Help desk
< November 20	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 22 >

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 21

Do I want to delete this page @ "Articles for Deletion" or "Proposed Deletion"? (No rush)

Hi, I have a question concerning deletion of the page State bag.

Background on the page: it's not doing too well, not many viewers, nor editors. It's also stub-class, an orphan, and lacks any sources.

So it's not that I think WP:PROD would be inappropriate so much as, would anyone even see it? I mean, if it's orphaned and unpopular, would AfD or WP:PROD be more appropriate? Kind of confused about the difference between the two deletion methods, by the way, since they both seem to go through the same 7-day process.

meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally see no point to using PROD for anything. Anyone can remove the tag, including the creator, and then you waste 7 days with it tagged, then the tag removed. I'd personally take it to AfD. I've brought stuff there before with no or 1 person weighing in, and the page still was deleted. You could still PROD though, it's 100% your choice. CTF83! 01:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Meteor sandwich yum: - I've prodded articles successfully, and I personally think it's better to go that route first. Yes, someone might remove the prod, but if the person who created the article has ceased to be active (very typical), then it's quite likely no one else cares. By contrast, posting at AfD makes more work for other editors (who have to decide whether to comment or not), may be reposted again and again if little or no comments (so, way more than 7 days), and generally should be second priority, in my opinion. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(/e/c) Prod and AfD are quite different. Prod is for uncontroversial deletion without discussion of the merits and AfD is for discussion on the merits through consensus. By uncontroversial, what we mean is that we would not reasonably expect opposition because the basis for deletion is rather clear under policy and guideline and does not need to be sussed out. Prod is far less burdensome on the community and conserves resources because we do not take up the time of many editors in needing to weigh in ar a deletion debate. A prod tag, unlike an AfD nomination, can be removed by anyone (even the creator) and if it is, that act itself is considered to render the deletion controversial and so the removal cannot be reverted and thus you need to go to AfD as the next step. I disagree with CTF83 regarding the utility of prod. We delete maybe 300 articles per week through prod and save hundreds of hours of editor's time by doing so, and I consider time (especially of core editors, who do a great deal of the heavy lifting here) a most precious and finite commodity. I do not have any statistics on what percentage of prod taggings are removed, but there certainly are enough to result in those few hundred a week that make it to end without removal.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extra info. Will keep that in mind. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott-Halberstam conjecture

I clicked on Elliott-Halberstam conjecture at List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics#Number_theory_.28prime_numbers.29 which used a redirected to "Elliott-Halberstam conjecture". I tried to see if I could removed the redirect by changing the "_" in the link, but nothing happen. It still redirects to itself? I just don't understand it, so I hope someone can fix it. John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was already fixed. It links to Elliott–Halberstam conjecture CTF83! 01:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect seems to be workign correctly, it goes from the version of the name with a hyphen to the more correct dash (between the two names). It is possible (but unhelpful) to set up a page that redirects to itself, but I don't see one here, nor any recent changes in any of the pages involved. If it is the underscore you are concerned with, Wikipedia substitutes underscores for spaces when an article name is converted to a URL, since URLs generally may not contain spaces. DES ^(talk) 01:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DASH for the guideline. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title Page

I'm trying to create a new wikipedia page. I've added all the information for the page to my Sandbox already. But how do I title the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BIO267 F13 02 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search on your title. Since there presumably isn't such an article, you should get a message telling you that you can start one. Then click on your title, which is red. (And, as you can see, you should have signed your message above in the same way that Talk (discussion) page messages should be signed. You can in future do that by clicking on the pencil stub icon at the top of the edit box.) --Hordaland (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article has now been copied to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Alternative_Mating_Strategies. I found it very interesting – it's about a field I used to work in, a long time ago. It is well-written, easy (for me, anyway) to understand, wide-ranging within its topic, and has an appropriate number of references. It's like a review article from Annual Review of Genetics, from the days before that journal was all biochemistry. I have been wondering, "is Wikipedia the right place for an academic review article?", and have decided, "yes, why not?". Maproom (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed and accepted (after some minor tweaking). I wish all submissions to AfC were this easy to review! Please help improve/refine the categorisation, I've just added a few "rough guesses" as I'm not particularly expert at zoology. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs incomming links and there could also be more wikilinks in the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to Alternative mating strategy to comply with our naming conventions (lower case and singular titles preferred) and made some conforming textual changes to the lead. I have also changed some of the section headings to comply with WP:MOSHEAD. I think the tone of the article needs a little more work it has the feel of an academic paper about it.--ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with this article -- Split? Merge? Delete?

Hello,

I came across this article recently: Political messages of Dr. Seuss. I think it's very out of place and doesn't serve much of a purpose. It was written as part of a college assignment. It definitely needs to be dealt with. I think the best way is to split its contents across the various articles about the books that this article discuss, i.e. info about the Sneetches will go into the article The Sneetches and Other Stories, etc. But I'm a little overwhelmed. How do I go about doing that? Do I have to nominate the article somewhere? Please, any help will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Bobnorwal (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated it at AfD with your above rational. In case you wish to comment futhur, it is at this page. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD nomination, whilst referring to this page, only supplied the deletion aspect of the suggestion here.[1] Splitting the article requires nothing more than someone going ahead and doing it. Deletion would prevent this and splitting would not require deletion. Wikipedia:Splitting gives relevant advice. I think deletion would be unhelpful. Thincat (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

Hi, Would you please let me know the right way to add reliable sources to prevent the immediate deletion of this article and to enable me to remove this tag. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.219.65.143 (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about Amr El-Samra. The article needs to meet a number of Wikipedia policies including WP:NOTE and WP:BLP.The article needs considerable work and just from scrolling through it and looking at the edit history it clearly has an issue with WP:COI.I would say the article should be shortened and his notability needs to be added as well as reliable sources (WP:RS).For information on how to cite you can look at WP:CITE. XFEM Skier (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Amr El-Samra reads more like a personal blog than a Wikipedia article. Some of it is even written in the first person. It provides no evidence that its subject is notable. Frankly, I doubt that you can do anything to save it from deletion. Maproom (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Maproom above, but if you want to try, the first thing is to find reliable sources. These must be published, independent sources with a reputation for fact checking, that discuss the subject in some detail, and support the specific information in the article. Cites to facebook, linkedin, youtube, twitter, blogs, and social media are not reliable for this purpose, nor is anything published by the subject or any company he ran or was closely affiliated with. Newspaper or magazine articles (of more than purely local circulation), or books or scholarly publications all work. For how to list them, read referencing for beginners or just list them on the article's talk page (and indicate what facts each supports) and then ask for help with the formatting. DES ^(talk) 15:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the article reads like a vanity bio, replete as it is with family holiday snaps and other content completely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. There may be some material in there that could form the basis of a bio that meets the guidelines but I think we will only get there by blowing it up and starting again.--ukexpat (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change name of article?

Is it possible to change the header in the article about Sperry Drilling? The Halliburton division's name changed three or four years ago from "Sperry Drilling Services" to "Sperry Drilling", so the article should be called "Sperry Drilling". The rest of the article is correct. Hveding (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref.:

Best regards, Hveding

You can change the name of an article by using the "move" function. Highlight the dropdown icon in the top-right (to the right of "edit" and "view history") and select "move". From there you can rename the article. — Richard BB 09:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not autoconfirmed yet so you cannot move articles. I have made the move to Sperry Drilling. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page for the company PowWowNow has disappeared?

Hi, I work at Powwownow and our company page seems to have been deleted for some reason? Can someone please tell me why it has been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.63.16.76 (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page Powwownow has been deleted multiple times because it failed to meet the requirements for a stand alone article. A version is currently being held as a workspace draft at User:Basebot/Powwownow although it doesnt appear to have been touched for a very long time and may be eligible for deletion.

You should also be aware of our policies regarding conflict of interest and the fact that we are not here to be a free host for a web presence for your company.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, PowWowNow (with the extra capitals) was deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", as notified on User talk:Sau222sau. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Wikipedia?

Is the claim here true - that Wikipedia deleted the noted page almost immediately after it was posted. I can't find any such deletion. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the sbnation article below the image. It states that the article is Satire and there was no such Wikipedia page.Naraht (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced claim

In the List of cities in Punjab and Chandigarh by population an anonymous editor has put in some unreferenced information, which may have some basis. I have reverted it twice but he has put it back. Can someone see and do as he deems fit? - Chandan Guha (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You removed information about Patiala.[2] Why do you think it does not belong in the article? -- Jreferee (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is some misconception here. I removed information about Rajpura in Patiala district because it is unreferenced. Rajpura is in Punjab - that is not the point in dispute. The point is whether it is a city with 100,000 population. There should be some referenced support for that information. Also please read Rajpura (Demographics). - Chandan Guha (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My search for the population turned up ~83k people as of 2001. I added it to Rajpura with citation. I would guess it is higher than that now but that is the last reliable information. XFEM Skier (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the search. There does not seem to be any referenced support for Rajpur having a population of 100,000 or more. In that case, the anonymous editor's edit in List of cities in Punjab and Chandigarh by population (for cities with a population of 100,000 plus) should be reverted. I have already reverted it twice. Will some other editor please take it up? - Chandan Guha (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Album chart

I am currently working on the article As Good as Dead, trying to get the albumchart templates to display correctly, but I can't seem to do so. I was hoping that someone here would know what should be done to fix this. Thanks in advance. Jinkinson talk to me 14:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at some of the FA-class album articles, you should be able to find an album chart template and other features that represent how best to put together an album article. The FA-class album articles are at Category:FA-Class Album articles. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naomie Harris biography

The Naomie Harris biography has a section under it called "Voice of the voiceless=" which states personal attacks of Winnie Mandela, and is not relevant to the biography of Naomie Harris. I cannot seem to edit the content, even after I try to login. Can someone help me edit this page? The content of that section is disputable at best, libelous at worst. Thank you! --Appiah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.184.183 (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jreferee has removed the section. Maproom (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please help!!

How do I link a name on a Notable person (PJ Cambo-soccerplayer on Wilbraham, MA page) to a User page referencing him (User:Soccernotes)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccernotes (talk • contribs)

You don't, or at least you shouldn't, see WP:SELFREF. Instead you just include a link to an article about the person. If the article doesn't exist, but you think it plausible that it should or will in the future, link anyway and it will become a working link when and if the article is created. Such a link to a non-existent page is often called a "red link" because by default it is displayed in red. There is nothing wrong with plausible redlinks. DES ^(talk) 15:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DES sums it up pretty well and if you want to read more about red links, there's always WP:REDLINK. Dismas|^(talk) 17:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing an article as it was on a given date (Including Templates)

Is there anyway within the wikipedia website (as opposed to archive.org) to see the way that an article was on a given date *including* templates and other trancluded items. Right now if Article A includes Template B and I look back at Article A from the version that was there a Year ago it will include the *current* version of Template B (presuming it also included Template B at the time) Any ideas?Naraht (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a way to do that, short of an archive link. DES ^(talk) 15:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht: I can think of one way but I am not suggesting you actual do it. It's a lot of bother, a lot of copyright attribution (WP:CWW) required and a lot of G7s at the end. Anyway, I suppose you could copy the article's code as of a certain date to a sandbox. Then you would need to go to each of the templates that are transcluded in it and copy their code as of the date you are attempting to replicate and create each of them in turn in sandboxes (make sure to check each of the templates to see if they are nesting internal templates that might also need to be sandboxed). Then go back to the article and replace each of the template names with the sandbox templates you made. If the images used no longer exist or have been changed that might present an impassable obstacle.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble logging in.

I seem to have forgotten my loggin details. I understand they won't be provided by this method of questioning but the issue comes when I am requesting a password reset and I am simply not receiving any emails at all... Any solutions?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.169.5 (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The system e-mails the reset information to whatever e-mail address you provided for "E-mail this user". If that account has shut down or been moved without forwarding, you may be out of luck. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TELL LIKE IT IS

Within the pages about TELL IT LIKE IT IS there is no reference to the first Uk recording of the song by a British girl, Kim Davis [Kim D]. I was a band member at the time. I think the first UK recording should be of interest Kind Regards Colin Woodland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.186.140 (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are refering to Tell It Like It Is (song) you should mention this at Talk:Tell It Like It Is (song), the page for suggestions on improving that article. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for your information, as none of the rest of us can see or verify your personal memories.

By hte way, if you register an account and sign in, your IP address will not be displayed with every edit.Your IP addr could expose your physical location, if that matters to you. In addition, using an account provides a watchlist, a clear record of contributions, and other benefits. DES ^(talk) 19:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't cite pdf file as reference

I've asked for help with this type of problem before. The difficulty seems to be that I can't copy the correct url when I find a pdf file on the internet which I wish to cite as a reference in a Wikipedia article. In this case, the Wikipedia article is on Thomas Lodge [3], and the only url I was able to copy is [www.c-s-p.org/flyers/978-1-4438-3762-0-sample.pdf‎], which I expanded to [4], but it still didn't work. The full citation (with my attempt to copy the url) is in the External links section at the end of the Wikipedia article on Thomas Lodge.‎ Any help with this would be much appreciated. NinaGreen (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I pointed at the link, my browser told me I was about to jump to a URL ending with "...sample.pdf%E2%80%8E", a sign that you had copy+pasted some control characters along with the URL. I deleted the "pdf" and the space, and retyped them, and all seems to be working now. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you looking to cite this as opposed to providing an external link to it, this might help. XFEM Skier (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John of Reading, thanks again for your help with this problem (you helped with an earlier similar one). I'll watch out for the control characters when copying in future; that does seem to be the problem. Thanks for your suggestion also, XFEM Skier; I've added it as a citation rather than as an external link. NinaGreen (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

co-operatives

It has ben reported by the Daily Telegraph and Gardeners Question Time in recent days and is repeated in your article that the first co-operative movement was started in Rochdale. In fact, the first such organisation started in Sheerness in 1816 and I would welcome the further attention of your author to this point,please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.228.88 (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles have no individual authors. Each is a collaborative work, the particular contributors may be identified on the article history. You may edit the page directly, but be prepared to back up the statement with a reliable source if challenged. Or you may discuss the matter on the talk page of the article in question.

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

By the way, it is very helpful if you link to or at least name the article you are talking about here -- en-Wikipedia has over 4,000,000 articles, and looking for clues in your comment and then searching for the intended article wastes time. DES ^(talk) 20:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Page

Im trying to make a profile for a Saracens rugby player Petrus du Plessis. Ive added a reliable reference so will the page be reviewed or deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mi5agent (talk • contribs) 21:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but please read WP:REFBEGIN and WP:MOSBIO for help with citing refs and formatting a bio.--ukexpat (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Acorah Page - Wish to edit and add some info

I wish to add the fact that Derek Acorah appeared in a Dr Who episode.

The link and info to the episode appears Army of Ghosts

Would I need any other information in order to have it added?

Thank you.

145.255.240.145 (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to cite a reference from a reliable source.--ukexpat (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just edit Derek Acorah yourself, copying over the reference from the article Army of Ghosts (do not use the article itself as a reference). This does, of course, presume that the article has a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's already in the Acorah article. (I'd theoretically like to clean up the article, but I despise fakers like him so much that I can't be arsed to waste my time.) --Orange Mike | Talk 22:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Some of us remember the time he was posessed by a person who didn't exist... Also, "Mary wants dick!" - the only thing he ever said that was probably true. ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 22:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:FAQ

How can I get a WP question added to the FAQs page? I've seen a very long answer to it but it would be nice to see the question about editing answered in just a sentence. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: One option is to simply edit the relevant FAQ page yourself, per WP:BB. Another (perhaps better) would be to post the suggested question and answer to the talk page, and see if anyone has any objections, or suggestions for improvements. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@John Broughton: I looked at the FAQ Talk Page and there is no activity there. I think the last post was in January 2013 (even comments going back to 2011 have received no response). I think I might take your first suggestion as if I put some answer on the page, it is likely to spark interest and other Editors will edit it to improve it.

I just posted this here because I thought that maybe the FAQs arose from questions you receive at the Help Desk. I mean, someone has to determine a question is one that is frequently asked, right? I didn't realize I could add my own question right to it. I'll try and maybe Editors who have the page on their watchlist will help with the answer.

Thanks for responding to my question. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spokane County Library District

Spokane County Library District is currently under Spokane County. However, this is not a government entity for the county and has enough information to warrant having this as its own page. Spokane County Library Distict used to be its own entry, but I have been unable to figure out how to move it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choffman313 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The old page, now a redirect with significant history, is at Spokane County Library District. You can just edit that, to copy the content (wikisource) into that page. (click on the link in the "redirected from" message at the top left of the page when it redirects you the first time.) To preserve attributions, please add {{merged-from}} or {{copied}} to the talk page -- this should have been done after the previous merge into the county article (Spokane County, Washington). And please, lose the timeline, it is way over-detailed and out of proportion for such an article. You might want to discuss the matter on Talk:Spokane County, Washington firsat, or at least announce what you are doing there. Someone thought the merge a good idea, (actually Abductive on 13:17, 28 December 2009). There is no rule that says that only governmental organizations can be described in a county article. Nor that they must be. If you do plan to make it separate, please consider the issue of notability. The current Libray section has only a single reference to the library's own website. As a separate article that would probably not pass AfD unless it were improved. I advise having independent reliable references ready before doing an unmerge. DES ^(talk) 23:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]