Help desk
< July 6	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 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.

July 7[edit]

How to add pictures[edit]

Hello,

How may I add pictures into a Wikipedia Article? I am new and would like to add a picture (logo) to this article that I have been editing.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr52011 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr52011: Since that logo has a non-trivial graphical element (the bulldog drawing) it is subject to copyright law and cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. However, it can be uploaded to here at the English Wikipedia. First, get an image file of the logo on your computer. Then, find the link on any page in the left-hand column that says "upload file". Click the link and follow the directions to upload the logo. When it asks for a justification for using a copyrighted image, pick the "fair-use logo" option. At the end of the upload process, there are terse instruction for adding your uploaded image to your article. If you get lost, come back here. -Arch dude (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proper way to align a tree chart template?[edit]

Hey there! I have created a tree chart on European Space Agency Science Programme in order to illustrate the governance of the program. It was my intention to align this chart to the right side of the article and floated around the text much like a thumbnail image, but in my many attempts using <div>-based solutions and various alignment templates, I simply cannot find a way to do so. I've added File:ESA Headquarters in Paris, France.JPG in the place of where I wanted the chart to be, for the time being. Is there any solution to the problem that I'm having, or is the {{Tree chart}} series of templates fundamentally incapable of being aligned and floated? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilipTerryGraham: Hi!. I tried

   {{Chart top|ESA Science Programme advisory structure<ref name="cosmos-2"/><ref name="cosmos-3"/><ref name="esr-2"/>|width=500px|collapsed=no|align=right}}

I put "align=right" in the {{chart top}} ~~section~~ template. (instead of putting "|align=right" in the {{Tree chart/start}}, it makes sense since "align right" inside of the "chart", would align it right within the chart and not the page). Like this right? I hope this makes sense and is helpful. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 07:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@OkayKenji: This is awesome; thanks for your work! I've credited you in my edit summary! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gender neutrality[edit]

The Category:American cattlemen begins with: "This page lists American men […]", and continues with "[…] and women". Piping has no effect and functions only with an initial colon ":", as in [[:Category:American cattlemen|Category:American cattlewomen]]. --Tobias Epos (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tobias Epos: Maybe you should create Category:American cattlewomen as a separate category. Make it a co-equal category with the cattlemen by making it a subcategory of the same categories as the cattlemen category, and also make it a subcategory of the cattlemen, only because the term "cattlemen" sometimes includes cattlewomen. It's the best we can do. English is messy. -Arch dude (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. --Tobias Epos (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tobias Epos: You could also propose a change to Cattle owners (or similar) at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Wikipedia:Categorization of people and Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Gender are relevant policies. Generally gender specific categories are only used where gender has a specific relation to the topic.TSventon (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already created Category:American cattlewomen as a separate category. Shall I apply for a merger? --Tobias Epos (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tobias Epos:, yes rename Category:American cattlemen and merge Category:American cattlewomen as explained in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Merger seems to be for articles. I don't think there is a need for separate male and female categories in this case. You can do both in one request and it takes one week. I suggest you check if there is a better name than Cattle owners, which was the first one I found. I requested deletion of three old categories recently and it was not difficult. It shouldn't be controversial but it would be good to have a discussion in case there is a better new name.TSventon (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See: American cattlemen, American cattlewomen. Thank you. --Tobias Epos (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Category:American cattlemen needs to be renamed rather than merged to preserve its history. The target should be Category:American cattle owners. Also could you add Category:Cattlemen and its subcategories? TSventon (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split a paragraph[edit]

I split the following paragraph from the article "Antlion" at the sentence beginning with "[w]hen" (footnotes removed):

"In trap-building species, an average-sized larva digs a pit about 2 in (5 cm) deep and 3 in (7.5 cm) wide at the edge. This behavior has also been observed in the Vermileonidae (Diptera), whose larvae dig the same sort of pit to feed on ants. Having marked out the chosen site by a circular groove, the antlion larva starts to crawl backwards, using its abdomen as a plough to shovel up the soil. By the aid of one front leg, it places consecutive heaps of loosened particles upon its head, then with a smart jerk throws each little pile clear of the scene of operations. Proceeding thus, it gradually works its way from the circumference towards the center. As it slowly moves round and round, the pit gradually gets deeper and deeper, until the slope angle reaches the critical angle of repose (that is, the steepest angle the sand can maintain, where it is on the verge of collapse from slight disturbance), and the pit is solely lined by fine grains. By digging in a spiral when constructing its pit, the antlion minimises the time needed to complete the pit. When the pit is completed, the larva settles down at the bottom, buried in the soil with only the jaws projecting above the surface, often in a wide-opened position on either side of the very tip of the cone. The steep-sloped trap that guides prey into the larva's mouth while avoiding crater avalanches is one of the simplest and most efficient traps in the animal kingdom. The fine grain lining ensures that the avalanches which carry prey are as large as possible. Since the sides of the pit consist of loose sand at its angle of repose, they afford an insecure foothold to any small insects that inadvertently venture over the edge, such as ants. Slipping to the bottom, the prey is immediately seized by the lurking antlion; if it attempts to scramble up the treacherous walls of the pit, it is speedily checked in its efforts and brought down by showers of loose sand which are thrown at it from below by the larva. By throwing up loose sand from the bottom of the pit, the larva also undermines the sides of the pit, causing them to collapse and bring the prey with them. Thus, it does not matter whether the larva actually strikes the prey with the sand showers."

Could anyone please tell me if this was the right thing to do? (Edit: Sorry for being initially unsigned and not asking if it was the right thing to do.)--Thylacine24 (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thylacine24: I like your split, but it's matter of editorial judgement and you are just as much an editor as any of the rest of us. There is no need to ask us here at the help desk. I suggest you quit asking here. Instead, assume that the WP:BRD process will operate if some other editor disagrees with your editorial decisions. It is quite efficient and has provided good results over the 16 years or so of Wikipedia's history. Please do keep editing as you have: you are doing a good job. Please do come back here if you have any issues that you feel will not be handled well by WP:BRD or some other process or for any other question on using or editing Wikipedia. -Arch dude (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try to do that. (Edit: And thanks.)--Thylacine24 (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I know that I've previously gotten this response here, but I felt that this was as good a time as any to try to start refraining from asking. That said, this may or may not be the last time I post here for something that doesn't require asking.--Thylacine24 (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, the help desk editors never make misteaks :-). Thanks for your work on copyediting. -Arch dude (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot make a short description for a (certain) Waray Wikipedia article using the Wikipedia App (even though I can make shortdescs in other WarWiki articles)[edit]

Hello!

I would like to ask about editing articles using the Wikipedia app (I'm using Android). I was making short descriptions / title descriptions for articles from the Waray Wikipedia using the Wikipedia app I just downloaded and logged in today. As far as I know, the short description template is not yet available in Waray Wikipedia, but through the app, I can create short descriptions for Waray articles without editing the source code itself.

I was successful in making short descriptions for some Waray Wikipedia articles through the Wikipedia app, EXCEPT for one article. The WarWiki article in question is BTS. I just don't understand why the short description / title description editing button is missing below the article title, in contrast to the other WarWiki articles in the app. Since the short description / title description editing button is present in the other WarWiki articles in the app, I can make shortdescs for these articles through the app itself without editing their source code (considering that the template is still not available in Waray Wikipedia). But since it is missing in the aforementioned article, I cannot make a shortdesc for it, as if the page itself is prohibiting me to do so (just my hinch).

I do hope I can find answers for this. Thanks in advance!

Nairb.Idi9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nairb.Idi9: Waray Wikipedia gets its short descriptions from Wikidata. The BTS article is not linked to a Wikidata item, so cannot have a short description. Danski454 (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have just linked the article to a Wikidata item, so it should now work. --Danski454 (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Danski454: Oh I see... Thanks a lot! Really learned some stuff about Wikidata today. Nairb.Idi9 (talk)

@Danski454: It still the same though. I still can't make a short desc for the article. —Nairb.Idi9 (talk)

Very big Mistake[edit]

Hi, in Mukesh Ambani's article there is a silly mistake. In the infobox the year in which he married Nita Ambani is 1985 and in the personal life paragraph his marriage year is indicated as 1984. This mistake brought a big question mark on the reliability of Wikipedia's article. It means that we cannot trust Wikipedia and all the information present in it are simply incorrect. Thanks. (223.230.147.252 (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Hi! Despite what you may think, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. It summarises what reliable sources say about a subject. The content is also created and changed by editors, who are just regular users like yourself. If you can see an issue such as the one above, you can usually go ahead and make the changes neccesary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a standard wikipedian's excuse.--TMCk (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)If you see any errors in an article, you are welcome to fix them, or point them out on the article talk page. This is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, and it is possible for mistakes to occur and go undetected. We rely on people like you to point out any errors.

Also, you shouldn't trust Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This is why references are required, so users like you can examine them and evaluate them for yourself. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's just a standard wikipedian's excuse.--TMCk (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find reliable sources to prove that - then please be bold and fix it yourself. If you need help finding references, ask at the reference desk. Seagull123 Φ 20:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again, the same standard wikipedian's excuse.--TMCk (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed both dates. The first was unreferenced and the second was not in the cited reference. Per WP:BLP challenged information about living persons MUST be removed immediately. -Arch dude (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now here, finally, there is someone taking their work serious and actually looked into it.--TMCk (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

found ref, corrected and re-added date. -Arch dude (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And now they fixed the mistake. Thank you!--TMCk (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, but you could have done this yourself. This is not "my work". Like all of the other 150,000+ active editors this month, I'm an unpaid volunteer who does whatever the heck I feel like. In fact, I did this as an exersize to see how difficult it would have been for you to do it. -Arch dude (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were the first to actually look into it and then fixed it while 3 editors before you didn't do anything at all. So yes, this credit is yours to take home.--TMCk (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I came here after the fact. I'm not the OP.--TMCk (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note The OP appears to be the same editor who recently made multiple requests regarding Shamsheer Vayalil. Eagleash (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Update for WWOR-TV right away[edit]

Dear Help Desk, 7/7/19

 Here is the Update that still needs to get done right away On The en.wikipedia.org On The WWOR-TV Page

The Old my9 Logo needs to get taken off right away thats because its the Former Outdate It Logo & The New MY9NJ.com Logo thats On The New Web Site at www.my9nj.com thats on the top left needs to get put on right away & Would you please keep that in mind & don,t forget to do this update right away & don,t forget to take care of it right away & don,t forget. Please Write Back to my New E-mail address is (redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:102:34F9:E97C:6AAD:3C41:617E (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not wise to post your email here, for your own security. If you want to allow others to email you, you can create an account and fix your preferences to allow others to email you without revealing your address, at least initially. Also, most Wikipedia business should be conducted here on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the logo at WWOR-TV? If so, you can help upload the new logo - see WP:LOGO for guidance on how to do so. Seagull123 Φ 20:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to enter a new word that currently does not exist in Wikipedia[edit]

I want to enter a new word that currently does not exist in Wikipedia The word is evolutionize my definition - to grow yourself, to become a Renaisance man

Contributed by Donald C. Moore

Don't. Please read WP:MADEUP and WP:NOT. -Arch dude (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and more specifically, WP:NAD. Maproom (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and does not include dictionary definitions (see the link provided by Maproom above). Our sister project Wiktionary, however is a dictionary and welcomes them. I've gone ahead and suggested an entry be created there for "evolutionize" (since it's in the OED, so should really be there anyway). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]