Help desk
< March 22	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 24 >

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.

March 23

I think my article is broke!

Hi, on HMS Cardiff (D108) if you click on [3] and [5], it doesn't go down to the reference section. And if you click on [8] it takes you to reference number 3. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not your article and it's probably a couple of broken refs. I've not got time to check but I hope I've helped. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 23:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really... Ryan4314 (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the first ten references in HMS Cardiff (D108) and all the links appear to be working for me. See #problems with reflist. citations at University of California, Riverside above for a report of a similar problem. --Teratornis (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Cardiff (D108) also works for me currently, but earlier many articles had problems like you describe, when there was a problem in the software. If a page still has the problem then try purging it by adding ?action=purge to the URL. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, "purging" it did the trick, cheers pal. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct use of template for a "cited in" circumstance

So, I've talked to librarians all over the United States, and tried to contact people who were at the conference (including the author) where this paper was presented and no one has a copy. I originally saw it cited in this paper and I was thinking I'd eventually find it, but since it seems like I never will I'm wondering how I should do a "cited in" reference using the templates. Is there a recommended way to do it? Or should I just do like so:

Kennedy, Mellen (1990). Psychiatric Hospitalizations of GROWers. Second Biennial Conference on Community Research and Action, East Lansing, Michigan. cited in Kyrouz, Elaina M.; Humphreys, Keith; Loomis, Colleen (October 2002). "Chapter 4: A Review of Research on the Effectiveness of Self-help Mutual Aid Groups". In White, Barbara J.; Madara, Edward J. (eds.). American Self-Help Group Clearinghouse Self-Help Group Sourcebook (7th ed.). American Self-Help Group Clearinghouse. pp. 71–86. ISBN 1930683006. Retrieved 2008-01-06. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

-- Scarpy (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

trouble adding album cover to exsisting article

i uploaded a album cover but can not get it to link to the albums existing page

Baconwagonman (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What picture was it? What article was it? Also, I see that three of the pictures that you have uploaded have been tagged as without a copyright notice, so supply one quickly or they will be deleted. Jake the Editor Man _(talk) 10:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Academia Estadounidense de la Lengua Española

Resolved

The title of our Academia is not Academia Estadounidense de la Lengua Española but ACADEMIA NORTEAMERICANA DE LA LENGUA ESPAÑOLA.

I have tried to edit it, but I was not able to do it.

Dr. Gerardo Piña-Rosales Director, Academia Norteamericana de la Lengua Española

I have moved Academia Estadounidense de la Lengua Española to Academia Norteamericana de la Lengua Española. Only registered accounts at least 4 days old can move pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category Template creation

I'm trying to create a template here to help with categories at the wiki where I edit. I'm having a problem trying to figure out how to make the "categorize as" bit optional - i.e., I have an article named "Quicksilver Style", but want it to show up in the boss category as "Geryon".

When I tried last to implement this function, it made the "categorize as" bit mandatory, and all articles using the template had screwy code show up unless I added the piped title.

Ideally, I would like the template to work so that

{{enemy|3|boss=yes|chardevil}} would show the "Bosses", "Devil May Cry 3 Bosses", "Characters", and "Devils" categories, and file them under the article's name, while

Would show the same categories, but in those categories file it under "Geryon the Timesteed".

If this question is innapropriate for the help desk, could you direct me to the correct place to ask it? Thanks.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say that you are at the wrong place. Sorry. But you still gotta check out the 'pedia Nothing 444 04:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tellya what? you go see Wikia support. They can probably help you with this. Nothing 444 04:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To make a sortkey optional, use the page name as default, not the empty string.--Patrick (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you need more help, the general location for questions about wikis running the MediaWiki software is mw:Project:Support desk. This Help desk is for questions about using the English Wikipedia, although we do get a lot of questions that are actually about MediaWiki. We sometimes take a stab at inappropriate questions anyway. --Teratornis (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that some businesses get selected to be listed in Wikipedia, and others do not?

You say this site is supposed to be non-commercial yet I see many businesses cataloged on your site. It seems that Wikipedia has a double standard in regards to approving which businesses or individuals can advertise on its site. You may not call it advertising, but lets face it, thats exactly what it is. Based on what I see it appears that there is a noticeable degree of racism inherent in the gatekeepers who decide what can stay listed on Wikipedia. So I would like to know how can one effectively get his or her business, idea or whatever valid undertaking listed on Wikipedia just like Ralph Lauren, Jay-z, Paramount pictures or any established business that Wikipedia allows to be cataloged. Do you have to be an established business before you can be listed? Is this the suppressive model that Wikipedia has adapted to keep its racist foot on the necks of would be and small businesses trying to grow and expand. Basically how, who and what is the process that Wikipedia employs to make these decisions? It would be wise to answer this question in a very intelligent manner. No response will be viewed as an affirmation of Wikipedia's editors incorporating racist practices in its selection process of what gets listed, and I will make it my business to publicly expose this fact about Wikipedia. I have the means.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonofptah (talk • contribs)

There are many rules that apply to notability and allowance for inclusion; it is not just at the whim of any (so-called) racist editor.

I refer you to a number of Wikipedia policies: please read Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:COMPANY). Wikipedia is not a Soapbox demands that articles should be written objectively and unbiasedly. If you have found an article which is not objective or unbiased, please tag it with {{POV}}; or if you think that it is non-notable under these guidelines, tag it with {{Notability}}. Thank you for helping Wikipedia if you do that.

Now as for the actual decision? Normally this occurs at an AfD (Articles for Deletion) discussion, a fully democratic vote that any user can participate in. While it is true that Wikipedia has a systematic bias because the majority of its users are American males, this is clearly not racism.

I would also suggest that you have a chat with Jimbo Wales, especially before you exploit Wikipedia in the media. Jake the Editor Man _(talk) 10:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you're looking for a different word. You don't mean "racist"; you mean biased or an equivalent. So you want a full explanation. Your tone leaves a great deal to be desired, and your threat is ill-mannered especially when asking people to invest time in answering your questions (not to mention laughable), but I'll bite. There are a number of policies and guidelines that articles need to meet. Such as that they must the verifiable, written from a neutral point of view, must not be original research, and should be on notable subjects, usually defined as being the subject of substantive treatment in reliable source.

For deletion purposes, there are three ways articles are deleted. Articles which don't meet any speedy deletion criteria if they are noncontroversial to delete, may be proposed for deletion. Anyone can remove the proposed deletion tag, including the creator and this ends that process. If the tag is not removed during a five day waiting period, the article may be deleted after that time. If not deleted through speedy deletion or through proposed deletion, we decide whether to delete through discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

One of the touchstones of such deletion debates is the verifiability and notability of the subject. Notability, as I've already intimated, does not mean what someone unfamiliar with our policies might think using a vernacular interpretation, but generally refers to whether the world has taken note of the subject by writing about it in reliable sources. After all, this is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source by definition, so our articles must be written from already published sources. For purposes of businesses, we also have a subject-specific notability guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). An articles for deletion debate stays open generally for five days, during which anyone can voice their opinion. It is not a vote, but an attempt to reach consensus based on our policies. Any business that has been the subject of treatment in multiple reliable sources and which sources are cited in the article will almost never be deleted by this process.

I suspect, however, that what prompted your post, is an article you were invested in on a company that was deleted though our speedy deletion criteria. These are strictly construed bases under which an article can be deleted immediately if it meets the criteria. The only one specifically related to businesses is blatant advertising; that is, pages which appear to exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Most article which are deleted by this criteria are truly blatant: they contain promotional language, reading like they were written by someone attempting to sell the product instead of neutrally providing facts about the company, never contain criticism, list contact information for buying a product or signing up for the service and so on. If you actually tell us the name of the article that was deleted that brought you here, I'd be able to tell you better why it specifically was deleted.

Finally, note that the fact that there are crappy advertizing articles that exist here which should be deleted, in no way is an endorsement of similar articles. Because of the volunteer nature of Wikipedia and the thousands and thousands of articles that are submitted everyday, lots of crap slips through the net. I suggest you read our Wikipedia:Business FAQ.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This type of question comes up frequently on the Help desk. If you need more information after reading the above and following all the links, you could review some of our previous answers to questions about what businesses can have articles on Wikipedia: search the Help desk archive with Google for: wikicompany. This site, the English Wikipedia, is one of the top ten most popular English-language Web sites in the world, with 48,232,107 registered users, and 6,907,600 articles, so you can imagine lots of businesses want to have articles here, and therefore Wikipedia users have documented all the policies and guidelines that control what we can do here. --Teratornis (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Notability Nothing 444 22:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the original questioner could tell us which article they're referring to, we might be able to give specifics. Corvus cornix_talk 16:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting a picture

Resolved

HI there

I am finding it impossible to insert a picture to a page. I have tried following all the online instructions but not having any luck. I have uploaded my picture but cannot insert it. The page is about my partner, John Hicklenton, someone has added a photo and we would like to change it. The photo I uploade was called JH at SXSW 2008.jpg

Please advise

Many thanks!

Lokiland (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image uploaded was "JH at SXSW 2008.JPG" with JPG in capitals. I have fixed the link in the article so the image is displayed on the page. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard copy references

I have a hard copy of a letter-to-parents by a school district. I cannot seem to find it online anywhere. I'm not sure what the copyright issues would be by scanning it and uploading in order to use it as a reference in another article. Maybe Wikipedia has policy against this, regardless of copyright issues? (Note: No I am not some disgruntled student looking to make trouble. Heh.) -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 16:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you say use it as a reference, do you mean upload it as a picture, place its image in the article, and then refer to or cite to the text of the letter in the article? As far as I know, this can't be done. All written material is copyrighted by its author. So, without the school district's release of the material into the public domain or under a free license such as the GFDL, uploading the material would be a copyright violation and I don't see any way the material would fall under fair use. Using it as a reference is also problematic. We only cite to published references, which includes written sources and well as those that are broadcast to the public, such as television shows, radio shows and the like. This does not mean we need the material to be immediately available to everyone. Another words, sources do not need to available online and they certainly do not need to be uploaded here for their use. Indeed, reliable books only available in, for instance, a college library, make fine references. I don't think though that the sending of a letter to school district parents constitutes "publication." So the only way I can see that you can use the material as a reference is if a reliable published source out in the world either quotes the text of the letter, or otherwise treats it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly have addressed the copyright issues that I was concerned about; for example about scanning the letter and uploading it. However, your insistence on what meets the definition of a "published source" has me a bit surprised. I would think that a letter from a state agency, which was was intended for, copied (i.e. "published"), and handed to all parents of a public school would fit the definition. I feel that you are narrowing the definition even further to only news agencies and professional journals. Is there documentation on Wikipedia that defines "published" more specifically that I may read to clarify my confusion? -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 20:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem as one of verifiability. The reason we must have a certain kind of publication is that access to the source has to be available if our readers want to check themselves that the source verifies what it purports to verify when used as a cite. So on balance, we prefer sources that are most accessible to the widest possible audience for checking. But this consideraton must yield to the what, the where and the how of a source's existence. A website is very available to all our readers, but in most cases it is not as reliable as a newspaper article, or a book by a scholar so we must yeild to these considerations (we're not really concerned about reliability for purposes of this issue as the subject is a primary source). But these less accessible sources, books, magazines, etc. are all still available with some effort at a library, a bookstore, a subscription service and so on. We get into trouble when we start citing sources that are available but truly hard to access—say an out of print rare book that is in just a few libraries worldwide. Somewhere along the far edge of that continuum we get into trouble, and that's where I think your source rests. It may have been sent to members of the school district, but what access would anyone ever have to check this source? If it's unritten about in other published sources, then what? Would someone who wanted to check be left traveling to the school district and knocking door to door asking parents of shoolchildren if they have a copy? ASnd what about in 30 years when most will have moved away or thrown it away if many even have it now? That's where I see the problem. In any event, maybe this conversation should be duplicated to and continued at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, where more people involved in this subject can weigh in.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A letter from a state agency might be similar to a self-published source; see: WP:SELFPUB. However, an actual government publication (such as would be archived and tracked by librarians) would almost certainly make the cut as a reliable source, at least in a modern stable democracy. Even if a corrupt government publishes misleading material, its publications might reliably reflect the state of its own policies at the time. Interestingly, I just watched a video of Barack Obama's speech at Google, and one of Obama's proposals is to see that all U.S. federal government activity must be accurately documented online, to allow for transparent government and the widest democratic participation. Of course this idea is not new; governments around the world have been migrating toward the Web for years. Ideally, state governments will follow suit and publish all their material online as well, in durable archives. Then a letter from a state agency would count as a reliable source, at least as a reliable record that someone in the agency had issued the letter with that content at that time. --Teratornis (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see these {{Google custom}} search results for the somewhat similar case of personal correspondence as a source:

Search Wikipedia's Wikipedia: namespace for: "personal correspondence"

--Teratornis (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) For example, Wikipedia:Attribution/Examples#Unacceptable sources mentions ephemera and unpublished personal correspondence, which might apply to an unpublished letter from a government agency. Be aware, however, that you could get the letter in question published. It's just a matter of convincing a reputable news organization to publish the letter, or at least the material from the letter you need. --Teratornis (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I had looked for something like that. The analogy to ephemera fits well here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like to go Googling around the Wikipedia: namespace. It is amazing to see the detail and comprehensiveness of the policies and guidelines, and the depth of expertise people have brought to bear on so many problems we face as we build the encyclopedia. It is obvious that the 48,232,107 registered users include some very smart people. It would be enough to humble me, if I had any inclination toward humility. --Teratornis (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im confused

i am a brand new user of Wikipedia.i made the account today in hopes of my brother and i both being recognized outside of our town for the comdey skits we do.i created a page about him, and everything is valid,and i have sources for it.i just barely know how to use this site so im confused on what im supposed to do.What do i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrews nipples (talk • contribs) date

Hello. Unfortunately you've mistaken Wikipedia for another type of site. There are many sites where you can write whatever you'd like about yourself and others and publish that material; social networking sites, such as Facebook and Myspace, and wikis, such as http://www.wikibios.com/. This place, however, is an encyclopedia, and though not quite the same as a paper encyclopedia, you can think about it is some measure as the same. Do you think you or your brother could have an article in Encyclopedia Brittannica? Well this place is not much different. Article topics need to be already written about in reliable secondary sources out in the world to get an article here. So my advice, if you want to publish this material, is to visit one of those other sites and no longer attempt to post this material here until your brother has achieved notoriety not just in your school and among your friends, but has been written about in general readrship newspapers, books, magazines and the like.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a userpage with some details about yourself. This will be accessible via your signature. This would be outside the article namespace and would, therefore, be prefixed with the word User:. For example, yours would have to be User:Andrews nipples. It is basically User:Your username. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 20:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, writing about yourself is a conflict of interest and is usually seen as not a good idea. Because, you are part of the group, have a point of view in your favor. Having a neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's most important policies. If you feel that your group is notable, feel free to stop by at Requested Articles. Paragon12321 (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archiving

Can someone help me figure out why my talk page isn't archiving? Maury (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your archiving Bot seems to have been deleted...on request of the User who owned the Bot.--Camaeron (t/c) 18:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, I'd try user:MiszaBot. But I, personnally prefer cut and paste. Nothing 444 19:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

old format of searching

i far prefer the old format odf searching....where if the search words have many hits....the number of hits are shown......

..and without the pesky context sentences below the article title...please help

Well, if you like this I would reccomend Google. Nothing 444 22:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox lets you set Wikipedia as your default search engine. I've never used it but that might display how you want it. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 22:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user.gif

When I'm signed in to Wikipedia, at the top of my browser's screen is a list of links:

Blechnic my talk my preferences my watchlist my contributions log out.

This list is preceded by an offensive generic white male user logo/avatar called user.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/user.gif). Maybe this applies to most Wikipedia writers. I would like it not to be part of my user experience, this reminder of the domination of the Internet by a small group of people. Why is it there? Why is this the default? How do I get rid of it? How did Wikipedia come to choose something so short-sighted? --Blechnic (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though you can't change the image, you can get rid of it by switching skins in your preferences. Xenon⁵⁴ 23:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! By choosing a skin other than the monobook skin (the default) in your preferences, you can hide this icon. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that when I tried changing skins, maybe I have to clear the cache. I will try this again. I didn't like the skins I tried, maybe you can tell me which other is similar to monobook? Why is the default set to the white male logo, though? This seems the antithesis of what a volunteer group should be striving for, namely welcoming a diversity of folks to participate. --Blechnic (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know I have never noticed that before. It does appear to me to look white, though not unambiguosuly so. But I think you make a good point. I'm going to raise your concern on another page, more dedicated to issues involving the whole of Wikipedia's appearance. I'll drop a link here when I finish posting there. Thank you for raising this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have posting about this at the village pump. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Image:User.gif: unintended bias?.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you add the text li#pt-userpage { background: none } to this page, the icon will be hidden and you can continue using the monobook skin.--Werdan7^{T @} 23:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Werdan7. --Blechnic (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I come back to sign back in, and, again, on the sign in page, its the default logo. --Blechnic (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try this in your monobook.css

/* suppress the person icon by your username */ li#pt-userpage { background: none; }

then bypass your cache.

— Ѕandahl 05:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did the one listed above by Werdan7, and it worked. Except.... When I sign back out, and every computer I use to edit Wikipedia, and every one I use to edit Wikipedia, I see the default Northern European white male logo.

It's not until I've logged into a place where I am greeted with an unwelcome matt (not being a white male, the editors who are preferentially encouraged to log in or sign up) that I can delete the icon. It's a strange thing in my eyes that a place that says "anyyone can edit" makes a decision to describe that anyone in such a narrow manner. I would like to read the discussion that came to the conclusion, "Let's invite the world to edit by showing an example anyone as a Northern European white male." --Blechnic (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]