Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 November 20

= November 20 =

Joshua Travagli soccer player (2)
> > Hello sir's, > > I see this message at the top of the wikipedia page and I'm sorry but we're > not agree: > > This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's > deletion policy. > Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the > Articles for deletion page. > Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this > notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more > information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the > discussion, read the guide to deletion. > > I'm really surprise because people are doing "pages" for full teams like > RedBull II. > > such as : Red Bull II ( second team ) never have more then few lines on > newspapers or article ..and they do have the full detail made by someone for > them ( you can check them out ). > > this is the guy: > > Elopez76 > > I'm really disappointed, I'm trying to build something here if I have few > mistake I would like to be guided. > > that's all. > > thanks > > regards > > M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.216.198.68 (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You asked the same question three days ago and got answers. Did you see those, and was there anything specific you didn't understand?  Rojomoke (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You'll find your previous question and answers at above. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Archived.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

want to edit naima adedapos page
I want to brcome z Wikipedia editor for my first attempt I would like to add content to an article about naima adedapo she recordrd an ep she was on American idol I am a donor to wikepedia and teach people how to use pcs tablets and windows phones I have 3y years exp and have developrd 2o web sites just tell me how I can help continue this great work allan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clare1000 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome aboard, . You can find the article you are looking for here: Naima Adedapo. You can find useful tips to help you in editing here: Help:Editing. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 07:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Martineau family
Could you please check that the dates are correct for ref. number 6 on the above page. Should I have the original date of the publication in there too? cheers Srbernadette (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, see further comments on my talk page as a reply to the message you left there. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

How do i divide references into columns
There is currently an article that I am currently working on which has around 60 references, all stacked into one column that is extensive. I am unsure how to divide it into columns to reduce reference section's height and need some advice with this, with appreciation.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There should be a   near the bottom of the article.  Add the term  colwidth=30em , so it ends up something like:     Rwessel (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try it now.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Upload a new picture on an existing page
Hi, I've tried unsuccessfully to upload a newer picture on an existing Wikipedia page. I just joined Wikipedia. It's saying that I have to wait 4 days but also make 10 edits to be "confirmed." I don't want to make any other edits except to update one picture. Is there a way around it? Do I have to really make 10 edits? Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadhja (talk • contribs) 03:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately you will need to wait as it is one of the protection mechanisms to prevent misuse and abuse. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You may submit an upload request at: Files for upload, . Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 07:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Gaston G. Allaire
Gaston G. Allaire is born in Berlin, New-Hampshire, as correctly noted in "Early Life...". However on a Bing search in the WIKI information box that appear to the right he is shown as being born in Berlin, Germany. Can you please correct as I don't know how to access this type of edit.

Thank you

PS. Also, Can we link to Web Archive for Website? Allairefictamusic (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

to link to a web archive, use the parameters archive-url= and archive-date= in Template:Cite web. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 07:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see such boxes in Bing, maybe because I'm in Denmark. I assume it's a Bing variant of the issue described at HD/GKG for Google and HD/YKG for Yahoo. I don't know whether Bing boxes have a Feedback link to mark a field as wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I just created HD/Bing based on the Google and Yahoo templates.--ukexpat (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Add aircraft to Missing Aircraft page
The Wiki page List of missing aircraft is missing information on the BE 1900 missing off Sao Tome as referenced in Jerry Krause (missionary). Could you please ask someone to add this aircraft to the list? The family is still actively searching for answers and having this aircraft referenced on this page would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.159.253 (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

✅ per your request. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Source / Foot note question please
Probably a very stupid question, but can someone please tell me what these little icons mean when they are to the left of a foot note? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by California2015-XX (talk • contribs) 16:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Clicking on the "icon" will bring you to where it is used in context in the article itself. Where you see a, b, c, etc -- it indicates that it has been references multiple times in different places throughout the article. Tiggerjay (talk)

So is the a,b,c etc. the actual source? The icons are just used instead of repeating the same source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by California2015-XX (talk • contribs) 16:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the a, b, c... are the actual places in the article using that reference. If you look at Rosetta_(spacecraft), you'll see "^ a b" next to reference #3 ("Scuka, Daniel (10 September 2014)").  If you click on the "a", it'll take you to the "Periapsis" line in the infobox (you'll see the superscript "[3]" at the end of that, and if you click on the "b", it'll take you to the "10 September 2014" entry in "Timeline of major events and discoveries"/"2014", where, again, you'll see the "[3]" at the end.  If there's just a single use, the "^" is clickable instead, and take you to that location (and the a, b, c... is omitted).  Rwessel (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

But if all the foot note is showing is the arrows, what is the actual source? To what reference are they pointing to? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by California2015-XX (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In the situation where you have something a citation that looks like Jorgensen 1982 p 15, there should be a references/bibliography section below the citations which contains the information on a book/paper by Jorgensen written in 1982. In this case (the article is North Hollywood) in the biography is the line "Jorgensen, Lawrence C., The San Fernando Valley Past and Present, Pacific Rim Research, 1982, ISBN 0-941014-00-2".Naraht (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition the multiple entries (like the a b c) are generated by using namedrefs. Take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners for more information.Naraht (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec) The "actual source" is what's in the footnote. The "^" just links to where the article references the footnote.  Consider reference #3 in the Rosetta_(spacecraft) article.  It looks something like:

^ a b Scuka, Daniel (10 September 2014). "Down, down we go to 29 km – or lower?". European Space Agency. Retrieved 13 September 2014.


 * Clicking on the "a" and "b" will jump to the two points in the article I mentioned earlier. The actual reference is the ESA Rosetta blog entry, which is linked by the "Down, down we go to 29 km – or lower?".  Note that the "^" is not clickable, since there is more than one use of that reference in the article.  If there were only a single use, the letters would be omitted, and the "^" would be clickable instead.


 * In the (hard to read) screenshot you provided (what's the actual article, it might be easier to talk about the actual case), reference #7 is "Jorgenson 1982, p. 82". That style of reference is normally used when "Jorgenson 1982" is a reference defined elsewhere (it most commonly in a separate list, but not always), and the p.82 adds specificity to that reference.  Usually in that style the name will be the last name of the first author, and the date the date of publication.  So that would be the thing to look for.  But again, the "^" will take you to where "Jorgenson 1982, p. 82" is used in the article.


 * That isn't the most common style on WP (or in general), but it is often used in heavily referenced pieces. You can see that style used in SS Edmund Fitzgerald, for example.  Note #1, for example, is "^ NTSB 1978, p. 3.".  That actually references this item in the "references" section: "National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) (May 4, 1978). "Marine Accident Report: SS Edmund Fitzgerald Sinking in Lake Superior on November 10, 1975" (PDF). NTSB. Retrieved November 9, 2010."  In that case the article (nicely) links the "NTSB" in the footnote to the actual reference (so you can click on the "NTSB").  Several other footnotes refer to that reference (35, 37 and about a dozen more).  Rwessel (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

OOOOOhhhhhhh...ok...So how would someone know that the "citation" means you have to connect one of those citations to something listed under Bibliography? Using the North Hollywood page as the example:

6. Link 1991, p. 31 7. ^ Jorgenson 1982, p. 82 8. ^ Link 1991, pp. 31, 33 9.  ^ Link 1991, pp. 34–35

How would I know that the above is telling me to connect these with what is under Bibliography?

Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by California2015-XX (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In general, well, because that's the way it is. As I mentioned, this is common way to do references in heavily references pieces.  You see it in historical or technical works all the time, for example, and has been used for a very long time (it certainly far predates the Internet!).  That style, (name+year), is very common, and is understood to be a "link" to another spot.  That being said, the article in question (North Hollywood, Los Angeles) mixes the two styles and I can see it being a bit confusing, but it's the (name+year) style that is the tip-off that it's an indirect reference.  Rwessel (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (e/c)This article uses a mix of references and bibliography which is less standard, and usually we prefer one or the other. Often I see this when an article was initially drafted by someone use to the traditional type of paper/printed written work and providing a Bibliography at the end of their research. The more preferred way is having inline citations, which is the first half... the confusion is introduced when we use both citations and a bibliography. However, in printed books, you would see things such as Jorgenson 1821, p. 82 mentioned inline in the book text itself, and then you would know as a reader to look at the Bibliography section in the back of the book. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Odd Alert Message
My alert messages today including a message saying "The page [[unknown probably deleted page]] was patrolled by [Admin name]." I had tagged a few pages for speedy deletion as patent nonsense created by a blocked user (blocked for creating the patent nonsense). Am I correct that this message is just a side effect of the page being deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, yes. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "unknown probably deleted page" usually or always means the page has been deleted by the time you see the notification, but I don't think the notification was caused by a deletion. If you name the admin and notification time then maybe we see what happened in the logs. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Posting questions
RESPECTED SIR/MADAM, I WANT TO ASK THAT IF I POST SOMETHING LIKE MY PROBLEMS, REQUEST, QUESTIONS ON WIKIPEDIA PAGE SO ANY BODY CAN SEE THAT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad asad 96 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If I understand your question, yes, everyone can see what you post here. We don't have much privacy around here. And please, DON'T SHOUT. It is considered rude to type in all caps on the Internet since it is seen as shouting.  Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 21:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

W (Billy) Roberts
I wrote an article to enter into Wikipedia to get a friend, W (Billy) Roberts in this database for playing professional soccer. However the article was declined for the following reason:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Did I type the references in wrong or are the source references in need of correction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhoffman31 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For notability, including which Leagues count as Notable, please take a look at WikiProject Football.Naraht (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've removed the OP's phone number
 * Nobody is going to call you. That's not how we communicate here. Answers to your question will be provided in this section. To reply to us, you can click Edit at the top of this section and add your reply below ours.
 * To expand on what Naraht said above, the specific location that they were directing you to at WikiProject Football is the notability section. For an article to remain at Wikipedia, the subject of the article (in this case Billy Roberts) must be notable according to our definition of that term. To prove that notability, references to magazines, newspapers, and the like must be provided in the article. For a quick and dirty lesson on how to add those references, please see WP:REFB. Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 21:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * in addition, it is recommended that you do not attempt to write about yourself or people you know personally. in such instances you generally have a conflict of interest that will hamper your ability properly edit content about the subject, particularly sticking to the neutral presentation of the subject -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

My first edit & article were deleated
Dear Sir or Ma'am: Today I joined the Wikipedia community and made my first financial contribution. Being very excited, I made a one sentence edit to the female entrepreneur article and added the wiktionary article preneuress, which is a female entrepreneur. I was surprised to see that both were later deleated. Would it be possible to find out why the administrator deleated it? I thought the edits looked professional and was very discouraged. I was hoping to be a regular contributor to your community.

I carefully studied other articles before posting. I love Wikipedia and would be very greatful for any advice on how to successfully contribute to your community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femalecoder (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment for helper: Possible multiple accounts, also made edits to mentioned article Face-smile.svg samtar  { t } 22:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look at the history tab of the page you edited here you can see a record of each edit made and, if the person who made the edit left one, the edit summary explaining their action. you can see that your edit has been removed twice with the edit summaries: unsourced and unsourced - even the wikionary entry was deleted. This is because content at Wikipedia must be WP:verifiable as having previously been published in a reliable source. User generated content such as Wiktionary and Wikipedia is not a reliably published source.
 * Wikipedia also is not a place to promote new words - we wait until the reliable sources have established it as a common usage.
 * Wiktionary is a different project from english wikipedia and has different rules about what they consider appropriate entries, and so I dont know exactly why the entry was deleted over there, but probably for similar reasons. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC) --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * investigation at Wiktionary shows this which links to their inclusion criteria. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (and on a personal observation level, I find it hard to imagine that in a world where all the other gendered -press and -tress and -trix nouns are finding their way to the dust bin that a new gendered -press noun will find much traction.) --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (and on a personal observation level, I find it hard to imagine that in a world where all the other gendered -press and -tress and -trix nouns are finding their way to the dust bin that a new gendered -press noun will find much traction.) --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Advice on Dealing with Corporate User Names
At Articles for Creation, I sometimes encounter three different situations where the subject of the draft is the same as the author of the draft. I am primarily asking about one situation, but would appreciate comments on the other two situations also.

The first situation is that the article is about a company, and the user name is the name of the company (or form of the name of the company). I decline the draft, typically as unsourced, or sourced only with the company’s own web site, for failure to satisfy corporate notability guidelines, and also note the conflict of interest. I am aware that in extreme cases I can also tag the article for speedy deletion as G11 (blatant advertising). That isn’t the question. The question has to do with the user name itself. I see that there are two options, to template the user via Twinkle for a user name issue, and to report the user name to the username noticeboard. The template instructs me not to use it if I am also reporting the account. So my question is: What rule of judgment should I use in deciding whether to template the user name (one warning) or to report the user name to UAA?

The second situation is that the article is a biography of a living person. Normally it can be declined as an unsourced BLP. (Normally editors who use Wikipedia for an autobiography don’t know the footnoting requirement.) Occasionally I have to decline it as failing to meet notability standards for a person. I also note that the submission of autobiographies is strongly discouraged due to conflict of interest). Is there agreement that this is the correct approach?  The third situation is that the draft is a very short description of who the editor is and what they will be doing in Wikipedia.  In that case I normally advise the editor that it is a reasonable start for a user page that does not need to be submitted via AFC.  In one case I had to remove personally identifying information such as an email address.

What rule should be used in deciding whether to report a corporate account name to UAA or to caution it? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , Whether to warn or report (which will often lead to a block) is a judgement call. Personally, if I think there is a reasonable likelihood that the account might become a reasonable contributor, I will warn. If it seems to be a blatant spammer I will report, or simply block directly. Contrawise, if I am patrolling UAA and see a report of soemoen who seems to be trying to comply with the rules but doesn't understand then well, I will warn and suggest a user name change. I am particularly likely to do this if there have been any positive edits at all, or any response to any help or advise msg indicating acceptance of how things are done here. Indeed, merely using AfC rather than simply starting an article in mainspace that is full of spam is a point towards warning, in my view. But you can always report and leave the patrolling admin to sort it out. Some other admins will block more quickly than I will over username issues.


 * Otherwise your procedure above is sound, except that you should normally check for a copyvio first of all. unsourced copy profiles are surprisingly often cut&paste copies of a page on the company web site, and unsourced bios, particularly of entertainers and authors, but also of lawyers ad buisnmess people, are often copies of their "standard bio" which will be posted on their own site and possibly on verious other sites as well, normally without a free license.


 * On the other hand, when a new user seems to be trying to do the right thing, I often tend to engage directly beyond the boilerplate notices. Wikipedia can be very confusing to a new editor. DES (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)