Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 March 20

= March 20 =

External links to digitized regimental histories
I've been adding external links to digitized regimental histories that are in the public domain, digitized at Emory University and uploaded to the Internet Archive. The links are being added to the relevant wikipedia articles for the civil war regiment in question. Is this acceptable?

Example: 1st Virginia Infantry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkylefenton (talk • contribs) 02:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like a worthwhile addition to me. You might want to check with the folks at Portal:American Civil War.  And, there might be a template to make things easier - i.e: internet archive template.  ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC):~
 * P.s.: see Template:Internet Archive

item correction
Your article on the Anthony Quinn page has an error. Under filmography, it shows that he played Eufemio Zapata in the Viva Zapata movie of 1952. He actually played the brother Emiliano Zapata.

George Norfolk,Va. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.11 (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that? IMDB also says he played Eufemio.  RudolfRed (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of article
Hello,

Can you please assist me in why my article was deleted for the 2nd time. This is what we have been trying to upload below. There is nothing inflammatory or incorrect. Could you help us upload the below or advise us what the issue is?

Thanks for your assistance!

User0300 (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The note on your talk page says that you did not show why the subject is notable. You can read the guidance on this at WP:N and WP:BIO.  Also, I deleted the draft you posted in your question.  There is already a copy on your talk page.   RudolfRed (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and following a link from WP:BIO you will find more specific guidance at WP:MUSICBIO. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

New Entry in Wikipedia
I had made a new entry in Wikipedia in People column in Bhagalpur District /India page. The same has been removed without any reason. Kindly advise right steps to make new entries in Wikipedia pages. Thanks Qaisar N.K.Jani — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.218.152 (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't see any edits made by your IP address to Bhagalpur district. Did you use an edit summary WP:EDITSUMMARY to explain the purpose of the change you were making to the page? Did you use an inline citation WP:REFB to a reliable independent source WP:RS? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And I can't see a recent change to that article which added a person, only one that added an external link. Are you sure you picked "Save" and not "Preview". But if you want to try again to add a name, please take note of the links that Demiurge gave you. --ColinFine (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Why was the work I created in a sandbox page published as an article wikipedia without my approval?
Hi, at least 5 years ago I created Sandbox content under my username. I never completed nor requested that the content be approved. My understanding of the Sandbox is that: It serves as a testing spot and page development space for t he user and is not an encyclopedia article."

Hence, I am surprised that the content I wrote in Sandbox is now the subject of live wikipedia page and has been edited by another user.

The information in this article is out of date and inaccurate. The image uploaded by another user is over 10 years old. Can I simply delete it and start over. . . or must it be edited? Please explain to me why sandbox data was approved for publishing and how I can prevent this from happening again.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkyparker (talk • contribs) 06:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The article that you created in your sandbox is still there... in your sandbox. Nobody has moved it to the main article space.  I see one edit was made to add an infobox.  Normally sandbox articles are not edited by anyone else but I've never seen a rule against it.  You can certainly ask the editor that did it.  They have made edits today, so they are still active on Wikipedia.  Dismas |(talk) 06:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You can do whatever you want with the contents, you can update it or clear, or you can even request for deletion (so that the history will disappear along with the contents). However cou can't request exclusive rights for the page. A sandbox indeed is a user's page and we usually don't edit one another's sandbox pages, however sandbox pages still are part of Wikipedia, and as such they are subject to CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL (see the note below the textbox then you edit the sandbox page). Anyone can decide to copy, publish or improve (or vandalize) your sandbox, and IMHO the recent change is an improvement. I think you might rather appreciate someone's help in improving the (future) article. But if you feel uncomfortable with that, then just undo the change. If you think the text is too bad and will never meet Wikipedia standards, so it can't be published then just remove it. But usually it's much better to ask for help in updating and improving your work and then publish it than revert everyting and start from scratch. Good luck, and take it easy. --CiaPan (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks CiaPan. I appreciate your thoughtful response. It is not that I want exclusive rights for the page or don't want anyone else to edit. . . but rather that I hadn't finished researching and editing what I had written so never published it. Now it is badly out of date and should be fixed. I am happy to do that when I find time, but that may be a few months. And there are plenty of newer sources if someone else wants to do that. What I don't understand is why a sandbox article is able to come up as a top ten google search for this individual if it is considered a testing and development space? It appears as if it is an approved wikipedia article, even if it is not. I am obviously still learning how to use and edit wikipedia so it is really helpful for me to understand the rules for working in sandbox and publishing. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkyparker (talk • contribs) 16:48, 20 March 2013‎


 * If you don't want Google to index your sandbox page, add __NOINDEX__ to the page. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm afraid it is Google's secret how they rank pages. As far as I can see, Google puts Wikipedia pages quite high in their results, especially when the search phrase fits both the article contents and the article title ("file name"). Additionally they do not reduce the rank of Wikipedia sub-spaces pages (eg. user: space), so we can do little to reduce your page ranking. The best solution is telling the Google bot to exclude your page from their index, just as David Biddulph said above. --CiaPan (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ...or you can add a warning in big letters in the page's head that it is under construction and should not be considered a valuable source until it is moved to the main space. You might also want to use Under construction or Userspace draft template for the same purpose. --CiaPan (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

adding citations to articles with existing ones
When adding a citation to an article with four citations already, the new one shows up as labeled footnote 1, while there already are notes 1 to 4. The added citation also does not appear in the publication list at the bottom showing the four footnotes; the article has a reference section listing publications noted with list code different from shown in the instructions, a "
 * --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Thank you! Gaijin42 (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

External Website link not working properly Article Barqueiros
How come reference # 4 does not work properly. I know that the page exists but when I click the link from the wikipedia page it says that the page does not exist but if I copy and paste into my web browser the site shows up. http://missixty2005.blogspot.ca/2007/11/sem-caulinos-vivemos-se.html PersonZ777 (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is spurious a  at the end of the link. --—  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please ask your questions here, not on the talk page.  Frigid Ninja  20:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Chattakpur, sonada, Darjeeling
Chattakpur is small village situated eastern part of Himalayan region. This small scenic beautiful village located very near to Darjeeling. This small village situated in altitude of 7888ft surrounded by pine forest. This village located in senchel wildlife Sanctuary for that you may get a opportunity to see Himalayan leopard, Himalayan black beer, Barking deer etc.The great Mt.Kanchenjunga is clearly visible from this village, Kanchejunga is worlds 3rd highest peak.

How to get Chattakpur: Chattakpur From NJP/BAGDOGRA 72km

Chattakpur from Darjeeling   20km  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnavdey (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you have a question about editing or navigating Wikipedia?  Frigid Ninja  20:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want an article about Chattakpur, try Articles for creation (to create it) or Requested articles (to have someone else do it).— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

My proposed article
This is for Libby Norman, in response to her inquiry about my biographical submission (Richard France).

I used WordPerfect, but converted it to an RTF file, believing that it would be retrievable by just about anyone in that format. Please advise. Thanks!

Leslie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmian (talk • contribs) 21:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Filmian. It would be very unlikely that user would see your post for her here, unless alerted. There's a better way. Every user has a talk page where messages intended for them are placed. When you post there the recipient gets the day-glo orange banner telling them they have new messages that I'm sure you've seen when people posted to your talk page. There are various ways you could have found Libby's talk page, including entering "user talk:Libby norman" in the search box or going to your talk page's page history where she has posted and clicking on her linked talk page. Normally a user's signature contains a link to their userpage, talk page or both, making it a bit easier, but hers didn't in this case (which is actually a mild policy no-no but I digress). The direct link is User talk:Libby norman. Speaking about signatures, when you post to a discussion page like this one (but never in articles) please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end ( ~ ) which automatically formats as your signature. You can also place these without typing by clicking on the editing icon that looks like this: [[File:Insert-signature.png]]. Here, because you didn't sign, a bot (automated program) signed for you. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The advice regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard France bio for Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard France is available on your talk page. In each case the problem is that there are no reliable sources to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Verifying quotes from newspaper article in personal possession, but not available online
I have out-of-date newspaper articles (also a game program) that are unavailable on-line and are the only sources available for particular quotes and statements. Is there an acceptable way to make these sources verifiable? I'm concerned that citing newspaper, date, writer, headline, etc, might not be suffidient. Could the newspaper article and game program be photocopied and uploaded somewhere? Is there an acceptable method for verification? I'm sure I'm not alone with this issue. What would you suggest? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.40.153 (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, there is absolutely no need for a source to be availible online. It merely has to be published, and there's lots of sources which are published the old-fashioned way (on paper), and as long as they have a reputation for reliability you're fine.  Just cite exactly as you said (full bibliography, as you note) and that is EXACTLY sufficient.  You can use a template like cite news for this exact purpose; just leave the URL field blank.  To restate it: there is no requirement that a source is online for you to cite it.  If it is online, you should link it.  But if it isn't online, it is perfectly acceptable.  See Offline sources for a bit more, and note that Identifying reliable sources states "It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." (bold mine).  That is, as long as someone could get it from somewhere (like a library), it doesn't have to be online.  -- Jayron  32  00:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you use the cite news template and complete as many of the parameters as possible, it will provide any user who wishes to track down the source and verify it with the information that they need to do so.--ukexpat (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)