Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 November 17

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.

November 17

2017 in television

I Think I Created the 2017 in television article on the talk page But I think it is the wrong page I created on .2600:8803:7A00:19:342E:C3EF:93D3:BEC8 (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone might perhaps move it to the right place, but why did you omit most of the pages which exist at Category:2017 in television? --David Biddulph (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It Is Suppose to be 2017 in television catagorey may refer to and it's still red but needs to start now.2600:8803:7A00:19:342E:C3EF:93D3:BEC8 (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your reply. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Lyndon Ogbourne

I have a page set up under my name. It correctly documents my career as an actor, but I'd like to change the main photo that features when you search my name. How do I do this, or who do I contact to do this? Many thank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyndon Ogbourne (talk • contribs) 02:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Lyndon Ogbourne You can upload an image [here, but note that it must be free to use, modify or distribute by anyone for any purpose, including commercial, and be public domain in all but name. You must own the copyright, and be prepared to release it under those conditions. If the image has been released previously, you cannot use it unless it was explicitly released as PD. Copyrighted text and images are not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that they are public domain Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lyndon Ogbourne: What Jimfbleak says is not quite right: Reused text and images do not need to be PD if they are explicitly licensed under a PD-like free content license. —teb728 t c 13:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

combustion

on your page about combustion somewhere it says that combustion (fire) was the first controlled chemical reaction discovered by humans but I think maybe seeing your breath in cold weather might be more accurate maybe someone could do some research and fix that if it needs fixing like taking it out of the article maybe I know condensation is a chemical reaction but I'm not sure about what it means by controlled so thanks I'll check back on it in a while and research for myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.218.114 (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

From our article, "Condensation is the change of the physical state of matter from gas phase into liquid phase". There is no chemical reaction involved. That would involve atoms combining with each other to create new chemical compounds. Rojomoke (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

German article titles

Good morning! A new colleague is about with a translation of my German article for the enWP. Is there anybody who can tell me what are the rules here for a German article title? I saw that there often are translations but the styles for it are different. Authors put the en-translation usually into brackets, but some use quotes, others not, some use bold face, others not and so on. What would be the preferred style? Sorry for my self-made english! Best wishes --Andrea014 (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Andrea014, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Additional markup contains an example of how a German title is formatted. That may help. Thanks. Lourdes 06:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Lourdes! This seems to me a wonderful first step. Difficult English for me, but my translator IrmaCan is bilingual and will understand (Irma, please chec also the added link in this paragraph!). But there is a next question: we should take the German title (a proper name) and want to add a translation for it. How the translation should be formatted? Or is it explained in the linked text and I only did not unterstand?--Andrea014 (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You'll need to give more details on what the title actually is, and what the translation would look like. That would allow editors to give helpful responses. Thanks. Lourdes 08:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) may be what you are looking for. If a subject has been written about in English, we use the name which is most commonly used in English. —teb728 t c 08:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh sorry Lourdes, you are right! The German title is: Freie Berliner Kunstausstellung (FBK). Irma translated it with Free Berlin Art Exhibition. Question now is: should we format the translation like done in Berlin Stadtbahn or like Berlin Südkreuz or like Funkturm Berlin or like Der Blaue Reiter or...? They all formatted different. If you want to have a look to our translation work, you will find it here. Thanks! And teb728 thank you also to you. Usually I would aggree but it seems to me more difficult as I think there are only a few knowing about this exhibition. --Andrea014 (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

As Teb728 says, if the subject has been written about in English sources, follow the name used commonly by these English sources. Otherwise, if the foreign language sources are the only sources you have, then use the German title as the main title (and use common sense formatting in the opening line; other eyes will improve it as you go on). WP:TRANSLITERATE notes: "If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on)." Similarly, WP:DIACRITICS mentions: "The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources". It also mentions: "German proper names should be treated with care, and attention to English practice. Notice that even in German, combinations such as oe are used in some names rather than umlauts (as in Emmy Noether and, in modern German, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)." And while you are at it, go through Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions too. Hope this helps. Write back for further assistance. Lourdes 11:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Andrea014: I initially misunderstood what you were asking; I thought you were asking whether the title should be in English or German and answered on that basis. Now I see that you are asking for the preferred styling of translation in the lede paragraph. As your examples illustrate, there is no site-wide preferred style. I personally prefer putting the translation in parentheses, but that is just my personal preference. —teb728 t c 11:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow! And sorry Lourdes and teb728 for my duck-english making things difficult to understand! But finally you did. Irmaaaa! She is a little bit sleepy but will arrive soon. So we have everything we need for the next step. Thank you both! 💐 Best wishes --Andrea014 (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Edward Tomanek article

Dear Sir/Madam,
My name is Edward Tomanek and I am aware that "Eltv" created the page "Edward Tomanek" about me on 28 June 2016. Although it is flattering to know that I appear to be thus valued as to be on Wikipedia there are certain circumstances surrounding the issue. The article is about my input into music, which is, of course, true. However, I do not judge myself to be important on a scale as to be described on Wikipedia. This is not modesty, it is a fact. Also, I am, in fact moving away from music and growing in the scientific world - I attend University Technical College, Cambridge, where I am studying 5 A-levels in scientific subjects. The image of me portrayed by the pge on Wikipedia contrasts with what I am currently doing. It is extremely unlikely that I will move back to music. In any way, I would like to request an editor with the necessary authority to either delete the page or to amend the page with more precise data. I am aiming high in sciences and should the event happen that I input positively on a large scale in them the article about me tagged as a "Male British Violinist" will be redundant.
Thank you very much in advance,
Edward Tomanek-Volynets (Wikipedia username "Edwardvoly")
P.S. if you need proof of my identity I can either send you a screenshot of my email from Westminster School, which is still active; send you a photograph of my passport; etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardvoly (talk • contribs) 08:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Edwardvoly: The Edward Tomanek article seems to show enough notability that it would be unlikely to be deleted. Articles are not deleted at the subject's request; they are kept or deleted on the basis of notability as determined by significant coverage in reliable sources. A person's notability does not end when they go on to new interests any more than when they die. If your new interests receive coverage in reliable sources, then those interests might be included in the article. —teb728 t c 09:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This as about Edward Tomanek. The best place for your request would normally be the talk page of that article; but I suspect it would be ignored if made there, as few editors ever look at the article.

Wikipedia uses a concept which it calls "notability": a person (or any subject) is "notable" if they have been discussed in reliable public sources. You are, as shown in that article, notable as a musician. You are not, yet, notable as a scientist. It seems reasonable to add a sentence to the article, saying something like "in 2016, Tomanek abandoned his musical aspirations, preferring to devote himself to the study of science"; but Wikipedia's sometimes awkward rules will forbid that unless someone can find a "reliable published source" as evidence for it. Maybe some other editor can suggest a better idea for how to handle your request.

For some kind of comparison, see the article Alan Sokal. Sokal is a respected professor of physics. But he is widely known, and "notable", not for his physics, but for the Sokal affair. He would probably prefer Wikipedia to concentrate on his achievements in physics; but Wikipedia prefers to deal with things that have received public attention. Maproom (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Edwardvoly:There's nothing wrong with having a music career before a science one, Things can only get better can't they. - X201 (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello,
Thank you to everyone for kindly answering! My main concern was that maybe the page's creator didn't realised some notability policies of Wikipedia's but now I understand that there is no problem.
Thanks again,
Edward — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardvoly (talk • contribs) 13:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

notifications worked only one time

hi, i´m interested in changes on a certain articlepage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_web_browsers). I need to be notificated by e-mail whenever a new browser ist being added to this page. I signed up for Wikipedia and I set up a watchlist. after being finished I signed out of Wikipedia and I waited. a few days later I got a e-mail-notification about the fact that a new browser was added to the page. i was happy and I thought everything is working out fine. unfortunately after that one and only notification I never got one again, although the page had been changed a vew times more. now i´m wondering where the problem is. after my first setting up the watchlist i have not changed anything, not on Wikipedia, nor my e-mail-address.

mabe you can help? cheers mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by WP.mike (talk • contribs) 08:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't find the documentation, but AFAIK you need to visit the page, whilst logged into the account that is being e-mailed, to reset the notification. I was going to set up an alternative account so I could have a "select" watchlist which e-mailed me, as well as my "full" watchlist on my main account, but having to log in and out put me off, as I know I would forget and edit with the wrong account. - Arjayay (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

if i understand right: i have to sign in to Wikipedia and visit the wanted page in order i want the notification to work for 1 more time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WP.mike (talk • contribs) 09:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. See Help:Email notification. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Are admins always right?

I feel like I need a second opinion. Currently, I've been going through pages and changing [as needed], "Cultural references" to "In popular culture", per WP:IPCA and MOS:POPCULT. One of the admins is telling me I "don't understand what I'm doing", and called me a "hit and run editor" even though I explained when and why I do it. For example, if there was a "Cultural references" header on the Beatles page, it doesn't make sense. "In popular culture" would. However, if it was the Simpsons page with "Cultural references" on it, it would make sense because that show references a lot of pop culture. I'm only going by the manual of style guide. I don't feel like I'm in the wrong. I need a second or third opinion.

Example: Modern_Vampires#Cultural_references. In this case "Cultural references" is correct.

In this article: Coolidge,_Kansas#Cultural_references - "In popular culture" would be correct.

--Jennica✿^{Ping Me!} 09:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jennica: As I read MOS:POPCULT “In popular culture” and “Cultural references” are alternate terms for the same thing: namely what you call “In popular culture.” As far as I am aware, the MOS does not make the distinction you advocate. Admins are not always right, but IMO in this case the admin was right. —teb728 t c 10:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Teb728: - so do you think I should stop editing pages containing this? To me there's a clear difference between these two. I don't see how I'm in the wrong :-/ --Jennica✿^{Ping Me!} 10:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point to some extent—"cultural references" can refer to references by something as well as to something—but I'd strongly advise you to avoid the use of the phrase "in popular culture" wherever possible, as it's generally understood to be a synonym for "poorly sourced trivia". (This stems from the early days of Wikipedia, when "In popular culture" was used as a general dumping-ground at the end of articles.) Admins aren't always right, but in this case the admin is; "Cultural references" is a very standard Wikipedia term, and avoids the loaded language of "popular" (who are we to tell the readers what is and isn't popular?). The essay Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content is well worth reading if you're interested in the background here. ‑ Iridescent 10:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jennica: What do you mean by "per WP:IPCA and MOS:POPCULT"? I don't see justification for your changes there or by briefly looking at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections and its archives. Please quote the part you think supports you. You appear to think that "Cultural references" should only be used about references made by the subject and not references made about the subject by others. I haven't seen that opinion before. Don't make mass changes to enforce your own disputed opinion. You can suggest a guideline if there isn't one already but I doubt it would get consensus here. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: That's the thing - to me there is no guideline. To me there is a clear difference between cultural references and "in popular culture". If a song is referenced in a movie or book, thats "in popular culture". but if a song references a movie, that would be "cultural references". I thought it was the proper titling for some subheaders. I'm now being told I'm in the wrong. I'm open to learn of course, but i'm also being sent links to read that sort of contradict themselves. one person is telling me these subheaders are irrelevant and the wikipedia MOS is telling me they can be useful to the reader. Now I just feel like I've maybe opened a pedantic can of worms or maybe I'm being pedantic, I don't know. I certainly do not want to argue. -- On a lot of the pages I've come across, it seems justified for them to be changed to "In popular culture". I can provide more examples if needed. Jennica✿^{Ping Me!} 10:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jennica: "WP:IPCA" as edit summary implies the linked page supports your edit. Don't use such a summary if it doesn't. The discussion makes it clear your edits are controversial so you will just have to try to get consensus, or accept that some pages are not as you would prefer. It happens to all of us in a collaborative project like this. For mass changes you would need consensus in a discussion page like Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections and not just here, but I don't support mass changes for this. Also note Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules of use. You risk losing the right to use AWB if you continue edits you know are controversial. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

PrimeHunter (talk · contribs) They're still considered "mass editing" if I'm reviewing every edit? I'm not blindly doing so. One user reverted my edit so I decided to see why. That's what sparked this whole discussion. I guess he didn't agree with it. I will move forward with editing only pages I really feel should be changed. Songs mainly. Thank you. EDIT: I will lay off this for now and allocate my work to different areas after seeing they want to depreciate it. --Jennica✿^{Ping Me!} 11:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jennica: It's mass edits if you quickly make the same change a lot of times, whether you review each change or not. You made up to ten edits per minute.[1] That is very far into mass edit territory. Without explicit support from a consensus I would never use AWB to change something many different editors have done deliberately. That is very likely to be controversial. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: okay. Well I just got the AWB privileges. I will be sure to heed that rule. --Jennica✿^{Ping Me!} 12:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I assume I'm the admin referred to here, but in short I am not necessarily right here at all, and simply gave my opinion on what I think is the best course of action, and I think seeking a third view was a reasonable course of action to take. As an aside, reverting an edit you don't believe is an improvement and given a well-reasoned view that justifies it is something anyone can do - not just admins. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Trivia Almost all sections like this should be deleted in the first place--they are usually poorly-sourced and virtually irrelevant. I agree with Jennica that there is a distinction though and that the one she makes is correct: "in popular culture" discusses how a certain phenomenon has been received and "cultural references" explains how a work uses other pieces of media or culture. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with this general statement that most "In popular culture" sections are junk; however the articles Jennica was complaining about were those I had comprehensively overhauled in order to pass a GA review, and hence what remained behind passed our verifiability policies correctly (or if they didn't, find the GA reviewer and trout slap them for not doing their job properly!) I didn't revert on these articles because I'm an admin, I did because I'd done a large amount of work on them as an editor and was convinced I was reverting back to consensus - the admin tools didn't come into play at all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed image galleries in talk page

I have a dispute in Talk:Cessna 208 Caravan (in the revision history) over wether or not there should be collapsed image galleries in the talk page. I curated interesting pictures from commons in galleries (collapsed to not be huge) for future use in the article, but other participants didn't like it and reverted my addition. I replaced them citing WP:TPO, but it was deleted again. Is there any place where I could save it for future use? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The place where the images can be saved for future use is commons:Category:Cessna 208. It's not an appropriate use for the article talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. There are already in Commons, the point was to curate them : there is 883 pictures in 107 categories (mostly by registration, not always useful) in commons, I selected 10-20 in 10 useful categories. Where could it be appropriate? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

How about a page in your userspace, such as User:Marc Lacoste/Cessna 208 gallery? Userspace can be used for almost anything, as long as it is relevant to a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay then, and should I add a link from Talk:Cessna 208 Caravan? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Missing header in chrome

For over a month, when viewing Wikipedia in Chrome, it appears I have a mobile version displaying (?). Header items are missing (e.g. "Log In"). Also, in article bodies, no Table of Contents displays. Does anyone know why this would be happening? Is anyone else experiencing this?

Screen shot: http://screencast.com/t/OyS5VQ0gDBFz

I searched Help for "Chrome" and "Missing Header" but got zero results. --Justapersona ^talk 14:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

If you're in mobile view, right at the foot of the page is a link to "Desktop"; similarly in desktop view there is a link to "Mobile View". --David Biddulph (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Justapersona: You can also try to clear your entire cache in Chrome. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

table outdated?

I'd like to know if this style of table is outdated: Adventures_in_Utopia#Charts. I rarely ever see it anymore. If so, is it good to go and change all I come across? Thanks --Jennica✿^{Ping Me!} 15:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "outdated" is the right term. However, the norm is simply to add class="wikitable" to the opening line of the table code, and avoid any other style markup unless there's a strong reason for it. So the table in your article would be as follows:

Year	Chart	Position
1980	Pop Albums	32

(Edit this section to see the code). Hope this helps! Tompw (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

At present, the table has the four attributes border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2 width="300px" Three of those are obsolete in HTML5 (Wikipedia serves HTML5); the one that isn't is border=1 - but even that one is a special exception (see https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html, paragraph beginning "The border attribute on the table element"). The preferred method for all four is to use CSS styling, which is what we provide class="wikitable" for. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Hi again Jennica, as your query was whether it is good to change all such tables you come across, you can give a quick look to Wikipedia:Table dos and don'ts, which supports Redrose64's and Tompw's suggestions. I guess if you follow the current suggested accepted standard of formatting, preview every edit before saving and preserve the table information appropriately, you can go ahead and attempt changing such tables as and when you come across them. Thanks. Lourdes 01:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

Hello. I want to edit the page of The Conjuring 2, using a reference I've been permitted to use by Geoffreview (I was told on Facebook I could use their review). How exactly do I cite the source? Thanks. Thomas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marieltrokan (talk • contribs) 15:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, please see WP:REFB for information in respect of referencing. Please note that all additions should be backed up by a reliable source... see that page for what constitutes a good source. You place the reference between tags <ref>(ref content)</ref> thus. Please note (just in case) that an individual's opinion expressed on Facebook or any other form of social media or blogs etc. is not generally acceptable as a source. Eagleash (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Should consider recommending the "cite" button in the WP:REFTOOLS as to not create bare references. Here's a tutorial as well. Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing_sources You can also practice in your Sandbox, found at the top right of the page. @Marieltrokan: --Jennica✿^{Ping Me!} 16:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle gadget help

I would like to enable the Twinkle gadget, but it doesn't appear as an available gadget in my gadgets menu under preferences. It's simply not there. Can somebody help me with this, or even better, enable it for me?CaptainAwesome5658 (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi CaptainAwesome5658 - as it says at WP:Twinkle - your account needs to be autoconfirmed before you can use Twinkle - your account was only created today, and you only have six edits - whereas to be autoconfirmed your account needs to be over four days (the full 96 hours) old and have at least 10 edits - you need to wait - Arjayay (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could rename your old account, as that is autoconfirmed - see Changing username for the "how-to" - Arjayay (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Failed Do-It-Yourself Rename

I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, and I wanted to take a new name when I returned. I was unaware of the ability to request a rename, and created a new account, found here: User:CaptainAwesome5658, and nominated my original account for deletion. I then realized my mistake and requested usurpation of the "new" account- but it cannot be usurped, due to being created less than six months ago. I'm still waiting on the usurp request. Desperately seeking advice. CLARIFICATION: the users User:SmartyPantsKid and User:CaptainAwesome5658 ARE THE SAME PERSON. The owner (me) wishes the "SmartyPantsKid" account to be named "CaptainAwesome5658". User:SmartyPantsKid 19:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You can request usurpation on m:Steward_requests/Username_changes#Requests_involving_merges.2C_usurps_or_other_complications. Ruslik_Zero 20:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've removed the usurp request and decided to just not change the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmartyPantsKid (talk • contribs) 22:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

New logo for Football Club

Moved from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous § New logo for Football Club

 – clpo13_(talk) 22:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi - we are a football club and have a new logo (actually its been around for a few years) which is worn on our club shirt’s, its on our website and in all of our literature. In addition its always used by other clubs in there match day programmes unless they go to Wikipedia and use the old logo. I want to replace the old badge/logo with the new one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horndean1887 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Horndean1887, are you talking about Horndean F.C. or Petersfield Town F.C., or something else? You succeeded in replacing the logo for Horndean, while I can't see any attempt by you to change the logo for Petersfield Town, and you haven't edited anything related to any other clubs. Nyttend (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, Horndean1887; I misspelled your name when I first left you a message. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see where the OP (Horndean1887) succeeded in replacing the Horndean F.C. logo. The OP's only changes seem to have been some details in the article [2] and a change to the source link for the logo [3]. The logo file hasn't changed since it was uploaded in 2011 [4] and it looks to be like our article has been using that file since then [5] so if someone did succeed it was long ago. Further the logo shown in the updated source page is different from the one in our article, and it seems likely the OP wants the one in the source page which I'm assuming is the current address of the club's official website. Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Fairfax

Ref number 5 is all wrong. please leave in quote Sorry Srbernadette (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you read WP:REFB? It will help you to learn so you can fix these issues yourself. RudolfRed (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I have failed to fix up the problem with the ref - number 5. Please help. Also, there is another problem on this page - a photo - not put in my me - is all yellow in clour. please fix if your team are able.

The error message is quite clear...the reference is missing a source title. However, having said that, it seems to be a "readers' letters" column albeit in a publication typically considered reliable. It can't really be used to reference Wikipedia IMO, whatever the correspondent claims in his letter.

Which image are you referring to? There are several on the page, some of which appear to be of 'vintage' prints or portraits etc. which may be atypically coloured by modern standards. Eagleash (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

BTW, there is no team here as such, just everyday editors, like yourself who answer queries when time allows. Eagleash (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Please please help I STILL cannot see why ref 5 comes up in red. The photo WAS yellow for a while - but is ok now. It might have been the college computers being unreliable. I have placed the title of the book that was published at the end of the "Letter to the Editor" (UK Daily Telegraph) which is ref number 5. Srbernadette (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You never answered the question about whether you have read WP:REFB or not. Have you? †dismas†|^(talk) 01:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Which word out of 'missing' and 'title' do you not understand? You must have "done" (for want of a better word) enough references by now to realise that within them there is a title parameter (I.e. |title=xxx|). It is missing from this reference. Placing the title of the book randomly within the ref is not going to help. A letter to the editor of a newspaper is not acceptable as a reference in my opinion. If you found the passage within the book and cited it using {{Cite book}} that might be a different matter. Eagleash (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

to the editor Eagleash - The Letter to the Editor (UK Daily Telegraph) which is ref number 5 on this page DOES have the author's name and also the name of his book published at the end of eth letter. I think this is OK as a ref.

Yes - I have done many edits and I am competant - that is why I am so confused. I see that the TITLE of the article is so clearly written in blue. I simply do not understand why the "red" information is there. Please help. Please. Srbernadette (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Srbernadette, you still have not answered the query: Have you read WP:REFB? Lourdes 01:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes - I have read WP:REFB. It makes me realize that I should NEVER have been an editor. I do not understand why this edit has gone so wrong. I put in the title - "Care Quality Commission regulators should have some clinical expertise" and I included the URL and dates etc - they are all good. I will leave it alone and I will not be editing until I have my confidence up. I am so embarrassed and sorry. Srbernadette (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page but you don't seem to answer back. I offered to help you with referencing. @Srbernadette: - --Jennica✿ ^{talk / contribs} 02:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The cite web template for reference 5 does not have a field called title that I can see (but reading these are hard. Am I looking at the wrong template and it does in fact have a field called title?) RJFJR (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done @Srbernadette: Jennica has updated that reference to add the title, fixing that problem. I can't see an image which is all yellow like you describe: if you are still seeing that problem then please specify which image is affected.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Yes 'cite web' has a title parameter, see Wikipedia:Citation templates#Examples (scroll down a bit) but bernadette has chosen not to include it. Every website page has a title, of some sort, and these are included within the 'title' parameter or you get the error message 'missing or empty title', as has happened here. But it's a bit of a red herring as a letter to a newspaper letters page is not really sufficiently reliable. Having said that, the book does exist. Here is a link to it on Amazon. That gives the full title, publisher, date, isbn etc. so all that's needed now is the page No. Eagleash (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The ref as it now stands has the title of the first letter on the page not the one from Anthony Adolph. Eagleash (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)