Help desk
< June 20	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 22 >

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 21[edit]

How do I print out a wikipedia page?[edit]

How do I print out a wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.174.178 (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can print a Wikipedia page by selecting File → Print from your browser.

In the left sidebar of each Wikipedia page is a selection for 'Printable version'. This is a very basic print function, mainly of use for very old browsers. See Help:Printable.
If the file menu does not show on a Windows system, pressing Alt should reveal it.
On a Mac using Safari, Reader mode is usually a better choice for printing. Older versions of Safari will show the Reader button to the right of the web address; newer versions show an icon to the left of the web address. Reader mode assembles articles that are split over multiple pages and removes ads, menu bars, and other clutter.
For more control over printing, log into your account and enable Preferences → Gadgets → Print options gives you more control when printing content. 'Printable version' will then show as 'Print page'.

On the left hand side of ever article and page on Wikipedia there should be a link named "Printable version". If you press that, then press Ctrl+P (if Windows or similar OS) or ⌘+Shift+P (if Mac) it will bring up your computers printer menu where you can change settings like black and white vs color, or how many copies you want. Then you can press OK or Print or what ever it might say, and there you go, you have now printed out a Wikipedia article. (t) Josve05a (c) 04:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honeywell[edit]

I have been asked (I have no idea why, this is really not my field) to have a look at the article Honeywell. Honeywell was once a leading computer company. In 1999, it was taken over by AlliedSignal, which then changed its name to "Honeywell".

My view is that Wikipedia articles should be about subjects, not words. So the article on the company that gave us the term "Honeywell brain damage" should end in 1999, when that company ceased to exist; and the subsequent history of the merged company should be in the article titled AlliedSignal, or in a new and separate article. Are there guidelines on this somewhere? I know that it can be contentious: when the company that owned the Scottish football team Rangers went bankrupt in 2011, there was edit-warring about the article that covered both the football team and the owning company. Maproom (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found out the hard way that AT&T is not about the company that used to be AT&T. That's all I know.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a hatnote pointing that out for years. Rwessel (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was seeing the hatnote that told me I needed to go back and fix all those Wlinks. And last night I discovered Babcock & Wilcox may be a similar case.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 13:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether there are guidelines, having had a quick look I would say that Honeywell didn't cease to exist. The article makes clear the change of ownership and location (maybe everything). If the post 1999 company is trading, and known as Honeywell, that seems the name to use. So long as the article reflects accurately the ownership, I don't see a problem, unless of course Honeywell computers justified its OWN article. Pincrete (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate someone having a look at how I handle Babcock & Wilcox over the next couple of weeks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Editing[edit]

I have previously asked about editing an entry in my name because the information contained is out of date. In addition I have no idea who placed the entry in the first place. The entry is under David Eldon.

I received no response to my earlier question, and am now concerned that the information is very old. I am conscious of the fact that there is note on Wikipedia that reads This biographical article needs additional citations for verification, as its only attribution is to self-published sources; articles should not be based solely on such sources. Please help by adding reliable, independent sources. Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. (February 2013).

Any changes will be made by myself, and if the note means that readers think I am a self-publicist, which I am not, then it is better to remove the entry completely.

The advice I need is whether I can correct the incorrect entries without them being considered inappropriate or just to remove the entry altogether.86.190.153.95 (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI, which strongly discourages you from editing an article about yourself. Instead, you should suggest changes accompanied by reliable sources- see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for what is and isn't reliable, saying "I'm the person, therefore it's true" isn't a reliable source. Also, regardless of whether or not you want a Wikipedia page, if you meet Wikipedia guidelines, WP:GNG, then the page should stay- I've added some sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The article David Eldon was created in may 2007 by LG4761, who did much of the early work on it. He is still active in Wikipedia, and has made several edits in the last week. It has been edited by maybe a dozen other editors since then.

You are strongly discouraged from editing it yourself, as it is almost impossible for anyone to write impartially about himself. I see that Joseph2302, a very competent editor, has today started to improve the article.

If you are aware of errors in the article, you should report them on its talk page, giving precise details of what needs changing, and giving references where this is possible. Maproom (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help on a new autobiography[edit]

I would like someone to compile a page on me and add some pictures. I have the text layout to be reviewed and or edited along with some picture. David Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitecloud2014 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Whitecloud2014. Does your "text layout" include citations to independent reliable sources that discuss you in some depth? Does it establish your notability according to our guideline on notability of people? Or if not, can you add those things? If so, the articles for Creation process is open. If not, than a wikipedia article on you is probably not appropriate. Also, please read our guideline on autobiography (it is strongly discouraged), My First Article, and this general summary of what an article requires. I hope that helps. DES ^(talk) 13:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wish to create a Wikipedia page for a deceased but high profile individual who doesn't have one[edit]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am in the process of compiling a brief synopsis, following the general Wikipedia format, of details of the life of Dr. Wilson A. Head, author of Life on the Edge: Experiences in Black and White in North America. I note that the person who wrote the forward to this book, the late Lincoln Alexander, has a Wikipedia page dedicated to him, and the person who wrote the epilogue to the book, Madame Rosalie Silberman Abella, also has a Wikipedia page dedicated to her, but Dr. Head has none. I am close to finishing the compilation for Dr. Head and would like to know how to submit it. Do I need a copyright and how do I get one? I will be able to submit a photograph of Dr. Head as well.

Also, I note that Dr. Head is not mentioned on the notable alumni of the two universities he attended in the U.S., and should be, so I will be submitting details of his graduations as well as a proposal that his name be added to those two pages as notable alumni.

Yours truly,

Kathleen O'Neill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katsheron (talk • contribs) 16:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kathleen. Since acceptable Wikipedia articles are entirely based on reliably published material, and almost entirely based on material written and published by people who have no connection with the subject, it follows that an article can be written only if such sources exist: our jargon for this concept is that the subject is notable (which does not mean famous or important, or influential, or significant, but just that substantial independent sources exist). It follows that notability is not inherited: there could be significant independent writing about the writers of the foreword or the epilogue but not about the author of the book; or vice versa. (In this case, I see that the two people named are a a prominent Canadian politician and judge respectively, and one would expect them to meet the criteria, but not that somebody whose book they supported would necessarily do so).

If such sources do exist, then I urge you to read your first article, and use the article wizard to create a draft. (Unless you have written your existing draft with reference to such sources, I would also urge you to abandon it, and start again, including only information which you can cite to an independent source.)

On the subject of his universities: once you have shown that he is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) then you may certainly edit those pages to add him - provided you have a reliable independent source that says he attended them. --ColinFine (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Katsheron, if you have or can find independent reliable sources to demonstrate that Dr. Head is notable (in the special Wikipedia sense) there should be no problem. Of course, be sure to write with a neutral, objective tone. I would advise using the Articles for Creation process, but you could simply create it as a draft (Draft:Wilson A. Head) or in article space at Wilson A. Head from the start. Using AFC means that an experienced editor will review the draft and advise on any needed revisions. Using draft: allows polishing before the text is subject to full scrutiny. In any case, posting the text will automatically place it under copyright by US law, you need do nothing special about that.

When Wikipedia articles have a list of "notable alumni" it is generally limited to people who already have Wikipedia articles, so I advise waiting on that until the article about him is live. If you have further questions, please do ask. DES ^(talk) 17:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I was able to glean very quickly.[1] [2] You probably have a good subject for a Wikipedia article. Good luck, and stay and improve other articles, if you would. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Katsheron: Just a little note about copyright. Note that once you press "Save page" all of your material is released under a free use copyright - which means that it can be used by anyone for any purpose. See the notes around the edit box. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the photo, if it is a creation of someone else, copyright IS of great concern. Because the subject of the photo is dead, it is likely that our fair use policies will allow its use on Wikipedia. If you are the person who took the photo and holds the copyright to the photo you may follow the instructions Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and donate the image for free use by anyone. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google display of this Article[edit]

Regarding the article Robin Russell at Robin Russell.

In the past while Google searching Robin Russell the link to the article would appear an a wikipedia listing. Now, for some reason when Google searching the article does not appear at all unless you type wiki after, and then it shows up as a wikiwand page as opposed to a wikipedia listing. I would like the article to show up as a wikipedia listing as it did in the past. Can anyone help me.

Restfest (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restfest, Wikipedia has no control over Google, what information Google displays, or how it displays it. Google has a feedback link where you can convey your concerns to thair organization. DES ^(talk) 19:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google Display of Article[edit]

I left a question earlier today regarding the wikipedia article Robin Russell at https://www.guruaid.com/payment/pay.php

I contacted Google and the matter seems to be cleared up.

Thank you. Restfest (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Restfest: Wikipedia has no connection to Guru Aid. Dismas|^(talk) 23:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Significant changes to a wiki page[edit]

We are an artist management company and one of our clients has requested a significant change to their wiki page, they want a more concise summary of their career, which will mean redrafting and reducing the content that is already there. Do we need to submit the requested changes for review before we make the edit? If so who do we submit them to? Please advise.Solarmanagement1 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your client's desires are really irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a webhost for them to post their desired presentation of themselves. We have an encyclopedia article that reflects the consensus of editors about how the subject has been covered by third party sources. You may make suggestions on the article talk page and provide links to third party resources, but the article is neither yours nor your clients. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of German article Enfants Terribles[edit]

Hello, I would ask for help, because I´m not sure about quality of my translation of the German article "Enfants Terribles" (see by German wikipedia). The englisch Version is ready and I can send my translation. Who can help me publish that? Best regards --Justus Tler (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy link User:Justus Tler/sandbox

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may have better luck at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany where there is likely a higher concentration of people who are fluent in German and can verify the quality of the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Justus Tler. I'm afraid the English version is not ready: you have not even tried to translate some of the section headings into English. :-) Other than that, there are a lot of minor problems with the English, but they can be corrected. A much more serious problem is that, though you have some good references, a lot of the article is unreferenced. In particular the first few sentences of the "Work" section are entirely unreferenced. This means that they rank as original research, which is not permitted in en.wikipedia. (I don't know what the rules are in de.wikipedia). For example, the first sentence "They treat thematically taboos and continuing the tradition of Dada." A better rendering in English would be something like "Taboos are a theme in their work, which continues the tradition of Dada" (not quite sure, because I'm not quite sure what the sentence is intended to mean). But such a sentence is an unsupported claim about the work, and would never be allowed in an en.wikipedia article unless it was directly cited to an independent published source which said just that.

At any point, you can request a review of the article by inserting {{subst:submit}} at the top, but you can continue working on it while it is awaiting review. --ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I have corrected the section headings :-) Could you please call me the minor problems, that you write about? :-) Best regards --Justus Tler (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It still reads like a translation. For example, in the Work section, "build" should be "builds" and "includes" should be "including", and "know-all oder tranquility seeker like tourists" doesn't make sense to me. Can you find any articles published outside Wikipedia in English that you could use as references? Dbfirs 08:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essays[edit]

What is the proper way to cite and use an essay in a dispute, without the other party dismissing you with 'that's just an essay.' I understand an essay is not a policy or guideline. I understand it is just the opinion of one or more editors. That doesn't mean they can be dismissed on that basis without addressing them, as many editors try to do. Handpolk (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it would be to demonstrate how the essay reflects details of policy in both letter and intent in ways that are relevant to the specifics of the situation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't always reflect details of policy in letter and intent. So you are saying in those instances, they should be ignored? Handpolk (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When they dont reflect details of policy in spirit or letter then people have every right to dismiss them as "just an essay". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So by extension what you're saying is that you can dismiss any argument with 'that's just your opinion' and not refute it, if the argument doesn't reflect the details of policy in spirit or letter. I'll take your advice then: 'that's just your opinion, it's irrelevant' Handpolk (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]