Help desk
< June 4	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 6 >

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 5

CSD criteria explanation

I recently nominated the article Lisa kowalski for CSD under A7 but I want to make sure that I am understand the criteria correctly before I do any further nominations. What exactly does it mean to "assert significance?" The article states: "Lisa Kowalski (born on 2 March 1988) is an Australian Actress born in Sydney, Australia." Does the fact that it says she is an actress assert significance? The way I am reading it is that the article should say something like "...and is best known for her work with blahblahblah." Is my interpretation correct or is simply stating that someone is something enough to pass CSD? Thanks N^oformation ^Talk 02:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there are rules of thumb about when we include actors in Wikipedia. They are not the sort of person who automatically get a page. In this case asserting significance would be mention of awards, multiple major roles or a noticeable effect on society. Basically, anything that would meet WP:BIO guidelines. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While asserting something that meets the WP:BIO guidelines is an assertion of significance, it and importance are explicitly lower standards than notability. For example claiming to have starred in a notable (i.e. with an article) TV series/film/production is something I always take as a suitable assertion (assuming it's credible, an actor born in 1980 claiming to have starred in a 1960s TV series is not, for example). The claims do not have to be verified, or even verifiable, just credible. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I was just told that a speedy deletion of an actress's article which only mentions having been a body double and an unnamed role were claims of notability, so the speedy deletion template was removed. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)\[reply]

Thanks, this clears it up N^oformation ^Talk 19:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I declined that speedy deletion as claiming you had a part in a notable film/tv series (I forget which it is now) is an assertion of significance. They aren't evidence of notability, but the speedy deletion criteria is explicitly a lower standard than that. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting new Article

As a new member, I have created a couple of articles and edited others. However, I would like to know how I can suggest the creation of an article before I make one, to make sure it's needed on Wikipedia. CBJVS (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CBJVS (talk • contribs) 05:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. :) There isn't really a centralized area for suggesting new articles which you are going to create yourself anyway. When unsure, you can always ask in the talk pages of the different WikiProjects your article might fall under, otherwise you would refer to this policy: Wikipedia:Notability. As long as your subject meets the criteria of notability and your writing meets the policies (neutral, sourced, correctly formatted, etc.) you should have no problems. In the meantime, if you need guidance in specific areas of interests, you can join WikiProjects. They usually have lists of things to do etc.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 06:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and seeing your interests. I suggest joining Wikipedia:WikiProject History. Also see WP:BOLD. -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 06:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning bias against certain groups on userpage

{{top icon}} Hiya, so I brought this up in a related sort of thread in the incidents thing, but it got lost in the many humorous comments after and this is the right place to ask anyway. I wish to state all my biases as much as possible so as to edit as best as possible from an NPOV. Unfortunately some of those happen to pertain to certain groups (Serbs, scientologists, Ashkenazi Haredi Jews and, to a lesser extent, Ashkenazi Orthodox Jews (I'm an Ashkenazi Reform Jew myself FYI) and maybe one or two others if I think about it). Is it okay for me to simply state those in a non-offensive (no slurs or "colourful" descriptions of said groups) way on my userpage? Like "I unfortunately have a good deal of bias against these groups and should take extra care when editing pages pertaining to them" Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't recommend it per WP:UP#POLEMIC. It's better to simply state things positively and let others draw conclusions on what you might have biases against. A more generalized statement without singling out a group of people is less inflammatory. Like "This user admits to being biased in certain topics, if I'm straying too far from NPOV please slap me silly.", "This user may unconsciously violate NPOV at times, please bring it to his attention if he does." or something. Kinda like the 'trout me' userboxes in certain userpages. But it's really unnecessary if you are already aware of them, just make sure to listen to the other side when editing topics you know you have biases in. Or simply avoid them altogether.

And one more thing, your signature should link to your userpage, not a Wikipedia article.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 05:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I'll just state it on the talk pages when relevant then.

You're the third person to mention it, so keeping in what I said to the first, I'll link it to my user page. How do I do one of those Italicised things with a link at the top? I want to put something like "Want to see who I named my account after? Check out Flinders Petrie, and yes it is in fact a real name." Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Signatures. The code is limited to 255 characters, even then, try to keep it within sense. Remember the signature is primarily meant to identify you and link to your userpages. I do not recommend putting the link to the article in your sig, as that can count as impersonation. It might be better to put it in your userpage instead. Some tutorials on customizing your signature can be found here: Wikipedia:Smurrayinchester's signature tutorial and examples in here: User:Athaenara/Gallery and User:NikoSilver/Signature shop.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 01:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have been more clear and said that I was referring to putting that I was in fact talking about putting it in my userpage :p (I can't imagine how you'd fit that in the siggy). I had a delightful fellow communicate the impersonation idea to me in a very interesting way actually (even though Petrie died in '42). I have changed the sig now to link to my userpage (I wasn't actually aware of the problem until mid-April btw, or was it May?). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, yep, I was wondering how you could possibly fit that sentence into a sig. As for the italicized thing, I'm assuming you meant that fancy schmancy one above the editable portion of the page. No idea on that one, maybe {{top icon}}?-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 02:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just making sure. =p Apparently the Template is {{For|text}}, which automatically starts it with For, so I'll make it something that can work like that. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake

Resolved

I have been trying to find out more about the Earthquake in Japan. I read that it caused the earth to move 10 inches on it's axis. Is this true and are we tilted more or less on our axis. I have ask our TV stations abiut this and can't get an answer. I'm 71 years old and I took Astronomy Magizine for about 50 years but had to give it up because of my eyesight, it was just too hard to read. So if you can answer my question or tell me who to ask iI would appriciate it. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.221.228.71 (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the Miscellaneous section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.

P.S. Please do not post personally identifying information in here. -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 06:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is best suited to the Science section of refdesk, actually - so I've copied it there; Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Earthquake tilting Earth axis Chzz ► 12:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add something but wiki considers it 'spamming'

I want to add this:

Ryan James, a New York singer, songwriter, producer & Berklee College of Music graduate produced & co-wrote a song, "Invincible", which mentions Tyler Clementi, with fellow New York musician Adam Shenk about bullying and teen suicide. "The idea for the song came to me immediately after Tyler Clementi took his own life," says James, "...and the song is dedicated to all the innocent lives that have been lost because of senseless bullying."

To the "other section" of the Tyler Clementi section but it keeps getting erased & says that I'm spamming.

How is this post:

Rise Against released a song on their new album Endgame called "Make It Stop (September's Children)", which mentions the name of Tyler Clementi, along with four other people, who committed suicide due to being bullied for their sexual orientation.[48]

Any different than my post except for the fact that they're a well known band & featured on wiki?

Please explain the difference.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanJamesOnline (talk • contribs) 06:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Notability and WP:Due. And yes, it has something to do with third party coverage actually, though notability does not always mean being famous. If the song achieves notability elsewhere, only then can it be added to the page. You are perhaps also aware that you have a conflict of interest. You are writing about a song you wrote yourself.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 06:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple reasons it keeps getting removed.

You, by your username, claim to be Ryan James. This represents a clear conflict of interest. You're self-promoting yourself and advertising isn't allowed here.
Ryan James doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. We don't list every single devotion made by every singer-songwriter no matter how unknown. James should have an article first before being mentioned in this fashion in other articles.
There is no reliable source provided for the info you're adding. Dismas|^(talk) 06:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't log in - Wikipedia wrongly says I have cookies disabled

I'm a new user (i.e. new intended contributor) to Wikipedia.

Currently I can't log in (I'm using Firefox 4).

I get an incorrect/inappropriate message that I don't have cookies enabled. Cookies are enabled and I've got dozens of the blighters from other sites.

Suggested fix or workaround please so that I can login and start making contributions to the topic(s) that I have some knowledge of?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.240.79 (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many registered users have Firefox 4 so I don't know what the problem is in this case but here are some suggestions. Cookies can be enabled/disabled for specific sites. Make sure they are enabled for Wikipedia. Try the secure server https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_Page. If it still fails then perhaps you could try another browser. It's possible and common to edit most pages without logging in but accounts have many benefits. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try going to Options > Privacy. Make sure the 'Accept cookies from sites' and 'Accept third-party' cookies are ticked. If they already are, click the 'Exceptions' button. If Wikipedia is listed among the exceptions, remove it.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main page error

Resolved

Did I report this right? See here. I've never reported a Main page error (assuming I'm right) before, and I wanted to make sure the report is noticed.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the report is fine. Some would consider "treatment on an injury" to be acceptable - as in, "I've had treatment on my bad leg." - but I agree with you that 'of' would be better. Chzz ► 14:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming I did it right and for your input on (no pun intended) the preposition. Apparently, Woody likes "on". Honestly, I don't see using "on" ever in this context, but it's not a big deal. Just wanted to bring it to someone's attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, it has now been changed [1]. Cheers, Chzz ► 14:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed, I guess another admin disagreed with Woody - don't know which admin gets the final call. Amusingly, an IP pointed out another error in the same sentence that I completely missed. I just commented on the discussion page agreeing with the IP. So, they may change the sentence again.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

need friends to interchange stamps

I am 11 years old girl live in Egypt, me and my 4 cousins collect postal stamps. We want to know some friends all over the world to interchange stamps with them through rench , and German languages. Please write to E.mail : (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.153.58.16 (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.5 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. GB fan (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

is this PDTextlogo/simple shapes eligible?

I vectorized a logo for the company Carulla and would like to upload it to wikimedia commons because the company has an article on the english and spanish wikipedia's. The logo consists only of the letters 'Carulla' in writing as on the website, there's nothing else in it, no backround colors or elliptical shapes around the letters. Would just the writing of the logo be eligible for the PDtext logo license?Grmike (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)grmike[reply]

If you mean this - with the tomato and cursor, I'd say no. If it was only the word "Carulla" in that script-font, then probably OK; if the 'www' and '.com' are added, IMHO that starts to look like a specific unique design - and if the tomato is added, then I'm pretty sure it wouldn't pass as PDtext. To be honest, I would play it safe, and upload it locally as a WP:NONFREE logo, with a rationale. Chzz ► 14:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is only the "Carulla" in the font used in the same font/light green coloring used in the gif image you pointed to. no tomato or anything else. I would upload it locally if it weren't missing an image/logo at the the Spanish wikipedia article Carulla, where it would probably be more useful (I don't speak Spanish though so not sure how I'd write a rationale over there).Grmike (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Therefore I'd say "probably fine", but suggest you check over at WP:MCQ. Chzz ► 19:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

topix forum for whitley city ky. what can be done about slander to a person.

is this question free? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.26.54 (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your question.

Is it something about Whitley City, Kentucky? I cannot see any information about individuals on that article.

Please could you explain what your question is. Thanks. Chzz ► 19:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question relates to a Topix forum about that place. I'm afraid that forum is nothing whatever to do with Wikipedia, and we cannot help you on it. I suggest you take it up with Topix, at http://www.topix.com/ --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hulu copyright question

Can an article link to a video on Hulu without violating copyright? I don't have a specific link if the answer is "it depends". I looked for previous discussions addressing Hulu and how Hulu works (which I don't fully understand), but I couldn't find anything that squarely addressed my copyright question. For the purpose of this question, assume the cite would not be in External links, but would simply be in support of some assertion in the body of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright-wise, yes; Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. - and I imagine that Hulu would have the appropriate licences.}} WP:ELNEVER.

Whether you should is another question, and "it depends" - on the specific case - sorry.

Generally, I'd think linking to that service would be best avoided, because a lot of readers won't be able to view the link, because it a) only works for US-users, b) is a subscription service, and c) carries advertizing. But any discussion as to whether an external link was appropriate or not would take place on the talk page of the specific article. Chzz ► 19:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I said, the link would not be in external links, but in the body. Still, I'm aware of all the problems linking to Hulu - I just don't think those problems create a bar as WP appears to permit all those things. It just wouldn't be preferable, but if it's the only way to support the assertion, then I think it would have to be allowed. I think I also read somewhere that Hulu links are more ephemeral than other Internet links, which is yet another problem. It may be obvious to you, but why do you think Hulu has the appropriate licenses?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per WP:ELPOINTS #2 a link to an external site should not normally be included in the running text of an article. You might include the link in a reference if it's appropriate, though. Deor (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can see I was unclear. I meant in a reference, something like: "On October 1, 2010, Show addressed the issue of dog breeding." Then a reference citing a video of the show on Hulu.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find no other link? As pointed above, there are several issues with using Hulu as a reference...the reference is only as good as Hulu has the video on their site, which probably won't be more then a couple of months. CTJF83 22:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consider not using a link at all. You can cite television and other media without a link as long as it is possible to verify through other means. Try using Template:Cite episode ( or try doing a reference by hand that is uniform with other refs in the article.)Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for image files

Resolved

– Answered by John.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do this on Wikipedia? I found this list of all files, but no way to search by file name (or part of a file name, which would be helpful). I found WP:FIT that said, "Search Wikipedia in the Image namespace and the Image talk namespace". I don't know how to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an "Advanced search" with only two namespaces ticked. Try this link to search the image names and descriptions, or this link to search only the image names. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

grep is dead, what now? =

Grep — search pages titles using regexps.

The above tool was extremely useful, but now it is inaccessible because the user's account on toolserver expired.

My question is, are there any other tools anywhere that will search Wikipedia and return only titles?

I want just titles. No descriptive text. No file sizes. Titles and nothing else.

I'm interested in any and all methods for generating lists of article titles. The Transhumanist 20:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should ask this at Village pump (technical); people there seem to be familiar with more tools. A very clumsy, but possible, solution would be to use a database dump and the Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Database Scanner. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verification and dead links

A couple of years ago, I did some research and found links to support some edits I made to an article. I now find the website I used for verification is no longer visible and the hosting company have now put the domain up for sale. The references have now been flagged as dead links. How does that leave the article? I have no reason to belive the information that was on the site is now suddenly incorrect, but it makes verification really hard for future readers. Is the the accessdate parameter in the {{cite web}} template sufficient to show that the information did once exist? Or is there a better way of dealing with dead links? Astronaut (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Dead link}} links to Wikipedia:Link rot so maybe you saw that already? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can try to search the Wayback machine for an archived copy of the website by going here. The best way to deal with that, however, is to preemptively archive links with an on-demand archiving service like WebCite, because when a link has died, it is often already too late to do something (see also Wikipedia:Using WebCite). When adding reference links to an article, you should always remember, that most links will "die" sometime in the future. There is also an effort by some Wikipedians to solve this problem (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archived citations 2 and Wikipedia:VPR#Tool_for_WebCite_archiving). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the article and lines in question? There are a few options available. If the source was from something that was published (a daily paper or a book for example) then simply provide as much information as possible and remove the link. The reader can verify the information off of Wikipedia. If it was to a website that did not put it in print or that is impossible to verify through other means, consider finding an alternate source that is verifiable.Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]