Help desk
< February 11	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 13 >

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.

February 12

Timeline - is it possible to have a non-continuous timeline?

A period must have a "from" and a "till" - http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:EasyTimeline/syntax#Period_.28mandatory.29

Is it possible to have two (or more) periods within one timeline, for example from 1990 until 1993 and from 2005 until 2010?

Thanks

86.130.226.237 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking for your own website, or regarding a wikipedia article? From the outset, it doesn't look like it is possible to do what you want, but you can check with that extension discussion page here. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General Henry (Hank) Emerson

Resolved

– Now being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Henry E. Emerson.--ukexpat (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha,

Your person named Widr WILL NOT ALLOW ME TO POST THE CORRECT INFORMATION ON GENERAL EMERSON who is a personal friend of my family since 1949 and who is STILL ALIVE !!!! This guy has deleted my changes at least 6 times now going as far as calling me a VANDAL even when I gave him the addresses to verify my information via the 5th RGB Historian and the Veterans offices !!! HE IS WRONG and I deserve an immediate apology !!!!!!! I mean my God you say to correct wrong postings and when I do I get threatened called a liar and accused of "VANDALISM?????". I mean in WHAT arena or dictionary does making a correction in a post considered "vandalism??". It is simply ignorant of the person doing it to me. I WILL NOT give him the Generals private home address, i DID Supply him (or Her) with a wealth of proof as well as multiple sites that would verify my corrections. It is my guess that this person may be the person who through a google website blogg on the General has been sending me emails to my personal email trying to get personal information on the General claiming to be a reporter who wants to interview him. I can think of no other reason that a person would consistently and immediatly delete all the changes that I made on the Generals webpage. This has occured at this point 4 times now and I am about to try to make the corrections again now at 5:56 PM Hawaii time on 2/11/13. I would hope that this person would STOP interfering without FIRST verifying that I am wrong by simply contacting either the 5th Regimental or the 25 Infantry Division Historians, the West Point Library and Alumni site, or the V.A. or simply Google the Generals name to see that the Obituary he is posting is "not...." General "Hank" Henry Emerson who is known as the "Hatchet" General of Vietnam and graduated from West Point in 1947 !!!

Best regards, Rev. Joed Miller PrimalHawaii (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think your info is correct an it is an obit mix-up with his common name. We can fix if you stop edit warring over it. Our reliable source for his birth date doesn't match the lame source for the obit.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at what's going on in that article and it's absolutely amazing that editors would add content about this man's alleged death and date of birth with absolutely horrendous, unreliable sources. It appears quite obvious that the man is still alive. And for goodness sakes, he's a three-star general; if he died, there would been many reliable sources to substantiate this information. This article needs to be watched by some experienced editors so that any further inappropriate edits to this BLP can be addressed quickly. PrimalHawaii/Joed Miller certainly handled the matter inappropriately - although I'm sure he didn't understand that as he was doing it - but his passion is most definitely understood based on the editing travesty that's been happening in the article. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI... since it wasn't included, the article is Henry E. Emerson. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is being further discussed at WP:BLPN so I am marking it resolved as least as far as the Help Desk is concerned.--ukexpat (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SOI

I submitted the above page for submission in December. It was declined twice and I have since made the appropriate changes per the editors' comments. I have resubmitted the request, but have not received any response in over a month. I'm curious what the status is on this posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.253.72 (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate templates have been added and it is now in the queue for review.--ukexpat (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone familiar with the AFC processes be able to explain why the notification that a sumbission has been declined doesn't give instructions to the author about how to resubmit when the necessary changes have been made? This lack of clarity gives rise to frequent questions similar to the one here. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. In fact I am sure that some of the "submission declined" templates do contain a link that says something like "When you are ready to resubmit click here" where clicking the link adds the necessary resubmission template to the AFC draft. The "declined" templates on this draft don't have that functionality.--ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article not indexed within Wiki's internal search after a few months

Hello, the article found at Wikipedia:Screen Machine Industries does not appear when searching for the company name "screen machine industries" when using the internal search here on Wikipedia. It can be found via Google easily enough, just not the Wiki search box.

I know the search index gets updated daily and this article has been around for a few months by now, would anyone have any recommendations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minerfortyniner (talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it is in the Wikpedia project space, not the main article space, at least it was until I just moved it to Screen Machine Industries. It has some issues which I have highlighted with a couple of maintenance templates.--ukexpat (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

What would i name an article based on this? Global Pharmaceutical Consortium or Federation of Pharmaceutical Companies? The link has a note at the top explaining one is a mistranslation. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 13:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A fictional organisation like this would be unlikely to be sufficiently notable to justify its own article. I would suggest a section in List of Resident Evil characters, possibly with redirects to it (from both, if both terms are used). - David Biddulph (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella Corporation on it's own is easily notable, this is an article for 3+ companies and i was just unsure which name to go with as the tag on that link i shared is confusing...Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 14:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link you shared was a wiki, so not a reliable source. If you believe that there are reliable sources to justify the notability of the topic, you can reasonably use the title referred to in the reliable source. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware it's a Wiki thanks David. It may not be reliable as a wiki, but the sources it contains in most cases are, and can be reused. Notability is no issue on this one, it's been part of a multi-billion pound franchise for over a decade and clearly very notable. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 09:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamite (magazine)

My question concerns this page article: Dynamite (magazine). In the article, there is a sortable table (that I created). When one sorts the "Date" column, the result actually sorts properly. As such, dates will be sorted appropriately in either ascending or descending order. My question is: why exactly does this happen? How does the table "know" that the column consists of dates and not merely words? I was expecting the column to sort (inaccurately) with all of the Aprils first, then all of the Augusts, etc., so that the column would literally sort each item in A, B, C order. I would not have expected the word "January" to sort first, because it begins with a "J" and not an "A" (as April and August do). When I created sortable tables in the past, which included dates, I had to use some special template or code to make the sort work properly. The template was {{dts}}. (See Template:Dts.) When I used that template, the date sorting appeared in proper order. But, without that template, the sorting was inaccurate. So, in this article, I was expecting that I would have to go in and edit all the dates to include that sort-date template, so that the sort would work correctly. Before getting the chance to do so (i.e., to make all those extra edits), I noticed that the table sorted correctly on its own, without my adding in those date sorting templates. So, I am confused. Why is this table sorting the dates correctly when, in theory, it should not be? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tablesorter code is often tweaked and the documentation is often behind. It can automatically identify some things like numbers and dates but the details vary. According to Help:Sorting#Month and year your table should need data-sort-type="date" in the column header, but that appears to no longer be the case. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there a Help Desk specifically for sorting tables? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but some people ask questions at Help talk:Sorting. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there's a {{sort}} template; it's not needed here, but you may find it useful with tables that aren't so smart or when you're sorting by an element that doesn't appear first. It's used in the address column at Vinegar Hill Historic District, as you can see if you sort by other elements and resort by address — the template is used to sort first by street name and then by house address, so 715 Woodlawn Avenue comes after 720 Sheridan Drive. Nyttend (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Helvenston Bio

Scott Helvenston's biography on your site lists Patricia Irby as his wife. They were in fact divorced and Scott was engaged to Kelly Kasun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.210.146 (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you referring to? There's nothing about his wife at Scott Helvenston RudolfRed (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

joining procedures for secret agent in india

how can i joint in secret agent of india — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.246.20 (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. RudolfRed (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Neutrality

Hello,

I will try to keep this as brief as possible. I consider myself to be an occasional editor, focusing mostly on poor grammar and language usage (usually when they are blatant, I'm not here to turn articles into PhD. dissertations), but I have recently taken an interest in becoming more involved in helping to polish Wikipedia into a purely accurate, neutral, and dense encyclopedic wealth of information. It is in this way that I am not yet (and most likely will not be for some time) fully aware of the wealth of options and routes through which I may help improve articles.

Here is my dilemma: I recently made a minor edit to the General Motors article where a quote from President Barack Obama was plainly stated as if it were to be taken as fact. I attributed the quote to him, began reading the rest of the article, and found that it did not appear to be as neutral as it should be. I have reviewed its talk page and its archives and could not find a solid answer to why this page was not labeled as having disputed neutrality, so I left a (albeit lengthy) message on its talk page voicing my concerns and suggestions. As this article is of high-importance in four and top importance in one WikiProject, I expected to see a response to my message by now, and that is what brought me to this page. I am wondering if there is a specific place where I might find more insight into neutrality disputes rather than this article's talk page.

A nudge in the right direction is always appreciated. Illini407^talk 18:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The usual guideline is WP:BRD. If you see a problem, go ahead and fix it. If another editor disagrees, they will revert the edit and then you can discuss it on the talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality templates are added manually. Apparently no one previously felt a need to mark it as having disputed neutrality. RJFJR (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the neutrality template is added manually, however, I am apprehensive about applying it due to the article's importance ratings. Is there a way besides going through archived talk pages to see if the template has been previously applied? Illini407^talk 19:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is highly watched, and no one has responded to your concerns after a couple of days, then that's tacit agreement, as far as I am concerned. The spirit of WP:BOLD is that you are supposed to be bold in your editing, and make changes you need to make. Now, if someone DOES object AFTER you make your edit, best practices say that you should allow the article to be reverted to its old state and then hammer it out on the article talk page. But most of the time, there's no way to know if your changes are controversial until after you make them. If no one objects, then Wikipedia ends up better for it! --Jayron32 19:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit help needed

I want to place a person's name on our Columbia, TN page (she is an author of children's books and grew up in Columbia). I can't access the page to do this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarbaraZJohnston (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a header to your question to seperate it from the one above. RudolfRed (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Columbia, Tennessee doesn't seem to be protected. Is that the correct article? RJFJR (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, though, that if she's not already notable enough to have her own article here, then she shouldn't be added to the list about Columbia either. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC) (from Deanburg, TN)[reply]

properties of marbles

properties of marbles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.222.67 (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about them? --Jayron32 20:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does Marbles#Types of marbles help? Course, mind/sanity/insanity might respond to a different meaning.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whig article hacked-how to report?

Whigs did not believe people should wear wigs to bed. I don't know how to report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.30.112.88 (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed it. It was vandalism. In the future, you can fix this yourself. Just edit the article and remove the vandalism. The other option is to revert it by undoing the edit of the person who added it. Instructions for doing so can be found at Help:Reverting. --Jayron32 23:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits not sticking

I edited a section on a page; chose save page; and it kicked me to text page. I chose save again, and it didn't save the text. I presumed I then needed to be logged in; logged in; did the same thing; it still didn't save my section change.

What am I neglecting to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xibee (talk • contribs) 23:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xibee (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Can't seem to get a basic edit to an existing page to stay. This is the url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_of_Suzie_Wong#Film.2C_TV_and_theatrical_adaptations Clicked Edit on a section, put in addtional info, hit save; it didn't keep the edit. Logged in, did same thing, clicked Save, didn't keep the edit. Am I supposed to do this?23:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC) or click Watch this page? Xibee (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The process is the same as editing this Help desk page — which you have successfully done. I did a null edit on The World of Suzie Wong with no problems. Try using Show preview before saving; it won't make a difference, but might let you know if something is wrong. Did you get any sort of error message? Otherwise, I'm stumped. ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response; but two things: 1) I did get an error at first, but second time just lost all text due to not checking box for Watch This Page and signing the post with 170.189.200.5 (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC). 2) I still am struggling with finding a REALLY BASIC BASIC beginning set of instructions here in learning how to edit -- "watch this page" was completely cryptic to me, and to a user who is accustomed to editing a box and hitting return on a blog to make an entry, it's infuriating to keep losing one's text by forgetting to sign and check a box. I'm hoping this time I've got it right. 170.189.200.5 (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Watch this page" is unrelated to saving the edit. It means that the page is added to the watchlist for your account. And signing with ~~~~ is also unrelated to saving. Edits to articles should not be signed. You saved an edit to the article [1] after your latest post here. I don't see anyhting in that edit which should cause problems saving, but maybe your earlier attempts had other content. The really basic instructions are: Click "edit", write in the box, click "Save page". If the edit is not saved then you should get a message explaining why. If we tried to list all possible messages of this type then it wouldn't be basic instructions. Some new users don't know what it looks like when their edit has been saved and sometimes make a false assumption that it was saved. One way to check whether it was saved: Click the "View history" tab on the page. If it was saved then it will be shown there. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 February 12

Contents