Help desk
< February 22	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 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.

February 23

Success Academy Wikipedia Page

This page has several errors and is very biased. I would like to help edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keacd701 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple Success Academy schools. Since this is your only edit, I cannot tell which one you think is biased. (I know that some of them are controversial.) Discuss on the appropriate talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, read the dispute resolution policy and follow one of the procedures. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are wikipedia communities arranged at all by topic? How to find them?

If one is particularly interested in an individual sphere or topic of editing (maybe, say, "science"), is there any way in which wikipedia organizes itself into communities in which one could connect with others editing that same/similar topic(s)? For instance, I could imagine a community portal that listed, among other things, trending issues in "science" related to wiki writing, articles that needed attention, general philosophies toward editing such articles, etc.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.83.109 (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are called WikiProjects. There is probably a WikiProject for everything you could possibly want although many of them are no longer active. To take your example, there is a WikiProject on science that you can be a part of. The WikiProject directory can be used to find a specific project. You can also check out our portals which are pages that serve as a nagivation within a general topic area. So the portal on science would be used to navigate within science articles. --Majora (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(My post may be redundant to Majora's above, but hope it helps:) Yes, you are quite right that this is a useful way of organizing ourselves. Indeed, many editors have organized what we call "WikiProjects" to encourage coordination. To use your example, we have WikiProject Science. They discuss how to edit articles related to that topic, maintain guidelines, etc. One way that WikiProjects keep track of articles is by placing their templates on article talk pages. Go to Talk:Science and look for where it says "WikiProject Science". You'll note that this project has assessed that the article is of "Top importance" to them and is currently rated at "B class" (which means it's pretty good, but there is still work to be done). These projects typically maintain Portals that feature their best articles. Think of them as themed main pages for Wikipeda. See Portal:Science for example. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent thank you both! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.83.109 (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy McConnell

Please could this page be updated to his correct name which is:

Jeremy McConnell Cooke

Thanks heaps and keep up the great work. FiveStarCoCo (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC) (moved from Help talk:Getting started : Noyster (talk), 10:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia does not use people's "correct names" as article titles, it uses the names they are generally known by, see e.g. Tony Blair. Of the six references in the article, four call him "Jeremy McConnell", one calls him "Jeremy McConnell Cooke", and one doesn't mention him. Maproom (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Ideally, the article should explain how it is that he is referred to by different names (though only if a reliable published source covers the question). However, I have created a redirect from Jeremy McConnell Cooke. --ColinFine (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List-defined reference markup

Is there some reason that sometimes the named reference is shown as <ref name=foo/> and other times as <ref name=foo />? Both work; the extra space seems unnecessary and the documentation is inconsistent. When I was first learning to use named references, I was given to understand that the space was required; that is obviously incorrect. I asked this question on the LDR Help page more than a year ago and have received no response. Anyone?—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 12:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is some obscure context, maybe never relevant in Wikipedia, in which the space matters. No-one can remember what it is, hence the inconsistent documentation. Maproom (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a browser incompatibility when XHTML was introduced and made closing tags mandatory, and introduced that shortcut format (as opposed to <ref name=foo></ref>, which would otherwise have been necessary). See HTML#SGML-based versus XML-based HTML, third paragraph. --ColinFine (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It doesn't seem to make any difference in practice. It's much neater to use {{r}} instead: {{r|foo}} for one ref, {{r|foo|bar|baz}} for three, {{r|foo|page=n}} to add a page number. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine Is it no longer an issue, then? For any browser?—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 13:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand there are still people in the world using IE6, and for them it is probably still an issue. I suspect that even IE8 had fixed it, but I don't actually know the answer. Certainly any HTML5-compliant browser will be fine. --ColinFine (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help, everyone!—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 13:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't <ref name="foo" /> (with the space) more correct from technical POV? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. EmptyElemTag ::= '<' Name (S Attribute)* S? '/>' (where S is whitespace, and ? means 'optional'), according to the XML specification. --ColinFine (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It never was an issue, because it's nothing to do with HTML, XHTML or XML. See my answer at Help talk:List-defined references#Formatting question and please also see WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks Colin and Redrose. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Show preview

I see that now, when I edit a section and click "Show preview", the preview includes the references cited in that section. This is a big improvement. What would be the right place to express my thanks to whoever implemented it? Maproom (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed that and am pleased. I guess it would be at WP:VPT. --ColinFine (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, this only works with inline citations, but not list-defined references, for obvious reasons (the LDRs are defined outside the section). Progress, indeed, though!

—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 00:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy attorney general of United States

Your page does not list Peyton Ford as the first attorney general. I have the newspaper article stating his retirement from the post to return to private practice. This was September 1951. I know this fact, I am his daughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfinkeldei (talk • contribs) 17:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link... I think the OP is referring to United States Deputy Attorney General. Dismas|^(talk) 18:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfinkeldei: I have found other references that back you up, including a declassified CIA document of correspondence between Peyton Ford on Deputy AG letterhead and Allen Dulles as Deputy Director of the CIA. (http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/5829/CIA-RDP80R01731R003100180066-1.pdf) and a copy of the Reading Eagle newspaper that mentions it (https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19510901&id=LmQuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ktoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=7098,115759&hl=en). The *only* reason that I'm not adding it immediately is that I've written to the DOJ asking if there is a complete list available (Possibly with exact dates rather than years). If he isn't added within the week, please remind me on my talk page.Naraht (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, Mfinkeldei. The best place to make that suggestion is the article's talk page, Talk:United States Deputy Attorney General. However, I have gone looking for a source for his holding the office, and have found one, so I have added him to the article. However, the source I have used is not ideal (it says that he was D.A.G on a particular day, but does not tell us for certain that he was the first one, nor when he left office). If you could post bibliographic information about the newspaper on the talk page (at least, the name and city of the paper, date and title of the article, and the byline if a writer is credited) then somebody can add that as a better reference, particularly if it gives the date of his taking up and leaving office. Since we're not supposed to add sources we haven't looked at, it would be helpful if you would quote the relevant text from the article - not too much, so as not to infringe copyright, but enough so that an editor can see that the article supports what you say it supports. (Do not try to scan and upload the paper - that would certainly infringe copyright). --ColinFine (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why photo was removed?

Hello, Please let me know why photo of David Bushmich was removed from his page: David Bushmich Was there a problem with a file size? or some other problem? I tried to upload photo again but the system doesn't allow me to do so, because the file was removed before.

Thank you, Eugenia Bushmich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebushmich (talk • contribs) 18:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ebushmich: The image was deleted at Commmons where it was uploaded. The reasoning for that deletion is here. Dismas|^(talk) 18:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hello,

I have been adding award information to personal pages for people who are laureates of The Lincoln Academy of Illinois. The Lincoln Academy of Illinois is a not for profit, nonpartisan organization which honors outstanding Illinoisans each year. In the award notation added to the Wikipedia page, there is a link that goes to the Lincoln Academy website where the laureate is listed. This addition should be useful for people who are researching an individual and using Wikipedia as a historical resource. After adding the Lincoln Academy award to several of the recipients’ Wikipedia pages, I received a warning and was subsequently prevented from adding information to additional pages. Apparently that was because the Wikipedia system thought my additions might be spam. If someone could help, I would like to continue adding the award notation for Lincoln Academy of Illinois laureates to their existing Wikipedia pages.

Thank you very much.

JEANNE FERRARO <redacted contact info> — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThurstonD63 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you learn the recommended way of adding references to Wikipedia articles, instead of using direct external links, your additions are less likely to be regarded as spam. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Maproom (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page ranges in references

Hello there, I got a parameter error when trying to add a specific page # to a journal article ref that is normally styled for a page range only. The syntax I'm using is:

<ref>{{cite journal |author=Daniel Golani, Oren Sonin, & Dor Edelist |year=2011 |title=Second records of the Lessepsian fish migrants Priacanthus sagittarius and Platax teira and distribution extension of Tylerius spinosissimus in the Mediterranean |journal=[[Aquatic Invasions]] |volume=6 |issue=1, supplement |pages=s7–s11 |doi=10.3391/ai.2011.6.S1.002}}</ref>

How do I specify that my reference is to a fact on page s9? I believe that this is important because the species referred to in the article is not named in the title -- curious readers might need a more specific ref. FWIW the parameter error explained what I got wrong, but gave no guidance as to how to get it right. All tips appreciated, thank you.

Added <nowiki> tags to the above, so that it displays the source, that being what the questioner was actually asking about. ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, when asking a question, please provide a link to the article involved. Detective work led me to Emperor angelfish. The problem here was that you had 2 parameters for 'page' and 'pages'. I'm not sure not having seen the source exactly which page you want to specify in the reference. You have included pages s7-s11 and also, separately s9. If you want to refer solely to s9 then just include that in the page parameter. If other pages then include them in the reference as I have done as the ref. stands after my edit. The ref currently is incorrect as it shows pages s7, s9 & s11. You may wish to alter this to include all the pages between s7 & s11. I've also tweaked up the refs section to remove the 'block table'. Eagleash (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB your ref within the text above will now display at the bottom of this page, after any additional threads. Eagleash (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not now because I have added the {{reflist-talk}} template to this thread.--ukexpat (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I have further tweaked the ref. to show pages s7–s11 and that the specific ref. is on page s9. OP can amend tp suit. Eagleash (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Constellation Research Page - Deleted without Contest

Hi, I have been editing regular pages and things that interest me over the last couple of years - management changes, acquisitions, tech funding, etc.

I decided to create a new page for an analyst firm that was founded in 2010 and doesn't have a page. I mirrored it after other analyst firms in the space- Forrester, Gartner, IDC, etc. I spent two hours addressing categories, basic info, third-party links to make it not promotional, including competitors and links to their pages.

Someone decided to automatically delete it since it was a promotional page in the past and was deleted. I was not part of that and not affiliated with the company, so I'm not sure why you deleted all of my work without me having a chance to contest the issue?

Please put this page back up. It should have representation on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BryanCoggins (talk • contribs) 23:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BryanCoggins. Constellation Research, Inc. was deleted not because of a past state, but because the then current version was judged to be promotional. Phrases like "focused on helping early adopters improve the tranasformative power of disruptive technology." and "Constellation's analysts have vast experience in roles across industries, other research firms and media outlets." are pretty much pure PR-speak and raise a large red flag. Also, there seems to be a copyright issue -- several sentences of the deleted version are identical to text appearing in at least two of the cited sources. I suspect it is ultimately derived from a company press release or web page. Moreover, the cited sources do not clearly establish notabality. Only the Yahoo article seems to be in any depth, and it seems to be at least partly an interview and may be based on a company press release. DES ^(talk) 03:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your feedback.... Typically pages are flagged and given time to fix the issues. This editor just took it down without giving any time to fix the issues.

Gartner & IDC both have flags, and you didn't take down those pages? Should I have made up things without citing them, rather than pulling from third-party websites? Just an example...

How do I get this page back up? It's really concerning that your editors don't give new authors opportunities to fix issues. I have edited pages for two years, and I wanted to create a new page and provide what I think is helpful content. One of the paragraphs you are citing was taken down in my previous version since I thought maybe it wasn't written correctly. They took it down anyway, even after that paragraph was deleted.

Please put this page back up, minus the paragraphs you think have issues. I'll be sure to find more credible sources, based on your feedback. After spending two hours of my own time, it seems silly to not have the opportunity to fix this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BryanCoggins (talk • contribs) 04:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BryanCoggins, according to your talk page you were notified about the nomination at 23:23 and the article seems to have been deleted at 23:39. That does seem quick, but I notice that you were warned about your removal of the template at 23:38. That means you must have been aware of the nomination. Moreover, I rather suspect that your removal of the template, contrary to its clear instructions, probably hastened the deletion of the article. In future, please follow the instructions if you want to contest a speedy deletion nomination. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Constellation Research, Inc. was deleted under category G11, which allows speedy deletion for "pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Gartner's flag is not for anything near that serious. If you want time to work on an article, you should create it in Draft namespace and submit it when ready for review through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. If you want the article restored to Draft space, ask the deleting admin, User:Smartse. But remember, it needs to be fundamentally rewritten--not just more sources and removal of a paragraph or two. —teb728 t c 08:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]