special:Contributions/Raindrop73 shows 33 edits today. I don't object to removing it from three articles you came by without contacting the editor, but if you plan a mass removal then discussion is best. You could start by asking whether it's added to random schools or to schools with sports programs significantly more extensive and costly than usual. I don't know Raindrop73's criteria and haven't examined the programs but it's possible that Raindrop73 has. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter, if you believe he was "examining" the schools before posting the same thing time after time, you go right ahead and believe that. But before you do that, I'd appreciate if you would spell out just how to contact Raindrop73, because I see no route to him right now. --Jrshooter (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith from other editors, as you are actually required to do by Wikipedia policy. Don't bandy around accusations unless you actually have some evidence, such as a link to this fictitious template you are determined to believe exists. Anyway, you contact users by posting on their talk page, in this case at User talk:Raindrop73. By the way, you are completely wrong that they are inactive, their edit history shows that they are very much active. Spinning Spark 22:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I long ago conceded on the "template" thing. You two are the ones hung up on that. But I'm not about to assume good faith when the same thing is posted on multiple (NOT ALL!) pages, the same way. Not even Wikipedia policy can force that, although I see how you might think it can mold minds. No response required; I know what to do now. Thank you. :) Jrshooter (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how you can jump from 'I don't know Raindrop73's criteria and haven't examined the programs but it's possible that Raindrop73 has' to 'if you believe he was "examining" the schools before posting the same thing time after time, you go right ahead and believe that'. It's hard to have a meaningful conversation when you make jumps like that so I will stop here. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no problem with you stopping here if you don't understand me. I think it's been addressed sufficiently through proper channels. --Jrshooter (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright for cover art of book published 1996[edit]

I am being asked by the bot for copyright information on the cover art of a book I uploaded. The book is published by Zoetic Inc

the Copyright belongs to Felicity Bielovich

jacket design DesignGeist jacket illustration by Jenny Dolezel

Please advise me on what tags to use — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewHart500 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template should be {{Non-free book cover}} but you must also provide a fair use rationale for every article you use the image in. You can use the template {{Non-free use rationale}} for this. See this example of how to fill in the template. Please make sure that the image you upload is low-resolution (no more than necessary to display in the article). Spinning Spark 09:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were somewhat premature in uploading File:Judas Window.jpg. It is liable to be deleted as it has no {{non-free use rationale}}, and as it isn't being used on an article. Non-free use isn't allowed on a draft. If/ when your draft get accepted as a published article, you can then use such an image under a properly-completed NFUR. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logging in[edit]

Sometimes when I log in to Wikipedia and ask to be kept logged in for up to 30 days, this does not work and I have to keep logging in every time I wish to edit or go to my user page. Why is this? What am I doing wrong? --P123cat1 (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is most likely an issue with the way your browser is storing the cookie that Wikipedia tries to store to keep you logged in. This can be caused by the current cookie becoming corrupted. You can test it by trying a different browser. Clearing the cookies of your current browser may fix the issue altogether. Dismas|^(talk) 11:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Nearing[edit]

Thanks for the above reply to my query about logging in.

I now have a query about an edit that I have made to the Wikipedia article on Helen Nearing. I have added footnote #2 as a cross-reference to the Wikipedia article on Helen and Scott Nearing, which has duly appeared in the "References" as Helen and Scott Nearing which when clicked on leads to the correct article, but does there need to be some indication in the footnote that the reference is to another Wikipedia article? --P123cat1 (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean you are using another Wikipedia (WP) page as a source or reference, that is not permitted. Only reliable sources are allowed, and WP itself is not regarded as a reliable source. Sorry if I have misunderstood your query. :-\ --220 of ^Borg 12:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Simple answer - you can't use Wikipedia as a reference, see WP:CIRCULAR. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see the reference to Wikipedia has been deleted already and I understand the reason why. But I think it is important that the reader should know there is another article on her in Wikipedia, i.e. Helen and Scott Nearing, and as there is nothing in this article to show that there is, I have solved the problem by changing "The Nearings" in para 2 of the Helen Nearing article to "Helen and Scott Nearing", as a link to that other article. --P123cat1 (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience links: Helen Nearing and Helen and Scott Nearing. Dismas|^(talk) 14:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123cat1, you could also have added a "See Also" section, as you can already see at Helen and Scott Nearing. Rojomoke (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Rojomoke, I have looked at the "See Also" section in Helen and Scott Nearing and am not clear why you say I could have added a "See Also" section in the Helen Nearing article. What would I put under it? Surely not a link to the Wiki article for Scott and Helen Nearing, in view of the first advice I was given? --P123cat1 (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between a See also section and a reference (see the wikilinks). --David Biddulph (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also would have been fine. It's basically pointing out closely related articles, that may not be mentioned in the text, which the reader would also be interested in. References are when you basically are saying "this source here is where we got our information from". Two different things. Dismas|^(talk) 17:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see the difference. You will note (see above) that I did find a neater way of incorporating the Wiki reference into the text of the Helen Nearing article that did not involve a footnote or a "See also" entry; I was a bit puzzled subsequently about what "See also" entries were for, but all is clear now. --P123cat1 (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hatch Mill Restoration Web Page[edit]

Hello,

I'm on the board of directors of the Hatch Mill Restoration and Preservation Group, Inc. I noticed that the link to the restoration web page is the old ".org" page that no longer represents the group. The official page is Hatchmill.com. We would appreciate it if you would change the link to the .com page.

Thanks in advance, Bill Powell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.179.110 (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. For future reference it's always useful if you can give us a wikilink to the relevant Wikipedia article, in this case Hatch Homestead and Mill Historic District. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal knowledge[edit]

I have edited an article in which I was a direct participant. How do I show myself as a reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Martinson (talk • contribs) 16:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is that you don't, though this may seem strange. Your personal knowledge (if unpublished) is not acceptable to Wikipedia as a reliable source, as it counts as original research and is not verifiable. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You publish whatever knowledge you may have elsewhere, then cite it as normal. Make sure it's a reliable publication, and particularly that it has editorial oversight, peer review, or both. Also, have a look at the conflict of interest guideline if you were heavily involved. --N Y Kevin 01:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tharthan (different question than last time)[edit]

My page is miscategorised under Category:Pronoun_user_templates and Category:Grammar_user_templates. I tried putting a "no include" tag for things, but it doesn't seem to work.

Since I'm not a template, but a mere Wikipedian, I would be thankful if someone could tell me what to put on my userpage so as to not have me categorised as one. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's safe to delete the categories entirely, I have done so. The issue seems to be because you copy-pasted the code from templates like Template:User than then rather than transcluding them ("{{User than then}}""). Яehevkor ✉ 16:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see. My bad. Thanks for the help! Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tonga[edit]

Reference to Hawaii giving up the monarchy mentioned in Tonga's history tab is wrong. The United States imprisioned our Queen and in order to save her people she relinquished her throne! We Hawaiians signed a petition to refuse the annexation of Hawaii. Every single Hawaiian that could sign did sign against Hawaii becoming a state of the rip off United States.

Please research better on how we lost our monarchy and reference this correctly. This native Hawaiian appreciates it that Wikipedia does this wiki wiki as you so appropriately would use our slangs and not even write historically correctly about my beloved home Hawaii and Queen.

Thank you, Lynn Keaulana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.178.244 (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can improve an article, you are welcome to do so - but please note that information needs to be backed up by reliable published sources. Your instruction to "research better" is inappropriate, given that you are addressing thousands of people who read this page, most of whom (like me) have little knowledge of Hawai'i, or particular interest in it. --ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation[edit]

I know that if a page here is in "article space", editors are allowed, indeed encouraged, to improve it. And I understand that if a page here is in an editor's space, e.g. as a subpage of his user page, it "belongs" to that editor and it would be rude to edit it without his permission. But what is the status of an article for creation?

I ask with reference to this question asked here a few days ago. A new editor asked how to submit an article for review. PrimeHunter advised him to click the green "Submit for review" button. I made extensive edits to the article, to improve the formatting and spelling, and to bring it closer to compliance with en:Wikipedia standards. I tried not to change the actual content, which seemed to me good. But I don't know whether it was appropriate for me to edit an "article for creation" before it had been submitted. I also don't know whether it would be appropriate for me, now, to click the green button; the OP has not taken the advice to do so. Maproom (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it is ready, there is no harm in submitting it, it can always be submitted again if rejected. Outsiders editing AFC is unusual but perfectly ok, there is no WP:OWNership even at AFC. I personally edited and submitted plenty of while the G13 backlog was being mass-cleared and saved quite a few. The problem would come if the original author objected. There is no talk page to thrash out the disagreement, which is one of the advantages of the new draft namespace over AFC. Spinning Spark 19:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I clicked the green button, something I have never done before. I was surprised to see that, while this added a "Review waiting" notice near the foot of the page, the "Draft article not currently submitted for review" notice is still present at the top. Maproom (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The green button link [1] loads an edit notice which says "An automated robot will update the page later and remove the draft article box", and preloads the edit box with text saying the old template "will still appear at the top of your submission page, but you should ignore it". The usual way to handle situations like this would be to ask the editor to change a parameter in an existing template, but new editors cannot be trusted to correctly follow instructions like that without messing up the syntax, and if they do that then their draft would often lose the whole box with the submission botton, be removed from all categories and never seen by others. Therefore the cleanup is left to a bot or more experienced editor while the new user only has to click the green button and Save page (there are still many new users who cannot do that). PrimeHunter (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how log the bot takes. Today, the creator of the article also clicked the green button, and there are now two "Review waiting" notices at the foot of the article, but the "not currently submitted" message is still there at the top. Maproom (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia missed to show a details about shihan hussaini[edit]

Wikipedia you miss out to show a details about a famous karate & expert in so many arts. the great legend in India shihan hussaini has called by us "Hu" (humanity). you missed a great thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.37.224.96 (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you can improve an article, you are very welcome to do so. Please note, however, that information must be sourced to a reliable published source, especially for articles about living people. Information that comes only from your own knowledge is not acceptable and may get deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that 'Shihan' is a Japanese term for a very senior instructor. If the poster could provide the persons full name then perhaps we can see if they are notable enough for a Wikipedia page. Then again, this, seems to be a link to the correct person. An 8th Dan in Isshin-ryu karate, and involved in archery [2] too. --220 of ^Borg 02:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Error and Content Not Appearing[edit]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and am having two issues 1. I keep getting this error "Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page)." but have checked and redone citations so I am not sure how to fix this. 2. I have 5 sections and a reference section for my article but only 3 are showing up, what am I doing wrong?

The title of the page is Boaz Keysar

Mads.776 (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Boaz Keysar needs some fixing. I guess the big blue links to the help pages aren't working today. Anyway, Help:Referencing for beginners will get you started. -- Gadget850^talk 21:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The help page says

When referring to an already named reference, ensure that the ref tag is in the following format (note the final slash).

<ref name="reference name" />

Maproom (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have put <nowiki> tags around the <ref> </ref> tags in your question, to stop the code that renders this page from thinking that you are trying to define a reference here. Maproom (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nightcore???[edit]

Hi, I was wondering, how would one go about writing an article about a remix genre that has no articles about it. (I found a definition on urban dictionary, and there is one website on either the band with the same name or the remix movement, it won't load for me.) From my understanding of it, it is considered a subgenre of trance. sorta happy hardcore. It is rather connected to the anime/manga fandoms, and most videos on youtube use an anime character for their video. That's the info from what I've picked up. I believe this subgenre should have an article (I'm always open to suggestions though, so if you all don't think it's notable/practical/etc just tell me, I'll pick a new project.)

What would count as a valid source for this?? This would be a fun project if I can get it off the ground, but lack of sources is going to be a big issue.

Thank you for all your help. NikaGirl (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First you would need to collect reliably published third party sources (newspapers, books, major media magazines) that had written in a significant manner about the subject. Fan sites dont count. If you dont have those, then you dont have the makings for an article. If you do have the coverage, then you could follow the steps outlined under WP:AFC which will guide you and bring an experienced editor to help guide you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to add user/IP contributions to a watchlist?[edit]

I patrol recent changes, and frequently come across problem IPs and users, I'm wondering if there is a way to watchlist the contributions of an IP or user? Thank you. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 23:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on IRC. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 02:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]