Help desk
< April 26	<< Mar | April | May >>	April 28 >

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.

 Fixed

The content though may be different but are from same papers. I am certain of the citations. Please do help in removing errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooja Iyer (talk • contribs) 00:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, assuming this relates to Transcranial Direct Stimulation in Parkinson's Disease Gait Rehabilitation, the ref. errors all seem to be of the same nature. If you wish to use the same reference in multiple applications you place <ref name=xxx>{{ref content}}</ref> at the first instance and at subsequent uses you need only type<ref name=xxx/>. If there is any variation in the ref. content you cannot use the same ref. name and must type out the citation in full. Also, you do not need a ref name for every citation, just for where you need to use the same (identical) ref. in multiple locations within the article. Eagleash (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pooja Iyer: In this case the subsequent ref uses were incorrectly formatted. (There was unnecessary text after the ref name etc.). I have fixed the ref errors, but you might want to check that the right ones are in the right places... On another minor note, punctuation goes before the ref. and there should not be a space in front of it. Eagleash (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add Josephine Butler into the category section of this page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbernadette (talk • contribs) 01:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Srbernadette, there is no such category. Each article already contains a link to the other. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To edit a foreign language Wikipedia, would I just use my en account? Are there any policies I should be aware of before doing this, or anything I should put on my userpage? What are the rules for cross-wiki translation - are there any attribution requirements, etc. that I should be aware of? Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seraphim System: You can use your Wikipedia account on any Wikimedia project (and you should be automatically loged in anywhere, see Help:Unified login). This is what allows me to edit here in the English Wikipedia. User pages are strictly optional, which means you don’t have to have one. However, if your grasp of the language is limited, it might be a good idea to mention that on your user page. Per default, your user page at meta.wikimedia.org will be copied to all Wikimedia projects where you don’t create a local one, which can be really useful.

Other Wikipedia projects tend to have their own project rules. With minor edits, you should be OK, though, and if you do make a mistake, you can be sure someone’s going to (more or less friendly) point you to the right policy page ;) Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 03:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Torana I am planning to translate articles to add to Vikipedia (which has very few articles compared to english wikipedia!) - I just want to be sure I don't mess anything up on our end for translated articles - I vaguely remember reading something about attribution to the original article, or maybe noting that it has been translated from another project - but I might be mistaken? Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is where it gets complicated and the per-project rules come into play (in the German Wikipedia, you’d need to find an administrator or even an importer). The Turkish Wikipedia does seem to have a help page, but I don’t speak the language, so I can’t tell you if it’s helpful. It might be a good idea to create your article in your namespace at tr.wikipedia and ask the local community for their oppinion (for example at tr:Vikipedi:Danışma masası, which is linked from here. Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 03:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, there seems to be some kind of automated tool for this on Vikipedia, I'll check it out Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about redirect pages. I typed in "Kyle Kennedy", curious to see if we had an article about the Kyle Kennedy who has been in the news lately (that is, the prison inmate friend of Aaron Hernandez). When I typed "Kyle Kennedy" into the search box, it brought me to a page entitled "List of The Voice of Ireland finalists (series 1)", which was a redirect for "Kyle Kennedy". My first question was: why is "Kyle Kennedy" redirecting to "List of The Voice of Ireland finalists (series 1)"? I could not see anything that was remotely related. And my second question was more general. Is there anything written anywhere (on the redirect page or on the redirected page or anywhere at all) that offers any insight as to why the article named "X" is redirected to the article named "Y"? How would one know, without having to engage in a lot of "detective work"? Is there any "documentation"? And I am clearly not referring to obvious redirects like "Obama" to "Barack Obama" or such. I am talking about the "murkier" and less obvious cases. Like "Kyle Kennedy" and that "List of The Voice of Ireland finalists (series 1)" example. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate assumption is that there was a finalist on Voice of Ireland that was named Kyle Kennedy (which is probably a Google search away). Looking at the redirect, and seeing that the edit summary says "create redirect via Articles for creation", I am also assuming searching for Kyle Kennedy there will find the request to create it. I'll get back to you in a moment with the results of each.Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the very first result from a Google search of <"Voice of Ireland" "Kyle Kennedy"> shows, yes, there was a finalist named this. And a search of Wikipedia articles for creation shows this was requested for that reasons. See here (I've actually linked to the one above the request rather than the request since it's title is huge). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But nowhere in that article -- List of The Voice of Ireland finalists (series 1) -- is there any mention of any "Kyle Kennedy". Correct? So, we are back to "Square One", with my questions. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right... I mean that's a good point. Our page Wikipedia:Redirect is the operative guidance, and I don't think it exactly says "don't do that", but... it is not particularly good practice, no. Somebody just got overenthusiastic and made the redirect. Maybe they intended to write Kyle Kennedy into the article, or maybe the figured someone else would, or maybe they just figured it would be helpful regardless. You or any editor can take any redirect to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion for possible deletion. Herostratus (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mention at The Voice of Ireland, though it's curiously the only name missing from List of The Voice of Ireland finalists (series 1), so perhaps its either accidentally missing or there's some misinformation somewhere. To see why a redirect was created it usually helps to look at its history and especially the backlinks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The history [1] shows it was created as a redirect to The Voice of Ireland (series 1) which mentions Kyle Kennedy several times. An IP quickly changed the target to List of The Voice of Ireland finalists (series 1). Looking at the target version at the time may also give information about the reason for a redirect. In this case the new target didn't mention Kyle Kennedy at the time so the IP made a bad edit. It still doesn't mention him so I have reverted the IP. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little puzzled. You asked why it was redirected when it appears unrelated to the redirect target, so, I answered → directly related because he was on the show; where is the history of the redirection/how do I find it? So → look at edit summary → which tells you where the request for the redirect can be searched, resulting in → link to the redirect request, where the rationale for creating it appears. Why is he not mentioned in the article? Because no one added it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks. Sorry for puzzling you. My question was, in paraphrase, as follows. My search for "Kyle Kennedy" redirected me to that page about "List of The Voice of Ireland finalists (series 1)". I don't understand that redirect, since the page does not mention any "Kyle Kennedy" at all. So, how would any reader/user know what was going on and why that redirect for my search term brought me to a page that was (apparently) totally unrelated to my search term? And, I was also asking about how a user/reader finds this info, without having to do a lot of "detective work". Remember, some people don't know how to navigate all of those "behind the scenes" components of a Wikipedia article (history logs, redirect requests, etc.). So, in a nutshell, a person searching for "Kyle Kennedy" would be brought to a page called ""List of The Voice of Ireland finalists (series 1)". They'd have no idea why. And they would see no connection whatsoever. That is what prompted my question. What I got out of the discussion and answers above was that the whole thing was a mistake. And the editor in question should not have made such a redirect. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the redirect target was a mistake. If the purpose of a redirect isn't obvious from the target then you have to do a little detective work. Good places to start is the page history of the redirect, and a Google search on the redirect name and target name together. The content of the target when the redirect was made can also help but it didn't here. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I am annoying the editors. I have failed in my attempt to add a "publication" to the publication section on this page. I would like to leave in the quote too - if that is possible. Please fix. Sorry 2001:8003:4F0A:F100:253D:8D25:6DA1:FC3A (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are not annoying us, 2001:8003:4F0A:F100:253D:8D25:6DA1:FC3A! We are here to help.

Can you be a little more specific? There has been a lot of activity on that page recently, and nothing by 2001:8003:4F0A:F100:253D:8D25:6DA1:FC3A. Were you logged in under an account? Or perhaps you writing from a different device as 101.182.219.133?

Just to go the "Publications" section, click on "Edit" (or "Edit source"), and type in your contribution, then click Save. Other than telling you that, I can't help unless I have more information about what exactly is happeneing. Herostratus (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I want to upload a file but i don't know why somebody keep deleting my file. I want to post the photo on Stefanja Orlowska wiki page. I have the photo from the actress. How i prove i can use the photo? Please help me. Thank you. Have a great day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragos.betea (talk • contribs) 07:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dragos.betea: can you be more specific? What is the subject of the image and who's the author of the photograph? It's possible that your photo is a copyright violation. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without a suitable statement of release from the copyright holder, photographs cannot be used on Wikipedia. Generally speaking it is the photographer, and not the subject of the photograph, who owns the copyright. You can click on any of the files listed here to see the reason for the deletion, and the Commons admin who deleted the file; in every case, it appears that the image was a copyright violation. Unless you are the photographer, or you can prove that the photographer has released the rights to you, you cannot upload these images. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I would like to create an entry on an author friend of mine, who's work I really admire. Can you please tell me how I go about it? Many thanks Krcrawley (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good place to start. Read this page: Wikipedia:Your first article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krcrawley When you read: Wikipedia:Your first article, please review the section: "Are you closely connected to the article topic?" and WP:COI "Conflict of Interest" guidelines. You may wish to explore the possibility of Request an Article for creation. Good luck! Maineartists (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that creating an article about my own organization is problematic. But what about direct translations of an existing, independent English article about my organization into other languages? Is that something I can organize myself as long as the translation is direct and no additional information gets added? I could not find any information about this in these articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.99.170 (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're translating from English to another language, then that depends on what that language's policies on conflict of interest are. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to log in but cant.......Ozzie10aaaa--2601:58B:8000:5ACE:5818:6DAB:DC1:9ED5 (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

forget it, its working now--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Reporting:_my_Login_is_no_longer_working DuncanHill (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just had the exact same problem! I was redirected to mediawiki and told my authentication was not valid (not verbatim but similarly worded). Patient Zero^talk 13:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the page i created was deleted can some one else can use the same title? if so when — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.81.185 (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which page? --Jayron32 13:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are User:Krishnakaanth who created an unsourced article Krishna Kaanth. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. Others are not prevented from creating a new article but it should satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). PrimeHunter (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikipedia has the wrong header name for one of our parks. Kiwanis Municipal Stadium Park is legally only "Kiwanis Park". I have edited the body of text as it is also not a soccer stadium but I cannot change the header to say Kiwanis Park. Can you advise how to change the header? I tried help and could not find the answer.

Thanks, Colleen Wilson City of Williamsburg Parks and Recreation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwilson23185 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have moved the page as requested, but I have removed (and deleted from sight) the changes you made to the article, because they were a direct copy of this website and articles should be written using sources, not by copying sources word-for-word. Bencherlite^Talk 13:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Wyoming Cowboys football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I Tried to save the article on 2017 Wyoming football season but why are you putting a Speddy Deletion to this. 2600:8803:7A00:976A:D8CC:76E5:36B0:53E (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you have been suspected to be a sockpuppet. See this. Yashovardhan (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet I'm sorry I Wont do this again 2600:8803:7A00:976A:D8CC:76E5:36B0:53E (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help so that I wont be doing any bad things Can you help me please 2600:8803:7A00:976A:D8CC:76E5:36B0:53E (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide specific details. CTF83! 19:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Three related posts from the same user merged. Eagleash (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that this IP is a sock of the blocked user? Eagleash (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in one section of article are materials that do not comply with Wikipedia rules. Can I complain about this section without touching the entire article? - Gregori Miler (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? The answer is probably yes, but some things don't need complaints they need instant removal. It depends on the article. - X201 (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Italian martial arts#Lajolo. 1) There is no reliable sources 2) No Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - Gregori Miler (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gregori Miler. There are templates {{unreferenced section}} and {{POV section}} which you may insert in the section for just this purpose. If you are able to improve the article rather than just tagging it, that would be even better. --ColinFine (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia currently has a page for the name, Aaron Louis Tordini, saying he is also known as Aaron Louis,however it should be the other way around. THe main page should be for Aaron Louis and had once been known as Aaron Louis Tordini. May thanks for your advice on how to change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronlouis1 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to request a move to the correct title. See WP:RM. Yashovardhan (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That depends, Aaronlouis1. How is he referred to in the independent reliable sources which must provide the bulk of any article about a living person or it will be deleted? (Neither of the references currently given seems to be available on line, so I can't tell). If they refer to him as Aaron Louis, then that is what the primary name of the article should be. Ditto Aaron Louis Tordinig, or T. A. Louis. (The other names can be redirects in any case). Are you Louis? If so, you ought to declare your conflict of interest in this article (I appreciate that you have not so far edited it: thank you). If you are not, you need to change your user name to something which does not look like an impersonation. --ColinFine (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can I generate that checkmark with the word "Solved" after my question is answered? Thanks. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can use {{resolved}}. Deor (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AboutFace 22. Generally at this page and some other help forums there has been past discussion and some consensus not to use the resolved tags (as they chill further discussions in various ways). If the questioner themselves adds the tag it's no biggie, but people going around "closing" discussions as resolved is a larger problem. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may expand upon that a bit. There are forums where marking something as resolved and/or marking as eligible for archiving is a good idea, and there are forums where it is not such a good idea. Roughly speaking, if an issue has been raised and an answer supplied in such a way that readers of the forum ought to skip over the query, it may make sense to market as resolved and/or archive.

For example, at the Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard, if someone poses an issue about a permission statement needing to be handled and it gets handled, it's a waste of my time to start reading through the query and then finding out nothing needs to be done. So closing it in a way that makes it clear that it has been handled, and archiving it on a delayed basis on the chance that someone happens to read it and finds the need to add to it, make sense.

Similarly if someone requests a map or graphic at the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop, it is useful to mark completed requests as "done" to make it easier for readers to look for open issues.

In contrast, questions at the help desk and tea house and village pump forums are often open-ended, and while occasionally an editor thinks they have a definitive closing remark, it is quite common that someone else will come in with some other thoughts, so prematurely closing and archiving is detrimental to discussion.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is somewhere in between. There are definitely situations where closing and archiving make sense. If editor a raises an issue about editor b and editor b completely agrees and commits to different behavior in the future, it may well be useful to close and archive the discussion. However, for whatever reason, some editors are anxious to close and archive discussions prematurely.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

im not sure how but can you create a page for the Hajime Botnet so i can edit it and put the correct information in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilltongalaxy (talk • contribs) 17:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions CTF83! 19:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I contact another user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparky1997 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go to their talk page. For example, here is yours CTF83! 19:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3ITV (talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be removed. He is a fraud using this to raise money from unsuspected investors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lajtay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.44.98 (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've no evidence that he's a fraud (and if he were, it wouldn't be a reason for Wikipedia to remove the article). But I doubt he's "notable" by Wikipedia's definition, and have proposed the article for deletion. Maproom (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I cannot for the life of me figure out how to have the text wrapped around my userboxes. For example, I want both userboxes and text on the same line, with userbox to the far right and the text on the left goes only to the userbox's edge, then goes to a new line. I've seen this done before, but how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by McSqueegee (talk • contribs) 21:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey McSqueegee. I have arranged your userboxes on your userpage, by moving them to the top of the page and placing above them {{userboxtop}} and below them {{userboxbottom}}. If the result is not what you were looking for, just revert me, and maybe explain a bit more about what you want them to look like. There's some information at Wikipedia:Userboxes#Grouping userboxes that might help. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Fuhghettaboutit, this is exactly what I was looking for, and I greatly appreciate your help. Cheers! - McSqueegee (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Hohenbergia conquistensis is a species in the genus Hohenbergia."

Hi everyone, I stumbled across a whole bunch of related articles which consist of basically no content at all. As far as my random check goes, they all have the exact identical pattern and the identical "definition" saying "AB is a species of A". And everything in the Latin scientific names only.

Basically, you have to be a botanist or at least at an advanced level of Latin to even get an idea what these articles are about. An average reader will not even get the faintest idea if we are talking about a tree, a reptile, or a moth in these articles.

Which is to say: They are pretty much useless the way they are. Only a botanist will understand them, and a botanist won't need them. They basically fulfill all criteria for being not even a stub but a substub.

So, what is there to be done about a series of articles like these? --93.212.233.169 (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we were talking about another type of subject, something possibly non-notable, I'd go down a different road, but for articles on species, I'd say all the answers lie in the direction of boldy expanding them to make them better; a/k/a SoFixIt™ ℠ ®; fill the hole; roll up your sleeves; get crackin'...--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox says "Kingdom: Plantae" so I know it's a plant without being a botanist. There are hundreds of thousands of species of plants. Many of them only have a Latin name. Why do you think a botanist won't need such articles? A botanist may know other sources but everything in Wikipedia should already be published somewhere. The article actually says:

"Hohenbergia conquistensis is a species in the genus Hohenbergia. This species is native to Brazil."

So I also know where this plant is from, and Hohenbergia with more information is only a click away. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Inherent notability.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• These stubs apparently precede the major expansions of Wikispecies and Wikidata, which will ultimately tie this mess together in a structured way. The articles are still useful placeholders, because neither Wikispecies nor Wikidata allow for actual English-language description of the species. We can hope that whoever created these articicles will come back and do the same in Wikispecies. -Arch dude (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "boldy expanding them to make them better; a/k/a SoFixIt™ ℠ ®; fill the hole; roll up your sleeves; get crackin'..."

You're a funny one. I just said I hardly have an idea what these articles are talking about, and you want me to expand them? No you don't.

• "The infobox says "Kingdom: Plantae" so I know it's a plant without being a botanist."

Sure. But you have to read and understand the infobox in order to even get an idea what this article is about. That is not how WP works, as far as I understand. The definition at the beginning of the article is supposed to let the reader know what this is about, and it it supposed to do so in an understandable manner.

• "Why do you think a botanist won't need such articles?"

For the very simple reason that the information given in the definition is redundant. By definition, that's how the binomial system works, as far as I understand it and as far as WP explains it: "The first part of the name identifies the genus to which the species belongs; the second part identifies the species within the genus." So, from a botanist's view, what else should Hohenbergia conquistensis be but a species in the genus Hohenbergia?

• "These stubs apparently precede the major expansions of Wikispecies and Wikidata, which will ultimately tie this mess together in a structured way. The articles are still useful placeholders"

O.k., that makes some sort of sense; let's hope that this expansion will happen at some time. It's not like we are short in server capacity here, so these substubs won't hurt anyone. I just didn't see any point in having them so far, with this level of content. --93.212.246.173 (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]