Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 January 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.

January 28

Submitting picture

I've found a picture for the article Williams Fork Formation at here: http://dnr.state.co.us/geostore/ZoomImage.aspx?productID=OF97-07. Can anybody help me upload this without there being copyright infringement? thanks--Dale Direct (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That site belongs to the Colorado Geological Survey, and I see no indication that their content is licensed under a free license as required of Wikipedia images; they do seem to be selling content. I suppose you could try contacting them and requesting a free license as described at WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 03:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Serious cite tag usage problem

Hi. Not sure whether to post this in WP:VPT or here, but using the "cite" gadget on my wiki editing browser now causes the relevant section to shift forward by one space, creating something like this:

==Section==

Obviously, this is a problem since failing to notice the shift will put the edit into a whole new section, whereupon the section header will have to be corrected. Although a new feature seems to allow the cite tag and reference to be added directly into the preferred spot in the text (this was not possible previously), the cite tag simultaneous seems to cause a section shift, so this problem needs to be resolved. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean the extra unneeded whitespace you created (by accident?) here? mabdul 02:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You are supposed to first place the cursor where you want the citation. It's odd if this wasn't possible previously. Some parts of your post are unclear to me but I guess the whole issue is that the gadget (refTools under "Gadgets" at Special:Preferences) adds a space after the citation. If the citation was first placed at the start of a section heading and the citation code was then moved without touching the added space, then the heading gets a leading space which is not allowed by the software. If you don't want a space to be added then you can suggest it is removed at Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar 2.0. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Outline of Asia

I first reported Outline of Asia to be uneditable on Dec 22 (correction Dec 23) - as far as I can tell the problem has not been fixed - the page is frozen Michael Goodyear 02:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I tried to edit the article but could not.

Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes.

You may be able to get further information in the #wikipedia channel on the Freenode IRC network.

The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organisation which hosts some of the most popular sites on the Internet, including Wikipedia. It has a constant need to purchase new hardware. If you would like to help, please donate.

---

~AH1^(TCU) 02:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It was Dec 23: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 December 23#Error in editing page. I just made two test edits in Opera. They worked but were slow: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outline_of_Asia&action=history. The second gave me an error screen starting with "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem", but the edit was saved.

By the way, your signature should link to your user page. The easiest way to do this is to uncheck "Treat the above as wiki markup" at Special:Preferences (I assume you have it checked now). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Noted and changed - still cannot access - getting timeout's every time. Problems with this page have been flagged since May 2010 - if anyone can get into it, it needs deconstruction to determine where the problem is. Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Proper {tag} to use after the word "supposedly"

I stopped by Land Grid Array and noticed this:

"... Intel supposedly decided to switch to an LGA socket because it provides a larger contact point ..."

The whole page is already tagged {unreferenced}, but I'm wondering, what is the proper in-line tag for the word "supposedly"? At first I thought it was , but it actually seems to be WP:Alleged, for which I can't find an in-line. (Yes, the better solution is to rewrite it.) Thanks! — VoxLuna ☾ ^orbit_land   02:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look around and I don't think there is an inline tag for this. It can easily be created but I'm not sure this comes up enough that it's warranted. As you've already acknowledged, rewrite, and if you just want to change this one word, you might just tighten up the sentence to say nothing about their motivation: Intel supposedly decided to switched to an LGA socket because it provides a larger contact point ..."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hold on... Presumably the "supposedly" was added by the original author to indicate uncertainty about whether that really was the reason. Therefore I'd personally just delete the whole sentence if I couldn't find a supporting reference. Like Jimbo says, it's better to have no information than wrong information. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"Supposedly" could be a weasel word since it seems to be an indirect way to allude to, or question, someone's supposition. On Wikipedia we must always attribute controversial views to their sources. Who supposed this was Intel's reason for switching to an LGA socket? --Teratornis (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

How often are articles reviewed?

At the beginning of the page on Johnny Moses, it says that there needs to be more third-party verifications, but that notice more than three years old.

There are a number of references that I assume have been added since that notice was put up, but I'm wondering who put that notice up, and how is that person notified to review the material, and take the notice down, if warranted?

In other words, is that notice still up because whoever (and that's one of my questions - who puts those notices up?) put the notice up doesn't know that additional references have been added, or does the person who put those notices up consider the existing references to be insufficient?

And how are we to know? Would that person change the date on the notice to the current date?

Is this answered anywhere in your help system? I tried to find it, but I don't think the Help system is very good. A keyword search-based help system is a bit like trying to find the big dipper by peeking through a little tiny straw. You can't get an overview. MargaretBartley (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can take a notice down once the issue is resolved. And anyone can put these notices up too. This is a wiki. Nobody is 'in charge' (in this case). [CharlieEchoTango] 07:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

When the {{primarysources}} tag was added, the article looked like this. The only references were to Johnny Moses' own website. There are enough third-party references for an article of that size now, so you're perfectly justified in removing the tag. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The specific page that would answer your question is at WP:TAGGING. For an overview of the help system, see Help:Contents or Help:Contents/Site map. -- œ^™ 12:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

ONTORULE

Actually this issue is related with the upper one...

I'm the editor of the article of ONTORULE. In early versions of that article, we received some tags warning about some improvements. We worked on solve those issues several months ago, trying to address the problems. But the article still has the tags, and obviously I should not remove them. So the question is: how can we request a new revision of that article, in order to remove those tags? Thanks in advance. --Sergioferlo (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2011 (CET)

You actually can remove those tags. You're an editor here as much as any of us. But... All the things that those tags are pointing out are still issues with the article. None of them have been suitably addressed. Dismas|^(talk) 08:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's far worse: The lead is a copyvio from http://www.ontorule-project.eu/ The first section is copyvio from a subpage of that site. I haven't checked yet, but I suspect it is all copyvios. —teb728 t c 10:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No, there's an OTRS ticket on the talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have looked at the talk page before I started posting. The reason I suspected a copyvio was that it was so totally unencyclopedic and hopelessly promotional. I'm still thinking of tagging it {{db-promo}}, but after one mistake I'm a little gunshy. What do you think? —teb728 t c 10:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The log says that earlier versions have been speedied G11 and A7. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, the OTRS doesn't overrule the idea that the article should remain neutral. Just that we don't have to worry about a copyvio. Dismas|^(talk) 11:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

OTRS most certainly does not trump neutrality and prohibitions against spam. In fact, if text is copied and pasted from the organisation's own website and released per OTRS, it should receive even more scrutiny as it is de facto unlikely to be neutral in tone and free from promotional spin. – ukexpat (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sergio, I'm a little concerned about some of the words you used in your question above. When you describe yourself as the editor of the article, and then when you say "we received some tags", it sounds to me as if you are associated with the project, and are regarding the article as belonging to you and to the project. It may be that I am reaching a wrong conclusion, in which case I apologise; but if my guesses are correct, please read WP:COI and WP:OWN. --ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I know how things work here, that's why I appreciate your comments. Due to my relationship with the original source of information, I'm the first to assume the errors on previous versions of the article. So I'm working for improving it, and I hope now it'd be more useful for people from a encyclopedic point of view. Please, I ask you to unmercifully highlight any other possible issue. Sergioferlo (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2011 (CET)

bharat matriculation higher secondary school is not listed in school s category krishnagiri

The school is not listed is there any reason for it kindly enclose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.45.5 (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved - the IP edited the page. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

adding a (sub) category

I think there should be a subcategory in the uk section for healthcare, entitled Drug Addiction Treatment, how do I do this please?

FWIW: There is a general category Drug Addiction but it is not uk specific and of course methods of treatment have been historically/are/may be different in different countries2829VC (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear exactly what you're suggesting - do you mean "categories" in the Wikipedia sense, as labels for organizing articles into groups (see WP:CAT)? We do indeed have a Category:Drug addiction - are you suggesting the creation of Category:Drug addiction treatment in the UK? If so, the first thing to do would be identify the pages you wanted to place in that category, to establish whether there is a need for it. At the moment, there appear to be few articles specifically about UK drug treatment, so I'm not convinced a category is merited yet (though I've not researched this in detail). The guideline at Wikipedia:CAT#What categories should be created gives full details for deciding whether a new category is appropriate.

Or are you proposing the addition of article content about treatment for drug addiction in the UK? We have articles at Drug policy of the Soviet Union, Drug policy of the Netherlands, Drug policy of the United States, and Drug policy of Portugal, so I think there's good precedent to develop an article at Drug policy of the United Kingdom (currently a redirect to a list of controlled substances) too. It looks like you're fairly new to Wikipedia editing, so I'll place some general advice on creating your first article at your user talk page.

If you meant something else entirely, let us know :) Gonzonoir (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I do mean create a new category Category:Drug addiction treatment in the UK there are other categories within uk healthcare, I think Drug addiction treatment is required, I'm not entirely unfamilar with creating articles. I have created a few under another username but I needed to create another username rather than changing my original name. There are few wiki articles on that subject but there will be more, I am creating them2829VC (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion a semi-protection of an article

hello,

where can I suggest to semi-protect an article that has been weak vandalized. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFP. Dismas|^(talk) 13:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hello.

I'm very disappointed to see that someone has deleted the page with my name "risto hieta". I have no idea who have made that page, but it's not me. All the information was still correct and I have had nothing to complain about that page. Please put it back so the world can see who I am.

Risto Hieta 88.113.31.227 (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it was deleted via WP:PROD, the reason is given in the deletion log. You have the option of taking the matter to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. But just so you know, the article does still exist on the Finnish Wikipedia, at fi:Risto Hieta. -- œ^™ 14:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed your email address to protect your privacy. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually the link OlEnglish gave above was not to the deletion log but to the deleted article. Try this. --ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction :) -- œ^™ 01:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding background images

I would like to add a background image (behind the text) on a page that I have created. Is this possible? If so, how do I go about it? This is often done on web pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelguest (talk • contribs) 14:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Wikipedia does use images to illustrate text, but not as background images (a la Twitter or Myspace). TNXMan 14:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia disables the use of the url(image) code you'd use to set a background image in HTML (see discussions e.g. here and here). For an article, it probably wouldn't conform to Wikipedia's manual of style either. But if you're wanting to do this on a user page there might possibly be a CSS workaround (as at User:Ed_g2s) - what's the page, and which image did you want to use? Gonzonoir (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(conflict) I don't believe it is possible. It would be fine to change the background on a webpage that only you have control of, but when anyone in the world can change a page, such a feature can easily be abused. Start allowing people to change the background, and soon you would see vandals changing the background to a picture of a breast or another childishly vulgar object. That's related to the reason why it is not allowed to embed videos, or insert external, pictures, or really use anything that is not wiki-markup and basic HTML: there is simply too much potential for abuse. Xenon54 (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Three responses already?! If you're talking about a webpage that's not part of Wikipedia, you might want to ask at Computing reference desk. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hospital Sisters Health System

I am the communication director for Hospital Sisters Health System. We became aware this week that someone put content about our organization that was not authorized. I have tried twice over the past two days to edit the information and provide factual information about our health system, which includes 13 hospitals in Illinois in Wisconsin. My first update was intially saved and then kicked out. I tried poster a shorter update this morning and was told the content was refused because it was advertising. Below is what I posted, which is a short blurb on our organization. If I can't post that, I'm not sure what is allowed. OSborn was the username of the reviewer who sent that message. I would appreciate some guidance on this matter as our organization is being misrepresented on this website.

Hospital Sisters Health System (HSHS) is a multi-institutional health care system that sponsors 13 hospitals in 12 communities across Illinois and Wisconsin and an integrated physician network. As our name implies, we are a healing ministry guided by the historic mission of the Hospital Sisters of St. Francis. At the same time, we are firmly grounded in modern best practices.

Brian Reardon Director of Communications Hospital Sisters Health System — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Reardon (talk • contribs) 15:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you have a clear conflict of interest so are strongly advised not to edit the article directly. Please use the article's talk page to suggest the edits that you think should be made. You will need to be careful about tone and sourcing: text written in the first person is never appropriate and always raises suspicion of promotional intent and we cannot just take your word that the statements are accurate, we need references to third party, reliable sources to support them and to demonstrate notability per WP:CORP. As its stands, the article doesn't even hint at notability so I have tagged it for speedy deletion. You may find WikCompany a more suitable outlet. – ukexpat (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see our guidelines on encyclopedic-sounding writing, WP:TONE. We have a built-in aversion to anything that reads like a press release. Rmhermen (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

And Wikipedia will not take note of your authorisation or lack of it. If material has been published in reliable independent sources, it may go in Wikipedia. If it has not, it should not go in Wikipedia, and anybody may remove it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Redirect page that limits visibility of entry? how to fix...

There are wikipedia entries for the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation and also for the International Myeloma Foundation. If one searches for myeloma foundation, it redirects to the first reference so that people do not find the second. Is there a protocol/etiquette to either take down the redirect page or change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baysidemk (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

A "Search" for Myeloma Foundation will find a range of results, whereas merely trying to go the page for Myeloma Foundation will get to the redirect. The sensible thing is to change the redirect to a disambiguation page with links to the relevant range of pages (not just the two you mentioned). If you have difficulties trying to do that, please let us know. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I have turned Myeloma Foundation into a disambiguation page. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenated words and line breaks

In the lead of the article List of weapons of mass destruction treaties I am seeing "pre
-cursors" and later "Anti-
Ballistic"

so Wikipedia is recognizing that it can break up hyphenated words at a line break but it is not doing it consistently. Why? and is there a way to "force" it to work properly? Rmhermen (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Does WP:HYPHEN help (I haven't looked at it closely so it may not). – ukexpat (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the situation here. Are you saying the places these two words break is not correct based on your display/layout/spacing (i.e., there is plenty of space on preceding line to include the second word without breaking)? Or that other words are not broken at hyphens that should be (a long word is displayed "together" rather than wrapping, giving weird spacing)? DMacks (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Works fine for me (Vector on IE8) Line breaks all as normal when page width is altered. Arjayay (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

One word breaks with the hyphen with the prefix. The other breaks with the hyphen on the following line leaving the prefix bare. "pre" on one line and "-cursors" on the next should not occur. Rmhermen (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Lines are broken by your browser and not by Wikipedia. I haven't heard of a browser breaking lines like that. Which browser is it? Does it look like "pre-" wouldn't fit on the line so it either had to do what you describe or move the whole "pre-cursors" to the next line? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

IE8. Rmhermen (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You didn't answer my second question but this appears to be the issue. Apparently, if "pre" fits on a line but "pre-" doesn't fit then IE will write "pre" on the line, and "-cursor" on the next line. The three other browsers I tested all move the whole "pre-cursor" to the next line. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary list

I came across an article this morning in which someone made a list of Wichita nightclubs, it was quickly given a subst:prod with the concern that it was an unnecessary list (and a WP:something). My question is, what is that "WP:" page? Bluefist ^talk 19:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking of WP:LISTCRUFT? (I'd probably avoid including that term in a PROD tag, though, since "cruft" may be too obscure a term for less wiki-savvy users to recognise, and a bit WP:BITE-y too...) Gonzonoir (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What would be a way to prod/afd/speedydelete an unnecessary article that won't bite the newcomers? Bluefist ^talk 19:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion tagging itself isn't inherently bite-y: it's really about how you phrase the information the newcomer gets about why you've done it. It's possible to explain to someone why their article doesn't meet our standards without telling them it's worthless crap, which could easily demotivate a potentially useful contributor who just doesn't yet grasp the notability concept. Even if it is worthless crap, many creators of crap can turn into creators of good content once they understand the rules a little better, so avoiding burning them out with their first brush with the deletion process is always worthwhile. Someone who worked hard on an article is likelier to take offence at a prod tag that reads e.g. "Obvious WP:VANITY autobiog; nowhere even close to notability" than one phrased "This article's subject doesn't seem to have the substantial coverage in reliable sources needed to meet Wikipedia's article inclusion standards (see WP:BIO)."

(There's a timing element too - it's often preferable not to tag new articles for deletion in the very first minutes after their creation, when new creators unfamiliar with e.g. the {{underconstruction}} tag might still be working on them. Of course there are exceptions, but benefit of the doubt is a reasonable principle for dealing with many brand-new users.) Gonzonoir (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

no more able to create a new page

I am no more able to create a new page in the Encyclopedia in English language. When I type the title of a new article no longer appears the message "You May created the page" followed by the article name in red.

Can you help me?? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ettore Balocchi (talk • contribs) 19:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What article are you trying to create? It's possible it's been protected from creation. Rehevkor ✉ 20:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe you were logged out without noticing it? You must be logged in to create articles. I still get "You may create the page". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Why the new font?

I can barely read articles with the new font you selected. Many people I know have complained about it. I am a Graphic Designer and find it very difficult to read anything and pick other websites now to get info I need. Please change to a clearer font... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.231.3 (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't specify a particular font for display. The skin you are using (or the default vector skin) calls a CSS element that states font-family: sans-serif;, your web-browser then uses whatever is set in your browser settings as a sans-serif font to use for default text display. Nanonic (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Skins are only an option for logged in users. Try to clear your entire cache. If the font is too small then try to hold down Ctrl and press the '+' key. If you still have problems then what is your browser and does other websites look OK? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Also see WP:BROWSER. --Teratornis (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)