Help desk
< January 25	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 27 >

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 26

Citations for Maps and other images

Citations are given (and promoted) in Wikipedia for text information, but I do not see citations for maps and other visual information. Shouldn't visual information also be evidenced (i.e. relevant and verifiable), and so wouldn't it be good to promote for maps and images to be cited? Rwilkin (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to a specific example? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite map}} has 17883 transclusion and {{cite AV media}} has 12802 transclusions. -- Gadget850^talk 01:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Table help

Hello fellow Wikipedians. I'm not too slick with tables. The tables at Histeria! look like they could use some sweetening to make the columns and rows look pretty. Anyone up for the challenge? Thanks in advance, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The heading row and column widths for Season 2 are different from those for Season 1. Aside from that, the only challenge I see is finding room for improvement there. What specific changes did you have in mind? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mandruss: I think you resolved the matter just fine. Thank you for the assist! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Not a problem, enjoyed it. Assuming you know more about the show than I do, please see my new talk thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Ono-i-Lau

Reference help requested. Sorry, not sure of what to do - how to correct it. Perhaps delete it?Roddankl (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks, Roddankl (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the error was corrected by BG19bot the day after ReferenceBot put that message on your talk page. See the page history. You don't need to do anything. You can leave the message on your talk page, or remove it whenever you like. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to use citations for referencing multiple pages, from the same book, in different places on the article page.

I am currently editing Ibn Taymiyyah. I am using a book which I need to cite in different places. On the page it is reference 9. I have then tried to use the "sfn" template to use the same source to cite different pages of the book as applicable to different sections of the article. I have tried to make it work but it will not. The sfn template is simply cited in the references section again at number 18 on the article page. Please could someone help. Mbcap (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made a change, is that an improvement? It dropped a page number (VII) from the second ref, but there's a solution to that if you need it. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading your comment, I decided you probably need said solution, so I made that change too. The page number VII is shown as superscript following the citation number. If you wish, you can insert "p." before the "VII" in the {{rp}}. I think it looks fine without a space, in this case ^: p.VII. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbcap and Mandruss: The article did not have any {{rp}} previously, and a number of people dislike this template (partly because the page number appears in the text and not with the other refs), so it's not a good idea to add it to an article which already uses a different method of achieving an equivalent result. I notice that it was already using {{sfn}} elsewhere, so you should try to do it the same way. Remove the <ref name=":0" />{{rp|VII}} and replace it with {{sfn|Haque|1982|p=VII}}. Make sure that you don't put that inside any <ref>...</ref> tags, because it generates a pair for itself. More information at Shortened footnotes. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Back to separate reflist entries, which is what the OP said they did not want. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help. Is there any possible way to have the sfn citations in a separate citations section on the page whilst keeping the anchor citation (full reference to book) in the reference section. I got the feeling this is possible but I was unable to do it. Mbcap (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Shortened footnotes? -- Gadget850^talk 17:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbcap: I take it that you have something like this in mind. Here, the {{sfn}} citations are picked up by a normal {{reflist}}, and the full references are in a separate bulleted list, with no <ref>...</ref> or equivalent. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is perfect. Thank you. How do I do this? Mbcap (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the other editors of the page agree, create a new section called "References" (or "Works cited"). Rename the present "References" section to "Notes". Put all the cite templates in the new "References" section, in alphabetical order. Make sure each cite template has the parameter "ref=harv" included. For each case where a cite template is moved from the body of the article to the "References" section, put a sfn template where it used to be. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help and also the others who have been so kind. It is all sorted. I will wait then for the last change (footnotes) until the end, when I am able to discuss it first with the other editors on the talk page. Mbcap (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Religion portal

I think Paganism Theism and Deism should be listed together with Atheism - Creationism - Mythology - Nontheism - Occult - Spirituality. That's the first line of the religious section, after the list of WP portals.

I don't know how to make this change. deisenbe (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As portals are high visibility, I'd suggest seeking consensus for the change, at Portal talk:Religion. If consensus is reached, I'm sure someone there would be happy to do the edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This part of Portal:Religion is defined at {{Religion portals browsebar}}, so perhaps Template talk:Religion portals browsebar would be the place for the discussion. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map country Unasur

Hello, there has been some consensus on Wikipedia for maps of the country of South America are displayed in their respective pages in dark green and light green the Unasur. It has been modifying the map balloon all countries in South America and placing others where it is emphasized to UNASUR on Wikipedia in Spanish and English. Which were created by User:Spesh531 [1]. In English wikipedia have placed these maps, for example https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Argentina.

In the discussion commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spesh531#Countries_belonging_to_UNASUR_.2F_UNASUL user Spesh531 speak to replace all these new maps in several languages including Spanish: Thank Spesh you for your help I have updated all South American country clubs With Your maps on the Inglés wikipedia @ Mondolkiri1:.. you can update the Spanish and Portuguese versions wikipedia With Spesh's maps if you wish-Viladive (Talk) 23:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC) " '

What was the consensus of the community to make this change?--Roboting (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind I did not implement it, I only created it. It is up to the other users who placed the respective images on their respective pages to deal with how this is going. As for me, I do not care how this decision is played out.—SPESH531 Other 05:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must restore the site of South America countries, as I did with Colombia. Ask a librarian to take action on the matter. There is no consensus for such modification.--Roboting (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Help Desk, which is for questions about how to use and edit Wikipedia. It is not for resolving content disputes. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute here User:Mandruss. Ask a Bibliotecary to restore the edition before the modification, Which the maps of the User:Spesh531 , not consensus. Which is an arbitrary edition.--Roboting (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the edition before the modification in : Argentina , Brazil , Peru , Uruguay , Venezuela , Ecuador , Bolivia , etc.--Roboting (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I see "there is no consensus for such modification", I call it a content dispute. It is about content, and it would appear that you disagree with the other editor, which is a dispute. I don't know the best place for this discussion, but I know it's not Help Desk. I don't know what a "librarian" is at Wikipedia, I have never seen that term used here. And "restore the edition" sounds like a revert, which any editor can do (subject to policy and guidelines of course). ―Mandruss ☎ 06:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Bibliotecary, not librarian sorry, in Spanish https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bibliotecarios or in English Wikipedia:Administrators--Roboting (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the edits made by User: Viladive. Your edits are vandalism. Therefore an administrator must take care, as there is no consensus to place these maps.--Roboting (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English language Wikipedia, so I'd suggest that we go with the English word, administrator. Does that sound reasonable? Help Desk is not the place to request administrator action, that would probably be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You are welcome to make a request there, but I think they will tell you that it is not the correct place to resolve content disputes. I still don't know what administrator action you think you require. As I said earlier, my suggestion is to read and follow the information at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. It is time to end this thread. Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help on Downloading/Saving entire wiki pages in a PDF or other user friendly fashion for offline use.

Hello. I am here inquiring whether it is possible to, short of using a third-party source (unless no other means are found), to save an entire community wiki page, such as those like:

http://www.wiki.cataclysmdda.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Or

http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Main_Page

Into a PDF or other offline accessible format without having to spend hours or even days saving every single page separately using word documents. This is not an issue of saving favorite or useful pages; I want ALL the pages. I found in Wikipedia-the free encyclopedia that you already have a book creator for pdf's on your pages but the link necessary for me to do that is not found on these links. Please respond. Your help is much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehowshgen (talk • contribs) 06:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those wikis are nothing to do with Wikipedia. You'll have to ask the people that operate them to add the PDF features to their wiki. MediaWiki are the people who make the wiki software, but the people who run the your wikis will need to add the feature. - X201 (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the date pages protected?

I've noticed that all the 'date' pages such as January 1, March 8, November 27 and July 19 are protected to pending changes (white lock) why is this? Thank you for your help. 121.220.113.177 (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of January 1, user:Wizardman set up pending changes with the comment: "(Configured pending changes settings for January 1: Frequent subtle vandalism (adding own names as birthday events)", with this edit: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=January_1&diff=589185186&oldid=589184415 A quick look at the edit history seems to support that. Rwessel (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rwessel is correct. Lots of silly stuff is added to each day article as the date comes up. PC helps to ensure readers don't see most of this stuff. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fukurou House Dubai

Good day

We would like to create a page with our newly opened Restaurant/Art Gallery in Dubai. Could you please help us to do it, as i couldnt find any option to do it myself :).

Our website www.fukurouhouse.com.

Thank you

Armen — Preceding unsigned comment added by FukurouHouse (talk • contribs) 08:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order for the restaurant to be considered notable for a Wikipedia page, it needs to be the subject of news articles written by third party reliable sources. APK whisper in my ear 08:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FukurouHouse. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a business directory, marketing tool, or social media, and it may never be used for promoting any business, organisation or cause. Once several indepedent reliable sources (such as major newspapers) have written substantial articles about your restaurant, then somebody - preferably not you - could create an article about it based entirely on what these independent sources have written. Until then, I'm afraid there is no place for your business in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DEFAULTSORT

I see all kinds of articles which use DEFAULTSORT to ensure that the article is alphabetized by the first word of the article's title. Maelgwn Gwynedd, for example, uses DEFAULTSORT to make sure that it gets alphabetized under M rather than G. Well fine, it should indeed be under M rather than G, but that would have happened without using DEFAULTSORT at all, wouldn't it? Was there any point in using it? Should it be removed? --Antiquary (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In your example it was a correction [2] of a bot which "Added DEFAULTSORT to page (used a WikiProject banner's listas parameter on the talk page".[3] People are usually not sorted by the first word. Placing an explicit DEFAULTSORT on the exact title has no immediate effect but it reduces the risk that a bot or editor makes an inappropriate sorting later. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see. Well, I'll leave the things alone then. Thanks for that. --Antiquary (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you see articles (not about people) that have a {{DEFAULTSORT:}} where the sortkey is simply a variant capitalisation of the article name; for example, an article named "List of things" might have {{DEFAULTSORT:List Of Things}}. This is a legacy of a time (prior to MediaWiki 1.17) when category sorting was case-sensitive, and it had been standard practice to add a DEFAULTSORT: to all articles with more than one word in their names. Varying the capitalisation in this manner has not been necessary for about four years now. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of Portuguese sports competition article

There is this English Wikipedia article on a Portuguese sports competition, whose title is in its native language. The sport is very specific and localized to certain countries (mostly Latin-European and Latin-American countries), so there is not much media converage (or any at all) in English language sources. Should the article title remain in its native language or should it be translated to English? Thanks in advance. Parutakupiu (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought it probably sits in the same category as such articles as Serie A, where even English speakers would refer to it in its native language so that would be the article title. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so too. In fact, Wikipedia seems to point in that direction. I just wanted to get some extra feedback on this. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia part of Anti-Womens rights movement

I Donated over 100$ to Wikipedia in my life and would like it back based on how you are treating women editors. Not letting women edit pages that deal with women's rights is sexist and horrible. You will not get away with this and it makes me disgusted with your organization. Stop giving GamerGate access to your organization. You will never receive donations from my family or friends again. Please refer to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.93 (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article you link to is misinformed as to the facts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:AndyTheGrump is being remarkably gentle about that article. There is an alternate explanation, which is that the article contains lies. In Wikipedia, we assume good faith as to other Wikipedia editors, but that article isn't in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. See wmf:Frequently asked questions#What is your refund policy? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Random within group of pages

Is it possible to have a variant of Special:Random that only searches within a specific group of pages? For example, from a category it would pick a random member, or from a list of links it would pick a random link. I know that Special:Random doesn't do this; I'm looking for another way to achieve this result. Nyttend (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Special:RandomInCategory does what it says, eg Special:RandomInCategory/Houses will take you to a random page within Category:Houses. I don't know of any neat way to pick a random link from a list of links, though. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's also available as a template, {{Random page in category}}, which you can see in action at Category:Stub-Class physics articles. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice; thanks to both of you. I've never even heard of this category or this template before. Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Film poster policy

I wanted to update Fifty Shades of Grey's film poster, but I am not sure if the images policy applies to film posters as well. Are there any policies for film posters? Callmemirela (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Film posters are copyrighted and can only be uploaded and used pursuant to the non-free content criteria.--ukexpat (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User Friendly?

I've? been enjoyhing Wikepedia for years, and this is the first place I go generally to obtain information I'm looking for on most subjects

I've been using computers from the first simple ones, so I feel I'm somewhat familiar to navigatge the internet - and I tried to add an item a cople of months ago for a movie that was missing from Olivia de Havilland - and last night I was curious about the actress who portrayed the maid in Shindler's List - her name, and name of role, and what happened to her near the end of the movie. I gave up trying to edit?

Seems Wikepedia is not user friendly, and everywhere yhou go you get more pages of information rather than just a simple 1,2,3 how to edit I managed recently to get through filling out forms for the Veteran's Administration although 8 of l0 VA People gave me wrong info and wrong forms over a month for forty hours..I managed to figure out myself to do the internet and manual forms part. I go into Wikepedia more for relaxation but there seems to be so much unnecessary information and not the simple how to 1,2,3. I get the sense that the site tries to discourage people who might not have the valid information or sincereity to improve the site - but from what I've seen on the internet...Wikepedia is really lacking in making life more simple unless you are just reading the information. Bob Paley — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOBPALEY (talk • contribs) 20:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just as the article content is maintained by a community of unpaid, part-time volunteers, so is the help information. Very few of us are highly skilled in that area., and there is not very much site-wide coordination on that. The inevitable result is that Wikipedia's help is not very well organized and easy to navigate and understand. Things might be very different if that area were controlled by a group of paid specialists, but that would be both contrary to Wikipedia philosophy and culture (controlled) and financially unworkable for a non-profit (paid). I can assure you that it's not done deliberately, for the reason you suggested or any other. On the positive side, there are always people around to help you with things you don't understand, including right here at the Help Desk. Many times you can get an excellent answer to a question within a few minutes of asking it. ~~- how many for-profit companies can you say that about, where you have paid hard-earned cash for their product? Not many, in my experience.~~ ―Mandruss ☎ 21:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC) (Struck as not particularly meaningful from an editing perspective) ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BOBPALEY: I looked at Special:Contributions/BOBPALEY. [4] shows you refer to an Olivia de Havilland film allegedly called "Lady of the Knight". Wikipedia articles require good published sources. A trading card alone is not suitable for this and I would never add a film based on it. Google searches like "Lady of the Knight" "Olivia de Havilland" finds no hint of such a film. It's extremely unlikely an American film with a star would have no result at all in Google. I dug deeper and found the trading card you mention.[5] It was probably an early promotional card for a film which wasn't made or changed title. More digging revealed The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex#Production which says: "However, the new title, The Knight and the Lady, upset Davis". I assume Lady of the Knight was another considered title which wasn't used. The film ended up as The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex and is already listed in Olivia de Havilland#Filmography. It's from November 1939 by Warner Brothers so it's a good match to the card. Apart from giving a wrong film, your edits misformatted the table. Table editing can be difficult. Look for a pattern in the existing table entries or a similar table, or see Help:Table (which is admittedly complicated). If you made recent edit attempts then they were not saved so I cannot see what was wrong with them, but this help desk would be a great place to ask if you did save them. If you don't want to damage an article with a misformatted edit then you could use the "Sandbox" link at the top of any page, or copy a limited amount of code here. We definitely don't want it to be hard to edit. A lot of effort has gone into Wikipedia:VisualEditor but that feature still has serious problems. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]