Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

May 2

Article not listed in category?

OpenNIC currently has [[:Category:Alternative Internet DNS services]] in its footer, not being listed in Category:Alternative Internet DNS services because of the : prefix. Is there any reason for not listing this page in the category or was it an error by an editor? Edit: This seems to have happened in this diff, seems to have something to do with an AFC submission? Pinging SwisterTwister. Saturnalia0 (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Saturnalia0: Yes, it's because drafts and other items not in mainspace should not categories enabled. If you feel the page belongs in the category, merely remove the colon. Links in talk page posts should also have a colon inserted before the pagename so there is not a link between the TP and the article. I.e. [[:OpenNIC]]. Eagleash (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Eagleash: I'm not sure what you mean with the last part. For mainspace articles there is no difference between [[:OpenNIC]] and [[OpenNIC]]. If you think [[:OpenNIC]] will omit an entry at Special:WhatLinksHere/OpenNIC then it's not true. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks I'm not sure how I came by this knowledge, whether it was something another editor imparted or the fact that multiple editors seem to adopt this practice. It does lead me to ask though; if you use for example, {{subst:uw-vandalism2|pagename}}, if you look at the source afterwards, when the message has been expanded, a colon will have been inserted in the coded page name. Also on Commons it is done so images will not display in TP posts I believe. Eagleash (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Eagleash: An initial colon ensures an inline link is always made regardless of the type of wikilink. Without a colon, [[Category:...]] will add the page to the category, [[File:...]] or [[Image:...]] will display the file, and [[xx:...]] where xx is a recognized language code will make a link under "Languages" in the left pane. It doesn't matter in which namespace the code is placed. Templates to make links will often add a colon in all cases just to be safe, e.g. if pagename happens to be a category or file page in {{subst:uw-vandalism2|pagename}}. It would be possible to code the templates to test the namespace and only add the colon when needed but there is no reason for the code complication. The colon makes no difference when it's unnecessary. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Nicola Horlick

I would be grateful if you could help me. On my page, there is a section about Bernard Madoff. I have made the point many times over the last 9 years that I did not manage the hedge fund portfolio of Bramdean Alternatives, which held a position in Madoff managed funds. This was managed by RMF, which was part of Man Group, which was the largest manager of hedge funds in the world at the time. This was misreported in the press and was the subject of a libel action between me and the Mail on Sunday. The Madoff paragraph was removed some time ago and now it has reappeared. It gives a misleading impression of my career in fund management and I very strongly believe that it should be removed. I have tried three times in the last few days to edit it out myself, but the edits have been reversed. I have been extremely patient about this. As a professional person, my reputation is very important to me. Please let me know how this can be rectified.

Nicola Horlick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhorlick (talk • contribs) 08:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

There is copious advice on your user talk page about how to handle your conflict of interest. The place to suggest changes is on the article talk page, and in the box at the top of that talk page there is a link to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this now. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• @ Nhorlick. The founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales is currently leading a campaign against fake news. This appears to be the situation you have found yourself in, where you have to prove your innocence against a tide of negative reporting. Given your profile, Jimmy may find you valuable to have on board in his fight against bad reporting. Suggest you contact him directly for an opportunity to chew-the-cud. Post the suggestion on his talk page. P.S. Should I still keep the bulk of my portfolio in income producing properties or should I start thinking about moving it else where? Aspro (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I have sought advice through the usual channels here and will pursue this. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Think, when in doubt chuck it out. The whole section should go. Reading through the references amounts to no more than hearsay, which is not encyclopedic.Aspro (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Carbon Caryatid & Aspro, I think your direction and assessment is correct: this can and should be handled in-house. It is ridiculous for all that we "doth protest" as editors at WP that when a subject comes to the Help Desk for assistance we simply say: "try the Talk Page"; where most often it does not receive the correct set of editorial eyes nor a neutral point of view. I just saw an editor delete an entire article's content because the header tag was "old", and this was considered valid and constructive. I hope you both are able to yield results boldly and finally. Good luck! Maineartists (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have made the necessary changes, summarised on the article talkpage. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing using subject's website

I'm currently creating a page for a non-profit, and I've used the non-profit's website as a footnoted source for material, much of which is backed up by outside references. When presenting my work to the foundation, board members have expressed concern that this could be a problem. Is this a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majicmarty (talk • contribs) 11:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Majicmarty. First of all, I infer from "presenting my work to the foundation" that you are paid to make your Wikipedia contributions, in which case it must be disclosed per this link. I assume you are talking about User:Majicmarty/sandbox. The board members are mostly correct, but there is a subtle distinction to be made.

First, Wikipedia requires that its information be verifiable. Because of that, the use of primary sources (i.e. what a source says about themselves) is acceptable for noncontroversial statements (such as the official name of the organization, its postal address, its board members), or the views of that organization, but not for much else. Any statement of fact that could be supported by a secondary source rather than by a primary source should be sourced there (but notice that press releases, interviews etc. most often qualify as primary).

The bigger problem though is that you need to demonstrate that the topic of the article is "notable" in the Wikipedia sense of the term. This means roughly "has been described at length in reliable, independent sources" (usually, press articles or published books). As it stands, your article does not show that; if the Little Village Foundation is not notable, any article about it will be rejected.

Finally, while this is no obstacle to publication (although the article needs to be edited further), the style of writing in that draft is quite unacceptable. Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, which does not to advocate a particular position, or promote particular persons/organizations/products/etc.. This is related to the points above. For instance, culturally significant music albums / deserving, but underexposed individuals and groups} is pure PR-speak: it makes vague assertions that cast the subject in a positive light, but none of which are supported by independent reviews. Similarly, all have contributed their musical talents in support of the artists is peacockry with zero factual base (except "they work here", which is already implied by the previous sentence). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply, Tigraan. And thanks for the clarification regarding my virgin sandbox creation. I'm not being paid in any way for my work on this project. It's a labor of love for an organization I believe in and executed at the group's request. I'll address the issues you describe and proceed accordingly. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majicmarty (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete a page from wikipedia

Hello, can a page be deleted from Wikipedia? I am contacting you from the City of Williamsburg. We have created a page on Facebook called Kiwanis Park. This page is the same name as your page that had all wrong information on it. We do not need two Kiwanis Park pages out on Facebook but unfortunately, Facebook is telling me they cannot delete the one page that has all the wrong information because it is owned by wiki hub which I am guessing is you.

So, can Kiwanis Park, Williamsburg be deleted from Wikipedia?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwilson23185 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Cwilson23185: the creation of the Wikipedia article Kiwanis Park, Williamsburg about a ball park in the US does not justify the deletion of another Wikipedia article Kiwanis Park, New Brunswick about a similarly-named ball park in Canada. Maproom (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cwilson23185. Not to be snarky but you "guessed wrong". Wikipedia is a site of the Wikimedia Foundation and has nothing to do with Wiki Hub.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cwilson23185: You didn't link it so I don't know which Facebook page you refer to or what "wiki hub" is (maybe WikiHub?). My searches gave no good results matching your info. Wikipedia does not make Facebook pages except maybe a few about Wikipedia itself. Facebook or their users can copy Wikipedia pages. The Wikipedia article Kiwanis Park, Williamsburg will not be deleted just because somebody else may have copied it. Even if we deleted it here the copy would probably not be deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• FYI: this is a continuation from here: Change Header Name on a Page. Maineartists (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Unsure what to do with article about a living person

Hi everyone,

I stumbled across the article linked to above, and until just a moment ago it looked like this. I removed the worst promotional content and tried to fix the lead to make it at least say who this person is, but the result is still not very satisfactory IMO.

For one thing, I have no idea why this person is notable, so I find it difficult to phrase the lead accordingly.

Also, I don't see that the second paragraph provides any encyclopedic content either. My gut feeling would be to throw that out too, but I am reluctant to do that because then practically nothing is going to be left.

Any ideas? --93.212.229.181 (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

If you think it needs to be deleted, WP:AFD is the process by which to initiate a discussion among people to decide if that is the best course of action. --Jayron32 16:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I have proposed the article for deletion. Maproom (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I was about to nominate the article for deletion, but Maproom beat me to it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

However, the "this article's entry" link at James Mannon is a redlink. I've not come across this before. I wonder what went wrong. Maproom (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It isn't now. I've noticed that happening a lot. It just seems to take a minute sometimes for the browser to bypass its cache. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not mention deletion because I really cannot judge this person's notability. I don't mind having the article in here (if it indeed is an article, not just a substub), and I don't mind if it is deleted either. I was just unsure about how to proceed, since after I had done all the work I could on that article it was still very unsatisfactory. --93.212.229.181 (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure you can. Look for reliable secondary, independent sources that treat the subject in detail (at a minimum try Google Books, New Archive and Scholar → fail to find them? → you've done due diligence to nominate on the basis of notability → nominate for deletion → see if anyone else can find the sources you didn't → if not, it will likely be deleted and rightly so.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"Sure I can" what? I said I have done all the work I could on that article, and that's that.

Look. This is volunteer work we are doing here. I have no idea who this gentleman is, or why he has a Wikipedia article, or if he should. And what's more, I don't care.

I did more constructive work on his article than anyone else has for months, and I brought it to the attention of more experienced users. And now I am most certainly not going to waste my time looking for secondary sources on an article that may not be worth it in the first place. I don't mind if anyone else does, and I don't mind if the article is deleted either.

But I do mind this attitude that I have come across here more than once, trying to push other users to do more work on parts of Wikipedia they can't or don't want to do more work on, for whatever reason. Please respect what others are willing and able to do in their volunteer time, or you'll be pushing them out of Wikipedia rather than in. --93.212.233.204 (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was telling you what to do. You had said you could not judge the notability of the person. The response was telling you how you could judge the notability not that you had to, ~ GB fan 17:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

GB fan is right. "Sure you can" was in answer to your statement "I really cannot judge this person's notability". I was explaining what is involved in making that judgment and how you can act on it. (I was also implying, for future reference, that your time might be better spent on five minutes of googling for sources and nominating for deletion than improving a subject that may not be notable in the first place.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Collapse

When I click on any of the examples below, three of them open together. What can I do for each one to open independently?'

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

111111

CONTENT 1

222222

CONTENT 2

333333

CONTENT 3

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

<span class="mw-customtoggle-myDivision"> 111111 </span>

<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-myDivision">

CONTENT 1

</div>

<span class="mw-customtoggle-myDivision"> 222222 </span>

<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-myDivision">

CONTENT 2

</div>

<span class="mw-customtoggle-myDivision"> 333333 </span>

<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-myDivision">

CONTENT 3

</div>

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.194.254 (talk)

You can use separate names as long as they start with mw-customcollapsible- and mw-customtoggle-. See below example. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

111111

CONTENT 1

222222

CONTENT 2

333333

CONTENT 3

Rollback vs Twinkle?

Is there any difference between Twinkle's rollback feature and the rollback feature given by applying for its right? Also, would applying for rollback permissions be redundant due to Twinkle's rollback? Blorper234 (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

They are very similar, but there are some slight differences. Both Twinkle and the MediaWiki rollback feature can revert an edit with a single click. With Twinkle, you can easily add a reason for reverting. Also, rollback adds links to other pages like page history and the watchlist, while Twinkle's rollback links only show up in diffs. See WP:ROLLBACK#Additional tools for a bit more on the differences. In my experience, MediaWiki rollback can be useful when page patrolling with your watchlist or recent changes page since obvious vandalism can be reverted with one click, but I tend to use Twinkle more frequently because of the ability to customize edit summaries and easily place warning templates. clpo13_(talk) 23:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) According to WP:Rollback they are the same. RudolfRed (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Would that not make applying for Rollback permissions redundant? Blorper234 (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Twinkle offers three rollback options which I find very useful: one being for good faith edits, one for rollback with edit summary prompt and one for blatant vandalism. The last one does a very similar task to the rollback obtained using rights and is often used in the same context. Although I use the one offered by Twinkle, the other one has a nice feature that shows the number of consecutive edits done by the same user (for example, [rollback: 5 edits] or [rollback: 8 edits]). This helps in judging to what extent my revert is going to be effective without manually going through the revision history. As for it being redundant, the Rollback rights obtained by applying require a qualified editor reviewing your edits and seeing if you are likely to use it for good or not. So, some tools such as STiki and Huggle (both are useful for reverting vandalism and more powerful than Twinkle for that matter) can only be downloaded and used by those who have the rights as it is a good measure of the trustworthiness of the person. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 22:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

May 3

SandBox questions

I was working in my own personal sandbox and for some reason either the work was deleted or the account was changed. The article that I was posting was "A Cognitive Risk Framework". CogRskFrmWrk user name? If I start a new wikipedia page about a topic for which I am familiar but no other articles or topics are available about the subject how is it approved?

Who decides and how should I respond to an article that is rejected. The entire process appears to be wrapped in a mystery?

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueBook4 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any deleted contributions on the account you're using, nor a User:CogRskFrmWrk.

I did see Draft:Cognitive Risk Framework for Cyber Security (although I have deleted it because it was undeniable plagiarism), which was written by a JaMesB2017. I see that JaMesB2017 was previously named CogRskFrmWrk, but would have had to request a change of username.

All new articles most contain specific citations multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are unaffiliated with the subject but still specifically about it. The article material must only summarize the citations not elaborate nor combine them into statements not immediately supported by the citation. On the other side, however, articles must not plagiarize the source material. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Apparent inconsistency in rollback links

The following lines appear in my recent contributions:

• (change visibility) 04:38, 3 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-1,900)‎ . . User:Nyttend/Virginia NRHP/Bedford ‎ (Got six) (current)
• (change visibility) 04:37, 3 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-320)‎ . . User:Nyttend/Virginia NRHP/Augusta ‎ (Got one) (current) [rollback: more than 10 edits]

Nobody's ever edited these two pages, aside from me, and I've never used my alternate account to edit either one of them. I can understand it appearing on both (because it would always appear whenever I'd made the most recent edit to a page) or it appearing on neither (because no other account had ever edited, so rollback wouldn't work), but why would it appear on one but not the other? Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The second says "more than 10 edits" due to hitting mw:Manual:$wgShowRollbackEditCount. Maybe it stops examining the page history at 11 edits back when "more than 10" is known, so it doesn't detect you are the only editor and there is nothing to roll back to. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of a Wiki page I created

Hi Team Wikipedia,

I had created a page on behalf of my company on 5/2/17 titled 'CitiusTech Inc.', but it got deleted by the user DESiegel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DESiegel).

The reason for deleting the page said G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Please help me understand what part is promotional and I will remove it.

Looking forward to a swift reply from your end.

Thanks, Edgar

Attaching the content here for your perusal:

[Collapsed content for readability ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)]

CitiusTech is a healthcare technology solutions and services provider headquartered in Princeton, NJ. With over 2,700 healthcare technology professionals, CitiusTech serves about 80 healthcare technology companies/ISVs, large hospitals/IDNs, payers, providers and life sciences organizations and has presence in North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. CitiusTech offers services and solutions for healthcare software development, healthcare interoperability, regulatory compliance, BI/analytics, consumer engagement, care coordination and population health management. In 2016, CitiusTech ranked in Healthcare Informatics HCI100 – for being in the top 100 US healthcare IT vendors by revenues.[1] CitiusTech is a member of the CHiME Foundation,[2] and has technology partnerships with AWS [3] , Microsoft [4] and IBM. [5] CitiusTech was founded in 2005 by Rizwan Koita, Jagdish Moorjani and Bimal Naik. In May 2014, General Atlantic, a global growth equity firm, invested about US$ 100 million to acquire a minority stake in CitiusTech. [6] Awards and Recognition  2016 – CitiusTech awarded by Great Place to Work Institute® for India’s ‘Best Companies To Work For in IT & ITeS’ (7)  2015 – CitiusTech awarded by Great Place to Work Institute® for India’s ‘Best IT-BPM Companies To Work For’ [8]  2015 – CitiusTech awarded with The Gold Stevie® Award for the ‘Most Innovative Tech Company of the Year’, by the American Business Awards [9]  2014 – CitiusTech awarded by Great Place to Work Institute® for India’s ‘Best Companies To Work For’ [10]  2013 - CitiusTech awarded by Great Place to Work Institute® for India’s ‘Best Companies To Work For’ [11]  2013 – Rizwan Koita honored with The Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award in the Startup category for CitiusTech [12]  2012 - CitiusTech awarded by Great Place to Work Institute® for India’s ‘Best Companies to Work For’ [13]  2011 – CitiusTech wins the Red Herring’s Top 100 North America Award [14] References 1. CitiusTech listed in the annual listing of Healthcare Informatics HCI100. 2. CHIME Foundation’s executive healthcare partner CitiusTech 3. CitiusTech and Amazon Web Services (AWS) partnership 4. Microsoft and CitiusTech’s technology partnership 5. CitiusTech and IBM partnership 6. General Atlantic invests in healthcare tech firm CitiusTech - March 20, 2014 – via Business Standard 7. ‘CitiusTech awarded by Great Place to Work Institute in 2016’ 8. ‘CitiusTech wins ‘2015 Best Companies to work for’ award for the 4th year in a row’ 9. Gold Stevie® Award for the ‘Most Innovative Tech Company of the Year’ – September 15, 2015 10. CitiusTech, India’s ‘Best Companies To Work’ for in 2014 11. CitiusTech wins Great Place to Work Award in 2013 12. Rizwan Koita – EY Entrepreneur of the Year India, Start-up 13. CitiusTech awarded by Great Place to Work Institute in 2012 14. Red Herring North America Winners

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgarjstephens (talk • contribs) 07:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, most of it was promotional, which was a sufficient reason to justify its deletion. But there's also a more serious problem: the article included no references to establish that its subject is notable. To learn about the rather strange way that word is used here, click on it. Maproom (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that lack of sources to demonstrate notability is not grounds for speedy deletion, althoguh it may be grounds at an deletion discussion. In this case, the entire article read like a company brochure. It might be that this firm would be notable were proper sources found and the article rewritten to be descriptive rather than promotional. DES ^(talk) 13:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, if you have questions about why a particular admin took a particular action, it can be helpful to ping that admin, or post on that admin's talk page. Admins should be willing and able to justify their administrative actions on-wiki. DES ^(talk) 13:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Edgarjstephens, Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in anything which a subject (whether a company, a person, a band, a charity, or anything else) says or wants to say about itself. That includes the subject's own publications, and also anything published by an independent source but based on an interview or press release from the subject. An article should be largely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places. In any case, every single fact or claim in an article should be derived from a published reliable source. Please see WP:V for more information.. Also please be aware of the restrictions on editing with a conflict of interest, and particular in a paid capacity. --ColinFine (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Issue with sortable table

Here is a table where data (casualities) is not sorted properly : Israeli_casualties_of_war#Regular_conflicts. There must be a simple trick I'm not aware of. Please someone show me so that I'll be able to fix it myself in the futureKimdime (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily simple, but the advice is at Help:Sorting. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed with data-sort-type="number".[1] See Help:Sorting#Forcing a column to have a particular data type. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ! --Kimdime (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

How much interpretation is acceptable?

I am currently editing the article on the Battle of St Quentin Canal. The (official) American source which I could quote says that the British put down their barrage for the Americans in the wrong place. The (official) British/Australian source says that the barrage was put down in the "wrong" place because the American commander did not want the barrage to fall on his men, whose whereabouts was uncertain (i.e. it was done in agreement with the Americans). I could mention these conflicting interpretations (both views can be accessed online in the original texts) but I haven't seen this conflict of interpretations referred to in any of my other reference works, so would inclusion in a Wikipedia article be acceptable, or would it be straying too far into the territory of original research. (The matter of whose decision the positioning of the barrage was is important, because the American author uses it as an example of why it was wiser for the American Expeditionary Force to operate under independent American command (which was a source of friction between America and her allies during the war) Daveleicuk (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Daveleicuk. If these sources are both reliable (as it seems that they are from your comment) and the point is important, i would mention the difference of opinion, unless perhaps several other sources contradict these two and have a unified position. But if it is simply that other sources do not mention the issue at all, i would include this difference between sources. Reporting what reliable sources say is not original research in the Wikipedia sense, it is the basic activity of writing sourced articles. DES ^(talk) 12:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DES, this is helpful Daveleicuk (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

First Drug Submarine found in United States

My name is Ivan Kellerman, I found the first submersible drug submarine in the US in November, 1988 while surfing. I would like this added to the archives and be apart of history. http://www.upi.com/Archives/1988/11/11/Creative-drug-smugglers-turn-to-submarines/8252316907705/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58gram (talk • contribs) 13:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is on the talk page of the specific article you think it should be added to. This page is more for help on using Wikipedia. What article do you think this info would help? ~ GB fan 14:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Presumably: Narco-submarine? --107.15.152.93 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding a paragraph to the article. --107.15.152.93 (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Facebook Page

I am not a big user of Wikipedia so pardon my errors in terms and such. Not even sure how to respond to someone who answered my "talk" so I will try again as the answers were not accurate.

I am contacting you from the City of Williamsburg Parks and Recreation Department. We own Kiwanis Park in Williamsburg Virginia. I contacted Facebook because the park was listed as a page out there in Facebook land stating "Kiwanis Municipal Stadium Park" and had all the wrong information. Facebook told me I could not claim the page for the City of Williamsburg or make changes to it as it was a wikihub. They told me I had to log into wikipedia and make changes to the page. As soon as I changed the name of the heading from "Kiwanis Municipal Stadium Park" to "Kiwanis Park" the change was reflective on Facebook. Only problem is we already have a Facebook page called Kiwanis Park which is making it very hard for our residents to selected the correct facebook page.

Here is the link to the page in question. All the text is wrong, the pictures are wrong. It is not even a soccer stadium.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Kiwanis-Park-Williamsburg/1402477856649149

Isnt there any way this page can be deleted?

Thank you. Colleen Wilson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwilson23185 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Just for info, this is a continuation of the Delete a page from wikipedia discussion above - X201 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

... and that, in turn, was a continuation from WP:Help desk/Archives/2017 April 27#Change header name on a page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Cwilson23185. To continue a discussion on this page, pick "[Edit source]" at the top of the section, and add your new comments on the end. You can indent, if you wish, by starting a paragraph with one or more colons (':' - don't start with spaces, or it will format it wrongly). I'm sorry you're having a frustrating time, but as was explained above, Wikipedia has no control whatever over what Facebook does with its data. If Facebook is misinterpreting data from Wikipedia (such as misidentifying a place), I'm afraid that is something that Facebook has to fix. Wikipedia will not compromise its own data just because somebody else is misusing it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Colin refers to "[Edit source]" at the top of the section, but for those of us using the traditional Wikipedia editor it says merely "[Edit]". --David Biddulph (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear : That Facebook page is not administered by Wikipedia. You are asking the wrong people.

(Deleting the page from Wikipedia will not solve your Facebook problem.)ApLundell (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Photo

Someone has created a wikipedia page for my uncle, Doug Dunville. I have a photo of him when he played for the Toronto Marlies. I was hoping to upload it to his page but I'm not sure how... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahjolee (talk • contribs) 15:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sarahjolee! Let me point you to a great resource that will not only explain how to get your image into the system, but then use it online. Take a look here: MOS:IMAGES. There can not be any copyright issues so hopefully you took the picture or it falls under fair use. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry Sarahjolee, but contrary to what Gtstricky says, there may indeed be copyright issues. If you own the copyright (eg because you took the picture), then you are able to release it under a suitable licence when you upload it; but otherwise, it can only be used if the copyright owner specifically releases it in that way: see WP:donating copyright materials. If Doug Dunville is still living (implied but not stated in the current article) then the picture will almost certainly not meet the fair use criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

How is that contrary? That seems to be exactly what I said. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 00:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Gtstricky, when you wrote "There can not be an copyright issues" I thinlk you meant "There must not be copyright issues" but ColinFine quite reasonably read you as saying "It is clear that there are no copyright issues., which is quite different. DES ^(talk) 00:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh... that silly "y" will do it every time. Fixed it. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 00:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

adding link to online book

In this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_St._Quentin_Canal#References

the first listed item, the American Battle Monuments Commission book, is available as a downloadable pdf or for viewing online. Chapter VI is the relevant one for my ref and I'd like to add it. I'd appreciate help with this Daveleicuk (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Please help. How to stop someone from maliciously editing and adding inaccurate information to an article?

Arion Golmakani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, Someone is playing game with an article related to Arion Golmakani, an American author. The contributor is adding to the article that Arion Golmakani has won an award for an erotic book he has written. Neither which is true. Can this person's editing ability be revoked? Thank you Solacers (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems as if this IP will soon be blocked for 3RR. Unfortunately, attention seems now to be brought to the article / subject itself; which most likely should be submitted for AfD. Maineartists (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

... as a copyright violation Pppery 21:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

References

A bot has archived my talk page post

On 17 March 2017, I posted a note on Talk:Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain about a claim that a Polish airman had been killed by a mob of British civilians. The reference was to a book of anecdotes. I added a "dubious - discuss" template to the article. Now User:ClueBot III has archived the post after only six weeks and clicking "discuss" takes you to a blank page. WTF? Alansplodge (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The bot is set up to archive after 365 hours (about 15 days). You can unarchive the page by cutting the text from the archive and pasting it back on the main talk page. Add another comment (and sign it) so that it will not be immediately re-archived. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 21:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed the configuration so that it archives after 365 days (8,760 hours), not 365 hours. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 21:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That is rather bizarre: why would anyone intentionally set it for 365 hours? I agree that your change is good, but beyond that I also believe that someone misconfigured it previously. Nyttend (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all. Alansplodge (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I think whoever set it up thought the number in the age parameter corresponded to the number of days, not hours. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Neilson-Terry

There is a big gap between "family" and "early years" sections. Is this normal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbernadette (talk • contribs) 23:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

To me the gap is only as large as all other such gaps in the article, and there are no hidden characters in the 'Edit' view that might cause problems. Perhaps this is something specific to your browser settings and screen size. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the correct "Line Break" command or template?

Can someone please explain the difference between all of these various "codes" (below)? I can't make heads or tails of the documentation pages. (For example, at: Template:Break.) And I am not sure which ones are proper to use and which ones are not.

<br />

</br>

<br>

<br/>

{{break}}

{{brk}}

{{br}}

What's the difference between all of these? Which ones are proper/improper to use? And which is the one to use when I simply want to insert a blank line? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that </br> is improper to use, because putting the slash before the text is an indication that you're ending something, comparable to <strong>text</strong>, where </strong> ends the bold text. Not sure on the rest of the HTML-type ones. {{brk}} is a redirect to {{break}}, so there's no difference between them. {{br}} is a redirect to {{clear}}, which prevents text below itself from appearing until the whole screen is clear. Compare [2] with [3]; two tall images on the right side are far taller than the text, and in the first version, all the text therefore appears adjacent to the first image, but in the second one, where I used {{clear}} before some of the text, all the text below that template was forced down past the bottom of the lower image. It's a useful technique, but it's totally unrelated to making simple line breaks. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

<br/> (or <br />) is required in XML, and i believe standard in HTML 5 and higher, but in HTML generally it has exactly the same effect as <br>. In most wikipedia pages a simple blank line has the same effect withotu cluttering the page, although inside templates or tables some version of <br> or {{break}} may be required. {{brk}} and {{crlf}} redirect to {{break}} and have exactly the same effect, the difference is a matter of taste. DES ^(talk) 00:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

In most cases where you want a blank line, simply make a blank line in the source without adding any code. Never write </br>. See Wikipedia:Line-break handling. It says: "Until Tidy is removed, the forms <br>, <br/> and <br /> are equivalent. After Tidy's removal, only <br /> can be guaranteed to display correctly. Editors should therefore use <br />." <br /> on a source line with text makes a line break without inserting a blank line.

There is rarely reason to use {{break}}. If you have problems with the documentation then I suggest you never use it. {{brk}} is just a redirect to {{break}} so avoid that too. {{br}} is a redirect to {{Clear}}. It doesn't make a blank line but can fix some layout issues. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. But, a lot of that technical speak was lost on me. To be honest, I barely understood any of those replies. For ten years, I have always used this command: </br>. (Probably because I saw someone else use it.) And it has always created the blank line that I want. Sometimes, a "bot" will change that code to some other similar code. Sometimes, a human editor will do so. Sometimes, they are simply left alone. So, I am totally confused. Any help? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, simply adding a blank line of "text" (i.e., no text) never works for me. Never. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I see a blank line or at least greatly increased blank space between lines where you made a blank line in the source between your two latest posts. Do you not see extra blank space there? What is your browser? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Browser = Mozilla Firefox, I believe. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

But do you not see more blank space after your 00:16 post than between the lines of the post? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I do. But I thought that that was a function of the fact that I typed in four tildes (this sign: ~), so Wikipedia inserted my name and a date stamp. But I have no idea. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Signatures have no effect on whitespace. It sounds like blank lines do work for you. It's the standard way to create extra blank space between paragraphs. When certain features like indentation, section headings and some templates are involved, a single blank line may not give extra whitespace. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. Maybe I am getting confused. And maybe I am mixing apples and oranges. This is the problem -- perhaps another, totally different problem? -- that was on my mind. When I type something like this:

This is Line Number 1.

This is Line Number 2.

I hit a "carriage return" (for lack of a better word) after I type "This is Line Number 1." On an old-fashioned typewriter or in a Microsoft Word document, I would get two separate and distinct lines of text. In Wikipedia, I get this:

This is Line Number 1. This is Line Number 2.

Namely, both lines are all "jumbled together" as one single line.

Note: But, in the above example, I had to hit TWO carriage returns, because it would not display what I was trying to show. Normally, I would only hit ONE carriage return. But, with our without "nowiki codes", it was not displaying correctly here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"blank line" means a line with no content like this:

This is Line Number 1.

This is Line Number 2.

It now sounds like you don't actually want a blank line but only want a line break, i.e. ending the current line and starting a new right below it like this:

This is Line Number 1.
This is Line Number 2.

<br /> is the recommended code for that. You are right that a single line break in the wikitext is ignored. It does not produce a line break in the rendered text. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Yes, thanks. Your reply hit the nail on the head! Thanks for the clarification! That's exactly what I meant. I was referring to a "line break" and not a "new blank line". Sorry for the confusion. What I was really trying to say was "I want to move down to the next line of text, much like a carriage return does on an old typewriter". I used the term "new blank line" instead, in error. Sorry. Yes, I meant "line break". Thank you! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry; explain the difference between all of these various I took as you wanting more than a really basic explanation. </br> is bad coding, and it may soon stop working; please use <br /> instead. {{brk}} redirects to {{break}}, so use those two interchangeably. {{br}} redirects to {{clear}}, which has a completely different purpose. And finally, to make a separation in text without any of these pieces of code, you have to have two line breaks, i.e. text, then a line with nothing, and finally the next piece of text one line farther down. A single line difference, so every line has some text, is insufficient. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

May 4

Hiding visited pages from watchlist?

Resolved

 – Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there any way to hide visited pages/diffs from my watchlist? Currently the color of an icon changes from green to blue but I wanted the entry to be removed. I could not find anything about that on the preferences tabs, I was wondering if other editors know any way of doing it? Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Saturnalia0, at the top of a page there is a small five-pointed star. I see it to the right of "view history" but that can vary depending on what gadgets and scripts one uses. If it is filled in blue, the page is on your watch list, if it is empty it is not. Clicking it removes the page from your watch list if it is on the list, or adds it if it is not. DES ^(talk) 00:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I think I wasn't very clear. What I meant was to ask if there is a way to hide an item I already visited from the watchlist. For instance, if I click on a diff I'd like that diff to be hidden, or if I visit a page all changes from that page to be hidden, but not new ones (currently only an icon changes color on those actions). I don't want to actually unwatch the page. This is because there's usually a lot of changes on my watchlist and I review them on a per-page basis, so visited and unvisited diffs get mixed and I sometimes miss some. Alternatively, if there's a way to group the diffs by page that would suffice as well. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There are a few tweaks you can make to the watchlist which will get you close to what you are asking but probably not exactly. Take a look at WP:CUSTWATCH. There is a preferences option in gadgets that will bold changes you have not visited which I find helpful and might help with your request. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is the age column not sorting correctly?

In both tables below, why is the last column (on the right) not sorting correctly? The one that is entitled "Current Age". There does not seem to be any rhyme or reason to the sorting results. Also, does not the "age" template return a value that is a number (that should be easy for the computer to sort)? (And not a "string" where the number 100 is considered the characters "1" and "0" and "0".) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Academy Award	Oldest Living Winner	Date of Birth	Current Age (Years)
Best Director	Clint Eastwood	31 May 1930	94
Best Actor	Sidney Poitier	20 February 1927	97
Best Actress	Olivia de Havilland	1 July 1916	108
Best Supporting Actor	Martin Landau	20 June 1928	96
Best Supporting Actress	Eva Marie Saint	4 July 1924	100

Academy Award	Oldest Living Nominee	Date of Birth	Current Age
Best Director	Michael Anderson	January 30, 1920	104 years old
Best Actor	Kirk Douglas	December 9, 1916	107 years old
Best Actress	Olivia de Havilland	July 1, 1916	108 years old
Best Supporting Actor	Hal Holbrook	February 17, 1925	99 years old
Best Supporting Actress	Olivia de Havilland	July 1, 1916	108 years old

• Hello Joseph A. Spadaro. Your tables' second column was also not sorting. I've corrected the first table. You could make the same changes in the second. Thanks. Lourdes 01:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Repinging. Lourdes 01:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. But, you didn't really "fix" the last column. It used to say "years old" and I still want that "years old" in there (not deleted out). Why does it not work correctly? Also, what do you mean about the second column? The actor names? They sort just fine, no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed the last column in the second table by inserting data-sort-type="number" in the header cell. See Help:Sorting#Forcing a column to have a particular data type. I guess Lourdes was referring to people usually being sorted by surname. {{Sortname}} can help with that. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

My original charts

Academy Award	Oldest Living Winner	Date of Birth	Current Age
Best Director	Clint Eastwood	May 31, 1930	94 years old
Best Actor	Sidney Poitier	February 20, 1927	97 years old
Best Actress	Olivia de Havilland	July 1, 1916	108 years old
Best Supporting Actor	Martin Landau	June 20, 1928	96 years old
Best Supporting Actress	Eva Marie Saint	July 4, 1924	100 years old

Academy Award	Oldest Living Nominee	Date of Birth	Current Age
Best Director	Michael Anderson	January 30, 1920	104 years old
Best Actor	Kirk Douglas	December 9, 1916	107 years old
Best Actress	Olivia de Havilland	July 1, 1916	108 years old
Best Supporting Actor	Hal Holbrook	February 17, 1925	99 years old
Best Supporting Actress	Olivia de Havilland	July 1, 1916	108 years old

Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

COMPASS

how was the compass invented?

why was the compass invented? were was the compass invented? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.190.137 (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

See compass. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

And also History of the compass. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

is there a way to collapse a Category?

Heya, I'm still a noob hereabouts, and this may be a noob question. I found myself in the middle of Category:Guitar performance techniques, and after checking out some of these so-called articles, I'm discouraged. One after another has been largely how-to material, further laden with name-dropping of every guitarist who can be associated with the gimmick, lots of bogus historicity (apparently to claim notability) and a dearth of credible sources. They're like padded-out dictionary entries.

I'm an old guitar player and I have never been comfortable caling every little gimmick I employ "a technique," and this Category seems to illustrate my doubts. Something like Fingerstyle guitar is an actual technique (or maybe a collection of closely related techniques), each with various gimmicks.

As WP is assuredly NOT the place for instructional materials, I figure the intent is rather to provide clear and thorough information for non-guitarists. These shards do little in that regard.

So my thought is that the Category ought to be somehow collapsed, and the pieces pulled together into one proper article that is actually informative for the non-guitarist.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, many of those articles can probably be merged. See WP:MERGE. You can do merges yourself but you should know that there may a lot of resistance as many people hold these small articles dear. Ruslik_Zero 08:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

new wiki page

how do you create a new wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura Dove (talk • contribs) 07:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Please, see WP:CREATE. Ruslik_Zero 08:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

What to do when the "unreliable" source happens to be right, and the "reliable" sources mostly wrong?

Most of the mainstream press has been gushing about the Ugandan chess player Phiona Mutesi, who overcame extreme poverty and hardship to represent her country at the chess olympiad, and had a Disney movie made about her. Problem is, most of the mainstream news reports are by people who know nothing about chess. Her Elo rating of 1628 is the level of an average club player, as any chess player will confirm. Her achievements are certainly admirable in the context of her background, but she is definitely not a "prodigy" or a "master" or a "champion" by any stretch of the imagination. Unfortunately, many of the websites that point this out are overtly racist (National Vanguard anyone? Daily Stormer?). One of the few articles I've seen which puts some perspective on her achievements is in the Daily Caller, a source whose reliability is questionable due to its highly partisan political bias. Grandmaster Nigel Short is known for stirring the pot, but in this instance his assessment is entirely fair. "(I have) absolutely no desire whatsoever to belittle Phiona's accomplishments. I am very much looking forward to seeing this film, I think it is a very uplifting story. She grew up in very difficult circumstances. However, the fact of the matter is that there are 91,050 players in front of her on the world ranking list... perhaps some perspective is required.". Other grandmasters contacted by the Daily Caller expressed similar sentiments, but preferred to remain anonymous.

So the problem here is the "reliable" sources are mostly wrong and the "unreliable" source (Daily Caller) in this instance happens to be right. What to do? MaxBrowne (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne: Possibly you can add a most reliable source, the FIDE Chess Profile for Phiona Mutesi ...? --CiaPan (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne: I can't see any gushing in the article as it stands, the factual content seems adequately sourced and any opinions in the sources, should, off course be ignores. even the direct quote seems to be realistic in tone Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I still think the article oversells her as a chess player. The opening sentence describing her as a "Ugandan chess champion" immediately raises NPOV issues. She was Ugandan girls' champion a few times. How many competitve girl chess players are there in Uganda? Not many. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You can alter the phrasing without need for extra sourcing. Just say "...A Ugandan chess player who won the Ugandan Girls Championship" or something like that. Problem solved. --Jayron32 13:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Tamil Brahmins

Resolved

 – UKSharma3 14:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

User @Sitush: has removed the category Tamil Brahmins from the article K. Kailasanatha Kurukkal. He says "consensus on Wikipedia is that they are treated as a caste when it comes to issues such as categorisation". I want a confirmation of his statement and, if what he says is the case, why the above category exists in Wikipedia.--UKSharma3 12:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Uksharma3! This can be a tricky topic. Here is one of the discussions that took place on the subject: Archived discussion. Essentially the category still exists to tag pages related to the caste, but not individuals. If you look at the nominators rationale section of this page you will also find a few other discussions: CFD Hopefully that helps. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

pair of articles on French and English Wikipedia

It's been a long time since I edited and things may've changed or I may've forgotten. I want to cross-reference a pair of articles on French and English Wikipedia under "Languages" on the left sidebar. How do I do so? Robert Greer (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If there are no interlanguage links, there should be a button that says "Add links". Click it and a dialogue box should pop up. Put the language in the top box, where it asks for language, and the article title in that language in the bottom box, and click "link with page". It'll then be linked in both languages, and any other languages either page is linked with. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

To add to what ONUnicorn said, if there are already links present, you'll see an edit links option. It'll take you to wikidata where you can link the articles together. Yashovardhan (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Merci boucoup! Robert Greer (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

De rien! Yashovardhan (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Please remove name from Wiki page

Hi, William Faucette is no longer CEO of this company - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5Linx#History can you please remove his name completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3005:716:C100:A476:BEA0:E9A9:3671 (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction which is now reflected in the article. Why would you want the name removed completely? Presumably he is part of the history of the company? Dbfirs 15:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Wolf Lake (New York)

I added a paragraph and cited my sources in the text.I received an error message and I am not sure how you want the sources referenced.Djk1944 (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Djk1944! I've gone ahead and fixed the errors with the references in Wolf Lake (New York). The problem was that you had <ref></ref> before the source instead of surrounding the source. The <ref> tells the software that what follows is a reference, where </ref> lets the software know that the reference has ended. So basically, the source goes between the ref tags, like this: <ref>Citation goes here</ref>. Hope that helps! I'll leave a generic welcome message on your talk page with lots of helpful links. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

Greetings. I started a page. But was deleted due to G11 and G12 rules. I used my website content in the Wiki page that I made. The content is ours. So we are using it on the Wiki page. Can you help me with this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl henann (talk • contribs) 15:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Karl henann: Are you willing to licence your work in a way that it may be used for any purpose? If so, see WP:IOWN, and then it can be used on Wikipedia. If not, then it can't be. RudolfRed (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Karl henann: You need to declare your WP:conflict of interest if you are creating an article about your company. I am unable to see the deleted article, but a copy of a web page ("It all started with one man's simple idea of building his own resort") is unlikely to be written in the encyclopaedic style that Wikipedia requires. You need to find independent WP:reliable sources in which the company has been written about, and use these as references. See WP:referencing for beginners. Dbfirs 21:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Karl henann: Neither version provided independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the company, press releases, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. The first version was also a copyright infringement since your website is not clearly and explicitly public domain and was promotional in tone. You should not write about your own company. The page has been locked by an admin so that it cannot be recreated again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-free image

Resolved

 – Thanks for the answer.

I don't think the public domain rationale for an image that's been added to an article recently is legitimate. But I know very little about this area and even less about how to ask someone to review it, despite reading a bunch of pages on the topic. So I came here. Can someone please look at the image here? Please ping me, if you respond. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The commons page explains "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice.". I guess that explains it. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I read that, but I have no idea if it's true. It sounds odd that a newspaper would publish a picture without copyright. David in DC (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree the tag smells fishy. My search stopped at this paywall. Probably best to nominate for deletion, I will do that shortly. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Might be worth investigating all the other images uploaded by that editor. Two of them have been nommed for deletion due to copyright issues. ···日本にっぽん穣みのる · 投稿とうこう · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

At one time, many smaller US newspapers didn't bother including a copyright notice except when a story of particular significance was included, even though this forfeited copyright protection. I am not clear on why this was the practice. DES ^(talk) 22:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

May 5

redirects vs aliases vs moves vs inaction

Hello again. There are many examples of wp articles about proteins that have several aliases listed. Many of these were created by ProteinBoxBot about a decade ago and not edited much since. While not being of the mind to do historical research on why the bot selected one name over the other aliases, many of the article names are not what has become the standard name for the protein, and I think the bot just hasn't stayed current. The standard name is listed as an alias, but it is not always obvious that the 2 names are related in any way to the non-specialist reader. So, the question is, what to do about this? Move the article to the standard name? Make redirects from all the aliases to either the current wp article name or the article moved to the standard name? Do nothing, and let non-specialist readers figure out that, for example, p59, GOLPH6 and GRASP55 (which is the standard name) are all aliases for GORASP2? Thanks for guidance. JeanOhm (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

If there is now one standard name for a protein, the article should be moved to that name. The article should mention the alternative names. The alternative names should redirect to the article. Where an alternative name is also a name for something else, and has never been much used, it can be ignored; but if it has ever been widely used, hatnotes (for one other meaning) or a disambiguation page (multiple other meanings) can be used. Maproom (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Script error?

Whenever I try to load a Wikipedia page it always shows this (in Google Chrome): en.wikipedia.org says: The script "getUnpatrolledOfAlexNewArtBotResultsPages.js" by "User:Fred_Gandt" cannot function without the user having the "patroller" group right. I always need to close this tab before being able to access the page. Is this a bug or is it a problem with my preferences? Thanks, WikiPancake 🥞 10:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Ugh, this is really triggering me.. WikiPancake 🥞 10:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The test was added two days ago.[4] You can remove the script from User:WikiPancake/common.js, or apply for the right at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Italics for foreign words and proper names

I've seen every possible variation of italics in the opening sentences of articles, and I'm trying to get the rules/suggestions straight in my own mind. In the article Wolf cave, the opening sentence is:

Wolf Cave (Finnish: Susiluola, Swedish: Varggrottan) is a crack in the Pyhävuori Mountain (Swedish: Bötombergen) in Kristiinankaupunki, near the Karijoki municipality in Finland.

If I understand correctly, Pyhävuori Mountain and Kristiinankaupunki would not be italicized because they are proper names whereas Susiluola, Varggrottan, and Bötombergen would be italicized because "the name itself is being referred to" (MOS). So the sentence would become,

Wolf Cave (Finnish: Susiluola, Swedish: Varggrottan) is a crack in the Pyhävuori Mountain (Swedish: Bötombergen) in Kristiinankaupunki, near the Karijoki municipality in Finland.

Is this correct? Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps not. As per MOS:FOREIGN read along with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), if the name of the place is written in a foreign language that follows the latin script, we might need to italicize it – for example, Deutschland (unless the said foreign word is so used predominantly across the majority of English media sources). Pyhävuori does not seem written in the English language (and might mean sacred in English); similar is Kristiinankaupunki, which is perhaps referred to as Kristinestad in English. So, in my opinion, while you may need to italicize these foreign terms, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Use English, suggests that one prefer the English transliteration of the proper name over the foreign one. So you could perhaps consider replacing the foreign terms with available English proper name alternatives. Hope this helps. Lourdes 17:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

How to change an image if I do not have 10 edits to make.

Hi,

I need to change our company's logo, however, I do not have 10 things to edit the page is already okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raynen15 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I am guessing that the image has not been uploaded to Wikipedia. You can request that the image be uploaded at Wikipedia:Files for upload. ~ GB fan 14:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

List of energy drinks

Two weeks ago I've asked a question on the talkpage of the article above. So far no answer. Is there anybody here that could help me with this? Oxygene7-13 (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Oxygene7-13, can you please elaborate on your question? It's not clear to me which drink you're referring to, or even what's the actual query? (Sorry if I missed something obvious). Lourdes 17:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Weird interwiki problem

Hi,

in this article there is a weird phenomenon with the Netherlands interwiki link. It leads to a completely different article on the Dutch Wikipedia. Strangely enough, this does not happen from other language Wikis.

I asked on the talk page, but we're at loss there. Anyone have an idea how to fix this? --93.212.230.88 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)