Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 July 18

= July 18 =

Tesla Coil
Hi Wikipedia,

I just posted 3 links in the SEE ALSO section of the Tesla Coil Tesla coil that have links to the Tesla Coil and Faraday Cage that my friend created for the Sparks Museum in Bellingham, WA. The links go to two news articles in the Seattle TImes and then a video that the Seattle Times posted. I am not sure of copyright protection - but am thinking that if the links go to the Seattle Times and that the Times has a "share video" on those pages that it's OK with them.

I just want to be sure that it was OK to do that! I got a notice that the Tesla Coil site was not accepting new links and to go to DMOZ.org - but I got totally confused there! So let me know if it's cool to post the links that I did. Was not sure if the notice was for the SEE ALSO section as those links posted when I put them up or if it was for some other section on the site.

I think the links are relevant to the Tesla Coil article as they show the Tesla Coil in action with the Faraday Cage. I just wanted to post them for my friend he has no idea I have done this! Wanted to tell him after it was OK'd by you, Wikipedia. His project was rather amazing and I wanted to share it. So My friend that created the Faraday Ca using the Tesla Coil has no involvement in this posting. It's just me, wanting to surprise my friend and let him know he was on WIkipedia in the Tesla Coil and Faraday Cage articles.

I posted links to the sites on the Faraday Cage Faraday cage with no notices. So I think they are OK. But I got worried when I posted the links on the Tesla Coil page and saw they were not accepting new links.

Please let me know if it's OK to have Rik's link's to the Tesla Coil he created on the Tesla Coil & Faraday Cage pages. If not, please take them down.

Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritama723 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Three external links that concern the same issue are definitely too many. Also, external links must be in the "External links" section and not in "See also" as at Tesla coil. Wikipedia is frequently abused by people wanting to promote some other website so it is likely that someone will remove those links in due course. However, you may as well leave them because an editor might get inspired to extract some encyclopedic information and use it to improve the article. I'm a bit doubtful that will occur because essentially the links concern something that is merely interesting as a side issue, yet there are probably hundreds of interesting pictures concerned with high-voltage sparks. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and suggestions John. I did kind of overdo it with 3 very similar links! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritama723 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk request
I would like to discuss a definition topic for the economic article with other wikipedians but I don't know how to make that request. I have created a seccion on the talk page of Economics in which I exposed my ideas, but I feel nobody is aware of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firulaith (talk • contribs) 02:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Firulaith (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You might post a short question at WP:RD/H (bearing in mind "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate"). However, suggestions at article talk pages generally need a few days for others to comment. There is a big problem with your post at Talk:Economics, namely that the comment is far too long. Talk pages should focus on items to improve the article, and other editors are unlikely to find time to extract the key points from a long discussion. It would be better to start with a suggestion for a specific change to the article, then provide reliable sources to verify the points in the suggestion. See WP:TP for information about signing messages. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Strange sizing in external links on KET station article
Can anyone figure out why the external links section (including its header) here is showing up in small? I figured it was something in a template, but I can't wrap my head around the current coding in Cite book or SfnRef which are the last things that are the correct size (the small text type is not in the article in any form). Adding an HTML terminating tag for "small" did not help, so I'm assuming it's not sized using that modifier. Help is appreciated; thanks. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I added a refend to match the refbegin in the Bibliography section. Is the bibliography needed? Perhaps just remove it. Why are there 37 external links? They are wrapped in refbegin/refend, so they are also small. I normally would remove pretty all of them, but I'll leave that for someone familiar with the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that didn't even occur to me. I did have an afterthought about the links but was more concerned about the sizing. I can look into the links more later, but they appear to be bare-bones information about the individual stations. - Purplewowies (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have extensively pruned the EL list and fixed the "small" problem in the process.--ukexpat (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Exclamation mark
Hello, at the Dutch Wikipedia, I am used to seeing a red exclamation mark in the Recent Changes and Watch lists before edits which not yet have been confirmed by other users. Here, they also appear in the legend of these lists, but not in the actual lists. Can someone explain this? Bever (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Bever. According to meta:Help:Patrolled edit, most Wikimedia projects (including the English Wikipedia), have patrolled, rather than edits, so the exclamation mark will not appear in recent changes or watchlists here.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Go to NewPages (hide patrolled), click "older 50" a couple of times to show pages that are not going to be patrolled soon, open a couple of pages and add them to your watchlist, view the watchlist, then you will see ! on the left between N and the time. --   Gadget850talk 13:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Article I created
I created a page about Australian explorers Cas and Jonesy

On the day I made it, I saved frequently so I wouldn't lose my work, but a volunteer reviewed my article while it was in that stage and highlighted the issues that there were no references and it was an orphan, as I hadn't completed them yet. I know have fixed these issues, when can I expect the multiple issue message to disappear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandersawyer (talk • contribs) 05:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The tags highlighting issues are usually removed when the editors fixing the issues think they have fixed them all. However, in this case I can still see it is not that well linked to other articles (not a big problem itself, but it makes the article easier for others to find) and many of the added references are incomplete (take a look at cite news and its partners, or some other articles, to see how they should be formed).  There is also a Manual of Style for BLP articles (findable from WP:MOS) which will tell you about the tone/style required.  Astronaut (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixing a template
Hi, on a new article Chabad philosophy (I am not the creator) that at the bottom has a category Category:Jews and Judaism templates which is wrong because this is an article and not a "template". There are two templates at the bottom of the page, Chabad philosophy and Chabad, and it seems the problem may be coming from one of those, but so far I have tried to fix the problem without success. Since I am not that much of a tech-wizard, can anyone please help with this? Thanks in advance, IZAK (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem ot have fixed the problem yourself. The problem originated with this edit to the template on 26 June. SpinningSpark 10:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you for your feedback. I guess it took a little time for it to become part of the WP data base. I will see what happens next. Thank you very much for your response! Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Untitled
I need to remove one of the References on my company's page as it describes a competitor. i have tried to edit but cannot access this section - please advise how i can do this.

the page is weston williamson (architects) Weston Williamson

and the reference i need to remove is 7. Transport Architect of the Year - John McAslan & Partners | Competitions | Building Design

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westonwill12 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, as an editor with a conflict of interest you should not be directly editing the article at all. Please restrict yourself to making suggestions on the talk page.  The purpose of reference #7 is to verify that the company was runner up for an award.  Naturally, the referenced article talks mostly about the actual winner of the award rather than the runner up.  The Wikipedia article is not here to promote your company and the article does not belong to you.  We really don't care that the page mentions your competitor's.  In fact, a truly balanced article would probably say a lot more about that. SpinningSpark 10:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I support everything Spinning said. If you are concerned to improve the article, there is plenty you could usefully do – by supplying the information requested by the various and  tags, and posting it to the article's talk page, so that an impartial editor can add it to the article and get rid of the tags. Maproom (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Broadening searches
There must be a simple answer to this but I cannot find it. If I search on a term and there is an article on it then the search will take me to it, but sometimes I want to check where the term is used in other articles and I cannot see how to do this. This also applies to Wikimedia. I tried to find how many times RSPB is mentioned in image file names or descriptions, but I could not find how to stop the search just giving me one result, the RSPB category page. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Leave the search box blank and enter. This will take you to the search page where you can search for all results.  If you click on "advanced" you will also be able to search by namespace.  You might also consider switching to the monobooks skin.  This has two buttons under the search box: "go" and "search".  The first goes directly to the article on the search term (if there is one), the second gives all search results without having first to go to the search page.  Yet another way of finding the search page is with the link Special:Search.  You can add this to your user page, or with a bit of javascript, it can be added to your side menu. SpinningSpark 11:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Great. Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On the default (Vector) skin, at the bottom of the drop down list should be a horizontal line, underneath which it says "containing" and then the search term. Hovering over this should highlight the box from the line down, clicking on this goes straight to the search you want. - Arjayay (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So many ways and I could not find any of them. Ah well! Dudley Miles (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the tip! I had been reaching the "all results" page by typing a line of asdfguiop into the search box. I never thought of leaving it blank. Maproom (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I also used gibberish. This way's much more dignified. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone ought to mention the tilde trick, described near the top of Help:Searching. If you key a tilde into the search box at the top right, followed by your search term, you'll get the search results and not an article that happens to match. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Article deleted by admin
why is my article is deleted by admin.. and what I should type to my article to undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenzpogi14 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You made a request and were answered at Requests for undeletion. --  Gadget850talk 14:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you did not understand the advice I gave.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Crash Landing of United Flight #232
I was wondering why I was not mentioned in the Wikipedia article regarding the survivors. I also wrote a book about the crash " Miracle in the cornfield" by Joseph Trombello sitting in 18b over the wing. I should be included somewhere. Thanks

Kind regards,

Joe Trombello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.195.173.32 (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Because nobody added it until now.  Btw, I formatted your entry and added ISBN.  Thank you for your contribution!   71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Just for the record article is at United Airlines Flight 232. MilborneOne (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Offensive term
How should I report offensive content on a page?

Template:Dallas-Fort Worth TV Template:Dallas-Fort Worth TV - KJJM-LD is referred to as a 'Dark' ethnic channel  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.41.24 (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On the template talk page: Template Talk:Dallas-Fort Worth TV.  But remember that Wikipedia is not censored.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's actually just "Dark". Whether that means in an ethnic way or whatever isn't clear. The word doesn't appear in KJJM's article, or in a quick Google. That lack of clarity is the offensive part, I find, and the kind of thing Wikipedia should attempt to change. Plain English works best. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree as its main sub-channel is an African-American themed station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.41.24 (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * According to an unsourced, undated bit in the article, "KJJM is not currently available on cable systems in the immediate Dallas/Mesquite area." Could be what "dark" means. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I see, but the ambiguity could be offensive. 2.122.41.24 (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. And there's no citation for either "for/about blacks" or "off-air". So I removed it. Left the unsourced bit in the article, though. Not because I think it belongs, I just don't particularly think it doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It must be removed. Shabratha (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

wikipedia
Can anyone edit their own posts for a short time and save it? or only employees? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.72.35 (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I'm not sure what you mean by "posts", but anyone can edit Wikipedia articles – and if the edits they make are constructive, they will survive indefinitely. Wikipedia does have employees, but I have never come across one, and I don't think they do any editing. Maproom (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Maproom, you very likely have come across Wikimedia staff, but did not recognise them as such. When acting in their Wikimedia Foundation roles, staff use usernames with "(WMF)" appended (this has not always been the case but it seems to be a pretty universal policy now).  See this search, there are surprisingly many of them.  You may recognise some of the names; when they edit personally, that is, not as employees, they often use an account with the same name but without (WMF).  However, there are some like User:Halfak (WMF) who use a completely different account name for personal editing. SpinningSpark 00:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)