Help desk
< January 10	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 12 >

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.

January 11

Great Dissapointment

You despising people as which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. How you can make sure how people's importance in 5 minutes with your prejudgement. You also want us to donate wikipedia? For what? Deleleting our page? i also wrote in my Turkish page to explain these. i share my links to prove it has to be puplish as real person biography. What more significance of subject more? Would you have enough evidence why Ulaş Öcal is a person DOES NOT INDICATE SIGNIFICANT OF SUBJECT. Maybe you get a bit above yourself. I have seen terrorist's name hear. For example Pkk leader. we will be more important if kill people? I am sure you are the person really have GREAT SIGNIFICANT OF SUBJECT. if you tell me one reason why you insisted deleting my page i will apologize. You despise Turkish people. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ulaş_Öcal The best words to describe wikipedia it not belong to me. "I don't know the quality of your modifications, anyway i want to stress on the fact that effectively there's a big problem on Wikipedia about page editing and experienced users deleting work of the others, i would call it "mafia" because it is indeed the better term to describe it."

i don't trust wikipedia and never belive information. i would pass their page in search. coz maybe i dont have million dollar company but i belive i shouldn't be in A7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.5.89.30 (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://gawker.com/5827835/wikipedia-is-slowly-dying

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/Community/Review#I_am_VERY_DISAPPOINTED_ABOUT_WIKIPEDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.5.89.30 (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Question

I would like to redirect Whitemud Formation (geology) to Whitemud Formation, but because "Whitemud Formation" currently takes one to a line in a table under Edmonton Group, I am not able to do it. I believe it requires an admin. Could someone please help? Thanks, Georgialh (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're asking that we move Whitemud Formation (geology) to Whitemud Formation, which would result in a redirect. Am I correct? This does require an admin, but I don't want to do anything until you confirm that this is what you want. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. Georgialh (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You can mark a page for immediate admin attention by tagging the target for a move deletion; in this case, you would have gone to Whitemud Formation [scroll all the way to the top and click the link in (Redirected from Whitemud Formation), just below the Edmonton Group page title to reach the page itself] and used the {{db-move}} template. Go to this page for documentation on how to use it, or I'll be happy to help if you don't find it understandable. Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I understand now. I've done simple redirects, but the existing link to Edmonton Group confused me. I've run into this problem with geological formations before, where the formation is linked to the group, which interferes with setting up a separate article for the formation itself. I'll use your instructions next time. Thanks again. Georgialh (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. If you need an admin for a technical problem and don't know what template to use, this isn't the best page, simply because most readers aren't admins and thus can't give you the assistance you need. The best place to go is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, where we admins tend to hang out; if you don't know what template to use, people won't complain if you mention that you don't know. Nyttend (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgialh: If you want to replace a redirect with an existing page which has edits by others then it must be done with a move to preserve the page history which is needed for attribution. But if you want to turn a redirect into a new article then you can do it yourself by editing the redirect from the beginning instead of creating another page. After Nyttend's tip to click "Redirected from" you can make any edit to the redirecting page. If you save something else then it automatically stops being a redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, folks. This really helps. Georgialh (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autolatina

As I don't have time or inclination to deal with issues such as unblacklisting, can somebody please whack this list onto the Autolatina page if interested: "https://web.archive.org/web/20120205205823/http://www.autolatinaclube.***cjb.net***/" - the cjb.net is blacklisted and the linke is one of the few meaningful ones out there. Cheers, 115.69.63.229 (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That link gives an error message. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have brilliantly deduced that:

The existing link in the "External links" section is dead and you want to replace it with an archive version.
The URL of the archive version is what you specified, but without the asterisks.
You tried to do that edit, but it was prevented due to blacklist of cjb.net, which isn't smart enough to recognize that the "cjb.net" is part of the filepath, not the domain name.
Instead of "whack this list", you meant "whack this link", leaving us to decipher the meaning of that phrase.
You think someone here has the authority to do the edit anyway, overriding the blacklist. I don't know that that's true.

I think this would require a whitelist request for that specific page, which you could do as easily as anyone here. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 13:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Is there still a way to suppress the 'rollback' links on your watch list or contributions page? I can't seem to find it. I'm editing from a tablet more these days and experiencing more rollback misclicks as a result. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 09:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you still want rollback on page histories, add this to your CSS:

.mw-special-Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {display: none;}
.mw-special-Contributions .mw-rollback-link {display: none;}

PrimeHunter (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Prime Hunter, very helpful! Bellerophon _{talk to me} 13:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

traditional Chinese

Recently, when I search any object in you website, it will directly go to simplify Chinese pages!! WTF! I am in traditional Chinese page! Please fixed this problem! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.254.65 (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like something you will have to take up with the Chinese Wikipedia - The different language wikipedias operate separately and English Wikipedia cannot interfere with the Chinese one. - Arjayay (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the details or whether there are recent changes but if you register an account then you should be able to set your Chinese language variant at zh:Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced Afd comment

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 7, the last couple of lines for List of U.S. counties named after plants applies to the following article, but I can't find them to move. What's up with that? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it with this edit to the following AFD section. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it in the second Afd section. Anyway, thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magic spam link

Reading The Hours (film), I noticed a spam link on the term "hotel room". I decided to edit it out, but discovered that the link is absent or hidden from the edit page! I deleted and retyped it anyway, in case there was a hidden code--but, no difference, the link was still there, so I aborted the edit. What does one do to remove it? Bjenks (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article has no link on "hotel room". If you see a link then it's inserted later, maybe by unwanted adware in your browser. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Readers#Why do I see commercial ads at Wikipedia? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. My malware protection has been 100% for years but I guess it's now time to review it! Bjenks (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coyotes (song)

I've just started an article named Coyotes (song). There is also a redirect at Coyotes, which refers merely to the plural form of the Coyote article. As I understand Wikipedia protocols, Coyotes (song) should be renamed/moved to "Coyotes", and the redirect should be eliminated. I don't know the intricacies of dealing with this situation, so I'm hoping that somebody will take care of this for me (or let me know that I'm wrong, of course). Lou Sander (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coyote_(disambiguation) already contains links to multiple things containing "Coyotes". It seems clear that the appropriate action is to add Coyotes (song) to that page and leave the redirects alone. The Coyote article already contains a hatnote link to the dab page, for those who search for "coyotes" looking for Coyotes (song). (If they didn't notice Coyotes (song) in the "coyotes" search dropdown list.) ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Thanks, and I'll add the song to Coyote_(disambiguation). But why is there a redirect from Coyotes to the "Coyote" article, when "Coyotes" is just a plural, and is handled as such in most links? It seems like maybe it should go to Coyote_(disambiguation). Lou Sander (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but search for "airplanes" gives Airplane, which contains a hatnote link to Airplane (disambiguation), which contains a link to Airplanes (song). So it's not without precedent, although I don't know if it's written down anywhere. Maybe someone else does. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Readers not thoroughly familiar with how we name articles will often type plurals into the search box. Someone who wants Information about the canine species should not end up at an article about a song, unless the song is very well known. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice little article about the song, by the way. Well done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm digging into it, I'm seeing a lot. There are, IMHO, problems if somebody is looking for the plural (of an animal, particularly, such as in names of sports teams) and they are redirected to the animal article (singular), which further directs them to a disambiguation page for the singular (which they don't want, of course), which is sometimes pretty long, and which may include, along with the many singular references, a few plurals. Coyotes is an example of this. It has about 75 entries(!), only 14 of which are for the plurals, and it isn't easy to find them (especially the Marine aviators).

Similar problems exist with Penguins, Lions, and Tigers, which are some sports teams I'm familiar with. Ravens handles it differently, but the disambiguation page doesn't even mention the bird or the other singular disambiguations. Eagles, IMHO, handles it the best -- searching for Eagles redirects you to Eagle, which has two hat notes: one directing to a disambiguation page for Eagle, and another to a disambiguation page for Eagles. Both pages have a lot of entries, and there isn't much chance of someone accidentally going to the wrong one.

IMHO, the Eagles style is the best, and would be good for Coyotes, with a separate ambiguation page for the plurals. Also IMHO, Ravens should be rejiggered to that format, as well. Once again, my own skills are not great when dealing with redirects and disambiguations. Lou Sander (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for more consistent treatment here, and this seems worth some attention. But a community-wide change in this area would likely involve some extended discussion, and that's outside the purview of Help desk. If you want to pursue it, I'd suggest WP:VPP and wish you luck. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I report someone who issues threats and abuse? And might something be done to stop this?

I presume there is a process but I can't find any clear rubric.

I have been called a "degenerate," a "peon," and other words of abuse; I have also been issued what I perceive as a threat ("they deserve what's coming"--and the person seems to include me among "they"). If it's not clear to those who read what I am reporting here, I consider this serious, so I hope someone responds to me. Doprendek (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Read and follow the instructions at the top of the page. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that 174.3.213.121 has already taken this to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I anticipate a boomerang. Maproom (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, actually, as a content dispute. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect info on google search that links to wikipeia page

how do you fix the info that shows up on the right side of the screen in a google search and links to the wikipeia page, if its not correct? 20:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnralsoschicken (talk • contribs)

There is a 'feedback' option, bottom right. And note that Google are responsible for the content of such material - even if it claims to cite Wikipedia, it often doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Gadget850^talk 00:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]