Help desk
< May 12	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 14 >

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.

May 13

Louisville population

Please fix the 2016 population of Louisville Kentucky. It is over 750 + thousand not 255 in 1999 this is not 1999 anymore. Win I ask this is what it gives you .this is so wrong an will course our city to louse jobs from people seeing the wrong answer.Jefferson co.is Louisville my an has been for years.Please fix this look up the population of Jefferson co.my That is Louisville my. Thanks I will be looking for the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.30.73.104 (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The population figures in Louisville are sourced and reflect the latest US census data. You may be referring to Google's result for "population of Louisville", which returns a value of 253K. We don't have any control over what Google reports. You would have to contact them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a Google Knowledge Graph problem - the standard template explaining what is "our" information, what is by others, and how to contact Google is:-

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. - Arjayay (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google:Louisville says "Population: 253,128 (1999)" but the text paragraph does not say "Wikipedia" and is indeed not copied from Wikipedia (I don't know where it's from). I wonder why the poster thought we are responsible if it is about the Google search. Maybe the poster has seen other knowledge graphs with a Wikipedia link. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the OP thinks that this is the Help Desk for 'The Internet'. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google:Louisville population shows the source as United States Census Bureau — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 14:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"suspended" president?

The president of Brazil Dilma Rousseff is currently in an impeachment process. For the duration of it, she is still the president, but she's not allowed to serve as president. The vicepresident Michel Temer is now the interim president. If the impeachment decides her removal, she would cease being president, and he would become the formal president, with the remaining term of office. If it is decided to reject it, everything would go back to the previous state of things, and Dilma would continue being president for the remmaining of her term. Question: the term that best describes Temer's current position is Acting president, but which term describes the position of Rousseff? Cambalachero (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might try asking at the reference desk. They love to argue over stuff like this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garden leave ;) Eagleash (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Nicholas Windsor

ref 16 is all wrong . Please fix. Thanks so much Srbernadette (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Maproom (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, Srbernadette, if you want to remove a link like that, all you need to do is to change [[Independent Catholic News]] to Independent Catholic News. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirect

Are Wikipedia:Redirect entries permitted to be listed on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages? Mitchumch (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, redirects can sometimes be appropriate entries on a disambiguation page. The explanation is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciasion

Where can I listen to the pronouncing op a word — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.223.233 (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching for "how to pronounce English words correctly with audio"; Google brings up a number of sites. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary is a related project building a dictionary and has some words with audible pronunciation. RJFJR (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to remove the table of contents ...

... from an article that probably shouldn't have one until it has more sections? A few weeks ago I put a small amount of work into our Xu Shen article by adding some sources to it and giving it "References" and "Cited works" sections. But this action bumped the article up to one too many sections and now the "lead" (essentially the whole article) is followed by a table of contents which is immediately followed by the end of the article in several sections that contain no flowing prose.

I'm thinking there might be some cosmetic fix for cases like this, like the italic title template, but is there?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: If you add __NOTOC__ to the article, the table of contents will be omitted. More at WP:TOC. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Identity theft

Reference help requested. How can I locate the error being point out by the Reference bot in this case. Thanks in advance. Thanks, Cobracs999 (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there have been several edits to the page since your one. After your edit there was an error showing against ref No. 3 (url value), but there are no ref errors indicated as the page stands. Eagleash (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Criticizing present entries

I have written an article which is about to be published by Physics Essays where it was subject to peer review. It disagrees with certain aspects of special relativity. After it has been published, can I edit/comment on a Wikipedia article using my article as a reference?

Sui docuit (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)sui generis[reply]

No, per WP:COI (you should not be promoting your own research by linking it in Wikipedia articles. You should let others vet it and decide how to use it if needed), and per WP:PRIMARY, publications of primary research are of limited utility anyways, the significance of such research should be properly vetted and exposed to time where it can be covered by secondary sources. Secondary sources, where significance and importance and relevance of concepts are vetted and dealt with (rather than raw facts themselves) are more useful in Wikipedia articles; primary sources are really only useful to elaborate where secondary sources have already established relevance. A primary source can not establish its own relevance. --Jayron 32 16:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-WMF wikilinks

The "Louisville population" section, higher on this page, includes a feature I've never before seen — [[Google:Text]] produces Google:Text, a direct link to Google's search results for <text> instead of an article entitled "Google:Text". Do we have a complete list of non-WMF sites for which this kind of link exists? I'm aware of the other WMF project links, e.g. Commons:COM:AN, but the only other sites I'm aware of are Google and the Meatball wiki, e.g. meatball:WikiPedia. Nyttend (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Found it! Saw this a few days ago, managed to find it again. The list is at Special:Interwiki, it's fairly long — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 19:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's maintained at meta:Interwiki map. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Charter Space and Major Disasters

I am perplexed and astounded that International Charter Space and Major Disasters is only in English; given its international nature, it should be in at least as many languages as Roller derby. kencf0618 (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kencf0618: International Charter on Space and Major Disasters has five language links stored at wikidata:Q1667087 but you broke them by making a disallowed copy-paste move which breaks our license by not maintaining the page history. See WP:MOVE for the correct way to move pages. I have fixed it with a history merge. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Sorry for the mistake, and thanks for the correction. There is no "on" in the title of the Charter, but I won't mess with it further. kencf0618 (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kencf0618: If you would like to have the page moved, you could start a discussion on the talk page of the article to first determine that other users agree with you. Given that this particular article has fewer than 30 watchers that may not be very productive. So, you could be justified in listing it at WP:RM#CM to get a discussion going that way. Dismas|^(talk) 17:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Glad I'm finally doing this according to Hoyle! kencf0618 (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, in answer to your first point, Kencf0618, articles exist (in any language) when somebody has decided to create them. There is no editorial board overseeing even one language Wikipedia, let alone the whole lot. --ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]