Help desk
< March 18	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 20 >

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.

March 19

Recent change in RSS Syndication?

I use The Old Reader to subscribe to the edit history sections of lots of articles which I want to monitor. Today I started getting lots of old content served to me. I emailed The Old Reader support and they seem to think it's on Wikipedia's end ("Seems likely that its a change on their end. I don't have a record of feed, but these old posts were created in our system today, which suggests they arrived in the feed for the first time today, and did not exist before"). Anyone know what's up or have suggestions of where I should ask instead of here? Thanks. (I've cross-posted this at Wikipedia talk:Syndication--I hope this isn't rude/inappropriate). --Pengortm (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly all right to post both places in this case, because it doesn't look like that other page gets a lot of action. If this is a Wikipedia issue, they may be able to answer in WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how to add pictures to your articles

hi Wikipedia, how do you add pictures to your articles because when I make an article I want a picture in it instead of it just blank just writing (article boring)NewbornCircle (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NewbornCircle: See WP:IMAGES for a list of information pages about that, and come back here if you need any clarification. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do you think this is going to be deleted

hi Wikipedia do you think James Cook Navigation will get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewbornCircle (talk • contribs) 09:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. James Cooks Navigation (note correct title) has already been nominated for deletion, because we already have detailed, well referenced, articles on James Cook, First voyage of James Cook, Second voyage of James Cook Third voyage of James Cook etc. etc. - Arjayay (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been deleted. - Arjayay (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De Anza Hotel Incorrect Name

I have tried to correct the De Anza Hotel page name to Hotel De Anza. It was formerly named De Anza Hotel and this is creating problems in Google search results because they are pulling the information from here. If this could be updated that would be perfect.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:4E80:DC00:840:AB67:7FAB:F0A2 (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't move pages without an account, and non-autoconfirmed user accounts like Medmond12 can't move pages either. I've moved it for you. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 19 March 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. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter, that's not quite the situation. The hotel indeed uses the name "Hotel De Anza", and our article used the (older? former?) name of "De Anza Hotel". This is vaguely comparable to using the Zaire title for the current country, instead of its current name of DR Congo. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It was rather about the desired De Anza Hotel → Hotel De Anza rename, done [1] by Nyttend. --CiaPan (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and I would have moved the page if it wasn't done already, but the poster seems more concerned about what is displayed by Google than by Wikipedia. So I pointed out that Wikipedia changes may not affect Google, and they have their own system to report problems if it is indeed about Google's Knowledge Graph. The Google search Hotel De Anza currently displays a box saying "De Anza Hotel". No content is actually credited to Wikipedia for me but the poster may know that they often use information from us. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with book downloads

Help please. I have been trying to download the "Wikipedia book titled Electronic Components and Symbols." https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Book:Electronic_Components_and_Symbols. All I get, for the last 3 days is the following: Rendering failed Generation of the document file has failed. Status: Rendering process died with non zero code: 1. I have the same problem in Chrome, Firefox, and IE on a PC running Windows 7. I am also not able to download the book "Electronics" https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Book:Electronics which gives the same failure message. Thanks for your help. MikeDGlass (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this issue has been raised several times on our local Book feedback page (Help:Books/Feedback) and the Meta-Wiki Book Feedback page (m:Book tool/Feedback). I'm sorry I don't have more info for you, but you might want to watch those pages to see if any solution is provided. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 20:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref for Stuart Chase article contribution by Nnamelet

Stuart Chase - please clarify the problem to be corrected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnamelet (talk • contribs) 15:59, 19 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Stuart Chase

Reference help requested. I lost my connection to help as Frank1

Thanks, nnamelet 16:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC) nnamelet 16:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnamelet (talk • contribs)

I started to reply to your vague question above, I now see that you are referring to this edit, where the first error message said "Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page)" and the second said "Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page)". In each case the words "help page" were in blue, indicating that each was a wikilink to a specific help page to explain the problem, Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref and Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no key respectively. You will see that another editor has solved your problems by adding the missing ">" characters to the end of the tags concerned. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to find pages with BARE URLs?

Is there a way to find articles with BARE URLs, preferably ranked in order of number of bare links? Please include {{ping}} command in your reply. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not ranked by number, but categories such as Category:Biography template using bare URL in website parameter, Category:All articles needing link rot cleanup, (and dated subsets thereof such as Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup from February 2015) can help, or simply a search, or a dated search. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging user since that wasn't done as requested by OP. @Jax 0677:. Dismas|^(talk) 20:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why is my name and infro gone?? Can I be put back on?

My name is Rev Delores Berry. My name was on Wikipedia. Now I can’t find it. How can I be put it back on this amazing work?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.201.243 (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it was deleted in 2010. Sorry, but if an article lacks independent non-primary sources (such as newspaper or magazine articles), it usually gets deleted for not meeting our notability guidelines. I see that the LGBT Wikia has an article about you, though Wikipedia and Wikia are officially independent. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How much copying is too much?

I ran across the Suncore Photovoltaics article just now and found that some of the info is lifted directly from the sources in the article. i.e. the info was not "put in their own words". Would this qualify as a copyvio or would the sentences fall under fair use? Basically, where is the line between plagiarized and not? Dismas|^(talk) 21:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the lazy among us, could you save us the trouble of researching the extent of the copying? I.e., give an example or two of verbatim lifted text? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The first two sentences of the second paragraph are copied directly from the source provided which is here. The first sentence of the third paragraph comes directly from this source. Dismas|^(talk) 22:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in this area (or anywhere close), but FWIW I would call that copyvio. In my own editing I'm willing to use a phrase of up to four or five words from the source, when there is simply no acceptable alternative, but never a complete sentence of that length. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, wiki newbie here. I'll change some of the wording. Thanks,Xanderyang (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Xanderyang[reply]

Earwig's Copyvio Detector... result = Violation Possible 45.4% with crunchbase as mentioned above. -- Moxy (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to say that the Copyvio detector isn't going to be useful in some situations, but I have found it to be overly sensitive in some situations just FYI. Dustin (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was unaware of that tool. Thanks for that! Dismas|^(talk) 22:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried running the Songs from the Black Hole article through that tool (which I wrote pretty much single-handedly), and it gave a possible violation rating of 70%! I assure you that's all original prose, so I wouldn't trust the tool too much... Popcornduff (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I can top that. Shooting of Michael Brown earns 95.8%. I have been heavily involved with the development of this article almost since its inception, and I know that most of the content was written by experienced and competent editors who know better than to lift text from a source. I don't know what that percentage is supposed to mean. If it means that there is a 0.958 probability that some unknown degree of copyvio exists somewhere in the article, I could accept that. But the tool's results highlight countless things like "shot was fired" and "at the request of", and excuse us for writing in the same language as the sources, English. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite as high, but involving an article with only minor changes since I singlehandedly overhauled it (with brand new summaries of mostly previously uncited sources): it says that Lesser Key of Solomon was 93.4% lifted from a forum post made several months after I made those changes. I guess I need to go buy some lottery tickets and hit the racetracks. But, it's otherwise useful if you check results to make sure they're from after the fact. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

cookies

Is there any way to use my user name and password to see what content I have researched . — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHuf (talk • contribs) 23:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a job for your browser history. We keep track of editor contributions, but I don't think we keep track of what articles you've read. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]