Help desk
< June 1	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

June 2

Thomas Boleyn, 1st Earl of Wiltshire

I have just made an edit - see citation 2 - to the picture box which I do not think worked out at all. I have not been able to put the quote in and only a wheel come up. Please help fix 144.139.149.95 (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were missing a pipe before the page field. Dismas|^(talk) 04:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Boleyn

Resolved(By CiaPan... Xender Lourdes (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I have done what I hoped was a final edit, but it hasn't worked. Please check ref. number 1 on the above page and leave in the important quote. The new citation is from a web-page which I find hard to do. Thanks 144.139.149.95 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist changes

Where do the changes to the watchlist take place? I've noticed in the past week or so that there's been a couple of changes that have since been reverted as to how the watchlist is displayed. Is there a forum where those changes are discussed? Thanks. Air.light (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Air.light - the first port of call is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) - I suspect you are talking about the problems covered at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Watchlist problem and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Bold links in watchlist - Arjayay (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we Create a Wikipedia page For Normal Person

Hello, I am Shahzad Ahmed, I want to create a new Article on Wikipedia. I am PHP Developer and I got some achievement. But I am not a famous Person. Can I Create an Article on Wikipedia. Actually I want the Give the me My Information. So Please give the Advice for this and Tell me Is it Possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahjadahmad (talk • contribs) 08:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shahjadahmad - Wikipedia is not a social media site like facebook, we only have articles on notable people, Click the word "notable" for an explanation.
Being "notable" is almost, but not quite, the same as being "famous". Unless someone has received significant coverage in reliable sources that totally independent of them, they do not qualify for an article.
Furthermore, even if they are notable, people should not write their own autobiographies, please see Wikipedia:Autobiography for the reasons why. - Arjayay (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the exception being if you're somehow an academic...the notability guidelines for academics are far too inclusive imo and almost all of them are written by the people themselves or people very close to them...68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Resolved(By CiaPan... Xender Lourdes (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I used the wrong template in my recent edit to the Mary Boleyn page - see two queeries above. The citation is from a website, as opposed to a book, and I got it wrong. Please leave the quote in. Thanks 101.189.0.102 (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blair McDonough

This page's first section is a mess I have noticed - should we do something? I did not create this mess. I am just alerting you to it.[Special:Contributions/101.189.0.102|101.189.0.102]] (talk) 10:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Icarusgeek has sorted out the mess. Thank you for pointing it out. Maproom (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Boleyn

Resolved(By CiaPan... Xender Lourdes (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I hope I am not being annoying. Please help me. My recent citation, number one, on thr above page used the wrong template. The reference was from a famous UK website, not a book. Please alter ref. Number 1 accordingly. Thanks so much. 101.189.0.102 (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated merge tool (+ policy question about multiple merge proposals)

I am a somewhat regular editor, but I have little experience with mergers.

At page patrol I came across this page which I merged and redirected to Far East Broadcasting Company following WP:SMERGE before realizing that multiple similar articles were created (e.g. DZFE, DZAS, etc.), which could plausibly be all merged and redirected to the FEBC page. I suppose that, when in doubt about the merge being appropriate, one should tag every affected page of the "bundled" merge proposal with Template:Merge to and place the discussion on the target page (is that correct?).

My main question is about the technical workings of all that. Copying Template:Merge to on all potentially affected pages would be tedious (compared with WP:BUNDLE for AfD) but more to the point, WP:SMERGE is made of 9 steps, some of which being quite tedious to accomplish for a human but trivial for a computer (fetching up diff and rev numbers). It would really be a hassle to do this for 20+ pages. Is there any automated tool out there to perform a merge?

Thanks a lot, Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tigraan I don't know of any tools available to merge in the manner that you desire. I suspect because shifting contents on a mass scale is always bereft with errors if the contents are not standard sets, there is no tool available. If you have standard contents to merge, WP:AWB could be an option. Xender Lourdes (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed on 4 queries

1) How do I add hyperlink to a text on wikipedia ( i dont know html ) 2) I would like to write articles Can I get some topics becausew every topic I think has an article already 3) The Editor Of The Week Box awarded to a user can be copied by anyone and he can place it on his own page cant we have something that does not allow that box to be copied. 4) How can I get recognition on wikipedia like users Dismas (talk) get 5) How do I sign my posts

Thanks and regards, VarunFEB2003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunFEB2003 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use html, we use Wikipedia markup language. To add a hyperlink to another Wikipedia article, put its name in double square brackests, like this [[dog]], which produces dog.
There are lists of articles which have been requested but not created, here. But I see you are quite new to Wikipedia. Creating new articles is one of the most difficult things you could choose to do. It might be better to start with easier things, such as correcting spelling and grammar, making paragraphs clearer, adding citations for facts which need them, and adding new material to existing articles.
Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia which anyone can edit". If something can be awarded, it can be copied.
If you do good work, another editor may award you a "barnstar". But there's nothing official about these, and nothing really to stop a user awarding banstars to themselves.
You should sign your posts with four tildes, like this ~~~~.

Maproom (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that VarunFEB2003 has placed this question both here and on my own talk page. I've replied to them there. Varun, please don't do that. If you're going to ask here, then just ask here. This prevents people from answering at both places like what has just been done. Both my responses and Maproom's are fine but now one of us has wasted our time by answering something that has already been answered. Dismas|^(talk) 20:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dismas: sorry, Actually my previous queries on The help Desk went unanswered so I posted it on ur personal talk page. Thanks for acknowledging my query. One more thing - how do u get to know who are the new users who have just joined Wikipedia like u got to know me. I may try to help them like u helped me :) Thanks--VarunFEB2003 (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: You told me that I should start with easy things like editing and providing citations. From where do I get a list of articles that have issues and/or need citations. I maybe able to help with that. Thanks--VarunFEB2003 (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Community portal, under the "help out" heading, there are list of articles that need work done on them. Maproom (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where we have a list of new users like we do for new articles. The way I saw that you were new was by seeing that your talk page link was red when you posted here at the Help Desk. Dismas|^(talk) 14:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am being bullied by a prominent Wikipedia admin..

Hi. I made this account to protect my identity. I am a established Wikipedia editor but I am being bullied by a Wikipedia admin sending me creepy and weird messages. What can I do? --Bolly UndaStoker (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to talk about it on Wikipedia, you can email the arbitration committee at arbcom-l

lists.wikimedia.org -- GB fan 14:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or they could stop creating new accounts to troll the help desk...--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, they're not an "established Wikipedia editor", they're a sockpuppet of someone who's blocked for posting legal threats on this board (and elsewhere) a few days ago. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text

How do I remove a citation? I have the same source cited multiple times, and I want to remove the duplicates. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IR.Grainger (talk • contribs) 14:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REFNAME explains how to combine the references into a single one that can be used multiple times. -- GB fan 14:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page Disappearance

I wanted to inquire why the page for "The Rose of Paracelsus: On Secrets & Sacraments" has been removed. I am a researcher and copy editor on the title, working on the author's behalf. I understand there is an added hurdle of it being self-published, but as that warning appeared at the top of the page from the start and had since been removed, I thought we were good to continue with improving and expanding the content of the page, a task we were in the middle of doing.

Thank you. PoorOldEdgarDerby (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PoorOldEdgarDerby (talk • contribs) 15:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the most recent state of the article, before it was replaced by a redirect, earlier today. It had no citations of independent sources to demontrate its notability, which articles require. If the book was, as you say, self-published, it seems unlikely that any such sources will exist. Maproom (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given your statement above, you have a clear conflict of interest, so should not be editing that article, Please read and follow our guidance on COI editing here. Furthermore, if you are being paid for editing any page, either directly, or as part of your salary/stipend, you are also in contravention of our terms of use, as you have not declared this on your User Page - please read and comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. - Arjayay (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand, PoorOldEdgarDerby, that a Wikipedia article should be based close to 100% on reliable published sources independent of the subject. Wikipedia has almost no interest in anything said by the subject, or the subject's relatives, friends, employees, associates or agents (unless their statements have been reported by independent sources). It follows that a topic which has not been treated in some depth by independent published sources cannot be the subject of a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reconciliation Day

Hi ,

We are keen to update Reconciliation Day for our own page, it is not just about the South African piece, that is one component. We own the copyright to 'Reconciliation Day'. South Africa is for South Africa 'Day of Reconciliation', what we have is a global name. Are we able to create our own page for Reconciliation Day rather than that just linking to the South African page ? Reconciliation Day (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could give a look to WP:Notability to see if you have the reliable sources to back up the need for a separate page. Also see Wikipedia:Username policy#Promotional names, as per which, your username seems promotional. You may discard this username and choose a new user name which is not promotional. Finally, give a look to WP:COI which bars entities with conflicts of interest contributing to topics they are involved in. Xender Lourdes (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Reconciliation Day. My answer is in several parts.

First, the article about the South African holiday is actually titled Day of Reconciliation. The page Reconciliation Day exists just as a redirect to the article, which is something we often do for alternative names and phrases that people might look subjects up under. Actually I think it should be replaced by a disambiguation page, because we also have an article Reconciliation Day (Republic of the Congo): I may do that myself after I've finished typing this answer. As for the use of the name: Wikipedia articles use the form of a name found in the bulk of reliable sources about a subject, irrespective of what name the subject themselves might prefer. It seems unlikely to me that you can copyright a two-word phrase like that, but IANAL.

Secondly, if there are independent reliable published sources about it (which in this case would mean "written and published by people who have no connection with your organisation"), Wikipedia could have an article on your organisation. It would absolutely not be your article, it would be Wikipedia's article about you, and you would have no control over its content. If there are not such sources (the Wikipedia jargon is that the subject is "not notable") then we cannot have an article about it.

Thirdly, if we are to have an article about your organisation, you are strongly discouraged from writing it. You are not forbidden (but writing a new article is difficult even if you don't have a conflict of interest), and if you decide to go ahead nevertheless, I strongly advise you to read Your first article, (as well as the one on Conflict of Interest that I linked to above), and use the Articles for Creation process described there. You may also need to be familiar with the requirements on Paid editors.

Finally, your user name is probably unacceptable, and you should change it. Accounts must be used by individuals, not shared; and may not suggest that they are editing on behalf of an organisation. Please see Username policy. --ColinFine (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that a phrase like We own the copyright to 'Reconciliation Day' is simply false; one cannot copyright a two-word phrase, although under certain circumstances one might trademark it. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on developing articles in mainspace?

I have often heard it said that main space articles should conform to wikipedia standards such as notability and verifiability, but is there a specific written policy that states this? I am concerned about plainly substandard articles that are tagged for deletion, and the creator's response is "I intend to fix that over time." ubiquity (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Your first article #7 of the tips section notes, "Create the article first in Draft or User space unless you are very sure that you can create an acceptable article on your first attempt." The guidance on top of that also mentions, "Keep in mind that if the article is not acceptable, it will be deleted quickly.". On the other hand, the CSD policy mentions, "Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation." Xender Lourdes (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, Ubiquity, articles should not get deleted just because they do not establish notability (though they need to make a prima facie claim of importance), but only if the consensus is that they could not be rewritten to establish notability. See the Deletion policy. --ColinFine (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the question is whether mainspace articles should conform to Wikipedia standards such as notability and verifiability, and what policies say this, the answer is all of the policies, in particular the notability and verifiability policies, which are basic to what Wikipedia is. If the question is whether articles may be developed in mainspace, with the author providing the assurance that they will satisfy notability in the future, then my advice is that articles should be developed in user space or draft space until they are ready for article space. I don't think that User:ColinFine is saying that it is all right to develop articles incrementally in article space. If he is, I respectfully disagree. Articles may be speedy-deleted if they fail to make a credible claim of significance. It is true that if an article is nominated for deletion, the author has seven days to bring it up to policies, and that some of the reviewers at AFD may assist in finding sources to establish notability. However, that should not be used as an excuse for developing an article in mainspace before it is ready for mainspace. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert you're right. I ran into this problem when one of my articles was speedied a couple or so minutes after creation on mainspace while I was expanding it. I've managed a workaround now. I use a template on the top of the article which basically mentions that the article is undergoing expansion by an editor. That has helped me without fail. But I do not and would not recommend this to other editors. They should do what you suggest and what our guidance suggests – develop the article in user or draft space... Xender Lourdes (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article content does not determine notability. So, basically, the state of the Wikipedia article is immaterial. In this case, incremental improvement is supported by the guideline in question. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NinjaRobotPirate lovely to see you around. How have you been doing? With reference to what you wrote, you are right too. But the new page patrollers sometimes have such a massive amount of backlog that a few times (not every time, but sometime) if an article (even one that may be notable) does not contain evidence as such within the article towards its possible notability, the same may get tagged for deletion. Xender Lourdes (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind welcome; it's good to see you around, too. When I do new page patrol, I usually prefer to expand or rewrite articles than to nominate them for deletion. One of the articles that I tried to expand got deleted anyway, but most of them go on to become pretty decent articles. For example, MYCAT was essentially a blank article with an infobox when I found it (permalink), but I expanded it to what is hopefully enough to at least give some basic information. I get as frustrated as everyone else when I find an unsourced, nearly-speedyable article, but I think of deletion as a last resort. The problem is that you can't do that for very many articles before you get burnt out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, I strongly support encouraging people to develop articles in Draft space rather than main space: in fact I wrote the tip that Xender Lourdes quotes from WP:YFA. But I was also keen to correct the impression that an article might be deleted just because it did not establish notability. I see that this might have been misleading in the context of the question, though. --ColinFine (talk)

click on coordinates not working

For the last day or two, when I click on coordinates, it says "connecting" but never does anything else. Is there a problem or is it just happening to me? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Geo co-ords not connecting to tools.wmflabs.org/geohack. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

It was working again the last time I checked. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article

Hi Wonderful Wikipedia Team,

I want to create a wikipedia page for our business www.landmarkshops.in

I have provide few reference for you

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Landmark-Group-launches-its-e-commerce-website/articleshow/50466183.cms

https://inc42.com/flash-feed/landmark-group-launches-landmarkshops-in/

http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/dubaibased-landmark-unveils-ecommerce-venture/article8078169.ece

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/max-fashion-to-enter-ecomm-space-in-the-new-year/article8005242.ece

http://www.adageindia.in/interviews/cmo-interviews/for-a-fashion-brand-showing-a-young-couple-on-a-print-ad-isnt-enough-jiten-mahendra-max-fashion/articleshow/51635633.cms

http://www.newindianexpress.com/business/news/Max-Fashion-Bets-Big-on-Online-Income-Stream/2016/03/23/article3341194.ece

http://www.livemint.com/Industry/n0LTeRS5QIWDlWYLVPEpML/Lifestyle-International-to-launch-online-retail-venture-by-2.html

Please let me know what else is needed to create a page in Wikipedia.

Thanks, Arnab — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.71.161 (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arnab.

You are discouraged from creating an article about your own company, because it is likely to be difficult for you to achieve a properly neutral tone, (since you will naturally want to present your company in the best light). In addition, creating an acceptable Wikipedia is hard, and I wouldn't advise anybody to try it who had not spent some time learning about Wikipedia by imnproving existing articles. But if you are determined to go ahead, then please read Your first article, Conflict of interest, WP:CORP and WP:PAID carefully, and then come back here if there are things you need more help on. --ColinFine (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Boleyn

Citation number one should be on a different template because it is not a book. I mucked up. Please fix. Thanks101.189.0.102 (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look again, this reference uses {{cite web}}. True, the template parameters are misused, and you should fix that, but this time you did not use the 'wrong' template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article switched to foreign language

The article Kotha Remalle has been switched to Telugu (according to Google translate). The last English version was 16 February 2016. I don't want to undo back to that date, because there have been several edits since then by an editor who seems to be legitimate. What is the approach here? Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leschnei This is the English language Wikipedia, so it's fine to revert Non-English edits. The best solution is to revert it, and direct the user to the correct language Wikipedia, which I have done. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiousity, you reverted to version 705227497 - where does one find that number? I don't see it in the revision history (except where you put it in your comment). Leschnei (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Leschnei: Twinkle puts the number in automatically. To find it manually you actually have to open the version in question. The version number is at the end of the URL. --Majora (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I'd seen it somewhere, thank you. Leschnei (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Callinan

Please check this page - I think that it has notability problems. It certainly has citation problems; I have searched for secondary refs. that mention him in relation to many of his TV shows and teaching career - but with no success. what do you advise? Srbernadette (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was put up for WP:AFD 9 minutes before you posted here. Dismas|^(talk) 00:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Eckersley

We (myself and students) have concerns about this person too. ( I am a college lecturer) Again, notability and lack of citations are big issues. Both pages (see above) appear to be just autobiographies; the first page is that of teacher who has done some TV and stage acting and the other page of a woman - Julie Eckersley - who has done some TV, stage and TV producing - liked millions of others in the world who are not at all notable

Thanks and I hope this helpsSrbernadette (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at WP:NACTOR and make your own decision. Dismas|^(talk) 00:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dismas - I have again read the WP:NACTOR. We didn't think we could do anything, so your support is great. Based on the guidelines in WP:NACTOR, I have wiped the entire page. Please check that I have deleted the page correctly. Thanks again for your show of support to us inexperienced editors! Srbernadette (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how a page is deleted. That just blanks out the information that is there and is not constructive. Please see WP:AFD for the proper way to go about page deletion. Dismas|^(talk) 00:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Srbernadette: That is not how a page is deleted. If you have concerns about a page you should take it to AfD where the community will decide if it is appropriate that the page is deleted. It will then be deleted (if so decided) by an Admin. Just blanking the page has no effect as the history is still available. The page has been restored. Eagleash (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks so much Eagleash - I never intended to do anything - my skills are limited. I had thought that a notability placement on the top of the page was OK. I did not know what the Wikipedia guys - like yourselves - would think was appropriate. As you suggest, I will try to delete it again. wish me luck. ThanksSrbernadette (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the instructions at AfD (see links in posts above). I have also removed your 'talk-page style' comments from the top of the article. To tag for notability you can just type {{notability}} at the top of the page and it will produce a notice. Another way of putting an article up for deletion is to use WP:PROD, which is simpler but if someone disagrees they can remove the 'prod' and it then has to go to AfD before it can be deleted. Eagleash (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added citation tags - please be kind to check that I got it right. This page should be deleted we feel. But I cannot do it all myself. I am not clever enoughSrbernadette (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]