Help desk
< June 1	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 3 >

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 2[edit]

Toolserver tools[edit]

So, with the demise of the WikiMedia toolserver, did the tools on it migrate somewhere en masse, or did some migrate to various different places while most of them died? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: I'm sure someone can provide a more in-depth answer than me, but the "replacement" was the Wikimedia Labs (or, more precisely, the Tool Labs). Anyone can create an account here to develop and create their tools. I'm not sure how many tools were migrated there and how many were lost...but this page does provide some insight into tools that broke after the shutdown, some of which you can see were moved to the Tool Labs or elsewhere. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's precisely what I was looking for.

:-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock after 5 yrs[edit]

Could you still be blocked if, for example, you were blocked indefinitely, created a new account, became a famous Wikipedian, and 5 years after the sock block, with no bad edits or vandalism on the famous account, and then revealed 5 years after the sock block that you are that blocked person?--69.223.186.189 (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you could be - though whether you were or not would very much depend on the circumstances which led to the block. But please note this help desk is intended to provide help with using and contributing towards Wikipedia - it is not a forum for discussing hypothetical questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There is no hard and fast rule for something like this. It would depend on what the person had done to get blocked in the first place, the quality and quantity of their contributions, and whether they held any advanced permissions that they would have had to betray the trust of the community to obtain without revealing the past socks. If they never ran for Admin or Arbcom, and hadn't done anything particularly bad to get blocked, and had been an uncontroversial and good editor, we probably would not block them. Very few people who try something like that are able to resist returning to the same bad habits that got them blocked to begin with. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also would depend on what you were blocked for. If you created one account, did some 2-3 edits of silly vandalism, got blocked under that account, then created a new account and did nothing wrong for five years, we can unequivocally say no one would care. If, however, you are a well-known troll who created heaps of trouble for years, perhaps even simultaneously while maintaining clean and bad accounts, you would be blocked as soon as anyone figured it out. The difference is in the details, and unless you can (or are even willing) to say who you are and cop to everything you've done, we have no way to comment intelligently on this question. It really depends on when, and what you were blocked for, and what you as a person (as opposed to what any one particular account you have created) has done since being blocked. --Jayron 32 04:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Omission of my name.[edit]

I would like to inform you that you mistakenly omitted my name in your website for the 2016 DECLARED DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES for the United States Senate representing the Golden State of California in 2016 Election. My name is Dr. Akinyemi Agbede, and I have already declared my candidacy for the 2016 Democratic candidate running for the United States Senate representing the Golden State of California. My website is www.americamustregainitsgreatness2016.com. Please, rectify this omission immediately. Thanking you for your usual co-operation.

Sincerely,

Dr. Akinyemi Agbede.

(DECLARED DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR THE 2016 UNITED STATES SENATE REPRESENTING THE GOLDEN STATE OF CALIFORNIA). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:2C00:58E:5C8E:F58E:4224:7876 (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 4 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.

This would seem to be about the Wikipedia article United States Senate election in California, 2016. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Akinyemi Agbede's name, but provided a neutral reference, not the self-publicity website. Candidates would be best advised not to add their own names and websites because of conflict of interest issues. Dbfirs 20:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auto arrange[edit]

How to automatically arrange the items of a bulleted list? For example, this one is a mess. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 04:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other than Soraya Syed who had been added at the bottom (but is now in order), the list is in alphabetical order of family names.
Not all family names come at the end, and (unlike most such lists) this is very clearly explained on the edit page:-

* [[Reza Abbasi]]

* [[Aizu Yaichi]]

* [[Arthur Baker (calligrapher)|Arthur Baker]]

* [[Pat Blair]]

* [[Timothy Botts]]

* [[Cai Yong]]

Although this may look wrong to some, just using second name order, would list many of the entries under their personal or given names, not their family names. - Arjayay (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 08:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SORT may be what you're looking for. Dismas|^(talk) 09:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD stats[edit]

Resolved

– Skr15081997 (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, My vote! on an AfD is missing from its stats page. Don't know why this is happening.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had posted this there also.--Skr15081997 (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Skr15081997: It looks like your vote is now included. I'm not sure how the tool specifically works, but I figure it just took a while to update. Perhaps it updates periodically, accessed a cached version of the page, etc. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually I have struck my earlier vote and added it again with the same reason. Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users[edit]

The article on this category says "Please consider tagging individual images by placing the Cleanup image accessibility tag on their image-description pages." It is not clear how this is supposed to work. Where do you put the Cleanup image accessibility tag in Wikimedia Commons? Wherever I put it, it appears as a dead link on the page, and the image doesn't seem to be added to any actual category or anything. Could the instructions in the category article be made more clear, please? Thanks --Frans Fowler (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frans Fowler: Tags defined at the English Wikipedia don't work when used at Wikimedia Commons. The corresponding tag for commons images seems to be commons:Template:Colour blind. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Company Page[edit]

Hi,

I would like to create my company page. please suggest from where i should start.

Thanks Prakrati — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.118.252.180 (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Prakrati. If you want to create a page for your company, read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you want to create a page about something else, read Wikipedia:Your first article. —teb728 t c 07:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And note that it would not be your company page it would be a Wikipedia encyclopedia article about a company.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

Hi, can interviews of people given to reliable sources be considered a "reliable source" to cite an information in the article? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the reliable source has published the interview, then you can cite that. If it hasn't been published, it isn't a reliable source. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he subject self-published it, say on the subject's personal website, then it can be used under the same limitations as other self-published sources. In any case, interviews are generally primary sources with the li,itatiosn on use implied by that status. DES ^(talk) 11:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Situational Sources[edit]

A video games project I'm part of was recently flagged as unreliable according to the "Identifying reliable sources" page. This was an understandable decision but it called into question what to do with information that has no "reliable source" and likely never will. For example, an old and defunct video game company will never release their "end credits" through any official channel, so according to wikipedia, no reliable source can ever be found and that information should be unavailable. We all know that you can find those end credits recorded somewhere on youtube, but because it's not through any official channel, it cannot be deemed "reliable". In cases like this, I would suggest accepting the best source as "situational" where no other reliable source is available.

I'm sure this has been discussed before and there is likely a copy-paste answer out there I have yet to find. What is the philosophy behind the stringently reliable sources and does it really justify removing valued information from wikipedia pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.196.98 (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the work itself is the source. For example, we normally don't require references about whether or not John Doe appeared in movie X because they are listed in the credits of movie X. The movie itself is the reference. I'm not sure where that's written though. Dismas|^(talk) 09:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I take it this is an unrealsed game, so like an unrealsed movie, its credits are not available to be viewed and hence verified.. As for the strictness of the source policy, note that widely acepted facts need not be cited, and thst other uncited statements need not be removed unless somone challanges them. That said, the reason for the rule is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of "valued information" but an encyclopedia whech we hope peopel can rely on. The way people are able to trust it is via the verifibility policy, and the consewuent requirement for reliable sources. DES ^(talk) 11:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a disambiguation page[edit]

To whom should I address a request for the creation of a disambiguation page?

Vltava (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vltava: I've added a heading to your question so that it is separated from the question above it. The best way to do this yourself is to click on the 'add a question' link at the top of the page instead of just editing the last section of this page, as you might have done.

As to your question, is there some reason why you're not comfortable doing it yourself? You could do that since you can create articles here. A disambig page is no different really. Dismas|^(talk) 09:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the topic involved is the one discussed here. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to disambiguate between Wikipedia articles. While we only have one article titled Runciman Report, there is nothing to disambiguate. However the existing article might contain a short note mentioning the other report of the same name. Maproom (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, someone has already answered the question. Although, I'd probably disambiguate them by year instead of a short description. So, it would be "Runciman Report (1938)" and "Runciman Report (2000)" for example. Dismas|^(talk) 09:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are already two articles Runciman Report and Runciman Report (on Czechoslovakia). When there are only two we often use a hatnote instead of a disambiguation page. I have added a hatnote to the former.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with urls[edit]

How do I get this url (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1937/1937 - 0999.html) - 0999.html to display and link correctly when used with {{cite journal}}. Mjroots (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried encoding the spaces as %20 ? That is what Template:Cite journal#URL calls for. should hopefully link correctly. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: Thank you, I knew there would be a code, but didn't know what it was. 10:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with creating a new article[edit]

I want to write an article in Albanian language but it does exist in English but doesn't have all the information that I want to put in ... If that means that I should edit this how can I make it in Albanian when the article is in English or do I have the right to write it again in Albanian without copying it ??? Please help me asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlerinaSurdulli (talk • contribs) 09:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why the Albanian and English articles have to contain the exact same information. You can write the Albanian article according to the Albanian Wikipedia's rules (the rules for one language's version are not necessarily the same as another's). As for whether you can copy the information in the English version, you can do that as well. Dismas|^(talk) 09:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can create or expand articles on any Wikipedia you want. Everyone can, while respecting rules (for example routines of accepting a draft before publishing in the main article space). And Wikipedia contents is released under the license that allows further use, so YES, you can use information from one article to expand another one, also in another language.
Note, however, that Wikipedia itself is usually considered as a non-reliable source for writing Wikipedia (see Identifying reliable sources for English or Wikipedia:Identifikimi i burimeve të besueshme for Albanian Wikipedia). So, if information you want to add is disputable or not widely known, you should find appropriate sources (preferably in the language of the Wikipedia you want to add to, Albanian or English, respectively) and cite them in the article. --CiaPan (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a list[edit]

Category:Cannabis research

Hello I am a research intern for the Colorado State Marijuana Program. I would love to add some very reputable names to the cannabis research list as well as their articles, however I am unable to edit this list. It is actually missing some of the more important names in cannabis research. Any help you can give with regards to this would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.127.8.254 (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That page is a category, not a list. You don't add to that page by editing it, you add to it by editing other articles. So, for example if someone named John Smith was a cannabis researcher you would go to the bottom of the article on John Smith and put [[Category:Cannabis research]] and he would be added to that category. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But you need to be especially careful about making such claims about living people that the claim is verifiable as having been published in a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is rolling stone magazine still considered a reputable, reliable source?[edit]

Mary Jo White article has statement with citation from Rolling Stone, and it seems like a blp issue. Thanks, R Peterson2601:7:6A80:7E5:A97D:FF7:5FC2:FFED (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is attributed to Rolling Stone and the article was written by Matt Taibbi, a notable journalist, so I don't think reliability is an issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the attribution bends over backward to be neutral, saying, "It has been asserted in Rolling Stone magazine that...", rather than "It has been reported in Rolling Stone magazine that...", which would probably also pass WP:BLP. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki links[edit]

If you look at Lordship of Anholt, you will see three interwiki links. If you follow the one to "Deutsch", and then the one back to "English", you arrive at a different article, Anholt, Germany, with a different set of four interwiki links. I had thought that interwiki links were now done through a database which would presumably have some consistent (though possibly wrong) opinion about which articles have the same subject. But it seems not. Is this sort of thing frequent? Is it worth mentioning somewhere? Can it be fixed by ordinary users? Maproom (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interlanguage links are usually made at Wikidata where they are only written in one place and then displayed consistently on all wikis. Click "Wikidata item" on Lordship of Anholt to see wikidata:Q3773870. But a page can make its own interlanguage links in its own code. In this case the source of Lordship of Anholt says [[de:Anholt#Geschichte]] in order to link the section de:Anholt#Geschichte. The section is part of the article de:Anholt and that article as a whole is via Wikidata linked with the English article Anholt, Germany. Wikidata cannot link an article in one wiki to a section in another wiki. The German Wikipedia apparently has no article which is a complete match to Lordship of Anholt so there is no perfect solution. If you want consistency above navigation then you can remove [[de:Anholt#Geschichte]] so Lordship of Anholt no longer has a link to German. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A major shortcoming of Wikidata is that it can only cope with a one-to-one mapping between languages. If, as PrimeHunter has explained for this case, and as happens frequently, there is not a simple one-to-one match between the nearest equivalents in the various languages, Wikidata can't cope, and there is no agreed way round the problem. In my view this is such a severe limitation that we shouldn't have thrown away the existing inter-language links in favour of Wikidata. David Biddulph (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your answers. I have learned that this is a mess which I will do well to keep away from. Maproom (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 June 2