Wikipedia:Help desk

Wikipedia Help Desk
  • This page is only for questions about how to use or Wikipedia. For other types of questions, use the search box or the Reference desk.
  • Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
  • We are all volunteers, so sometimes replies can take some time. Please be patient. Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.

  • New users: While this is a good place to ask questions, new users may prefer to ask for help at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with ing, article creation, and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.
Are you in the right place?


July 15[]

Help with citation[]

Hi all, I tried to update a article but I think I got the format in the citation wrong. There's some red text at the end of the last paragraph in this link:

Sorry about this but if someone could fix up my I'd appreciate it. I couldn't find the error own my own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:35CD:1EF0:75F7:2D09:8369:44D (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I fixed it for you here. You forgot to add <ref> before the citation. It's a common mistake. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
You fixed the red error with [1]. |website= is for the title of a website, generally not a domain unless the domain is also used as title. I would have removed it and used |publisher=The Carter Center instead. Their website doesn't appear to have a title. That's the common situation for a non-Internet organization which has a website. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I have altered that. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Missing info[]

Hi. If I can't find a topic I'm looking for can I find the information myself and create a page with the facts I've found out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

im new and have mental illness i need support from someone or someones[]

could i get a tutor or someone can help me with my new pages ? please thank you. Hawaza91 (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hawaza91: Hello, and welcome. Yes, there are ors available to assist. Please see WP:MENTOR and Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area for more information. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Help with a translated page[]

Thank you in advance. I have finished translating from German Wikipedia their article on Antonio Garzya. It is the only page on him on any Wikipedia. I have the translation and would like to know the best way to flow it into the English Wikipedia. I did this years ago a few times, but now I don't seem to be able to remember what I did. Any help would be greatly appreciated. jeffmattJeffmatt (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Help on translation is available at WP:Translation. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


Masinari (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Dear Help Team,

A friend of mine inserted her personal self-promoting information into an approved and long running article regarding my persona.

I was alerted by people in the industry that what was inserted was clearly personal self-promoting information by the other person. In an attempt to ensure that that self-promotion by the other individual was removed, and not knowing much about how articles are created/managed on wikipedia, I accessed the article and deleted that section that was added for self promotion by that individual and updated it with recent awards/recognitions. I did not know that any article content can be created only by others.

Knowing that now, please correct on my behalf and eliminate those insertion by the self promoting individual and restore the article to its original content as approved and long running.

I much thank you in advance and look forward to hearing from you,

Best Regards,

Matthew AsinariMasinari (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

This must be about Matthew Asinari. It seems that the information complained of has now been removed, as unreferenced. Maproom (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

New section[]

HILuke Eldridge (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Luke, do you have something you need help with? Kosack (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The template to announce article copied by newspaper[]

Hi, In past i had seen somewhere a template that informs the talk page that the article data was copied by this and this newspaper without any crs. Can someone point me to that. this site basically copied bunch of stuffs on their page from an old version of the wiki article on that day--DBigXray 10:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, are you referring to {{Backwards copy}}? Deor (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Correct. thats exactly I was looking for. --DBigXray 19:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Macrons on n[]

Is it possible to add an "n" with a macron? Apparently some Marshall Islands names are written like that, but the fancy script on the page has no "n" with a macron. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

n̄ seems to work. Vexations (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
If you know the Unicode hex value 0304 of macron then you can type n&#x304; in wikitext to produce n̄. If you know the decimal value 772 then type n&#772; to produce n̄. If you prefer the real character in the wikitext then preview and copy-paste the character. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


How to Former Chief Minister K.Kamaraj page.How to use the algorithm .How to do changes through mobile phone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arockia Lourdhu Nayagam Nada (talkcontribs) 12:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Arockia Lourdhu Nayagam Nada: scroll to the bottom and click “desktop”. This will change your view to desktop mode which I think is better, then press “ source”. Abelmoschus Esculentus (alt) (talk to me) 13:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

redirect to ask here[]

(main message is at WP:RD/E under "should I refer to a wikiproject, or ask another wikiproject for input?")

Earlier I came across a movie/ film, where the info box earlier says it was based on a game. But is that related to a movie/ film? At said page/ article. If it does not mention that, and was based off of that. Other than having WP:TRIVIALCAT. Then my concern is I don't know if its only that one page/ article, or the info box says other things too. Where two unrelated names or companies help did something, as only one of the two did. Like in one instance, from a while ago. A mobile game is by Square Enix and in the listed info it had Ubisoft there, when using the <br>. Well that instance was shown in this show.

Then I'm not sure if there's more strange s like that. If they in places where it has more than one wikiprojects? And would I notify the other. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

(From; Real Girl) It is based on a manga. But to add something that came from a game studio too, seems off. Does a dance game relates to the movie/ film? I don't know, but if it was featured, then o.k. and some dubious categories. Then the one that added it. I accidentally pressed their talk page instead and at the end, it has a message about returning from a WP:SOCK. But I don't know anything in "untested waters" by that sentence? Tainted-wingsz (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You removed some unreferenced material, and that's fine. Do you have any further questions about using or ing Wikipedia? -Arch dude (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

No, not anymore. If the same problem arise, where will I ask instead of here next time. Its been a while since I last did. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Nobvak Djokovic[]

Can somebody correct a nonsense "Highest rankin No. 114 (30 November 2009)" info about Novak Djokovic? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2C92:E500:7467:5DC:394F:E294 (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect information from a spam bot source regarding fantasies about the blackhill transmitter in scotland[]

I've tried to the page but the spam botter keeps putting incorrect information back up again.

I work in the blackhill transmitter station at "blackhill" and with regard to radio stations coming from the 2 masts at kirk of shotts the only radio services being broadcast by us are Bauer central scot DAB 11D, SDL national and BBC DAB along with freeview HD services on the south tower, the north tower only broadcasts DVB-T1 standard definition tv

BBC radio's 1,2,3,4 and scotland FM services to Lanarkshire, Glasgow and the west are broadcast at 20 kilowatts from our other mast at "kirk of shotts" and the only commercial FM station we carry is Classic FM 101.70mhz.

All other frequencies allocated to local radio in Glasgow is beamed at lower power fro Cathkin braes and 96.3 from Seargent's law over Paisley along with Bauer Glasgow DAB 11C, as with Edinburgh services are broadcast from Craigkelly or Swanston sites.

The orrendous incorrect information on the page I provided the link to is wholly incorrect and in breach of British as well as EU laws on publishing false information, and if the page is verified it will be verified bt ann autobot verification service, such information would NOT be verified by Arquiva.

If the page is not deleted and source users account blocked or deleted we at Arquiva along with Ofcom will have no alternative but to seel legal action in accordance with the wireless telegraphy act and further action from Ofcom may result if you do not comply with this legal reasonable request very promptly, we expect the page deleted in such a way it can NOT be re-published.

If you refuse to remove the page action will be taken and we expect you to comply with this request before we need to take legal steps, ideally within 48 hours but if it is not gone within the next 5 working days, friday 20th july 2018 then we will take this to both the company's lawyers and to OFcom, where we will also be suggesting to Ofcom to block wikipedia out of the UK IP address group as being a source of incorrect and legally infringing and damaging lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaz Young (talkcontribs) 21:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

( conflict) @Gaz Young: Your s were reverted by Jessicapierce, not a spambot. You might want to ask her why she reverted your s. In the future, please try to use summaries and provide reliable sources for your s. As is clearly stated in the disclaimer at the bottom of every page, Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity of any content. All content is created by volunteers, and it is not feasible to check to truth of every , although most vandalism is caught and reverted. Some false information is not grounds for an article to be permanently deleted. Making legal threats does not help in this regard and will get you blocked from ing Wikipedia in the future (see WP:NLT). LittlePuppers (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
The poster was probably referring to attempted s blocked by the filter.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

This account (Gaz Young) is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

21:42, 15 July 2018 CambridgeBayWeather blocked Gaz Young with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Making legal threats) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ofcom shows Black Hill as a transmitter on several of its maps ( shows only Black Hill for Smooth) - Wikipedia only uses published sources. If the facts have changed we have to wait for them to be published, so you could ask Ofcom about updating the information on their site; it looks like they do update them as some have more than one map, with the older one having "superceded" written across it. Peter James (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm inclined to doubt the bona fides of "Gaz Young", as he fails to spell correctly the name of the company he claims to represent. As someone who until recently worked in the Telecomms industry (former colleagues have climbed that tower to repair/replace some of the many mobile phone antennae mounted on it – the photos were spectacular), I would note that the various signals transmitted from a given facility such as this is volatile due to operational necessities, and any publicly published list will very likely out of date – it's hard enough for the actual users to keep track of each other (which makes the arrangement of transmission interruptions to allow safe working quite challenging). {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

July 16[]

List of countries by time devoted to leisure and personal care[]

I have no idea what to do with List of countries by time devoted to leisure and personal care. It's been sitting there with the copyvios for 4 yrs, create by a blocked sock.

The text is copyvio.

The table figures don't match the source.

The figures at the source make no sense.

Redirect to OECD Better Life Index?

Speedy? Fix? Run screaming?

Convenience link(s):

Many thanks.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't this fall under WP:G12 speedy deletion? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, Clarityfiend. But if we can revdel the text and save the figures, then all would be well. It's just that the figures, well, where are they from? Made up? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Aren't the figures (and by extension the rankings) the cause of the copyvio? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The figures are permitted. The text is not. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I've asked here to be sure: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Policy regarding use of data sets.
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

elisha shapiro page[]

got a notice that a page about me might be deleted. I went on it and tried to and fix things that might be out dated. I did not create the Elisha Shapiro page. but I wanted to make sure there were interesting links there, so I just tried to update them. it is useful for me to have the page about my art career. hope you don't delete it. thanks, elisha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elishashap (talkcontribs) 07:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The article needs WP:Reliable sources if it is to remain on Wikipedia. It would probably be best if you suggested improvements on the talk page of the article (because of your conflict of interest). As I expect you know, Wikipedia is not for promotion of careers, but just reports relevant facts that are found in the sources. Dbfirs 08:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for the link. Dbfirs 17:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it a COI?[]

I wanted to organise an event where people write a summary for a wikipedia article about a book together and discuss the book, maybe learn to wikipedia. I then realised that I am an intern for a charity that has received money from another charity that was founded by the book author. Does that mean that writing that summary would be against WP:COI? I can't see how a book summary could be biased though. --tired time (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Tired time Please note that Wikipedia is not for merely writing a book summary; the book must meet notability guidelines as shown in independent reliable sources in order to merit an article here. Not every book does. The notability guidelines are at WP:NBOOKS. The book you want to write about must meet at least one of the guidelines there.
As for COI, I think it would depend on how closely the two charities work together and if the giving of money was just a general donation or was meant to influence the charity in some way. Others may know more. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. The book already has an article about it, it's Doing Good Better. I'm sure it's notable enough. The donation had conditions attached to it. It has nothing to do with the event I wanted to host though. But I guess I'd understand if it was a COI.--tired time (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Tired time: Better be safe than sorry and make the WP:COI disclosure. It does not prevent you from ing, and should not be of great importance (the connection seems tenuous). TigraanClick here to contact me 11:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorting active v. inactive WikiProject participants[]

Some wikiprojects separately list active and inactive members. Are they sorted manually or is there a tool that can do it? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

How would it be possible to determine an inactive user? -- GreenC 16:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
GreenC An inactive user, for the purposes of this issue, is usually defined as someone who has logged no s for six months. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Text small in latter part of article[]

in Aladdin (2011 musical), the text from the Track listing section to the end of the article is small, can someone please fix this? Thanks. Javiero Fernandez (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Javiero Fernandez, I've fixed it with this . There was a "small" tag that was not closed with a corresponding "/small" tag. †dismas†|(talk) 12:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Linking to Wikipedia administration pages in the content of articles[]

Recently, I saw a user (CommanderOzEvolved) had linked to WP:CVU on the entry for CVU, which is a disambiguation page. To my knowledge, we don't link to the admin side of WP from the content of an article. I was bold in reverting and I'm certain that I'm justified in performing the revert but would like to refresh my memory of that guideline. Where can I find the guideline that would support my decision? Thanks, †dismas†|(talk) 11:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Decided to read WP:D and WP:GOV, but I'm still trying to find other guidelines or policies relating to this. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:MOSDAB doesn't seem to be helping me decide too. Come on... CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
There might be an argument that CVU is not a particularly prominent part of the backstage process and thus the hatnote should not be kept even if others should. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I think I'll leave the CVU disambiguation page as-is for now. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Dismas: There was also a discussion about that on that page's talk page that seems to support keeping it. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Please refer me to tips about resubmission of biographies of living persons, thank you.[]

Hi guys, I'd like to be adviced as to what type of restrictions exist for the resubmission of biographic articles from living people whose names have previously been the object of deleted submissions. Are such names penalized in any way? Thank you.Neuralia (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Neuralia, there's no penalty.
If an article by a certain name has been deleted many times then it may have been banned from creation. It's called salting an article.
If you want to create an article for a name that has previously been deleted but not salted, then you can simply start the article. Though I suggest starting it in your own draft space and then moving a well referenced and "finished" article to the main article space when it's ready. Any minor placeholder, even if you have the best intentions, is likely to be nominated for deletion again and waste a lot of time.
If you have not started an article before, I suggest Wikipedia:Your first article. -- †dismas†|(talk) 13:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Against All Will[]

Why does Against All Will have an italic title? Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: Because Template:Infobox album automatically italicizes any article it is used in. If you want that effect to not occur the infobox album usages should include italic_title=no .16:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Colon Terminology question.[]

The act of adding a colon at the beginning of a wiki entry to cause it to link to rather than to be used is called what? For example

Naraht (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Naraht: It's called the colon trick. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
PrimeHunter, I was hoping for a less flippant term, for use in summaries when I userspace pages to remove mainspace categories. Oh well.Naraht (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Naraht: I made {{Draft categories}} as another way to handle that case. It still works by using the colon trick but the user doesn't see the colon. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

How to Cite a Public Government Record[]

Can anyone help me to properly cite this government document? It is a business registration record.

Here is the link to the PDF:

Thank you kindly, Cvdclp (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)Cvdclp

Formatting issue with article tags?[]

At Star India, the tags at the top of the article are showing up in a strange way, at least for me. There is the {multiple issues} template, but it looks like the {undisclosed paid} template is showing up nested in there in a strange way. Is this just my browser, or can anyone else see what I'm talking about? If so, can this be fixed? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Marquardtika: Such message boxes usually use {{ambox}} or similar templates. This hides them in the mobile version. Per Template talk:Undisclosed paid#Visibility on mobile, User:Doc James has coded {{undisclosed paid}} to not use ambox but instead make its own table code. The purpose is to make it display in mobile but the code is not compatible with {{multiple issues}}. Also, nesting {{undisclosed paid}} inside {{multiple issues}} will hide it in mobile due to code in {{multiple issues}}. The code in {{undisclosed paid}} might be tweaked to work better with {{multiple issues}} in desktop but if we want to always show {{undisclosed paid}} in mobile then I guess the solution is to never use it inside {{multiple issues}}, and to add this to the documentation. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Interesting, thanks for the explanation. Marquardtika (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Tagging copyvio, but I don't think I did it correctly[]

I'm trying to tag the first paragraph of Japanese industrial zone, Neemrana as a copyright violation since it was copied and pasted from another website. I followed the instructions at WP:CV101, but the template doesn't look at all right. Can someone help me? Should I just delete the section and move on? Thanks. Mcampany (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I have fixed the template for you. Deli nk (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Mcampany (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Mayor of Spaulding Illinois[]

The mayor of Spaulding Illinois is now Brian Cuffle. Not Mark Urban — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I have updated the article with this information. Deli nk (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Bot accounts that can be triggered by any user[]

I like the fact that User:Citation bot can be activated on demand for a specific page by any user (as described at User:Citation_bot/use#Using_via_a_webpage). Are there any other bots that perform routine cleanup functions that can be triggered to a specific page by any user? Deli nk (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

There are archiving bots, for example. Ruslik_Zero 21:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
In the history tab of any page, there is a link at the top "Fix dead links". This will archive links that are dead. But as with all bots, you are responsible for the (double check your ) -- all bots make mistakes they have an error rate. When you see a mistake report to the bot operator. -- GreenC 16:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

why is there no article on this guy?[]

William Makepeace Thayer

Biographer Author

William Makepeace Thayer was born in Franklin, Massachusetts on February 23, 1820. He graduated from Brown in 1843, studied theology, and was a pastor at the orthodox Congregational church in Ashland, Massachusetts from 1849 to 1857. Due to throat trouble, he left the church in 1858 and decided to focus on literary work. He wrote numerous religious and juvenile books including The Bobbin Boy; The Pioneer Boy; From Log-Cabin to the White House; Tact, Push, and Principle; From Pioneer Home to the White House; and From Tannery to the White House. He died in 1898.

Born: February 23, 1820, Franklin, MA Died: 1898, Franklin, MA

Ramesty (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Because you haven't written it? Seriously, though, Ramesty. The answer to "why isn't there an article about X" is always either 1) Because X does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - i.e. there aren't enough reliable published sources talking about the subject - or 2) Because nobody has yet written it. If you want to pursue this further, I suggest that you read the link about notability and look for some sources (remember that nothing that he wrote, said, or published contributes to notability - we need places where people unconnected to him chose to write about him - they don't have to be online), and if you can find enough there are two choices. If you're feeling brave, read your first article and try your hand at writing an article - it's not easy, but there's no rush: you can take your time. Alternatively, post a request, with the references you've found, at requested articles: there's no guarantee that somebody will take up the request, but maybe you'll awaken somebody's interest enough to do so. --ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that reaction a lot. Ramesty (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

How to upload pictures[]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msk mdshoaibkhan (talkcontribs) 20:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

You can find instructions at Wikipedia:Uploading images. Deli nk (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it advisable to /improve an article undergoing AfD discussion?[]

Hi guys. I am considering s to an article presently undergoing AfD discussion. Such s would address objections raised by the pro-delete ors. Is it appropriate/advisable to proceed with such s and bring them up in the discussion page? Thanks.Neuralia (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Fixing the problem is always a better solution than deleting the article. I like to add something like this to the discussion:
  • Note to closing administrator On (insert time/day here) I ed the article in an attempt to address some of the above comments.
This often triggers a discussion about whether the problems were actually fixed, and usually results in the AfD being relisted for further discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
"If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out reliable sources, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our good and featured articles. If you believe the article topic is valid and encyclopedic, and it lacks only references and other minor changes to survive, you may request help in the task by listing the article on the rescue list in accordance with instructions given at WP:RSL, and then adding the {{rescue list}} template to the AfD discussion by posting {{subst:rescue list}} to the discussion thread. Please do not do this for articles which are likely to be eventually deleted on grounds other than simple incompleteness or poor writing (see WP:SNOW).

If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by ing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin. If the nominator fails to do it when you think it should have been done (people can be busy, so assume good faith on this point), leave a note on the nominator's talk page to draw their attention."

Hope this helps and clarifies. Warmly, Lourdes 02:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Muchas gracias Lourdes.!Neuralia (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Whether a reference makes a company notable[]

Where do I request help in judging whether a reference makes a company "notable"? I would link to the talk page where the or said to come here but I do not know how to link to a label in a talk page. This is about Thorcon.

Extended discussion; please take this up at Talk:Thorcon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Logically, it seems to me that the notability challenge needs to be addressed first. I have found this to be a difficult standard due to the judgment required for each of the four attributes. Since notability is new to me, I do not know how to judge notability. I have found a number of new references and would prefer your notability judgment before I return to the article. Here is the first new reference:

1. Is the DOE notable worthy?

a. This significant coverage because the DOE had to evaluate both the company and the proposed research prior to granting $400,000. b. No-one at ThorCon works for the DOE. c. This is a reliable source because DOE has a large staff of nuclear experts. d. This is not a secondary source because the grant was awarded based on the DOE analysis. [1]Martinburkle (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


Jump up ^ DOE. "GAIN Voucher Recipients 1st Round - 30 Apr 2018" (PDF). Martinburkle, thank you for clearing that up (I'd already come to about the same conclusion by doing a bit of looking around). I think the DOE source is usable as a reference for statements that (roughly) (1) Thorcon is developing a prototype molten salt reactor and (2) that it received funding to develop sensors to be used in that prototype. That's just my opinion; if you want a fuller or more authoritative answer, we have a reliable sources noticeboard where anyone can ask questions like this, and where plenty of people are around to answer them with care and in detail. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

2. Is Power Magazine a notable source?

a. This significant coverage because it includes many paragraphs of description. b. No-one at ThorCon works for the Power Magazine. c. This reliable source reporting on an International agreement between Indonesia and ThorCon. d. This is not a secondary source because the Indonesian side of the agreement had to analyze the ThorCon data.


3. Is EIRP notable worthy?

a. This significant coverage it does an apples-to-apples cost comparison of eight advanced nuclear designs. b. No-one at ThorCon works for the EIRP. c. This is a reliable source because EIRP is independent of the nuclear industry. However, EIRP was founded in 2013 and is a small think tank. Are they too small to be reliable? d. This is not a secondary source because EIRP analyzed data provided by the companies.


4. Is the International Atomic Energy Agency notable worthy?

a. This significant coverage provides a detailed description of the ThorCon product. b. No-one at ThorCon works for the IAEA. c. This is a reliable source because IAEA has a large staff of nuclear experts. d. This may be a secondary source because the info is based on a survey of the primary source.


5. Is the World Nuclear Association

a. This significant coverage because it includes several paragraphs of description. b. No-one at ThorCon works for the WNA. c. This may be an unreliable source because it is a trade organization. d. This may be a secondary source because the info is based on a survey of the primary source.

[4]Martinburkle (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


Hello, Martinburkle. No single reference by itself can make a topic notable since more than one reference is required. When evaluating whether or not a given reference helps establish notabilty, we need to look at the reference and whether its coverage is adequate to establish notabilty, and whether it is completely independent of the topic. For the sake of discussion, let's imagine that there is a professionally ed website that sets out to review every single pizzeria in Illinois, paid for by pizza advertising, and that every pizza joint gets a three or four paragraph review there. A review on that website would be run-of-the-mill coverage, analogous to a listing in a phone book. My house (as much as I like it) is not notable, and neither are the vast majority of pizzerias. So, what we require is significant independent coverage of the sort that other similar companies do not receive. If a company receives funding and coverage from the DOE, then that coverage by the DOE is not independent. There is a direct financial relationship between the DOE and that company. Originally written significant reporting about that company in sources like the Wall Street Journal or Forbes would be the type of coverage that we are looking for. Those are just examples. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

July 17[]

Can I copy/paste an article in my sandbox to organize a course of s instead of doing them on the original page one by one?[]

This is to be applied toward a single ing act of an article currently undergoing AfD discussion. The idea being to avoid messing about with profuse and perhaps erratic ing of article under AfD at a critical time. Any suggestions in this respect? Thank you.Neuralia (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The answer is yes you can, but sometimes whether you should is doubtful. If copy/pasting to a sandbox, WP:CWW must be complied with. That means using an summary like
copy from [[Example]]
That is, the summary states that the text is a copy, and links to the source page. Working in a sandbox is fine if the operation will be finished reasonably soon, but would be a problem if someone s the original article while you are working in the sandbox. Also, if too many changes are made in a single , there is the risk that someone might revert the whole thing because some part of it is (in their view) unsatisfactory. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Neuralia: Categories meant for mainspace articles should be deactivated in other places, e.g. with {{draft categories}}. If there are fair use images then they are not allowed to display outside the real article. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

References for the article[]

Can somebody please provide me with the link where name changes to articles can be submitted? Thank you. Aussieflagfan (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about a name change would go on the talk page of the article. If the change is not controversial, then it is done by moving the article to the new name. If you tell us what article, we could move it for you. If you are asking about Flags of the Australian Defence Force then there is strong opposition to the move. Dbfirs 08:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

References for an article[]


I'm currently ing the page National University o Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine (in English). I'm planning to upload information on notable faculty and alumni (name and the most outstanding achievement in one sentence). My problem is most of them do not have Wiki pages in English (only Ukrainian and Russian). I know that Wiki does not encourage giving links to pages in other languages. I'd be grateful if you helped with the idea how to provide references for the material I'm posting (it is based upon the Ukrainian and Russian versions of the page). I fear that it might be deleted due to the lack of references. Thank you! Світлана Жаркова (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Svetlana Zharkova. I fear you may confusing Wikilinks with references. It is acceptable to Wikilink to a page in another Wikipedia if there isn't one in English: in fact, there is a template {{ill}} which will insert such a link, but if somebody writes an article in English it will automatically link to that instead (though this is less likely to be useful for a language with a different script). See WP:ILL for more.
References are different from Wikilinks: they must be to reliable published sources (which excludes any Wikipedia). They do not have to be online, or in English (though both are preferred if they are available). If you cannot find a reliable publshed source which says that this person is an alumnus, then the article shouldn't say so. (Ideally, the articles you are wikilinking to will cite reliable sources, and you can check the sources and cite them directly; but not all existing articles are up to standard). See referencing for beginners for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Світлана Жаркова If you have a WP:COI you will need to declare it. Also note that any alumni should be notable enough to have their own article on English Wikipedia Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Unreviewed Article List Confusion[]


So I just finished my first article Fairness Project in 5 years or so, so I'm a little out of practice.

I decided I was happy to go via the NPP route rather than AfC, and moved it to a new page in the article workspace out of my sandbox.

I cleared the sandbox tag and a couple of minutes later I realised I hadn't added a unreviewed article tag, so I did so. (I didn't use ArticleWizard)

However I was wondering if there was an issue since it hasn't (or at least, hasn't yet) shown up on Special:Newpagesfeed or Category:Unreviewed new articles from July 2018. If someone can confirm I haven't missed out some fundamental step and that it will go through the NPP process as and when the reviewers work their way through to July that would be strongly appreciated


Nosebagbear (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It's there shown as unreviewed at Special:NewPagesFeed, and also appears in the category to which you refer. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks - just impatience on my behalf then, and probably some caching on my end. Nosebagbear (talk)

WMF legal advice[]

Looking for advice from someone who works in WMF legal about some copyright issues concerning web archiving. Is there as forum or someone who could be contacted? Thanks! -- GreenC 16:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Failed to parse MathML error that I can not fix[]

Under the Surface area and volume heading, the equation A = is getting a Failed to parse. It happens on a Mac with latest Safari & Firefox and on Win10 with Chrome. It does not happen on an iPhone

Surface area and volume[] The surface area A and the volume V of a regular dodecahedron of edge length a are:

Failed to parse (MathML with SVG or PNG fallback (recommended for modern browsers and accessibility tools): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "/mathoid/local/v1/":): {\displaystyle A =

I tried fixing it, but if I the page and push Preview BEFORE making any changes, it works. Bodysurfinyon (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Frustration in creating and ing Wikipedia pages[]

I am not a computer geek. Recently, after years of research in the anthropology and archaeology of south Florida, where I live, I have reviewed existing Wikipedia pages: Fort Center, Big Mound City and Belle Glade culture for accuracy, detail, reliability and citations. Where necessary, I have authored pages on critical and significant cultures and sites. Believing that Wikipedia provides a valuable tool. The link feature allows the reader to read related Wikipedia pages and gain greater understanding. Apparently, I have made data entry-type mistakes and my efforts to improve the quality, detail, accuracy of my pages and s has resulted in nasty and not helpful emails from the staff at Wikipedia. With all of Wikipedia's know how, they have not created a way for contributors to write or speak with the staff to resolve the problems.

I am now so put off by the antagonism after so many hours contributing to the pages, I am ready to just give up. If Wikipedia ( despite getting more current, scientifically sound, sourced updates to false, incorrect or outdated information on south Florida's archaeological sites ) then so be it. It's Wikipedia's name and brand on the page and not mine. Case in point. Today I attempted a second time to and make current the page, Big Mound City. The page created years ago has the wrong dates. The page despite numerous books referring to the site as one of four in the area, fails to incorporate/link to those pages. Today, I ed and cited five authored/credible sources. The original sources by C.W. Corbett were unauthored. You would think that this would improve and add value to the page. Wikipedia deleted and kept the old information. Your welcome EHMANNV (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi - the issue here is that the info you added had some grammatical and syntax errors. I'd like to help, and started a discussion on the talk page. [[3]] Help Desk administrators can archive this item whenever convenient - I also notified the user on his talk page. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
( conflict) Hello, EHMANNV. I'm sorry you are finding it frustrating: that is many people's early experience of contributing to Wikipedia, because it is a big beast, with a lot of policies and procedures which are quite unlike anything else - especially most academic writing. One matter that confounds a lot of people is that Wikipedia does not, in general, acknowledge experts. Experts in a subject are welcomed because they know where to find the reliable sources, and how information about the subject can be organised; but in actually writing articles they are given no greater credence than any other or who can read and summarise a reference. In particular, original research is not permitted in Wikipedia: every claim in an article must have been published somewhere. (I'm not saying that you inserted any Original Research: I haven't studied your contributions to see; I'm just explaining one of the ways in which Wikipedia differs from most other projects).
"Wikipedia" did not revert your s: two particular ors did, and left you messages on your User talk page explaining why. This is how cooperation works on Wikipedia: the bold, revert, discuss cycle (please read that link). So Donald Albury reverted your to Fort Center because it added information without giving a source; and Jessicapierce reverted your to Big Mound City because she found it unreadable. If you accept their criticisms, you are welcome to the articles again, paying note to what they said; if you disagree, I urge you to discuss it with them on your User Talk page, or the Talk page of the relevant article, until you can reach consensus about what changes should be made to the article. (If you cannot agree, there are further steps laid out in Dispute resolution).
I hope you won't give up on Wikipedia: please stick with it and learn your way around. --ColinFine (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@EHMANNV: If you find the syntax confusing, you might also want to look into using the visual or - click the pencil in the upper right of the ing area and click "visual or". That requires a lot less knowledge of the syntax we use in Wikipedia articles. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Disagree with Editor jessicapiece@Wikipedia re s to Big Mound City[]

content discussion belongs on the article talk page

First, I am not an authority. I read a great deal. My s I believe were not only readable but worthy of reading. Three reasons for my ing of the existing page: Big Mound City

1. For the first time ever, the archaeological site has dates. The dates in the text based on TWO UNAUTHORED ( and suspect ) websites were disproven by Colvin and Lawres and published in the Florida Anthropologist Journal in 2017. 2. Using links, the I believed added more value to the information on the page because the authored literature on the subject ( Milanich, McGoun, Thompson & Pluckhahn all view Big Mound City as a four site archaeological phenomena. 3. The references used originally are blatantly false. All one has to do is the click on the links and realize that Big Mound City is not listed on Mississippi sites or burial mounds. That is because it is not a Mississippi Culture site and they are not Mississippi Indian mounds. So if you are unwilling to have a page support factual information. Then please take down the page.


EHMANNV (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

You'd probably want to take that up on Jessicapierce's talk page or Big Mound City's talk page. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the mounds found in southern Florida are not Mississipian in a strict sense, but Robert S. Carr states: "Mississippian influences in the extreme southern end of the peninsula appear to have been ephemeral at best, but there are important cultural manifestations dating to ca. A.D. 1000-1500 that suggest the pulse of Mississippian development may have reached South Florida." (Carr, Robert S. 2012. "Mississippian Influence in the Glades, Belle Glade and East Okeechobee Areas of South Florida." in Late Prehistoric Florida: Archaeology at the Edge of the Mississippian World. University Press of Florida. Page 62.) We can discuss sources to use and how to use the material from them at Talk:Big Mound City. Please note, though, that it is important to provide enough information in citations to allow readers to find and read the sources for themselves. - Donald Albury 21:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
EHMANNV: please look at the state of the "Big Mound City" after your , as here; particularly the paragraphs immediately above the References section. I have no views on the archaeology, but your made a mess of the formatting, and I'm not surprised that it was reverted. Maproom (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

July 18[]


Is considered to be RS? RJFJR (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, generally. As long as ors stick to the parts that are written by professional music journalists, I don't see a problem. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources discourages citing genres from AllMusic's sidebar. The rest of the site is generally signed off by journalists, including the biographies and reviews. For more discussion, you can view the WP:RSN archives. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Odd history at "Pay it forward"[]

(This is of zero urgency and low importance.) I went in to fix a ref error at Pay it forward, and found a history page like nothing I've seen before. Before I change anything, I wanted to run this past someone - what's going on here? Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean why are all the s hidden? This is because of Wikipedia:Revision deletion. Sometimes if there is offensive, copyrighted etc. material in summaries or s admins will hide it from public view. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm used to seeing a few such strikethroughs indicating deletion, but it's usually more clear what the situation was (as you say, copyright issues, etc.) - this gives no clue as to what happened. And the deletions that I've seen usually apply to the actions of one or a few contributors to the article. This run of deletions goes back to 2016, and removed the s of over a dozen people. It just looked so totally weird to me, especially because I can't really tell what was done in the most recent . Thank you for your reply! Jessicapierce (talk)
If you go to the history page, and view the last non-struck before the strikes start, you can then click on the next diff, and it will take you to a page where you can click to see the deletion log. In the case you linked to above, apparently it was disruptive material that was deleted. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 06:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Jessicapierce, TheSandDoctor revdeled as Purely disruptive material, WP:RD3 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
You can also click "View logs for this page" at the top of the page history. If unwanted content has stayed for multiple s then all the s must be revision deleted to hide the content. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
As the others have said Jessicapierce, it was purely disruptive material introduced in 2016 that was removed. It is nothing to worry about, you may the page. --TheSandDoctor Talk 13:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


what can i do to get a job in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid there are no jobs in Wikipedia. It is entirely created and ed by volunteers. (The Wikimedia Foundation employs a small number of people, like any other technology company, but they do not work on Wikipedia content as part of their job). --ColinFine (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Request: Guest Blog Entry[]

Hello there,

My name is Brenda Mitchell. I am contacting you on behalf of a betting company that may wish to contribute an article to your site with a do follow link.

I would like to know your prices and if you offered this kind of service.

Kindly note that the article must be permanent and not be marked as sponsored.


Contact me at <redacted> (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm afraid Wikipedia does not allow content that can be considered in anyway promotional. Articles in the encyclopedia are written by volunteer ors with no connection to the the subject and are based on what has been witten about the topic in multiple reliable sources. Little, if anything that a subject has to say about itself would be acceptable or usable in a Wiki article. If your company is truly notable then at some future date, a page could be created. If a page were created, it would be Wikipedia's page about the company not 'their' page and persons with a connection to the subject would be required not to it. Eagleash (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
( conflict) Hello, Brenda. I think you are confusing us with some other site. 
This is Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia. It is not a blog. It does not take paid material of any kind. It does not permit promotional material of any kind. Content is preferably not written by anybody connected with the subject, and if it is, should be clearly marked as such. Almost every part of Wikipedia may be freely ed by anybody (in accordance with the rules and policies of Wikipedia). And nobody will contact you other than answering here.
Is there anything else we can help you with? --ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Question about page mover[]

Hello. I relisted this as it went archived without a response. I was planning on request the page mover permission once I get to 3,000 s. As I am involved with WP:Requested moves, and also has moved some pages myself. Just one question though. Does consensus have to go my way in the votes that I propose in order to get the permission? I know quite a few of my RM's have not been unsuccessful, but my RM's are all good faith, so I was just wondering. Your help will be appreciated. Thank you. The Duke of NonsenseWhat is necessary for thee?. 10:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox road[]

Could someone explain how to get the previous_dab and next_dab parameters to work for UK roads in Template:Infobox road, please? The article I've been looking at is M53 motorway. The syntax in the previous_route and previous_dab is currently broken but fixing it results in the previous link always pointing to a dab page, M50 motorway. This happens whatever is in the previous_dab parameter. That parameter works for other countries. For example, the previous link in Alabama State Route 46 points to Alabama State Route 45 (pre-1957) when previous_dab is =pre-1957 and changing that to =xyz changes the link to Alabama State Route 45 (xyz). I'm guessing there is some code associated with country=GBR that disables the previous_dab parameter. Cavrdg (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

How to remove NRHP Infobox[]

Hello - Our organization, the University of Michigan Museum of Natural History, is in the process of moving to a new building.

Our old building is in the National Registry of Historic Places and that added an infobox about that designation on our page. The building is still a historic building, but we are not in it anymore. How do I get this removed?



UMMNH (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)