Help desk
< July 29	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 31 >

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.

July 30[edit]

fix footnote error[edit]

There are two errors in this article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Katz#References Footnotes 1 and 6 incorrectly cite the last name of Katherine Millett. The mistake is obvious if you follow the cites' links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmillett (talk • contribs) 01:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out; I have edited both those references to match the sources. The text you needed to edit was up in the article, not in the "References" section itself, as described in Help:Referencing for beginners. -- John of Reading (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Wanderlei Silva[edit]

Reference help requested.

I don't see what I did wrong. If this is wrong please delete it or allow me to delete it. Thanks.

On June 10, 2014 it was later reported that Chael Sonnen failed a drug test and would not be allowed to fight on UFC 175 card, as a result of the failed drug test Sonnen announced his retirement from the sport the following day.

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.foxsports.com/ufc/story/ufc-s-chael-sonnen-fails-second-drug-test-testing-positive-for-hgh-epo-062914|title=UFC's Chael Sonnen fails second drug test, testing positive for HGH, EPO | FOX Sports|publisher=foxsports.com|author=marc raimondi|accessdate=2014-06-29|date=2014-06-29}}</ref> Thanks, Topblackcat (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Topblackcat: It was fixed here. What you had done incorrectly was use a pipe character "|" within one of the fields of the cite. The pipe is used to separate the fields of the cite. So, when one is used inside a field, it confuses the software because it expects the next field to show up after the pipe. Dismas|^(talk) 05:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block limit (out of interest)[edit]

On Wikipedia is there a specific rule where if you have received more than a certain amount of blocks then you will be blocked indefinitely/forever? I am just interested as I have looked at block logs and saw some users were blocked multiple times. 電子888^說-TALK 06:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, no specific rule. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy for further details. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AndyTheGrump! 電子888^說-TALK 07:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan[edit]

Dear Wiki volunteers,

I work for UNAMA and wanted to make some corrections and update the article, but didn't work somehow. Whenever I click the "Edit" button, it takes me to a page with the article text appearing in javascript which I can't understand. Can anyone please help me?

There are a number of updates to be made, including the sentence "Reviewed annually, this mandate has been altered over time to reflect the needs of the country and was extended for another year until 19 March, 2014, by Resolution 2096." UNAMA got its new mandate on 25 March this year and the information there is obsolete.

Many thanks and regards, Tilak Pokharel UNAMA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unamawiki (talk • contribs) 07:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff you see when you click the "Edit" button is not javascript, it is Wikipedia markup language (I don't know if that's the official name for it). And for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan article, the first screenful is hard to understand, I recommend not trying to edit it. But if you scroll down, you will find stuff which directly relates to the content of the article, apart from having <ref>.....</ref> tags embedded in it - again, I recommend leaving these alone. So it should not be difficult to find the sentence that needs updating, and to change it. Maproom (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

whatever happened to the separate edit and edit source buttons?--117.201.33.226 (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The separate edit and edit source buttons were in use for the period when the VisualEditor had been deployed. It was then realised that the VisualEditor software was unproven and had many problems, and the beta version was changed back to being available only as an option for those who chose to use it. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M.wikipedia[edit]

How come I can't edit en.m.wikipedia.org "anonymously"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.33.226 (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Foundation experiment, see [1]. According to this VP thread it seems it was not meant to actually prevent IP editing and was turned off earlier this month. I don't know what's going on now, either it's a bug or the Foundation are running yet another unannounced experiment. SpinningSpark 11:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 129#What about mobile users?? which seems to imply that my first answer is wrong. SpinningSpark 11:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

What exactly is a "Bibliography" in a Wikipedia article for? When should a source be put in this section rather than in "References" as a footnote? I have seen at least one instance of a source being in both the Bibliography section and as a footnotes under References, where it appears not as the usual "author surname/page number" (referring to the Bibliography), but as a full footnote with all parameters given (i.e. name, title, date, publisher, access date, etc.). --P123ct1 (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a consistent use of bibliography sections across Wikipedia. The way I use it is to provide the full citations for shortened citations previously used in the references section. Others use it for general references and further reading. Still other articles use it for a bibliography of the publications of the subject of the article. Per WP:CITEVAR you should follow the already established style of the article you are editing. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Standard appendices and footers. SpinningSpark 13:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC) and 13:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan 2[edit]

Dear Wiki volunteers, I somehow can't edit because the entire text appears in java script and I could not work around it. As UNAMA got its new mandate in March this year some information there need to be updated, starting with "...was extended for another year until 19 March, 2014, by Resolution 2096.[2]" in the first para. This should have been "...was extended for another year until 17 March 2015, by Resolution 2145 (2014)."

Any advice on how I could edit it myself would be much appreciated.

All best, Tilak Pokharel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpokharel (talk • contribs) 13:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the responses to the same question above. Maproom (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Hi there Eddie bayers here Would like to change my image.

File:Sakaename.jpg

Eddie bayers

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayersjr (talk • contribs) 15:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There does not appear to be an image with that name. Have you uploaded it to Wikicommons? Please see WP:UPLOAD for instructions. ... discospinster _talk 15:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question on how to proceed in starting an article: I'd like to avoid a COI.[edit]

To preface: I am not entirely sure this is where I should be.

I am closely associated with a specialized law journal at my law school, and its editorial board has noticed that it is the only such journal at our school without a Wikipedia article. I've done some background research and I'm reasonably certain the journal meets the notability guideline for journals; it has at least about 150 citations in legal works, over 3/4 of which are in law reviews and journals; given that the journal is about 15 years old and in a very niche, specialized subject area, this is quite respectable. To my knowledge, it continues to receive about 10 additional citations each year.

I have a few concerns about starting this article, however. The first is a lack of reliable sources other than the journal's website, a fairly standard problem for academic journals; however, since at this stage the editorial board seems to only want to include some very basic, uncontroversial information (location, date of establishment, identity of the Editor-in-Chief, publication schedule, broad statement of the journal's subject matter, etc.), that may not be a problem.

The bigger issue, however, is conflict of interest. Although it would seem the journal probably squeaks by in terms of notability, I seriously doubt that anyone without some kind of significant connection to the journal (whether by virtue of being a current member or an alumnus) would actually bother to create the article. I must emphasize that this journal is extremely specialized; although it is quite reputable in its field, its field is small enough that it is hard to imagine someone else will go and do it. (Lawyers, law professors, and law students, as a rule, are too busy to be bothered to do something like this; even if they think it's a worthy project, there's a sort of assumption that "someone else'll do it.") But of course, if no one but a member or alumnus could be bothered, that creates conflict of interest concerns. On the other hand, given that the journal intends to only include fairly uncontroversial information, at least for the time being, it seems to me like concerns regarding actual conflicts of interest seem to be minimal.

Of course, it never hurts to be cautious, and I would like some advice on whether this (fairly small-scale) project can proceed, and if so, how.

Thanks! Lockesdonkey (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I think this is a fine place to ask, (any comments from other users on where this should have been asked that are better are welcome) and I'd like to thank you for both your research into the specific notability guidelines for the article and the recognition of the conflict of interest. My suggestion is that you use the Wikipedia:Articles for Creation to create a Draft and have it go through that process (which will pretty much eliminate COI issues). Once you create the draft, if you'll let me know personally, I'll check it out.Naraht (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may help...Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide--Moxy (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your help. I'll try to have something for AFC fairly soon (it's sort of a busy season in the law student world right now). I particularly appreciate your offer to review the article, Naraht. Lockesdonkey (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corfu (city)[edit]

Corfu is also a sister city with Bethlehem Pennsylvania USA, since March 23, 2013

Corfu (city) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.149.110 (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling us – I have added Bethlehem to the list in the Corfu article. Maproom (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purchase of encyclopedia[edit]

Hello.

I would like to "purchase" the entirety of the contents of Wikipedia, for usage outside of internet accessibility. Is there a provision for doing so?

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.122.160 (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't buy it, but you can use the content for free (with conditions). GB fan 16:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Database download if you really want to download the entire encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the answer above, Wikipedia, or a subset of it, is available offline in a number of forms. See WikiReader, Wikipedia for Schools, and Wikipedia:Version 0.8. SpinningSpark 19:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the contrary above, see: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_on_CD/DVD — "KIWIX allows you to store the whole Wikipedia offline on your device, USB flash drive or DVD and access content incredibly fast." —71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Deppenschmidt[edit]

I am trying to evolve the stub on Buddy Depppenschmidt into an accurate and concise article for Wikipedia. It was up briefly and then reverted back to the stub. Please help! Thank you, Marjorie Danciger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marjorieagent (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC) — Marjorieagent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It looks like your edits to Buddy Deppenschmidt removed all the wiki-markup (headings, formatting, bolding, bullets, etc.) RJFJR (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is the easiest explanation of wiki-markup, but there is Help:Wiki markup. RJFJR (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits were made by User:Anderick99, not by the OP, who is User:Marjorieagent. If you (the OP) are the same person please clarify that on your user page and explain why you are using two different accounts. SpinningSpark 18:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly welcome additional content in our articles when possible. However, those additions need to follow our rules about content and formatting and referencing, and you're not allowed to simply replace our existing article with an improperly formatted article written in a marketing style rather than an encyclopedic one. So your changes can't stand if they're not compliant with our rules — but if you were to format your additions properly, then that version would be welcome. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating A Page For A College[edit]

Hello,

I am in the process of creating a Wikipedia entry for a local college. I have written nearly all of the content. My question is this: is it acceptable that most of my citations for the information (programs offered, history, etc.) link to the college's own website? If not, what other types of sources should I seek out to verify information which, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't really appear anywhere else on the Internet?

Thanks! Sfflaherty (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfflaherty (talk • contribs) 17:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sfflaherty: It is okay to use sources from the actual college, but having other sources, such as from books and newspapers, is strongly recommended. You may want to check out WP:RS. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. A college should have a significant amount of material published about it by other, more impartial entities such as books, magazines and newspapers. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't show any edits for your account other than two to the help desk. Are you creating it in a personal area or Draft: or offline?Naraht (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Utagawa Hiroshige[edit]

I have a picture I inherited from my great Aunt Helen Anderson of a wood block print of the tea houses of either Edo or Kyoto, but I believe it's Edo, by Utagawa Hiroshige which she brought back from her travels to Japan in the late 1800s. As far as I know it is one of a kind and is framed and hanging on my wall. I have taken digital pictures of it and I'm wondering if Wikipedia would like me to upload them for use on your page of information about Utagawa Hiroshige. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.181.105 (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it is your photo, and you are the only person to own it (i.e. it is not copyrighted) feel free to upload it to the Commons and add it to a suitable article(s). Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of an image is unrelated to ownership of copyright in that image. But if the wood block print was created before 1900 (I think before 1923, in fact) then any copyright has expired, and we encourage you to upload a digital version to Wikimedia Commons. Maproom (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in the news - where to post[edit]

Where is the section of Wikipedia in which to post articles that mention WP like this one? I thought I remembered seeing one but cannot locate it. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. SpinningSpark 20:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that for Main Page news items? I suggest instead Wikipedia:Press coverage 2014. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks like the Wikipedia:Press coverage 2014 page is what I was looking for. Bahooka (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't read the question properly. That's what you get for trying to watch telly and edit in the commercial breaks. SpinningSpark 21:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen or en-dash?[edit]

Mid-1920s, late-1920s: (a) en-dash or hyphen? (b) where is this in MOS? (for date forms like that). --P123ct1 (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor P123ct1: (a) I believe it would be a hyphen for "mid-1920s" and just a space for "late 1920s" ("late" is an adjective, not a prefix). (b) MOS:HYPHEN #2 covers prefixes (which I presume include "mid-"). Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in MOS under HYPHEN #2, and nothing in MOS on how to handle the example I gave. It is a big gap which really should be covered. --P123ct1 (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it's not a question of style, but standard usage. See hyphen and dash for the difference.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot about hyphens and dashes in MOS (including standard usage), but not this. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@P123ct1: Are you using "mid-1920s" and "late-1920s" as compound modifiers in an attributive position (e.g. mid-1920s fashion; late-1920s music)? If so, use a hyphen, not a dash; see Compound modifier and English compound#Hyphenated compound modifiers. — Jaydiem (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaydiem: As an adjective, you mean. No. It seems obvious to me that as an adjective, it will be the hyphenated version, e.g. "late-nineties Britain". Reference to long, complex and detailed Wiki discussions of "compound modifiers", etc - which are more suited to advanced textbooks on English grammar - isn't going to be much help to the average editor who does not have all day to read exhaustive Wiki help pages and wants to make a quick check. We need to have the information succinctly on the MOS pages, along with all the other succinct information on hyphens and em- and en-dashes, with examples. I couldn't find any examples of the way I meant, using the term as a noun, but I may have missed it. Here are some examples of the noun form I was referring to: "In the mid-eighties, this is how it was done", "During the late-seventies, this happened", "In the early-80s", "In mid-1984", "Between late 2006 and mid-2007", "through mid- and late 2009", "the advance in Iraq in mid-2004", "until mid-October 2006". Most of these examples come from Wikipedia articles. I suspect they should all be hyphenated, not en-dashed, but can't be sure, having looked at the info in MOS. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean as compound nouns? Well heck, that's easy. Asking whether to use a hyphen or an en dash in early 1980s is like asking the same question about hot coffee or fast car: all you have is a simple adjective modifying a simple noun, so there's neither a hyphen nor a dash. As for mid-, well, it's an ordinary prefix, not a separate word, so of course it calls for a hyphen. I wouldn't have thought the Manual of Style really needs to point these things out, but I understand that opinions may differ. In any case, I would encourage you to take this up at the MOS Talk page. — Jaydiem (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaydiem: It may be plain to you, but you might be surprised to learn that there is quite a lot of confusion about this among users. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I understand that opinions may differ. I'll be happy to discuss this with you further on either your talk page or mine, if you like. If you've found a legitimate shortcoming in the guidance provided in the Manual of Style, then I'd like to help you improve it. Cheers, — Jaydiem (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]