Help desk
< October 6	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 8 >

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.

October 7

Mean page edit (vandalism?) nobody spotted

List of school pranks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think this page edit deleted too much valuable information from the page, which is even linked from other pages (Aruba), and I'd like to bring some attention to it as I'm unable to revert/remedy the situation by myself. Thanks. --2001:470:5A81:2:99F1:25A1:75B6:6DE9 (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Too good to be true" at NPP?

Burt Grinstead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trying to pitch in to help with the NPP backlog, I came across an entry which does seem "too good to be true" (perfect references, multiple photos, all in an editor's first and only edit to WP); but it's not overly promotional nor clearly non-notable enough for me to want to nominate for deletion on either of those points. Thought of just leaving it for someone else to deal with, but I'd actually really like to know how one's meant to handle these situations, so if anyone doesn't mind having a look and letting me know, I'd be grateful--page is Burt Grinstead. Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed good for a first attempt. However, who's to say that the creator (who hasn't edited since apparently) is not a long-term IP contributor who made an account in order to create the page? A (very) quick 'google' reveals much of the information to be accurate (AFAICT) so unless there's something demonstrably wrong with the page, then it looks like a 'good faith' effort. Eagleash (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool, makes sense to me. I've just been following the NPP RfCs and the talk there, as well as at the NPP instructions, about how dire it is when less experienced New Page reviewers fail to recognize socks, so I wanted to be sure there wasn't something else I was supposed to be doing. Thanks for the advice! Innisfree987 (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from experience, someone who claims copyright over two staged photos such as this ten+ years apart is probably violating either copyright or COI, or both. I'd suggest a magnifying glass and a close inspection. Unless there's a known problem, there's not much to be done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYk

I have submitted my first ever DYK nomination. Can anyone check if I have done it correctly - Template:Did you know nominations/Tsar Bomba Varun FEB2003 06:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VarunFEB2003: How did you nominate the DYK hook? Template talk:Did you know#Instructions for nominators ? - NQ (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly states "If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing" and "Read these instructions completely before proceeding" with a link to Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules, Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines and Wikipedia:Did you know/Learning DYK? Did you read them? Your inability or unwillingness to read the relevant rules and policies first before jumping into situations head on is what got you into this mess. I wasn’t really planning on participating in the AN discussion, but you leave me with no other choice. - NQ (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VarunFEB2003: DYK is for new articles, so I don't think this nomination will succeed - WP:DYKRULES. The anniversary might belong in the "On this day" section, perhaps, though I'm not familiar with the rules there. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleared it off. Varun FEB2003 06:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After voting resulted to keep and rename an article user just deletes it no matter wikilinks pointing to it

Page Cacti (software), about an Open Source Software, the page which exited for about ten years, had valuable info on subject, has a number of pages linking to it, even survived a voting to delete it, was deleted by a user two days ago. Is this okay? What about the wikilinks pointing to it? If he would delete those too someone would notice this vandalism, right? Or should we delete all pages about software, commercial software in the first place? I think someone should look into it, thanks in advance. --2001:470:5A81:2:1462:BE2A:3B2B:4E84 (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That AfD discussion was in 2007, and has little relevance now. If you think the admin was wrong, try talking to them, or request a deletion review. Joseph2302 07:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to read thru the procedure to request undeletion and the admin's talk page and I have to say I don't have time for this, don't wanna fight the windmills. But I hope someone will notice this pure wrong and do something with it. Thanks anyway. --2001:470:5A81:2:1462:BE2A:3B2B:4E84 (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:, Was the article tagged for speedy? The version in the Internet Archive that the IP linked to doesn't look G11 worthy. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked for clarification from the admin. This article certainly isn't Spam or Self Promotion, so it definitely doesn't seem G11 worthy. If he believes it needs revising, than that is another matter. Cigamit (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page was mistakenly deleted in trying to fix up a large batch of over-asty deletion nominations by an inexperienced user. I've restored it. I have considerable doubts if the current sourcing shows it is notable, but that's another matter. In the 2007 AfD I do not see how there was a consensus to keep the article, rather than redirect/merge, so there needs to be another look at that. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searching the Wikipedia citation space

English Wikipedia articles often use {{cite book}} and similar templates to structure and format bibliographic references. Is it possible to manually search within these templates across Wikipedia? In other words, do these cite templates contribute to a bibliographic database? Being able to search such a database would be particularly useful, given the presence of unique identifiers such as |doi= and |isbn=. A list of hosting articles would also be helpful.

Such a service could extend its functionality to display a citation graph, something analogous to what I believe Mendeley and ResearchGate provide (but without the social networking). I tried searching the Wikipedia help space and I tried googling for this information, but drew a blank both times. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RobbieIanMorrison: In short, no, they are just a standardised format within the source of each article. To MediaWiki, the core software used for WP, they are just yet another template. That's not to say that someone, somewhere has not parsed all 5 million articles into a database, extracting the references into a database, or that it couldn't be done; it's just not something that is done by MediaWiki itself. Part of the reason for standardised templates for them is to enable machine parsing of the data. Murph9000 (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Murph9000. Many thanks for your comment. I think external parsing, for a subset of Wikipedia at least, may have already been done by third parties. I recall reading a paper about Wikipedia citations in the chemistry literature – a process which must have been automated. Perhaps this search feature is something that a Wikipedia contributor might like to write? Again many thanks for your prompt reply. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murph9000 and anyone else reading this. Please see meta:WikiCite 2016#Building a central repository of citations in Wikidata. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long filenames

Having just paid my annual contribution of £100 to Wikimedia, I feel emboldened to express my only serious criticism.

Like a great many of your users, I download Wikipedia/Wikisource articles to my files as building blocks of my education/research.

In order to be backed up/copied, file names must be limited to a maximum length. Thus, LONG FILE NAMES are a problem, and increasingly so.

Could Wikimedia not drop such phrases as ‘the free encyclopedia’, or ‘the free library’ from its file names – and in all languages? This would help the problem enormously.

Obviously, this is technically possible. Among the languages I use most, only English and Spanish use the long extension. German, French and Italian do not. Without the extension, English and German do not conflict, because they use different hyphens before the word 'Wikipedia'. English and Italian do conflict, but this could be corrected by altering the characters - or combination of characters - in front of the word 'Wikipedia' in the file name. All potential conflicts could be avoided in this way.

Wikimedia is so well established now, so well grounded in our culture, that it no longer needs to advertise the fact that it is free. All the world knows that now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.205.173 (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having just done an extensive, but random, sampling of the numerous languages which treat the subject of 'William Shakespeare' in Wikipedia, it is clear that the majority do not require an extra phrase approximating to 'the free encyclopedia'. The words 'Wikipedia' or 'Wikisource' are sufficient identifiers not needing elaboration. For the sake of consistency, tidiness -- and shorter file names -- could not Wikimedia's technicians make the small changes needed to achieve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.205.173 (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Pagetitle adds code like this to the html: <title>Example - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title>. See HTML element#title tag. Many browsers display it on the tab where the page is viewed. It's not meant as a file name but browsers may suggest it as the file name when a page is saved. Your browser may have an option to change the name before saving. You can also try to save articles via the "Download as PDF" option under "Print/export" in the left pane, but it doesn't always work. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In order to be backed up/copied, file names must be limited to a maximum length" eh.. I would seriously consider fixing your back up strategy instead :) Long filenames are part of modern computing. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with that. It seems extremely odd to me that something like "PAGENAME - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" should actually be longer than a technical limit on any modern computer system. Any backup technology which can't handle that seems to me like it is probably dangerously obsolete. It has absolutely nothing to do with conflicting filenames on the Wikimedia servers, as there are no files or filenames (it's all stored as database records, and in a way that makes such conflicts impossible between the different sites), no conflicts to avoid or solve. It's also correct to say that the page title is not intended to be a convenient filename, although many browsers will present it as a default when you save a page. On all modern systems, it is quite possible to use scripts to batch rename files, stripping unwanted things like that from their names. Murph9000 (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with your request, but I think Wikipedia is doing this on purpose for branding/SEO reasons. I posted this question to know whether a browser extension could solve the problem. Cheers! Syced (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So this has been changed now to Article name - Wikipedia. [1]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Avery Actor

There used to be a Wikipedia entry for me. As an actor this is a very helpful resource but for some reason it has been deleted? The 'speedy deletion' section cites a couple of anonymous users who clearly haven't done much research on me. Could the page please be reinstated. Thanks 2.125.91.38 (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link:- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Avery (actor) - article was deleted 23 months ago - there may be more references by now, - Arjayay (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I 'talk' to someone or find out who confirmed the deletion? I might add I didn't create the page for myself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.91.38 (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2.125.91.38, You can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. The link above may clarify. If not, note that article did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that you meet the notability guidelines. It is now Wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have independent verifiable references, as defined in the link, or they will be deleted. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the you, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what you claim or interviewing you or your management. As an actor this is a very helpful resource; maybe, but it's not our job to promote your career.

The page has been deleted following the linked deletion discussion, and cannot be reinstated, although there is nothing to stop a new article being created, although that will also be deleted if the previous problems remain. I wasn't involved in deleting this, incidentally, but I'm an admin so I can see the deleted text Jimfbleak (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. very clear explanation. Have looked into Wikipedia a bit more as a result of this and what you say makes sense. I have no idea who created the original page, was quite flattering at the time, maybe they will have another go. 2.125.91.38 (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images policy?

I could not find a policy about images, is there one that I missed?

Topics:

How many images is too many images?
How far are "illustrations" OK, for instance can an image of a cat to added (with explaining label) to illustrate the article about a tiger if there is no tiger picture available?
What picture of a person should be at the top of their article, smiling or crying, if of equal quality?
etc

I spend a lot of time adding illustrations to unillustrated articles, and recently I get reverted often (sometimes by IPs, sometimes by established users), so I would like to read our policy to understand my mistakes. Thanks! Syced (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Syced: The most obvious guideline would be Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Have a look at that, and come back to us if you still have questions. It's very often going to be a case by case basis, whether a particular picture is needed or excessive for a particular article. There could also be a variety of reasons behind your changes being reverted, so be sure to discuss it with the person who reverted you, if their edit summary doesn't make it reasonably clear or you don't agree with them. In some cases, you may just need to discuss your changes on the article's talk page, either to explain your reasoning or address concerns. A reasonable number of good quality, non-repetitive, and relevant images should generally be welcome on most articles (assuming no copyright and licensing issues), as we are an illustrated encyclopaedia. Defining "reasonable number" precisely is close to impossible. Relevance is extremely important, they should enhance the overall information presented, and none of us want articles filled with irrelevant things. A picture of another species of cat on an article about a tiger is probably not likely to be viewed as useful by the majority, unless the adjacent text is discussing that other species in relation to tigers or discussing broader feline issues illustrated by it. Murph9000 (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Syced (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help chat

Where is the help chat room I was in yesterday? I can't remember how I got there. Someone. Anyone. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nina Hornsby (talk • contribs) 13:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nina, I can't be certain from the limited information you gave, but try Wikipedia:Help desk/chat. If that's not what you are looking for, please give us some more detail, or just ask your questions here. Murph9000 (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My user talk page keeps attracting posts in the wrong places

See here, here and here for example. Is there a way to reduce the amount of posts that end up in the wrong place? I don't think the age of that post is the actual problem, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem may be that the Teahouse perversely teaches new editors to put new messages at the top of the page, contrary to the general practice elsewhere in Wikipedia. But as you suspected, I think that the "Talkback" heading at the top of your page may have led some to treat that as an invitation to them to post there; hopefully when that's archived that part of the problem will go away. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tool for changing default sort order of existing Wiki tables?

Hi team, I need to change the default sort order of the rows several, large Wikipedia tables. Sspecifically, I need to reverse the chronological order of these large tables. This would be extremely time consuming to do by hand. Is there a tool which can automate the "rewriting"/"reordering"/"resorting" the default sort order of a Wikipedia table?

Note: I know about sortable tables, and precisely, those are the ones I need to change the default order to. Thanks for any insights, hugely appreciated.--TuCove (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a simple table (no colors, etc), taking the table, pasting it into excel sorting it in the order you want and copying the excel table to a the tool used to create wikipedia tables might work. Another option would be taking the source, dropping it into a unix file, using one of the tricks mentioned in http://stackoverflow.com/questions/742466/how-can-i-reverse-the-order-of-lines-in-a-file (including tac, tail, awk or sed) and pasting it back.Naraht (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Sigma Kappa

Kappa Sigma Kappa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Editors, I am requesting that you add information to your published list of Kappa Sigma Kappa Fraternity from your list, the Illinois Eta Chapter of Kappa Sigma Kappa was founded in 1956. It closed in 1961. I was initiated into that chapter, in it's first pledge class in 1957 at Northern Illinois University. I now serve as a member of the Board of Trustees for Northern Illinois University. Please feel free to contact me at <contact details redacted>.

Sincerely,

Robert T. Marshall, Jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:244:4900:7740:3C00:E94E:C6CA:E982 (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Marshall, contacting offline is generally not done, but I'll be happy to work with you. I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities. It appears that the time prior to the merger with Theta Xi were somewhat Chaotic for Kappa Sigma Kappa, and it doesn't surprise me that information was lost between the 1957 and 1963 Baird's (which would have been the most likely way for that information to be retrieved for Wikipedia. Please let me know a reference for this (In the Fraternity Archives at UIUC or a yearbook etc) either on my page at User:Naraht or at Talk:Kappa Sigma Kappa.Naraht (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Walker Sports broadcaster

Alison Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please could you remove my date of birth from my Wikipedia page? It is affecting my work prospects.

Many thanks

Alison Walker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alison Walker (talk • contribs) 17:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have already removed it. Theroadislong (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. If you are thinking of search result pages from a search engine like Google, Yahoo or Bing then either they will update their search blurbs automatically next time they visit the article, or they display text not taken from Wikipedia (see Template:HD/GKG about the latter). PrimeHunter (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstated date of birth. Its just life and WP is not here to support a (fading?) career. Re: Kate Humble interview: 'You can't just blame ageism when you aren't getting work' , Alan Titchmarsh: Women on television can't complain about ageism, they make hay when they're young , et cetera. As they say in the US “When you're hot, you're hot / And when you're not, you're not." The OP may like and choose to just reinvent herself like Mary Tyler Moore and others did and do. Actually, the whole article is worthy of a AfD as non notable personality -which would solve this whole issue. --Aspro (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD may very well be called for, but until then: it's deeply uncool to re-add unsourced info that you know is disputed by the article subject, just for spite. I've removed it. Don't re-add it without a source. Also, try not to be a dick to people when they ask for help on the help desk. Perhaps consider unwatchlisting this page? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to weigh in on this topic with a yay or nay for inclusion of DOB, but just out of curiosity (having not known the subject before seeing this post) a simple Google search with the following: "Alison" "Walker" "Broadcaster" resulted in a hit on the first page for an interview with the subject where she revealed her age verbally within the article[2]. Judging from the publication's year, wouldn't one be able to surmise the year DOB, at least? I see this as a recurring problem for any sleuthing editor with an hour or two to kill in search of a proper source to back up a very common bit of information customarily following a subject's name on Wiki. I do not agree with the harshness of the above editor's approach and view of the predicament the subject finds herself in; but what recourse does one have in these matters? I ask out of curiosity and ignorance. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I did a ctrl-F search for "age" and "old" and "years", just in case the age was buried in there somewhere, but the way it's phrased in the article I didn't find it. You're right, User:Maineartists (although I note that the year in the article was wrong, according to this source, and (interestingly) so was the age tentatively added by the OP). I'm not going to re-add the correct age, because I don't see the importance in light of someone claiming to be the article subject objecting. But I won't revert if someone else does (preferably with better motivation). I imagine it can really, really suck to have an article on WP. And have little teenagers with no life experience smugly mansplaining to you how you're just being silly and women aren't discriminated against due to age. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aspro, your comments are totally off-topic and inappropriate, please delete them (only the first sentence and last sentence are on-topic). We are not here to tell people how to live their lives. I agree that AfD might be an option to consider though, if no better references are added. Syced (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it considered harsh? Also, what ever happened to thick skin she is supposed to have developed. [3], So really, why do you consider my comments harsh? For even she says : "Women on TV are always going to be scrutinised for their appearance. Why not turn it to your advantage, I say?” and so has done so, by her own admission and is only now complaining.[4] What she hasn’t provided is any RS reference to explain why the math don't add up. By all means, we will make the Bio as accurate as possible but WP is not a CV promotional vehicle at the beg-and-call of the subject. If she had provide this at the first instance, this debate ( I respectfully point out) would not be wasting our time. The ball is back her court. Finally, on the point of harshness. A journalist doesn't get any were if they are not 'pushy”. Even if a family suffers a bereavement of a type which journalist consider news worthy. They camp out in front of the house, keep knocking on the door, harris & question anyone that arrives or leaves the house, look over the back garden walls etc. They have to have thick skins not to empathize with the grief those affected... but I suppose you think that's OK and not harsh... In the news industry you 'straight-talk', which is what I have done - in her own vernacular. All we need is a RS of her birth date – problem solved.--Aspro (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just focus on finding verifiable information and adding it to articles :-) Harsh or not, personal life advice is just off-topic here. Syced (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]