Help desk
< April 17	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 19 >

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 18

Thomas Ashton, 1st Baron Ashton of Hyde

The photo here is of this man's father. the previous photo on this page was definately of the 1st Baron himself. Please put back the original one - or remove - if you can. ThanksSrbernadette (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It seems we have two conflicting sources:

this source from 1895, which makes no mention of being a Baron of Hyde
Several other photos of what appears to be a younger man, and each photo is labeled "1st Baron Ashton-of-Hyde"

The photo was changed in this edit without any explanation. I see enough to convince me that the previous photo is the accurate one. I have restored the original image. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Both photos were uploaded by the same editor, who writes a convincing argument on Talk:Thomas Ashton, 1st Baron Ashton of Hyde that both photos are the same person. The sources given at the bottom of the article would support this. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 157

Hi. "UFC 157" should have its own article and not be a sub-article of "2013 in UFC." How do I make "UFC 157" a separate article? CaptRik responded to my question last time and I tried to contact him but he never responded. I do not know where he went. Please someone respond to this question and have a solution. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 07:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The answers to your two previous questions on this subject are at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 March 21#UFC 157 - 2013 in UFC and at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 March 30#UFC 157. You will see that they both refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157, which gives the reason that the previous version of UFC 157 was deleted. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean that the redirect is under page protection? Theepicwarrior (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 09:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Theepicwarrior: Since the page was inappropriately recreated after the AFDs established that it should be only a redirect, an administrator has fully protected the page such that only administrators can edit it. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 09:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I contact an administrator to edit the page? Theepicwarrior (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Put your edit request in a new section on the talk page and add {{edit fully-protected|page name}} in that section (just after the new section header). See template:edit fully-protected for additional information. What page are we talking about? UFC 157 does not appear to be protected. Rwessel (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rwessel: have you tried editing it? It is protected (at least appears so to me), but lacks the protection template — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 10:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 157 is protected. The protection is the most recent entry in the page history. Are you sure that you're not looking at the target of the redirect? If Theepicwarrior is to make an edit request, he needs to explain what has changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157 and the subsequent deletion review linked from it. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn't "UFC 157" originally created as a separate article? If it was, it would not be a problem. But since someone deleted it and put in under "2013 in UFC", it has become a problem and I have to fix it. Why would someone delete the original article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 10:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The (quite lengthy) deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_157. Rwessel (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You obviously haven't read the answers which you were given to your two previous questions, and about which I reminded you in the first answer to your question in this section. You need to read now. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) So it is, my mistake, I must have bounced back to the target page without realizing it at some point, probably after looking at the talk page (where someone else has made the same error). And I notice that it was Theepicwarrior (talk · contribs) who *had* placed a proper protected edit request on that page a couple of weeks ago, which was then rejected because of that error. I have re-activated the edit request. Rwessel (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean "UFC 157" can now have its own separate article instead of being a sub-article of "2013 in UFC"? Theepicwarrior (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point asking questions if you don't read the replies. Read everything in this section, and the links in those replies. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. So I guess I cannot create a separate UFC 157 article. I read your comments and the deletion discussion. Why was the article deleted in the first place? Theepicwarrior (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 11:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, read the deletion discussion. Rwessel (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, one of the major issues raised in the old deletion discussion was that the criteria for notability for MMA was yet unclear. That seems better established now, but WP:MMAEVENT still seems to state that generally individual events are not normally notable, but it seems that very many (100+) of the other "UFC nnn" event have their own articles despite that. Rwessel (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rwessel. Thank you for responding. So is there any way to reverse the deletion of UFC 157 and get it back as its own article? Theepicwarrior (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like David has already said, put an edit request on the talk page, and explain what changed since the deletion discussion (an d the subsequent deletion review). If you can get consensus that the old decision should be reversed, the protection will be removed. Personally given the was things are happening in that genre of articles, I'd expect that wouldn't be too hard to achieve. Rwessel (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying it is highly probable that they will accept my request? Theepicwarrior (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a pretty good chance, as it appears that would be fairly in line with (my interpretation of) current practice. "Highly probable" is putting words in my mouth. Rwessel (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you for your help, Rwessel.

Is this good? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_in_UFC#UFC_157

No, Theepicwarrior, I'm afraid it isn't good. The article was deleted after a discussion and review at which people put forward arguments about the application of Wikipedia policies, and the closing administrator made a decision on the basis of those arguments. The only way to get that decision changed is to show that for some reason, those arguments no longer apply: you would have to show that some change means that those particular Wikipedia policies (principally WP:N) no longer exclude the article. Your argument needs to be entirely about Wikipedia policies, and how the event now satisfies them. You do not help your case in the slightest by exclaiming that something is "unacceptable", or by talking about the notability of a person involved (whether she is notable or not has zero effect on whether the event is notable). Sorry --ColinFine (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not replying, I had to be away suddenly for work. I think the answers above cover everything well. If you feel you can find suitable sources to satisfy the notability guidelines then you might consider writing a new article yourself and submitting it for review. I can't advise strongly enough however that the sourcing will have to be good to overturn the previous deletion discussion. You might also consider taking a look at the links on WP:MMA. CaptRik (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

restriction by editing to many external links

I have just tried to add an external link, after I already added one to an other article before.

I get the messeage "It appears you are adding external links to many different Wikipedia pages in rapid succession..."

Since it also says "If you're sure you still want to make this edit, go to the bottom of this page and click 'Save page' again, and it will be submitted as is." I tried to save the changes, but I only get back to the editing page.

So my questions are:

How many external links, are "too many"? Since I only inserted 2, probably within 30 minutes.
Why does it not save the changes, although the text gives me the option to do so?

Thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.184.2 (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you triggered what's called an "edit filter". #80, to be exact. The description says more than three edits that contain the string "HTTP" within 20 minutes, as long as they're not within citations. For the second question, I don't know. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem in Editing the page of our own institution

Hello, we would like to make corrections and additions to the page "Kyrgyz State Medical Academy" because we are the administration of Kyrgyz State Medical Academy. After edition we got following notifications. How to cancel the undone of automated computer program called ClueBot NG?

April 2016[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Kyrgyz State Medical Academy has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again. For help, take a look at the introduction. The following is the log entry regarding this message: Kyrgyz State Medical Academy was changed by Akhunbaevksma (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.976151 on 2016-04-13T18:02:20+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhunbaevksma (talk • contribs) 15:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a conflict of interest here if you are editing an article about your institution, but referenced factual corrections shouldn't be a problem. You should declare the conflict of interest on your user page. Also, you say "we", but Wikipedia allows only individual accounts. You should also be aware that a page about an organisation does not belong to that organisation. The Wikipedia page should not be a publicity page. Use your own website for that. Having said all that, I think you need to request a move to a new title, as explained on your talk page. Dbfirs 15:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on attribution vs plagiarism, please

I have run across a page (Thomas Garnet) that has copied, word-for-word, a book on Google Books. At the bottom of the page there is an attribution that the article 'incorporates text' from a public-domain source, and lists the source. Is this sufficient? Or should the article be re-written? Leschnei (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add that the author included the book in question in the references. My question is not about the fact that there aren't any inline citations to the book (an obvious, solvable problem), but the fact that it is copied verbatim. What is the policy? Leschnei (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article also includes a claim that the book is now in the public domain. This is true, it was published in 1913. I don't know if it's relevant. Maproom (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maqroom According to Wikisource, it's public domain in US since it was published in US before 1923. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I always get twitchy about lifting large chunks of text without letting the reader know that it has been lifted. If a book is in the public domain, does that make it OK? Leschnei (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure that's OK, as long as the article stylistically fits and the text from the copy-paste doesn't violate any other policies. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 19:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Father Baldwin was sent to Bridewell prison, where one of those incidents occurred that were so representative of the treacherousness of the Elizabethan age" does not sound like 21st century English. And more seriously, it fails WP:NEUTRAL. The article needs work, but copyvio is not, it seems, an issue.Maproom (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks to all. Leschnei (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Posting an Article

Hello-

I have tried several times to post a article regarding TaskUs and have been denied everytime. Can you please guide me in the right direction?/tell me what I am doing wrong?

Thanks, Gina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.127.120 (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is always better if you give us a wikilink to the page in question. In this case I guess that you might be referring to Draft:TaskUs? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because you work for the company, you should disclose your WP:Conflict of interest on your user page, as should User:TaskUsBED (is that you?). The article still needs some WP:Reliable sources, not just mentions of the company and interviews with the founders. See WP:Neutral point of view. Dbfirs 18:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gina. Please be aware that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything at all that a company says about itself, whether on its own website, or through interviews or press releases. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the company have published about it in reliable places. If there is such indepedent material published, then an article may be written, based close to 100% on what those independent sources say about the company. If such sources don't exist, then it is not possible to write an acceptable article about the company. See WP:CORP.

Authority control (Normativnyi kontrol')

@CiaPan The article on Sue Owen (Сью Оуэн), the American poet, went onto the Russian Wikipedia on April 14. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%8C%D1%8E_%D0%9E%D1%83%D1%8D%D0%BD Soon thereafter, I made small corrections, so that footnotes 4 and 5 would be visible on the page. The Authority control (Normativyni kontrol’) line remains in the incorrect format, however. Can you put that line in the correct format so that the information appears in the box? Thank you. Dolzhnikov (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This help desk is for the English Wikipedia. Try the Russian help desk at ru:Википедия:Форум/Вопросы. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many editors watching a page?

Is there any way to find out how many Wikipedians are watching a particular page? I was impressed to see some vandalism on the Battle_of_Stalingrad removed in a matter of minutes. It might help counter some of the negative perceptions about Wikipedia if people knew that there were n editors watching a particular page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugusteBlanqui (talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AugusteBlanqui: Click "Page information" in the left pane of the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At one time I thought that might be useful for deciding whether a page needs me watching. Alas, almost every one that I checked was "fewer than 30". This uniformity didn't help me decide, so now I ignore that question in deciding to drop. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim.henderson Under that logic, you don't need to watch this page, it has 7092 watchers.

And the Battle_of_Stalingrad has 365 watchers, which is quite a lot for an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AugusteBlanqui: The "Page information" page shows the actual number of watchers to admins, if the number is less than 30. I believe you can go to Special:UnwatchedPages to see if a page has zero watchers, although I am not sure if "unwatched" is equivalent to "zero" or some small positive number. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugusteBlanqui (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the number of watchers does not equal the number of active watchers. So while 365 looks impressive, the actual number of editors watching who are likely to check changes is probably significantly less. AIRcorn (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amatulic: Special:UnwatchedPages is admin-only, otherwise potential vandals could use it to find possible targets. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks. I stand corrected! ~Amatulić (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Search redirecting

Hello, a search for NYPR brings up WNYC when the page New_York_Public_Radio should come up. What to do? Formulairis990 (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the link "Redirected from..." under the page title, you can edit the redirect page. I just did so, and NYPR now points to New York Public Radio. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just noticed the autosuggest when you type nypr shows "WNYC Radio" as the first suggestion, and does not list NYPR. I don't see a "Redirected from link..." I gather it's because there is no longer a redirect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formulairis990 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Formulairis990: If you actually click on the link NYPR you will be redirected to the article. Under the title of that article you will see small text "Redirected from NYPR". If you click on that link, you will be on the redirect page itself, which you can edit. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Redirect link is showing up on the article now. The update probably took time to migrate. The autosuggest appears updated as well.Formulairis990 (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

swans

I want to know more about swans------r they territorial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.81.116.241 (talk) 23:24, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. This page is for help editing Wikipedia. We can't really help you with swan based questions. But did you know that we have an article on swans? You can find it by clicking here: Swan. You can also ask at one of our reference desks and someone over there would be happy to assist you. --Majora (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Gopal Varma

I can't figure out how to un-italicize the title. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help at all?Mduvekot (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: In the film craft and style section instead of using {{multiimage}} they used {{infobox film}} which has an automatic ITALICTITLE parameter in it since all films have italic titles. I'm working on fixing it but I just wanted to let you (and everyone else that happens to try to fix this) that that is what the problem is. --Majora (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. I just took the shortcut fix and forced the {{infobox film}} template to not display an italic title. Same result. Just lazier

--Majora (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]