Help desk
< January 1	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 2

Flagging an article in need of improvement

I have noticed grammatical inconsistencies, amongst other things, on the following page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Paulette_Gebara

How would I go about flagging this page, so improvements can be made? I have attempted to make some improvements but further attention is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benkersey94 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benkersey94, if you put the code {{copyedit}} at the top of the article. It will mark it for editing for its grammar. NZFC^(talk) 08:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

I would like to add citation for one of the lines in the articles where citation is required; but there seem to be no way of adding it. Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.206.206 (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In your last edit, you added "<re<ref></ref>f></ref>" in the middle of a template. You need to remove the template (including braces) then put your reference between "<ref> .... </ref>" tags. You might like to read WP:Referencing for beginners. Dbfirs 10:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... later ... Please don't remove the ^{[citation needed]} template until you find the citation. Dbfirs 21:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbfirs: I have inserted (and formatted) a reference given by 14.139.206.206 in a description to special:diff/818231571.
Please see and fix, if necessary: special:diff/818324669. --CiaPan (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just looked at the article, and didn't spot that they had put the actual reference in the edit summary. I've removed the "cn" tag now because the reference does support the claim. Thank you to 14.139.206.206 for finding it. Dbfirs 08:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reno Divorce

In the past there was an article of the punkrock band Reno Divorce. Can someone send me the original text so that I can work on it? InfoZZ (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello InfoZZ, the article was deleted post discussions, which can be read at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reno Divorce. Thanks, Lourdes 13:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can I read the old article. I would like to rewrite it including links to non-related articles. This band is playing all the big summer festivals in Europe every year. InfoZZ (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@InfoZZ: Only those with the necessary tools (administrators) can see deleted content. The page has been copied to User:InfoZZ/Reno Divorce so it can continue to be developed. If you have a connection to the band, you must read WP:COI and make the necessary disclosures. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Constant Vandalism on Article

Hello,

I've been dealing with constant vandalism on this article for about a year. The content is a direct paste of an article from the Grove Dictionary of American Music, Oxford University Press. Is there any way to keep the article from being vandalized?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Murphy_(musician)

Thank You, Dominic Fragman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawfragman (talk • contribs) 14:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be involved in a slow edit war on the article Paul Murphy (musician), but you have made no effort to discuss any problems on the talk page Talk:Paul Murphy (musician). Please be aware that Wikipedia has a definition of vandalism, but are you sure that the other edits meet that definition? You mentioned in an earlier edit summary that you had made edits at the request of the subject, but Wikipedia articles are not controlled by the subject or any other individual. You say that "The content is a direct paste of an article from the Grove Dictionary of American Music", but if the content has previously been published elsewhere it would be a copyright violation to paste it unaltered into Wikipedia, unless the copyright has been released by the processes described at WP:Donating copyrighted material. Wikipedia articles should be written in your own words, though based on the published sources, see WP:Plagiarism. Any limited quotations should be clearly identified as such, and attributed as shown at WP:Quotations. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should further have added that if you were editing at the request of the subject you should read about conflict of interest and, if relevant, about paid editing (where the requirements are mandatory). --David Biddulph (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to nominate the article for deletion because of the copyright infringement, but I see that you contributed the text to the Grove dictionary. Some of it also appears in the online version with a copyright claim. I think you had better check your contract with Oxford, or rephrase the copied text to avoid the copyright issue. I agree with you that the Hot Dog anonymous editor is a vandal, so I support your reversions of the vandalism. You also need to read WP:Referencing for beginners, and to remove BLOCK CAPITALS from the article. I've replaced one name with a link to Louie Bellson . Could you please check that I've chosed the correct Louis Bellson. Dbfirs 16:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a hidden hyperlink

Hello! I would like to make two pages for the characters of Chirrut Imwe and Baze Malbus of the Star Wars anthology film Rogue One; they are the only two characters of the main cast to not have their own pages, and considering their great popularity I found this odd. However, whenever I try to create a new hyperlink for Chirrut or Baze, it simply sends me back to the cast of Rogue One. How do I change this so that I can get started on making the pages? I have gone into the sandbox for virtually every mention of the two on Wikipedia and cannot find where it is coded to send me there. Any help would be appreciated, thank you! TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatClockwyrm: Both titles are currently redirects to the Rogue One page. If you look at the top of that page, after clicking on either name, you will see a link to the redirect under the main heading. You can use the redirect to create an article. However, I do not have sufficient knowledge of the franchise to comment as to whether new pages are warranted. You might consider raising at WT:SWARS to establish whether there is a consensus that the article should exist. Please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash: You said I could use the redirect...I have never created a page of my own on mainstream Wikipedia, and am unsure how to create a page outside of the old red hyperlink. Do you mind elaborating for me? TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit the page so that the redirects are replaced with article content. I might suggest, after establishing that pages are warranted, that they are developed in draftspace where there is less chance of deletion etc. and then submit for review. Eagleash (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Eagleash's advice before creating the page, but here's more detail on editing redirects. Following the link above to Chirrut Imwe, you end up in a subsection of the main article, but scrolling up you will find (Redirected from Chirrut Imwe) on top of the main article page. Clicking on that blue text will bring you here. From there, you can edit the page. All redirect pages are made in the same way: it starts with the line #REDIRECT [[link to target]] (which is the code that tells MediaWiki to handle this as a redirect) and then contains a few redirect categorization templates. You can edit that as any other page, and it will break the redirection. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Start at Your First Article and follow the pathway through. A few things. It appears that the link from the Rogue One page is to Chirrut Îmwe with an accent on the I, so you may want to make sure you create it with that. I don't think there will be any problem with notability. Use one of the other Rogue One characters as a guide to how it should look and where to get references. Then submit it for review. It may take a while though.Naraht (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash: @Tigraan: @Naraht: Perfect! I understood now. Don't worry, I already have several sources lined up. I will most likely copy and past the format of one of the other characters and use that to help me with the formatting, then sub in my own words from there. Thank you for the assistance! TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to re-flag updated edits

I submitted a collection of requested edits to a page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.J._Murdock_Charitable_Trust).

I was informed by the editorial team that there were formatting issues. I believe I addressed those. I tried to respond that the formatting changes had been made, but have not received a response.

How can I most appropriately re-submit my edits for consideration without creating unnecessary churn for the editorial team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColbyReade (talk • contribs) 17:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ColbyReade, I see that you have created four sections at Talk:M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust (though you only signed the fourth). The first is a request to remove a specified paragraph; the paragraph is supported by two references, and you don't say why you think those references should be disregarded. The second and third sections aren't requests at all, they are just (I think) your proposed alternative and misformatted versions for sections of the article. The fourth section of the talk page seems to me to be a repeat of the first: an unexplained request that referenced content be removed.

If you want your requests to be taken seriously, keep them simple. Say what text you want changed, say what you want it changed to, give your reasons, and provide references. And make one request at a time: if you make a great swathe of proposals, no volunteer is likely to take any notice. Maproom (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom, Thank you so much for your feedback here. I had misunderstood the protocol for proposing edits from an individual with a COI. This is incredibly helpful for me moving forward. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColbyReade (talk • contribs) 18:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to finish each message on a talk page, including discussion pages such as this, with a signature given by 4 tildes (~~~~). --David Biddulph (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where to find the AutoGenerated ToC template?

I read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Section#Table_of_contents_(TOC)

It mentions that ToC of a page is autogenerated. I observed that Telugu Wikipedia(teviki, te.wikipedia.org) shows the English name "Contents" for the headers of ToCs. Where can I find the template or where should I do the respective translation?

I could only find other kind of ToC templates like Compact_TOC. Template template:TOC is getting redirecting to Compact_TOC. However in Compact_TOC, translation is fine, but the translation is not in the template source. So, I'm also wondering about the location of the translations to edit.

Thank you

--Criticpanther (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Criticpanther: The normal TOC heading is controlled by te:MediaWiki:Toc which says "విషయ సూచిక". I tested a random page te:వజ్రకూటం and see "విషయ సూచిక". Please give an example page where you see "Contents". If you are logged in and have changed your interface language away from the default "te" at te:Special:Preferences then you may see another language like "Contents" but that's expected. Logged out users and users who don't change the default language should see "విషయ సూచిక". PrimeHunter (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--PrimeHunter Thank you for your answer. I came to know what's the problem. I have English as the language in the settings on the left panel of teviki. When I changed it to Telugu, it's now showing as "విషయ సూచిక". I think part of the confusion for me is that in the Compact_TOC I see it as "విషయ సూచిక" even when the settings language is English but not the same case with normal TOC. I thought all of the main article section labels will be in the language of the wiki. Thanks again.

Criticpanther (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Criticpanther: te:Template:Compact ToC displays the heading with the code {{MediaWiki:Toc}. This always produces te:MediaWiki:Toc. If it said {{int:Toc}} then you would get different languages like te:MediaWiki:Toc/en for users with English as interface language. The normal TOC uses {{int:Toc}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Dear Wikipedia,

I could use your assistance in finishing up a page for a musician I work for.

Below is the url for the current page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Villarreal

What we are trying to do with this is to add a photo, however we are unsure how to perform this task.

On an administrative note, I’m not entirely sure this is the correct place to send this help request, if so...can you forward it to the correct individual(s)?

Thank you,

Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearpockets (talk • contribs) 22:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dearpockets, first thing is please read WP:Paid and WP:COI before making any edits to the article. You need to declare your conflict if you have one and if you are getting paid by them. Once you have done that, you can upload a picture to WP:COMMONS that you will then be able to link to the article. Make sure there is no copyright on the picture or otherwise if there is, you get the rights to use it. If you are unsure about copyright issue, please ask. Lastly please don't forgot to sign your posts using four ~. NZFC^(talk) 22:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NZFC, I don't think that simply uploading an image would fall foul of WP:COI.

Dearpockets, Assuming that you are the copyright owner and you wish to freely license the image (this is important!) then click here.

Under Destination filename type something like Victor Villarreal.jpg (assuming it's a jpg), then copy/paste the following into the Summary box:

{{Information

|Description={{en|1=Photograph of [[W:Victor Villarreal|Victor Villarreal]].}}

|Source={{own}}

|Date=2018-02

|Author=[[W:User:Dearpockets|Dearpockets]]

}}

Next, choose your licensing from the drop down box (I recommend Attribution ShareAlike 4.0) then click on Upload file.

If there are any problems I can fix them once the image is uploaded. nagualdesign 22:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks nagualdesign, I realise that maybe the case but I did say "before making any edits to the article". Just incase they wanted to update information their as well but I can see my message could be confusing. NZFC^(talk) 22:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I should have made the distinction clear. There are strict rules regarding editing articles where there is a conflict of interest, but simply uploading an image shouldn't be a problem. nagualdesign 22:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Site access

Greetings. I became a member two days ago and I've already built a sizeable watchlist of articles that interest me. I am seeing considerable interference by persons with negative and disruptive intentions. I've already restored two or three articles myself including one just now. May I make a suggestion?

It is too easy to come into this site and make changes and just as easy to open a membership. I do not understand why e-mail address is optional when, well, it should be compulsory. This would not in any way impede the "anyone can edit" ethic. Everyone has an e-mail address, its use for access is widespread across the internet and no one thinks twice about providing it if requested to do so.

I suggest that everyone should be required to register an account by valid e-mail address, so no more IP address editing. A userid can be set up as part of the registration process and, thereafter, the member can log in using either the userid or the e-mail address. Anyone who is banned or suspended would have to use a different e-mail address to regain access and, even if the disruptive elements were determined to keep bouncing back, they would only do it for a short time before giving up completely because how many e-mail addresses can you create without going mad?

It does mean that the "anyone can edit" ethic becomes "anyone with a valid e-mail address can edit" but what is the difference? The difference is nil for the editor but for the site and its readership the difference is a sharp decrease in destructive edits ensuring a higher quality product.

I am enjoying the site so far and finding much that I can work on. I do have a question. So far, I am concentrating on medieval history but I have other interests which are poles apart, such as sport and 20th century music. Is it permissible to set up a different userid in order to edit a different subject area or should I stay with the same one no matter what I am working on? Thanks. Ziggy (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can create an email address. Having one does not prove you are who you say you are. nagualdesign 22:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ziggy and thank you for your edits so far. This idea comes up from time to time and isn't new. There are arguements for and against having users have to register as you can here which also links to more articles. Maybe also good to read Not every IP is a vandal. IPs are already prohibited from creating new articles or editing semiprotected ones and there is no guarantee that banning IPs would stop vandalism. IPs aren't any more anonymous than a user with an email are too with the tools that some admins have. NZFC^(talk) 22:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. You could even argue that IP editors have less anonymity, since anyone can perform a search to geolocate a published IP address, whereas signed-in users' IP addresses are not publically available. nagualdesign 22:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is trying to prove who they say they are. After all, who am I? Those percentages are interesting, however, and surprising. It seems that you are heavily reliant upon IP address editors so fair enough. Thanks very much for that. What about secondary accounts for different subject areas, though? Ziggy (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MULTIPLE and WP:VALIDALT. nagualdesign 22:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. Some light reading. I should be okay now. Ziggy (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And having quickly read those I think I'll stick with just the one. Thanks again. Ziggy (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I found those links using the search box. Beginning with WP: (which denotes policy-type pages as opposed to articles) I began typing wp:multiple accounts and by the time I'd typed the l the suggestions included the page I was after. I clicked the link to see if it was indeed relevant, which it was. The second link was found by reading the first link, where it says Main page: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry § Legitimate uses. The shortened form, WP:VALIDALT, was then shown to the right. It sometimes seems like it's difficult to find what you want on Wikipedia, but it's actually incredibly easy, since there are bound to be users who have looked for the same thing in the past, and they've cleared the path, as it were. nagualdesign 23:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]