Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 February 10

= February 10 =

I Need Help So That The Templates Work
Please help me fix these templates:



!174.3.98.236 (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

How to "Talk" between contributors.
How to "Talk" between contributors. I have been asked to go to Talk - I can find nothing in Help or on the screen to indicate how. Searches find nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SC1WikiContributor (talk • contribs) 00:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can make comments at Talk:Michael A. Monsoor, just as you have here. The talkpage for any article is available from a link at the top of the article, between the "article" tab and the "edit" tab. Make a new section at the bottom of the page, make sure you're logged in, and sign your comment by typing " ~ " at the end - that automatically puts your username and a timestamp. Also, if you want to communicate directly with another editor, you can go to User talk:, eg. User talk:SC1WikiContributor and make comments.-- Beloved  Freak  00:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See more at Help:Talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The tab is not "Talk" (one of my personal WP pet peeves); it is "Discussion". And for a newcomer, this is a sticking point. Bielle (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an instance of what I call synonym disease, which plagues many computer systems and does indeed raise the learning barrier for new users, who have to waste time trying to determine whether two synonyms refer to the same feature, or to different features. Ultimately the solution will be to build computers that learn to speak the user's language, rather than forcing the user to learn a new language. --Teratornis (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Strange problem when copying and pasting
Hi everybody. Here is the situation: when I am editing an article in Wikipedia, if I copy a piece of code of more than a few words, when I paste it all the text gets divided into several lines. For example here is what I get when I copy and paste in the edit mode the first paragraph of the article example.com: example.com, example.net, and example.org are second-level domain names reserved by the Internet Engineering Task Force through RFC 2606, Section 3, for use in documentation and examples. They are not available for registration. It is really annoying. Anyone knows what may be happening? Thank you all in advance. --Felipe (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Where are you copying from? Jan 1 naD  (talk • contrib) 11:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Which browser and operating system are you using? Do you copy it into a text editor or another program before copying back to the browser? Does it help to log out? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Bringing Attention to an Issue
I'd like to bring attention to an issue on the Mass Effect article, specifically that a link to an external wiki has been added twice and deleted twice under WP:ELNO; I believe the article may qualify for exception under the WP:ELNO guidelines (making it a valid link). Would it be appropriate to re-add the link, or to re-add the link and include a template such as External_links to draw attention to initiated discussion on the talk page? Or should I leave the article alone and wait for a response on the talk page? ialsoagree (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Help received in the IRC chat, thanks to Chzz and Xenon54. ialsoagree (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Creating an entry
Hello, How can I submit a quick short article ?

It seems like alot of HTML. I'm not experienced in this. Thanks! Deb Kushner  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.95.223 (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)




 * You will need to first register an account, which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles. Once you have registered, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.


 * Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.


 * If you still think an article is appropriate, see Your first article and How to write a great article, and please consider taking a tour through the Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is available to walk you through creating an article, but you will need to create an account to use it. if you don't wish to do so, you can submit a proposal for an article at Articles for Creation. – ukexpat (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions about the verified source policy
I've seen it explicitly stated several times that statements here, presented as fact, require an externally linked, third-party, verified source, yet the vast majority of content on the site has none. Therefore, I am extremely confused as to this policy's mandate, and how to go about addressing this in my own edits, and existing material as well? A specific example is the first sentence of the page, "Suzuki". It states in the first sentence of this entry that Suzuki began building motorcycles in 1952. You will notice, however, that there is no external link to a verified, third-party, source for this statement of fact.

It is important to understand that I am not refuting this fact, but rather I would reiterate that this is merely a verifiable example of a statement of fact not being linked to a verified, third-party, source. There are numerous contradictions in your own policy as well that I presume you are aware of. I won't get into that now. I have never edited, posted, authored, published, or even used Wikipedia very much. I am very excited to contribute to the site, however, the subject which I wish to contribute to is grotesquely vacant, and I have a lot to add. I am an expert on this particular subject, and think that would suffice. Moreover, consensus is a viable, arguably the best, tool to record truthful facts. Why the redundant precaution that is the verifiable, third-party, sourcing policy?

I look forward to having it explained to me why there is so much content on the site that explicitly violates clear rules of verifying sources laid out in the terms of use. Additionally, there are English language errors on the, "Suzuki", page I mentioned earlier. For example, the word: acronym is improperly used to describe abbreviating the phrase, "Universal Japanese motorcycle.", with the three letters, U - J- M. Of course you know that this is not an acronym, but merely the first three letters of the phrase. An acronym is a word formed from the first letters of a phrase like, "Self contained underwater breathing apparatus.", or SCUBA. RADAR, SWAT, NASA, these are acronyms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlongwell (talk • contribs) 05:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on policy, but what it says on WP:CITE about only needing to source statements that are likely to be challenged may be why you find so much unsourced content. In your specific case, the year Suzuki started manufacturing motorcycles might be universally known and/or very easy to verify. As for English language errors, you're encouraged to fix any mistakes you see, although I would consider UJM to be an acronym for Universal Japanese Motorcycle (in definition, if not in common usage). — Bility (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Verifiability is, as you have identified, one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia policy. One major reason for this is that because anyone can edit here, and most editors are in some measure anonymous, there is no sure-fire way to establish the credentials of any editor. We can't prove whether or not someone who presents themselves as an expert is truly qualified - and we don't require people to demonstrate what reputation they have in the outside world. Here, the quality of your edits is the most important factor. It makes us much more open and accessible than projects that permit contributions only from people who have proven expertise; that has allowed us to grow quickly and reach a very wide audience. While we can't verify the qualifications of each editor, we can verify that a claim is supported by third-party sources, because we can require that articles include references to these sources. Readers are then able to check these sources themselves, to establish that a claim in a Wikipedia article is indeed a claim also made elsewhere. Requiring that claims be verifiable gets us around the problem that we do not and cannot verify the credentials of the people who add those claims to Wikipedia.


 * So why does Wikipedia contains unverified material? Again, it's because anyone can edit: there is no central editorial committee, no person with responsibility for checking every contribution to Wikipedia, and no exam that users have to pass to start contributing. You can put anything into Wikipedia (with obvious caveats about legality, abusiveness, and relevance) - but without a source to verify it, your material is liable to be removed or changed. Because there is no deadline on the project, we can sometimes tolerate material that starts out uncited: other editors can come along and source the material, improve it, and expand on it. (This is of course not true in all cases. Problematic unsourced material, especially in cases like biographies of living people, should be removed on sight.) But it is much better to have the material cited at the point it is added: readers will take it more seriously, and it spares someone else the work of cleaning up after the person who contributed the unsourced material.


 * It's great that you intend to contribute: the advantage you'll have as an expert on your subject is that you'll already be familiar with reliable sources in the area. This will mean you can easily cite the material to these sources. I have posted some links to your user talk page to help you find your way around. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a client (school project)?
I am taking year 13 TCI at Avondale College, Auckland. Essentially the standards I'm sitting require me to design a product, using some software applications, that my client needs. The teacher said that my client can be anyone.

I was wondering, could I design something for Wikipedia? A new set of templates? A new process like the Article Wizard? A bot? Publicity via a game site that teaches the 5 pillars of Wikipedia? I have no clue, and this topic is really wide, so I can do just about anything remotely related to computers (which, of course, Wikipedia has to be).

I need to have someone I can regularly consult with and follow up with, someone who will specify the need; then I'm supposed to come up with a solution. (Most of the time, in practice, this involves a kid coercing a teacher into semi-agreeing that their department needs a basic website or flash game.) I just want to be a bit different.

Does anyone have any idea what I can do?

This is probably slightly bizarre, and doesn't quite belong on the helpdesk, but I have no clue where else to put it. Any suggestions at all would be appreciated.

Thanks :)

SS ✞(Kay) 05:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Singlish - others will have more suggestions, but one starting point would be Bot requests, where users have listed and discussed the kinds of bots for which they see a need. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

How to edit an existing user-created infobox
Hi there. I read some of the articles on infoboxes to no avail. I would like to know how to update an existing infobox located here, titled S Piñera cabinet infobox. This is a knock off of the infobox on Michelle Bachelet's article. It does not include the complete party affiliations or complete titles. I would like to update it and perhaps revert it back to a sortable table; although the formatting on the current is more aesthetically pleasing. Can anyone give me a good specific link or help me out with it? I would really appreciate it. Thanks! --Soy Rebelde (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Both infoboxes are basically calls to Template:Infobox Chile Cabinet with most fields already filled in. That would be the place to edit if you want to make changes to layout, style, look, etc. If you just want Template:S Piñera cabinet infobox to have more parameters, or you want to change some of the info, you can add/modify the fields there. — Bility (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Category help
Please assist It appears that Bipolar (Up dharma Down album) has ended up in Category:OPM albums, even though they are two different groups. Can someone please recategorize this album (I can't presently)? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done - it looks like the editor who added the category interpreted as a category for albums in the Original Pilipino Music ("OPM") genre (to which Up dharma Down) belong, but it appears instead to refer as you say to albums by the Californian band OPM. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Are people aware this wikipedia entry is directly copied from another site ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral

is a direct copy of ....

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cancopy (talk • contribs) 12:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know. In this case, the other website is a copy of the Wikipedia article. At the bottom, it reads "The source of this article is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL." -- Beloved  Freak  12:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed - the original is the Wikipedia article, and the copy is the Absolute Astronomy version. Absolute Astronomy is listed as a Wikipedia mirror site. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What can be even more confusing is when you find text from an article in Google Books -- Icon and others are publishing a lot of Wikipedia articles, so they show up there. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

T-shirt
lets get a jerry/niggs/nolal t-shirt in production he is not only one of the greatest drummers that ever lived but he was a true artist. p.s they will sell like crazy LONG LIVE NIGGS NOLAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.149.63 (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck with your T-shirt campaign. This is a help desk for questions about how to use Wikipedia.  Do you have a question we can help you with?  Ka renjc 13:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with more than 3 million articles. One of them is about Jerry Nolan but this is not a fansite. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

How to create a journal intro page on wikipedia
Dear Sir, I want to create a introductory page for a open access biomedical journal "Journal of pharmacy and bioallied sciences" ISSN 0975-7406

We want to write a similar page like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Postgraduate_Medicine

Please help us...

I try to write but not successful in my user area of himanshu18in

Please help.

with regards Himanshu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himanshu18in (talk • contribs) 15:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)




 * Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.


 * Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.


 * If you still think an article is appropriate, see Your first article. You might also look at How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article. – ukexpat (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The page Blood Types will not display on my laptop when saved to disk on a public computer.
Internet Explorer says it has encountered a problem and has to close. All other pages display OK. Must be fault on the page somewhere. Cutting and pasting to Word is not always great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.61.160.1 (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Blood type opens fine for me in Internet Explorer 8 and Firefox 3.5.7. Can you clarify whether you are trying to load a live version of the page, or have saved a copy to a local disk? (I am not clear whether you are on a personal laptop or a public machine from the question title.) Gonzonoir (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit Frequency
What is the ideal length of time a account has to be actively editing to be eligible for Adminship, as I am interested to know. Also what would be considered as an inactive account. Thanks Paul 23 87  16:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also could someone give me a list of things to look for when deciding wether to Support or Oppose a Rfa/Rfb. Paul 23 87  16:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The links on the Rfa page would be a good place to start. – ukexpat (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages and articles mismatch
The article for Talk:White gold is Colored gold (through a redirect), while the talk page for Colored gold is Talk:Colored gold. Isn't it weird? (If this is not the right place for such queries, please tell me.) --Siddhant (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No it's not that weird. When articles are redirected to other articles, talk pages that have a history, such as Talk:White gold, are not redirected, so that the contents of the talk page are preserved and visible. – ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So, shouldn't Talk:Colored gold say something like: Hey, Talk:White gold could be of importance. (Of course, not for new discussions, but for 'historical' reasons.) --Siddhant (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tagged it with, which should help. TN X Man  19:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It helps someone visiting the Talk:White gold page but not someone visiting Talk:Colored gold (refer to my last comment). Also, it does not say anything properly about why the page is historical. Isn't there a guideline for such cases? --Siddhant (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I read Help:Moving a page, but it doesn't say anything about such cases :-( --Siddhant (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This was a merge, not a page move. When White gold was merged into Colored gold, it was redirected, but the talk pages weren't merged. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 20:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if it did, it would not be 100% relevent because this redirect was not created as a result of a page move but was created specifically to redirect to that particular section of the colored gold article. If it had been a page move, the talk page should have been moved with the article. – ukexpat (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So do we leave this here? Shouldn't something be done about this whole issue? --Siddhant (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Broken Robot
SineBot is broken. It signs many of my already signed posts. I left a message on Slakr's user page four days ago (it seems that he controls this robot). He hasn't replied, and the problem is still happening. What can I do to make the robot stop? •• Fly by Night (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fly by Night (talk • contribs)
 * At a guess, the problem is that your signature doesn't contain a wikilink to your userpage. Instead, it contains a link to your userpage with all the spaces replaced with nonbreaking spaces for some reason. Algebraist 19:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c)I suspect it's the &nbsp's in your links to your user page and talk page. I assume you're putting them in so it doesn't do a line break in the middle of your sig?  If so, you only need to put them on the right side of the pipe, not the left. That might fix it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've deleted them. Now let's see if it will work. •• Fly by Night (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You can also opt out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sinebot#Single_person

"Article quality" gadget not working
I enabled the gadget in my preferences which "displays an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article", but it doesn't work. Any help would be appreciated, thanks.--Louprothero88 (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you remember to clear your browser cache? – ukexpat (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just tried that (I use Firefox) but it still isn't working.--Louprothero88 (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It works fine for me. Have you just enabled it, or has it always worked but suddenly failed? SS  ✞(Kay) 06:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. It does seem to be working now after I cleared my cache. I just had to restart Firefox first. Thanks.--Louprothero88 (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sick Article
I've just come across an article about a murderer that killed a 15 year old boy. It goes into detail and is quite disturbing. Who are the Wikipedia police? •• Fly by Night (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't have them. If you see something that needs improving, take a shot at it yourself. If you have questions as you go, feel free to post here. TN X Man  23:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need improving, it needs removing. It talks about the brutal murder and dismemberment of a 15 year old child. Surely an encyclopedia shouldn't contain topics like these. Sure, a reference to certain prolific criminals; but graphic detailings of their crimes? This isn't a snuff site, is it? •• Fly by Night (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But also note that Wikipedia is not censored so don't delete content just because you find it distasteful. If it is accurate and cited to a reliable source it stays in, subject to the guidelines on undue weight. – ukexpat (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I disagree. This page covers a disgusting topic and an encyclopedia is not a place for such a topic. An encyclopedia should be a place of learning. There are no age restrictions on this website. I would not be happy to let my children read that article. It is sick and disturbing. It ought to be removed. •• Fly by Night (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This issue has been discussed with respect to a multitude of "things people don't like", such as images of Mohammed, the contents of the Pegging (sexual practice) article, explicit images such as at autofellatio, etc etc ad nauseam and the consensus is that we do not censor. It is not Wikipedia's job to protect children, that's their parents' job. Inevitably you would never be able to decide where to draw the line or who should be policing it and imposing sanctions. It's done and dusted and it ain't going to happen. – ukexpat (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the article because it is on a living person as well as because the victim's family is out there, and the article was very poorly sourced. This is not an endorsement of the position that the topic doesn't belong. As Ukexpat says above, if this rigorously cited to reliable sources it would be a wholly different matter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

First option: Would it be possible to create a pop-down box with the top looking like "Potentially Disturbing Material (show)" with show being a link that opens up a text box, like some of the bottom-of-the-page link boxes, to put particularly disturbing material in?

Second option: Put a banner with the text "The following article contains material that may be disturbing or objectionable to certain readers. By reading past this banner, you acknowledge that we have warned you." on such articles.

Regardless, some kind of tag such that we don't have little kids reading about dismemberment or, more importantly (to me), their parents complaining to Wikipedia or the press that "little Timmy has nightmares because of a Wikipedia article" is important, from a moral AND legal standpoint. -- Nutarama (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus for disclaimers. See No disclaimers in articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Add something to the general disclaimer saying "Content may be offensive, don't blame us."? -- Nutarama (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The number of people who read the disclaimer is probably less than the number of people who get offended at various things. --Teratornis (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The original poster may be interested in Wikipedia CD Selection, a sanitized selection of Wikipedia articles suitable for distribution to schools. --Teratornis (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Other points:
 * If the English Wikipedia implements flagged revisions, that would at least shield the eyes of vulnerable readers from the egregiously offensive vandalism that pops up from time to time in various articles. Even though Wikipedia editors typically revert such vandalism within a few minutes, if a casual visitor happens to see it, he or she may not understand what is going on, and feel troubled. This would not help for articles that offend some people but reflect a consensus of Wikipedia editors.
 * Anyone is free to set up their own mirror or fork of Wikipedia, and edit it to be kid-safe or whatever else they like. This would be a lot of work, but at least it would be straightforwardly possible, in contrast to trying to shift the consensus on Wikipedia.
 * --Teratornis (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Content disclaimer starts with large capitals saying "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS CONTENT THAT MAY BE OBJECTIONABLE". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Leading photos of certain articles
Why is it that with products such as the iPod, the leading photo is always one of the newest generation (if one can be found), but with automobile models, any image is used regardless of the vehicle's generation? Shouldn't the newest generation of a vehicle be the leading image the same way the newest iPod image is? Tamajared (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be because we always prefer free photos from the Wikimedia Commons over fair use images, so we take what we can get that's free, which is likely to be from a random production line over time, but I really came to say that you might try asking at a more targeted venue: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also check Commons:Category:Automobiles and its subcategories to see whether newer photos are available for a particular model. Some users specialize in uploading photos to Commons, and expect other users to choose from among the photos on Commons to display in the various language Wikipedias. If no good photo exists on Commons already, you can try searching for freely licensed photos with Flickr free. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, so our photo coverage reflects the interests of our volunteers. It may be, for some reason, that there are more Wikipedia users interested in photographing iPods than automobiles. Or maybe iPods are easier for amateurs to photograph. Wikipedia's photographs and illustrations tend to be uneven among various topics, to say the least, so if you have any to contribute it would help a lot. Part of the problem is that it's not exactly simple to figure out all the licensing and copyright stuff that goes along with uploading images here or on Commons. See Commons:Commons:First steps if you want to try your hand. --Teratornis (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
Do disambiguation pages require references? I would like to know, as I am editing an disambig page on chronic leukemia. Immunize (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, no reference required and in fact, none should be included. A DAB page entry should not be more than a very short description that is enough to disambiguate the entry from its fellow topics, so that others can reach the article they are actually looking for with a similar name. When I've seen people adding references to a DAB page, it's normally because they have missed the purpose of the page I described, and are trying to expand the topic. Please also see Disambiguation. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)


 * There is also a manual of style for disam pages at WP:MOSDAB. – ukexpat (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)