Help desk
< May 31	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 2 >

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.

June 1

CSD A7

Resolved

– Article must assert subject's notability. If it even has a vague/hoax-y assertion, off to AFD it goes. (PeterSymonds's reply, basically) Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 18:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be the right place to ask this, but I seem to be having some trouble understanding CSD A7. Like when an article should be tagged with it or not. I've been around for a while, but I can't seem to get a handle on this criteria. Any help with explaining it would be greatly appreciated. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 04:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you have seen the documentation, so my answer must branch:

If you have not seen the documentation, see: WP:CSD#A7.
If you have seen the documentation, tell us which part you did not understand, and we will explain further. Sometimes it turns out that a documentation page is unclear, and if we find out exactly which part was confusing, we can improve it for the next reader.

More information about the deletion process is at WP:EIW#Delete. You probably need to read the (many) pages that the section in WP:CSD#A7 links to, so you understand the underlying concepts of notability and so on. See WP:WWMPD for information from the perspective of the "victims" of deletion. If you are the one placing these templates on articles, no matter how much they deserve it, you should still be sensitive to what it feels like on the receiving end. --Teratornis (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This means a subject must be notable with secondary sources etc. If not it will be deleted. I think this is resolved now. StewieGriffin! • Talk 09:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. It's if the subject does not assert notability. If there is an assertion, then it can't be A7'd. Even if it's non-notable with a vague assertion of notability, it should go to AfD. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the standard for A7 isn't even that high: An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. (from WP:CSD#A7, emphasis added) – ukexpat (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vague external link

Resolved

Is there any template to indicate that an external link (used as a reference[1]) has not been specified precisely enough? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 06:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe ^{[citation needed]} ({{fact}}), followed by your "not-specified-precisely-enough" ref. StewieGriffin! • Talk 09:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or take it out completely. If it doesn't accurately verify the information, then it shouldn't be there. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I think ^{[citation needed]} could be used instead. Check out the policy page. StewieGriffin! • Talk 09:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you I'd take it out and seek out the person who put it there, perhaps via the article's talk page, and invite them to replace it if they can be more specific. Of course, if you can work out how to clarify it yourself that's even better - but leaving it with a {{fact}} template is definitely not ideal. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ideal would be to fix it, but you can tag it with {{dubious}}. A list of related tags are in the See also for {{fact}}. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Resolved

Someone has just uploaded Image:Potter.JPG It is a copyvio (http://www.theposh.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10427~1157434,00.html). Should it be marked for sd or not? Anonymous101 (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{db-imgcopyvio}}. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, added to image Anonymous101 (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI for the Help Desk volunteers

In the event we get the Avril vandal again (those who were here a moment ago, or frequent the Ref Desks, will know who I mean), memorize your Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts so that you can search through the various header templates we use to find the one that got vandalized. In this case, it was WP:HDPATROL that got hit, so don't expect it to be something obvious - if it transcludes here, it'll display here. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 13:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne attack?

Something's up; but it doesn't appear to be vandalism I can point out. I was recently at WP:ANI and had a bunch of text and a picture of Avril Lavigne cover up most of the page. Today it's on my user page and nobody has touched my userpage recently. Does anyone ese see this too? Thanks for your time. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 14:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was vandalism on the template {{userpageinfo}}. Should be fixed now. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 14:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. For a minute there I thought I was going to have to go to the Ref desk for help on a Avril virus. :) §hep • ¡Talk to me! 14:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was pretty obnoxious...it's a bit early in the morning here and I thought I was having a mental breakdown or something. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 14:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been sent to checkuser, so it should be handled shortly. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using the wikipedia articles

Hi,

Can I use the articles on wikipedia on my website? It is for educational purposes only. How should I do so? Is saying it is from wikipedia is enough?

219.93.152.12 (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. All articles are licensed under GDFL, so you can use them anywhere for any purpose. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content and WP:EIW#Reusing. --Teratornis (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

listing a person on wikipedia

how is a person listed or newly added to your encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokesya (talk • contribs) 17:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article is created by Wikipedians or people just like you or me. In order to create an article, first one must create an account (which it appears you've already done). Once you are ready to start your article, simply go to the page where you'd like to write. The easiest way to do that is to enter the person's name in the Search Box on the right, then click "Go". At that point, you can create the article. See "Your first article" for more information on this, including the Wikipedia pillars of verifiability, reliable sources, and neutral point of view.

Because you are writing an article about a person, you also need to determine if this person is notable enough for Wikipedia. Take a look at the notability requirements for people before you get started on the article. If you are writing about a living person, also take a look on our requirements on biographies of living persons. If you are planning to write about yourself, I would encourage you to think twice before doing that. See our guidelines on autobiographies for reasons why this is a bad idea. Good luck! -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 17:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might try the Article wizard to get going. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot find articles anymore. Please help me!

Hi, I am new here and I need help. I tried to find some articles about Pokemon here but every time when I click on a name of a Pokemon in List of Pokemons I get to a wrong page with only some sentences to them. I can't find the big articles of each Pokemon anymore. I am really sad because I want to inform me about some Pokemon and I thought I would find information here but I don't. :-( I am sure I saw big articles about some Pokemon some months ago when I saw this website the first time. But I can't find them anymore. :-( Please help me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.167.119.20 (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles were redirected from the Pokemon article to the list of pokemeon. This probably happended due to notability failure of the original article. Articles like Pikachu are notable enough to have it's own article. Hope this helps. -- RyRy5 (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the former content of a redirected page although it's no longer considered a part of the encyclopedia. When you click a name on List of Pokémon, the top of the page may say something like "(Redirected from Parasect)". Click the name there, then click the "history" tab, and click on the date of an older version of the page from before it was redirected. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! :-) Now I know how to find the articles about Pokemon. But I can't understand why they make it so difficult. How shall everyone find them without asking how to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.167.73.174 (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search box

Dear to whom it mat concern, can i ask that the search function could be moved to the top, underneath the wikipedia badge.

Sacavsworld (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing discussion of this at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Move the search box directly beneath the puzzle globe. Algebraist 21:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

commons flickr uploader bot

At http://toolserver.org/~magnus/tusc.php I accidentally used my commons password. I did not notice that it said not to until after I did so. How can I undo this so that I can upload from flickr.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest solution would just be to change your commons password. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same as my WP password and I would forget another password.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combining category and template search

I am interested in identifying all articles in a particular **category** that have been flagged as unverified, partially cited, or dubious. I understand how to get the list of pages linking to "Template:Unreferenced"; but I'd like to further narrow that voluminous list to articles about particular subjects. I've tried using Google Advanced Search of Wikipedia.org specifying various combinations of the "unreferenced" text, and have tried toggling the namespace boxes within Wikimedia search; nothing seems to give me enough results to satisfy me that these techniques are correct :) Does anybody have any advice for me? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.50.2 (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want WP:CATSCAN. Algebraist 22:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My wikilink doesn't work

Hi boyz, I've made this edit disambguating a wikilink. It doesn't work due to the pipe ( | ) used in it (see the 1st reference). Why does it happen? J alo 23:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hopefully fixed it, was that what you were wanting?.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 23:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tinkleheimer's fix did it, you added a | at the end of the link which made it show as a blank. You may also want into linking to the wikisource equivalent of the page using [[Wikisource:Germania|Germania]] Germania. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I've supposed it was made automatically. On it.wiki does. Really thanks. J alo 20:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]