Wikipedia:Help desk

• About Wikipedia (Welcome)
• FAQ
• Contributing
  • Tips
• Help menu
  • Index
• Directories
  Asking questions
  • Help desk
  • Reference desk
• Glossary
  • Abbreviations
• Wikicode
  • Tools

Wikipedia Help Desk
This page is only for questions about how to use or edit 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 editing, article creation, and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.	Are you in the right place?
Click here to ask a new question about how to use or edit Wikipedia »

Skip to today's questions Special help services Archived discussions How to answer

Search Frequently Asked Questions

Search the help desk archives and other help pages

April 10

Partial italic title

The new article Enchenopa binotata complex should display as "Enchenopa binotata complex". The {{italictitle}} template doesn't provide for "mixed" titles except for parenthetical disambiguators. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You can use the 'raw' displaytitle function, as I have done here. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I've forgotten that I know this... Facepalm Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Article not appearing in categories

Can someone please explain why 1977 Big Sky Conference Men's Basketball Tournament isn't appearing in any of the categories listed on the page? Jrcla2 (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

On the face of it there seems no obvious reason why it is not appearing. So it is possible that as a recently created article, the changes have not yet taken effect. I.e. a cache/purge type delay. Eagleash (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jrcla2: It does now. I performed a WP:PURGE and I think that is what got it showing up. Before that, I also removed a non-existent template from the page but I don't think that would have fixed the category issue. Dismas|^(talk) 14:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Jrcla2 (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

How to help write article

How can I assist in writing article and helping Wikipedia --Lucy idegwu (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I have left a welcome message at your talk-page which also includes some links to various policy and style pages. Please familiarise yourself with those before attempting to edit articles but please feel free to come back to the help-desk if you need assistance. Eagleash (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Help with article on Jay Richard Bonin

Hi,

I composed and authorized Biography (with the help of the subject) of Jay Richard Bonin. I have included many references, but the page still says:

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2016) This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (April 2016)"

I don't know how to get this message to go away. Also, the article is not an orphan as the article about Asa Hoffmann link to this one.

What to do?

Thank you. V Lopresto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlopresto (talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Hello, Vlopresto. These messages are added to an article by way of templates. They are not added automatically, nor removed automatically. An editor must manually add and manually remove the template(s) involved. If you think the issues have been fixed, you may remove the relevant templates. Please include an edit summery indicatign why you think the issue(s) have been fixed. See Help:Maintenance template removal for more detail on this process. DES ^(talk) 17:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Vlopresto. Please be aware that there is no such thing as an "authorized biography" on Wikipedia, and if you wrote the article Jay Richard Bonin with his help then you probably have a conflict of interest which you should declare. If you are in any way paid for doing this, then under the Wikipedia terms of service, you must declare this: see WP:PAID. Neither Bonin nor any of his associates have any control over the article, and are in fact discouraged from editing it directly: they should make suggestions on the talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

April 11

Mis-information and classification

<BLP violation removed> -- 153tang — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153tang (talk • contribs) 00:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP. --Majora (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Uploading new picture of logo for a company

Hi Wikipedia Help Desk,

I'm the Marketing/PR coordinator for Arc Productions - an animation studio in Toronto. We recently changed our logo and will be unveiling it to the studio and the public on Wednesday, April 13, 2016.

As a result, we'll also have to change the current logo we have on our Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_Productions

I have just signed up today to be a member of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I am not yet a "confirmed" member as 4 days have not passed and I have not made 10 edits on any Wikipedia articles. Seeing as our new logo will be unveiled in less than 4 days, is there another way that I can upload Arc Productions' new logo without being a fully "confirmed" member of Wikipedia? Please advise when you have a moment,

Thank you for your time, Best!

Lucas Ng — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasjohnng (talk • contribs) 04:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lucasjohnng: You could post at Files for Upload with the necessary information. Or you could post a link to the new logo here, or on my talk page and I will see what I can do. --Majora (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Any of those would be good, but whichever you do, request it after the new logo is released; so that the helper doesn't have to wait or worry about scooping you. —teb728 t c 04:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

rename request

Please rename Talk:Šarplaninac/Archive 7 to Talk:Šarplaninac/Archive 1. This appears to be the result of an incorrect call to the archiving bot. Thanks --76.14.40.2 (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Done I've moved the page, adjusted the counter on the base page, and requested deletion of the redirect page left at Talk:Šarplaninac/Archive 7 by the move. Rwessel (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Asastikar sandbox, etc.

Hello Team,

Firstly, many thanks for your constant support and guidance.

I've had created an article in my sandbox few days ago, but am unable to make out, if it is under review for publishing or not.

Sharing link to the article...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asastikar/sandbox

Also, when I click my user name I come across the following message...

"This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

11:14, 6 April 2015 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Asastikar (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host)"

However, I am able to contribute to other wiki articles.

Please help me.

Thank you.

Asastikar 06:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asastikar (talk • contribs)

You have recently created/edited both User:Asastikar/sandbox and User talk:Asastikar/sandbox. Both pages still exist. The former would be the normal location. As to the deleted user page, it was deleted by admin @RHaworth:, they would be best able to answer questions about what the specific problem was (since non-admins cannot see the deleted article), but the policy that was cited is: WP:NOTWEBHOST. Rwessel (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Asastikar: I have submitted your draft for review by putting {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page, this may take a while (over a week) as there is currently a backlog. Your userpage was deleted as an admin considered your use of it as a webhost: read WP:USERPAGE and feel free to recreate it following the guidelines found there. Your userpage being deleted doesn't affect your ability to contribute to Wikipedia generally, as you were not blocked. Finally, please sign your comments with ~~~~, as this will automatically place your signature and a timestamp. Cheers —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 07:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Crh23 Many thanks for your assistance. Shall follow instructions. Asastikar 07:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asastikar (talk • contribs)

Asastikar I've moved your sandbox draft into draft space for you (Draft:Wings_Hospitals, which is the preferred location for AfC submissions. I deleted the less developed version on the talk page. Talk pages are not for articles but for discussing how to improve the related article. Watch for feedback and good luck. Legacypac (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac That was very quick. Thank you much for guiding. I think I need to brush-up my knowledge in creating article/s here. I missed out on few important points, while creating this one. Asastikar 12:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asastikar (talk • contribs)

UFC 157

Hi. "UFC 157" should have its own article and not be a sub-article of "2013 in UFC." How do I make "UFC 157" a separate article? CaptRik responded to my question last time and I tried to contact him but he never responded. I do not know where he went. Please someone respond to this question and have a solution. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 07:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The answers to your two previous questions on this subject are at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 March 21#UFC 157 - 2013 in UFC and at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 March 30#UFC 157. You will see that they both refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157, which gives the reason that the previous version of UFC 157 was deleted. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

What does it mean that the redirect is under page protection? Theepicwarrior (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 09:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Theepicwarrior: Since the page was inappropriately recreated after the AFDs established that it should be only a redirect, an administrator has fully protected the page such that only administrators can edit it. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 09:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

How do I contact an administrator to edit the page? Theepicwarrior (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Put your edit request in a new section on the talk page and add {{edit fully-protected|page name}} in that section (just after the new section header). See template:edit fully-protected for additional information. What page are we talking about? UFC 157 does not appear to be protected. Rwessel (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rwessel: have you tried editing it? It is protected (at least appears so to me), but lacks the protection template —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 10:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

UFC 157 is protected. The protection is the most recent entry in the page history. Are you sure that you're not looking at the target of the redirect? If Theepicwarrior is to make an edit request, he needs to explain what has changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157 and the subsequent deletion review linked from it. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Why wasn't "UFC 157" originally created as a separate article? If it was, it would not be a problem. But since someone deleted it and put in under "2013 in UFC", it has become a problem and I have to fix it. Why would someone delete the original article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 10:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The (quite lengthy) deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_157. Rwessel (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You obviously haven't read the answers which you were given to your two previous questions, and about which I reminded you in the first answer to your question in this section. You need to read now. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec) So it is, my mistake, I must have bounced back to the target page without realizing it at some point, probably after looking at the talk page (where someone else has made the same error). And I notice that it was Theepicwarrior (talk · contribs) who *had* placed a proper protected edit request on that page a couple of weeks ago, which was then rejected because of that error. I have re-activated the edit request. Rwessel (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Does that mean "UFC 157" can now have its own separate article instead of being a sub-article of "2013 in UFC"? Theepicwarrior (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no point asking questions if you don't read the replies. Read everything in this section, and the links in those replies. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi David. So I guess I cannot create a separate UFC 157 article. I read your comments and the deletion discussion. Why was the article deleted in the first place? Theepicwarrior (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 11:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, read the deletion discussion. Rwessel (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, one of the major issues raised in the old deletion discussion was that the criteria for notability for MMA was yet unclear. That seems better established now, but WP:MMAEVENT still seems to state that generally individual events are not normally notable, but it seems that very many (100+) of the other "UFC nnn" event have their own articles despite that. Rwessel (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rwessel. Thank you for responding. So is there any way to reverse the deletion of UFC 157 and get it back as its own article? Theepicwarrior (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Like David has already said, put an edit request on the talk page, and explain what changed since the deletion discussion (an d the subsequent deletion review). If you can get consensus that the old decision should be reversed, the protection will be removed. Personally given the was things are happening in that genre of articles, I'd expect that wouldn't be too hard to achieve. Rwessel (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying it is highly probable that they will accept my request? Theepicwarrior (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a pretty good chance, as it appears that would be fairly in line with (my interpretation of) current practice. "Highly probable" is putting words in my mouth. Rwessel (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for your help, Rwessel. Theepicwarrior (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 11:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

collaborating and posting a completed article

Hello, A group of us are working on an article. However, we are unsure how to coordinate the authorship. Individual editors are working on different parts of the article. Does one person start the article and then the others post their contributions to it? Is there a way to collaborate on a new article before it is submitted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugusteBlanqui (talk • contribs) 08:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, AugusteBlanqui. Yes, that is the normal way that Wikipedia articles get written: somebody starts one, and then others contribute to it. I suggest you all read your first article, and then one of you uses the Article wizard to create it in draft space. That way, it doesn't matter if the first version has almost nothing in it: you can develop it together and when you think it is ready, submit it for review. --ColinFine (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

This would appear to relate to Oye! English exclamation. The citation is really a non-reference, but I have fixed it anyway. However, the page is up for CSD and is likely to be deleted. Eagleash (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: now deleted. Eagleash (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk pages and Fraternity Secrets...

An example: For Gamma Gamma Gamma Fraternity, an addition to the page itself saying that the Greek Letters stand for or were chosen because they stand for Gibble Gobble Greva if that does not have a reliable source. However, what would be the appropriate action if this was posted to the talk page of the article? In general users should not alter other users postings to the talk page, but I'm not sure if there is another policy which would apply if this was placed on the talk page for the deliberate exposure of Fraternity secrets?Naraht (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

If there is no legal issue, there is no reason to remove the comments from the talk page, they will be archived if the page gets too big. If there is a legal issue, the page history needs to be wiped of the offending material, and contact should be made with the WMF using the contact information on wmf:contact us. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 15:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Some Greek Letter Organizations haven't even needed to have the talk page archived once, and this solution would seem to give the solution for members of Gamma Gamma Gamma of simply shoving large amounts of text onto the talk page in order to get it off the main talk page. I'm not honestly sure how contacting the WMF would be useful in this regard, even if the Fraternity were willing to show the ritual book to the WMF, by definition, as something private to the organization, it would not be under copyright. Note, this example could similarly be the publishing of the LDS Temple Ceremony. As long as the information published is close to the subject of the page, I'm just not sure what policy would apply?Naraht (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Slightly different problem to the usual Fraternity/Sorority page request, that "secret" information must be removed, which (amusingly) infers that it is correct.
As I'm sure you know, WP:NOTCENSORED includes "Wikipedia will not remove information or images concerning an organization merely because that organization's rules or traditions forbid display of such information online. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of the organization."
Many talk pages, on many subjects, include unsourced claims, and unless these are libelous, these are almost always left - most Semi-protected edit requests are refused for lack of a WP:RS. If the information is true then there is no ground to remove it (from a talk page), even though it is unsourced, but how do we know if it is true or not? As with any "secret society" the problem is of that society's making - if they were open, there would be no problem, but as they are not, we don't know if it correct or not. If they say it is correct or incorrect, we don't know if they are being honest, or just following their non-disclosure rules. Equally, the majority of sources are often primary, whether published by a more open society, or a copy of the handbook released by a disaffected member. IMHO, they have no-one to blame but themselves. - Arjayay (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I was involved in the effort to keep the Greek Letters in the Infobox on Phi Gamma Delta that lead to that particular addition to WP:NOTCENSORED, but that policy does not seem oriented to talk pages. I'm wondering about the balance between WP:NOTCENSORED and (now that I've found it) WP:NOTFORUM.Naraht (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The guideline here is WP:TPOC. The comment doesn't fall under "libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons, banning, or anti-promotional policies", so it would be inappropriate for another editor to remove it. Consensus would be needed for it's removal, which seems unlikely. Your best bet is to contact the editor in question and ask them to remove it themselves. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 18:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Part of that Guideline includes Off-topic posts: "It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article)"... Stating that Gamma Gamma Gamma was named due to standing for Gibble Gobble Greva would seem to fall into that category, especially if the editor already knew that that couldn't be placed in the article. (The other question is whether in the event that consensus is being worked for whether or not members of fraternities other that Gamma Gamma Gamma would count as having a COI)Naraht (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the post you are referring to, but it doesn't sound like it's unambiguously off-topic to me, and your reason for deleting it potentially isn't in the spirit of the guideline (at least in my opinion). If you could link to the post, I'd be able to make a better assessment of the issue. If any other editors are reading this and have an opinion, I'd love to hear it. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 19:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I deliberately picked a fictional fraternity, as I'd rather not bring attention to either of the two historical (neither is currently active) situations on this. In one case, it went so far that the user made a WP:SPA with the user name the equivalent of user:GibbleGobbleGreva.Naraht (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Musical Password

How to set a password with music

●●●●●●●●●●UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ: This was asked, twice, and answered here. Did you have a more specific question which was not addressed in the previous reponse? Dismas|^(talk) 17:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "a password with music", UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ? And are you talking about setting a password for your Wikipedia account, or something else? --ColinFine (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, my Kiwipedia account.UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you place Wikipedia blue links in section headings of Wikipedia articles?

Is there any rule or policy regarding whether or not we should (or can) put Wikipedia links in the actual headings (or sub-headings) of articles? For example, let's say that the topic heading in a particular article is "Pizza". Should the article's heading be formatted simply as "Pizza", with the two equal signs on either side of it, like this ==Pizza==? Or can it be formatted with the blue link, like this ==[[Pizza]]==? Specifically, I am asking if links are "barred"/allowed from header titles? Or are discouraged/encouraged? What's the status? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The Manual of style about headings MOS:HEAD says:

• Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. (Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated.)
• Headings should normally not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked.
• Section and subsection headings should preferably be unique within a page; otherwise section links may lead to the wrong place, and automatic edit summaries can be ambiguous.
• Citations should not be placed within or on the same line as section and subsection headings.
• Headings should not contain images; this includes flag icons.
• Headings should not contain questions.
• Avoid starting headings with numbers (other than years), because this can be confusing for readers with the "Auto-number headings" preference selected.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. So, it is a "should" situation. (As opposed to a "must" situation.) Meaning that sometimes, we can use links. Sometimes, not. It all depends on the given situation. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Joseph A. Spadaro: To elaborate, no, you generally should not add links to headings in articles. As MOS:HEADINGS states above, "Headings should normally not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked." This means that there might be special cases where it might be appropriate, though those cases are rare (and I don't think I've ever seen it done before). What is usually a better option is using Template:Main article. For example, instead of using ==[[Pizza]]==, you might instead do ==Pizza== followed by {{Main article|Pizza}} ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not that uncommon on talk pages, but I can't ever recall seeing it done in the main article space. Is there a specific use (or contemplated use) that we can discuss? Rwessel (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

No specific article. Just a general question that came to mind. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It's an accessibility issue; anything other than plain text in section headings causes problems for users and editors dependent on screen readers to access our articles. See WP:BADHEAD. Consequently it's strongly deprecated and "main article" template links are preferred. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:1RR

Would it be possible to request a 1RR sanction from an admin? I did ask EdJohnston about this last week—without reply. Thanks.--Neve–selbert 19:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Since that's an unusual sanction, I'd assume that an admin wouldn't implement it unless there wasn't a better response, which seems like it would be rare. If you have a problem with a particular user and have made them aware of the issue you're having with them, make a post at WP:ANI. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 19:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, because Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring can't be okay. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Crh23 and Be..anyone: Sorry for the confusion, I should have been clearer. I meant an 1RR for myself.--Neve–selbert 21:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

1RR sanctions have to be manually enforced: as far as I know there is no automated tool for monitoring. With this in mind, it seems unlikely that an admin would want to give themselves the additional work for no real gain from their point of view. Is there a particular reason why you can't enforce this on yourself? Most people who follow a 1RR do so because that's how they think the encyclopedia should be run: they have decided to Revert only when necessary. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 07:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Women subcategories

Why is it that, for instance, Category:American physicians has the subcategory Category:American women physicians but not Category:American male physicians? I've noticed this on many category pages. Why are the subcategories even divided by gender? Margalob (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The answer to questions about "Why does Wikipedia have X but not Y", Margalob is usually "Because somebody created X but nobody created Y". Sometimes the answer is "Because a discussion decided that X was appropriate but Y was not", but as far as I know there hasn't been such a discussion in this case. Because Wikipedia is determined by consensus, it has many inconsistencies of this sort: sometimes they are deliberate, but often they are because nobody has thought of it.

If you think there should be a Category:American male physicians (red because this doesn't at present exist), you are welcome to argue the case. I suggest you make the argument at Category Talk:American physicians: you might get other people supporting you, and achieve consensus. I suspect that one reason for the asymmetry is that there are 1910 articles in Category:American physicians but only 222 articles in Category:American women physicians. --ColinFine (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Margalob. The simple answer is that the category system isn't very good at labeling areas of interest, so we end up with categories like this. There was a long discussion of the same issue at Category:American novelists when someone moved the women out of American novelists and into American women novelists. Read about it at Category talk:American novelists/Archives/1 and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24. It was even covered by the New York Times. The reason for keeping Category:American women novelists was that it is "a recognized field of study in the literature". The result was that women are not moved out of American novelists but can be in both categories. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

April 12

delete my account please

{{dbuser}} Kiah6060 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, Kiah6060, but once created accounts are never deleted. However you have the right to vanish. DES ^(talk) 00:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Begin a new page

Am I able to edit, continue to edit or begin a new wikipedia page and complete it in its entirety before it is published? How do I do that? Currently I have one page I have begun edits to but upon saving it instantly publishes. I'd rather tweak the page to perfection before it's posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunomoore (talk • contribs) 02:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You can start your own sandbox. At the top of the page, there should be a link that says "Sandbox" between "Talk" and "Preferences." You can also click "show preview" instead of "save page" if you are not ready to save the page but want to see how it looks. However, if you do not save the page before closing it, all of your work will be lost. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Any subpage of your user page would do, your sandbox is only a special case. Alternatively check out WP:Drafts, but in that case other folks are entitled to help (=edit) the draft until it's finished. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

MADAM/SIR G'AFTERNOON

MADAM/SIR G'AFTERNOON — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.52.87 (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Good afternoon anonymous user. Did you have a question about editing Wikipedia, as that is the purpose of this help desk? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

'Compare selected revisions' query

Is there a way of comparing the SIZE of two revisions within the history of an article? Comparing their sizes with each other, not the current one? Many thanks! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No. You have to manually subtract the sizes shown in the page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You again! OK,, thanks very much (again) PrimeHunter _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To state the obvious, the total number of bytes is not a measure of the size of the change. the entire article could be totally re-written, but the number of bytes may only change by a few. - Arjayay (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I probably haven't expressed myself clearly, in any case. What I want is, having substantially expanded an article, is it possible to calculate the % -increase? I.e., between the before and after versions? Thank you both for your help _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"Increase" could be words or characters, and include or exclude tables, pictures etc. I don't know many reasons where this is important, unless you are proposing a WP:DYK on an expanded article, which requires a fivefold increase. As a footnote at WP:DYK states:- "For step-by-step instructions on how to calculate whether an expansion is fivefold and whether it is within the past seven days, see User:Rjanag/Calculating fivefold expansion by hand".
If it is not DYK and you want the word count, not the character count, go to the article, click "Page size" (bottom line in Tools on LH side) and note the "Prose size (text only)" figure, then go to the page history, open the version before you started editing it, and click "Page size" again, and note the "Prose size (text only)" figure again. As for the math(s) I'm afraid you have to work that out yourself. - Arjayay (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Arjayay, have a good one _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding racial and non factual terms to a page

HI. A page I monitor for my employer who is a public figure keeps having racial, religious and other foul terms added as fast as I can remove them. How can I make this stop? They are not new sources, just foul terms being dropped in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davepeck (talk • contribs) 14:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I assume that Davepeck is referring to Dan Schulman. Dismas|^(talk) 14:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

And I've put in a request for page protection. Dismas|^(talk) 14:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Davepeck: The page was just protected by another admin. The info you were removing did, indeed, need to be removed, so I've removed it again. On another note, please take a look at WP:COI; in cases like yours, it's often better to request help on the talk page of the article, rather than edit the article yourself. Obviously not needed when you're removing vandalism or insults, but in general, if you're requesting changes requiring more editorial consideration, for example. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"List of cities with the most high-rise buildings"

Dear editor, On the most recent edition of the above "entree" Tehran is excluded while in the last version it ranked the 11th. It seems it has happened all by a mistake. It seems has to be reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.59.243.183 (talk • contribs)

If it was a mistake, you may reinstate it. Ruslik_Zero 20:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

my corrections on a page pertaining to me keep reverting, i keep reporting, please help

hello, i have corrected the "Black Diamond Heavies" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Diamond_Heavies ) wikipedia page twice and it has been reverted twice and now threatened me to be unable to make further changes. i am the founding and final member of the band, Black Diamond Heavies. the information on this page is largely historically inaccurate. could someone please contact me about this? i have read and tried everything i have found so far on correcting a page. thankyou JohnWesleyMyers (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You need to declare your WP:Conflict of interest as a member of the band, then find WP:Reliable sources to back up the changes that you wish to make. It would then be preferable (though not mandatory) to post those changes to the talk page of the article so that an independent editor can make the corrections. Dbfirs 20:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

What exactly happened here?

Why didn't the template substitute properly? I made the edit using Twinkle, so there should have been no issue at all, and I've never seen this happen before. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi A guy saved by Jesus
The problem was this diff 3 edits before, where the closing > of a hidden text bracket was over-written. So, not having received a close command, the software considers everything after it to be hidden text. - Arjayay (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

As a general comment - many (most?) problems of disappearing text, repeated references and other strange formatting are down to an unclosed instruction, e.g. this one, (missing the final > from hidden text) or a reference missing all or part of the closing </ref> which often duplicates the reference list in small size underneath.
I don't know of a tool to check that every command that has been opened, has been closed, but a work around is a search for how many < there are, compared to > {although this will not work on scientific/maths pages that use either symbol} and how many <ref> there are, compared to </ref> - Arjayay (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Arjayay: be aware that there exist also <ref>-s with a name only: <ref name="somename"/> and with no </ref>-s. --CiaPan (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am well aware, but those aren't picked up when comparing the uses of <ref> against </ref> - Arjayay (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

What about <ref name="somename">-s then? They should pair with </ref>-s. Are they counted? --CiaPan (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused - if you look for <ref> or </ref> why would you find <ref name="somename"> ? - -Arjayay (talk)

A ref tag, with or without a name attribute should be matched with a closing /ref tag, unless it is self-closed (such as <ref name=XYZ />). In practice i generally search for "<ref" without the closing ">", and then search for a matching "</ref". DES ^(talk) 18:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Editsource

Hi, the editsource option has gone for me on article pages leaving only the edit option which I mainly dont use. Please advise how I can get the editsource option back. thanks, i've been striking the afd comments of a sockpuppet I dont know if that has something to do with it Atlantic306 (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent change, for info go read Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Single edit tab. Change setting at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 17:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The WMF have been fiddling again: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Do you want one Edit tab, or two? It's your choice. Did they not tell you what they were planning to do? I didn't see any notice of the planned change, but I wouldn't touch the "Visual Editor" with a barge pole anyway. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

thanks i'll do that Atlantic306 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: David, count me among those editors who did not like visual editor when it was first rolled out. To oversimplify, it wasn’t ready for prime time when I first work with it. Many issues, but the killer for me is the fact that every article ought to have references but the early version couldn’t handle references. However, they’ve made enormous strides, and I use it every day. I still find things where I need the edit source so I want both buttons but I use visual editor on a regular basis. It is now wonderful for adding references. Add a bare URL and it will, almost always, produce a correctly formatted reference. Not only that, but it is very good at cleaning up existing articles. Find an article with a bare URL as a reference click on VE click on the reference number, and a box will pop up with an option to convert it. Doesn’t work on hundred percent of the time, but over 80% of the time it will create a nice reference. I hope you’ll try it, I’m addicted to it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Question about pending changes

I would like to edit a page with pending changes and accept changes made by other IP users and new users on articles that require pending changes. How do I get autoconfirmed? Thanks. Brian Everlasting (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Brian Everlasting You are already autoconfirmed, that happens automatically when your account is 4 days old and has 10 edits. In order to accept pending changes, you would need to apply for the pending changes reviewer permission. The section on how to apply, and whether you're likely to be accepted is here, although I recommend reading the rest of that page to better understand pending changes. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Brian Everlasting (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Problems with using "Edit" option on my sandbox

Hello my name is Elysegrogersfan

recently my "edit source" option was temporarily unavailable in my sandbox of my wikipedia draft i'm working on. somehow it's been magically restored. i don't know why it was removed and then restored.

now my easy wizard "edit" button is now missing. how can i restore both the "edit" and keep the 'edit source' option in my sandbox/

thanks.

woops. i see the guy above me had the same problem. sorry. ignore this message.

Edit source?

Most of the time I've been using Edit Source but sometimes I've used the screen editor. However, starting a few minutes ago, when I would try what would normally Edit Source, it brings up the screen editor. Some things can only be done by editing the source. What happened? Is there an option that I accidentally changed? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No. There should have been a 'drop-down' at the first edit you made after a recent change, but judging by the number of queries this hasn't been seen by some people. You can reset the edit source tab by clicking 'preferences' and then 'editing' where you should find a drop down to set your preferred editing mode. Eagleash (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bubba73: Have a read of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Do you want one Edit tab, or two? It's your choice, change your preference at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 20:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read that but something seemed to change within the last hour. I went to preferences and selected "show both editing tabs" and it is OK. Thanks. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

The 'Howie Schwab' wikipedia is a blatant farce

Hi, someone should really clean up the wiki for Howie Schwab: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howie_Schwab. Just by reading it, any layperson can tell that the bio is completely made up. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.64.58 (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, it looks like there's some vandalism going on. If you see it, you can correct the edits, then advise the edit making the vandal edits of the correction. I rolled the obvious vandal edits back and report the editor as a blatant sock of a blocked user who was making the same edits. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

April 13

rename request

Please rename Talk:Will Eisner/Archive 6 to Talk:Will Eisner/Archive 1. Appears to have been created by a mis-named call to the archive bot. Thank you,--76.14.40.2 (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I've moved it, corrected the call to the archive bot, & requested speedy deletion of the old title to leave it clear for when required later. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"Editing" option changing to "Edit source"

When logged in, I had the option for a while to edit pages; in particular, I could edit the featured section on the right, with the article's featured image. Now after a while, it just says "Edit source" and that's my only option. It's like that editing option just randomly went away or changed. What is the cause of this? If it's a strike due to violating rules, I haven't received any notification of any kind that I've violated anything or that certain privileges are revoked. Any idea how to fix this?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benparkerfb (talk • contribs) 02:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Not far up this page you will see that this or a similar question has been asked a few times (such as at #Editsource and #Edit source?) and answered. What isn't clear is why the WMF apparently changed things for many editors without warning them that this was going to happen. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

updates without references

In Panavia Tornado, an editor made changes [[1]] but they are "hiding" in a 5 year old reference. I have no reason to believe they are wrong, but they aren't supported by references. In this case, is it better to revert them as unreferenced or just tag them with needing better references? Another issue may be should this section even be here because of the extra work keeping it accurate when the same information is also in List of Panavia Tornado operators. (But that question could be left to the article talk page.) Mb66w (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted the edit, as the reference does not support the change. If there is a better/newer reference supporting the change, it should be re-added. And I agree, the operators list issue should be discussed on the article talk page. Rwessel (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

1981 Collage World Series

The page on your website 1981 Collage World Series has some incorrect information on the ASU roster for the 1981 baseball team. Player listed as number six is wrong. Number six was Bert Martinez. This can be verified at the Arizona State University athletic department or any archives from that year. How do we make that correction?04:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.144.42 (talk)

Hello. If you can cite a reliable published source, you are welcome to edit the article, citing the source. (Unpublished archives are not acceptable as sources). If you do not have a source, or if you are not sure how to cite a source (it is a little complicated when you are new to it - see referencing for beginners - your best course is to post a note on the article's take page explaining the change that you think should be made, and see if somebody else can find a published source. --ColinFine (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

hacker

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unusual_deaths has been hacked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.173.161 (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

hacker its gone noe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unusual_deaths was hacked with porn now its not there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.173.161 (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeing no indication in any of the file histories that anything has been changed on our end. Assuming you're not crying wolf, the more likely explanation that remains is that your computer has a virus or something else on it, which you need to solve. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This was vandalism at Template:Bracket, which affected many articles. The template has been protected. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this, John. I was just looking at an email from a reader at OTRS who reported some porn on an article which I could not find in the page history, but I see that the article uses that template so I was able to respond to them.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Just below the "Edit" box is the list of "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page". At the top of the list are the templates that were edited most recently. If you install User:Anomie/previewtemplatelastmod.js you will also see the date, time, editor and edit summary of the last edit, which makes cases like this easy to diagnose. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

prior to the ref number 18, there is a 'not in citation" tag. Yet the information about the jobs of both Michael and Carole Middleton is CLERALY in ref number 18. Has someone been a vandal? Please remove the "not in citation" tag. thanks 101.189.0.102 (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Article amended in line with source: the source says that Carole Middleton was an "air stewardess" for BA but doesn't specify a place or dates. The preceding para says she was a "flight attendant" so no need to repeat that: Noyster (talk), 11:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleting a failed contribution

Hi there, How do I delete all my unsuccessful contributions?

Best, Nathalie — Preceding unsigned comment added by NathalieDS (talk • contribs) 12:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@NathalieDS, if you're referring to Draft:RISE Management Consulting, you don't need to do anything. If nobody works on the draft in future it will be routinely deleted about six months after the last edit. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Or for a quicker response you can place {{Db-g7}} at the top of the page and it will be deleted, probably within a few hours. Eagleash (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Surviving WWII Veteran

I had research "oldest surviving WWII veteran. As my father is 93 years old and a decorated WWII veteran I wanted to make sure he was recognized. In short I want to know what I have to do to get his name in this list. Thank you. Conservitive2 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Conservitive2. Since you haven't identified which of our five million articles you are talking about, it's hard to be sure: we have an article called List of last surviving World War I veterans by country, but I don't see anything comparable for WWII (and indeed, it is probably too early for such a list). We have List of surviving veterans of World War II, but as that says, it is a list of notable surviving veterans, that is to say a list of people who meet Wikipedia's criteria for having an article about them. If that is the page you want your father added to, I'm afraid the answer is that only if he meets those criteria and we have (or could have) a page about him for some reason, may he be added to the list. If you're talking about a different article from the ones I have found, please tell us which one (if you put its title in double square brackets thus [[List of surviving veterans of World War II]], that will link to the article, making it easier for us to go and have a look at it.) --ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Change spelling of Golden Lions CEO

Please correct the page of our CEO Rudolph Straeuli - his name is spelt wrong. The correct spelling is Rudolf. Thank you

When requesting help with an article, it would be useful to identify the article, which is Rudolph Straeuli. There is an inconsistency as to the spelling of his first name. Unfortunately, the article has no references to reliable sources, so that we cannot tell how his name is spelled by reliable sources. The article also contains language that is not appropriate for Wikipedia, such as that he is infamous for his coaching skills. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The specific issues mentioned above have been addressed, but much more work is needed to improve the article and to add more references. Dbfirs 21:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

flying rods

I have caught on three different occasions flying rods as your show called them. I caught them on my wildlife viewcamcorder. If you are interested in further investigation you can contact me at [personal info redacted]. I can send you the pics if you are interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.233.23 (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? If so, please ask it. If you are asking our help to identify what species they are, you might try the Science Reference Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this must be about the artifacts found in camera images, described at Rod (optics). Maproom (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Agnes Repplier bibliography

I have compiled a list of 425+ essays/reviews/sketches by essayist Agnes Repplier (periodical/volume/issue/pub dates/page nos.), and would like to add the list (extensive, yet not exhaustive) to WP (similar to WPs Mark Twain bibliography). I believe this may be problematic, however, due to the fact that the effort likely falls under "original research." Much information comes from the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature (1900-1922 entries), and much from a 1947 manuscript bibliography of "Contributions to Periodicals" (unpublished, unsorted, incomplete listing of contributions) by George Stewart Stokes (Repplier biographer)—which contains some errors/omissions which I have identified and corrected, and may fall itself under "original research". The remainder of information was gathered from searching facsimile copies of primary sources of periodicals, etc. hosted at Google Books, Hathi Trust, and Archive.org, etc.). Any feedback/suggestions/recommendations welcomed. If the information can not be hosted here, any suggestions for alternate options are also welcomed. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You might try the Reliable sources noticeboard. WP:RSN They might be able to advise you. Also, at WP:The Wikipedia Library, there may be information of use to you. IMO, compiling a list of sources is not original research! Good luck... Tribe of Tiger (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violation

The material in the history section (first 3 paragraphs) of Yazidis in Georgia seem to be a copyvio from the reference 3. I'm not sure how far we have to go to make this acceptable. Can someone with experience at handling copyvios please look at this? RJFJR (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

As copyrighted material is unacceptable, I've removed the material for now (which constitutes the removal of most of the section). If an editor wants to expand the section referencing the page, they can. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 17:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, the page was originally a copy-paste copyvio, by a user who has now been blocked for constant copyvios. I think that my edit removed the last bit of copyrighted material, so the article should now be clean (apart from the rev history). —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 17:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I knew I should do something like that but couldn't bring my self to throw away so much material at once. I appreciate the help. It's a much better article now. RJFJR (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete the page i created completely

Kindly delete the page completely i created with the name of "Hidayatullah Khan Mohmand", I think wikipedia is nor more at success because the customers are not satisfied from you, your website is too hard to understand and use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samikhanmohmand (talk • contribs) 16:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The page has already been deleted under CSD as it had no references, which it must have as a biography of a living person. Eagleash (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text

Fix name into search box — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence Theo (talk • contribs) 17:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lawrence Theo: Could you elaborate on which page you are having problems with so we can help you? —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 19:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Article talkpage archiving

How does one archive an article talkpage? Thanks.--Neve–selbert 18:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

See WP:Archive. Eagleash (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

How to edit with a friend

I need to know how to edit with a friend on creating a new article on dear curves fashion lineLucy (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Lucy idegwu. It's quite straightforward: one of you creates a draft, and then both of you edit it (from separate accounts). I recomment that you both read your first article first if you haven't already, and create it using the Article wizard. --ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)