Help desk
< October 31	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 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.

November 1

Revisions to Article on Max Nordau

I used the <ref><ref> format but get an error message as if I had not done so. How to understand this anomaly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndependentScholar357 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added nowiki tags to your question to make it readable. RudolfRed (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you had 2 issues:

you need both an "open" <ref> and a "close" </ref> ref tag (notice the slash mark in the "close") , and you were using two "open" corrected with this edit
once you have a set of "open" and "close" tags in the body, you need to have one of the "display" tag to show the refs. a standard version added with this edit -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

morgellons

Please update your information concerning morgellons. It is no longer accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.112.27 (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have specific suggestions to make about the article Morgellons, you can do so on its Talk Page. Rojomoke (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any recent news on Morgellons and no recent significant change to the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Cat widget

There used to be a widget/script which was used to add categories to the pages. From last few months I am unable to see that widget/script. Can anyone help me to locate that script or what changes need to be made to reactivate that script. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's called "HotCat". You need to go to the "Gadgets" tab of your preferences to turn it on. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I need to be more active on Wikipedia. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 09:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uma Rao

(Rangakuvara (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I have one article on uma rao, in kannada wikipedia. It has to be updated and modified. I want to use sand box. I have one more kannada site of wikipedia, known as Rangatanaya. help me.

This is the help desk for English Wikipedia. Questions about Kannada Wikipedia should be asked at Kannada Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia has the article Uma Rama Rao. Is it the same person in the Uma Rao article in Kannada Wikipedia? You also might want to ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Translation. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source

Hi, I am trying to complete my wiki page. I have cited reliable sources from everywhere I could find but am still getting an error message. If you look at my cites they are very much super legit. Let me know what can be done to solve these issue ..... I have more that 10 sources.

Thanks Charles

page(s) im finalizing Charles M Robinson Director, Charles Mariano Robinson (Director) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliebrownatl (talk • contribs) 07:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of those pages must be deleted because WP never allows two articles about the same subject to exist. BTW the "Director" part of the title is not necessary because there is no article about another person with exactly the same name. I have therefor moved the one that is more complete to Charles Mariano Robinson and the other one has already been deleted. Please continue working on the Charles Mariano Robinson page and do not try to create any more new pages about Robinson. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see thatDodger67 has fixed the reference error problem. But I see huge problems with the article Charles Mariano Robinson, for example:

The article does not establish that he is notable in Wikipedia's special sense: that he has been written about at length in published reliable sources.
The article doesn't start off by saying who or what he is
A Wikipedia article should never use evaluative language like "very talented" unless that evaluation comes directly from a reliable source, which it references.
None of the information about him as a person is referenced, which contravenes our policy on biography of living persons
I haven't looked at all the references, but I haven't yet found one which is reliable, substantial and actually supports anything about Robinson. Wikipedia itself, and imdb, are not regarded as reliable, because anybody may edit them; Nashville Scene might be reliable, but the bit you've cited doesn't even mention Robinson; several of the references seem to be to primary sources.

There are other items, such as the fact that your references are bare URLs rather than properly formatted; but the first things you need to do are

find and cite places where people unconnected with Robinson or his bands have written substantial articles about him and published them in reliable places such as major newpapers or magazines; if you don't do this, the article will probably be deleted.
remove all promotional language, such as "talented" and "excel": Wikipedia articles have to be written in a neutral tone.
find citations from reliable sources for all biographical information in the article.

I am sorry if this sounds a lot, but the fact is that writing Wikipedia articles from scratch is hard. --ColinFine (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logo image on wiki page in organisation infobox not appearing

See: Climate Vulnerable Forum The image file is here: File:Climate Vulnerable Forum logo.jpg Thanks for advice Climatechangeditor (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with this edit after a close look at the documentation of {{Infobox Geopolitical organisation}}. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going back one page when there is no "back" arrow

Hi - The problem that I have is that when I am using Wikipedia in my I Phone latest version of iOS), sometimes I accidentally tap on an illustration, causing that llustration's actual page to come up I.e. I lose my original article.. There is never a "back" button or arrow, so I have to close Wikipedia open it again and then research for my article! Is there an easier way of going back? I don't seem to remember that this happened in previous versions of iOS. If toy can help me I would be grateful. Wikipedia is Amazing!!! --------------------- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.235.25 (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read this explanation of the iOS 7 webbrowser —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Light second

There is an error in the Table on Wikipedia page for "light-second". The exponent for light year should -6, not -9, as there are 31 million seconds in a year, not 31 billion! But I don't seem to be able to edit within the Table. Could you please make this correction. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcstrauss (talk • contribs) 13:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added a title & a link Rojomoke (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

You are right there are 31 million seconds in a year but the article doesn't claim othwerwise. -9 is correct. 31×10⁻⁹ does not mean 31 billion. It means 31 times a billionth. See scientific notation. 1 / (60*60*24*365.25 second/year) = 31.688×10⁻⁹ year/second. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is this book sufficiently notable for its own article?

The article: The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. The notability criteria: WP:BKCRIT
The article might be a commercial promotion. In my opinion it does not stand for any of the criteria, except (may be) the first one: "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book"

The Critics section specify 4 independent critics only (i.e. other than those quoted on the book cover) whose reviews are really bad.

is this book sufficiently notable for its own article?

Is there a more suitable noticeboard for this kind of questions?

BTW The creator has stopped contributing on 2010. Ykantor (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is, having looked over it now, unapologetically promotional in many areas. I concur that it also seems to meet few of the notability criteria, and I would have no problem flagging it for deletion as promotional text. The fact that content from the article is now used by companies such as Barnes and Noble to advertise the book seems enough of a marker that it's not much more than promotion. drewmunn talk 17:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to list it at AfD, but the book clearly meets WP:GNG due to the numerous independent sources referring to the book. The synopsis in the Wikipedia article is excessively long. Although Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article does not list a length, footnote 3 at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary indicates that 500 or so words should be fine. I'm fine if someone want's to cut out the synopsis subsection to let it then be developed over time. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sonicdrewdriver, Jreferee. I put a notice notice in the talk page. Ykantor (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ISSN error

Check the New Country reference in Doug Stone. Roland, Tom (March 1994). "Album reviews: More Love". New Country 1 (1): 48–49. ISSN 1074-536x. For some reason, this is reporting as an ISSN error in the template, but clicking the Worldcat link shows it to be the right ISSN. Is there any way to make it stop returning a false error? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by changing x to X.[1]. ISSN requires upper case X but Worldcat and probably many others are forgiving of a lower case x. https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1074-536x displays the correct upper case. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]