Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 March 12

= March 12 =

Citing magazines
Dear editors: Sometimes Google Books results include magazines; for example, one such source that I use a lot is Billboard. The Wikipedia Citation tool works really well on books, but not so well on magazines. Is there an equivalent tool for magazines which I should be using instead?&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, could you please give an example of, say, a Billboard link on Google Books and what went wrong when you used the citation tool? Thanks. Lourdes  04:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, . It's all of them, not just one.  HERE's a Google Books URL that leads to an article in Billboard.  This is the citation that is created  by the tool:


 * The author is wrong. There's no field for an article title. The page number is wrong. The ISSN is formatted incorrectly. There's no volume information, although Google provides it. Also, if there are two references to articles in the same year in Billboard, it gives them the same ref name.  Here's what it looks like after I adjust it manually:


 * I realize that there is likely no way to automatically find an author and title of an article in the middle of a magazine page, but a citation tool for journals and magazines would likely at least provide blank fields. Adjusting the Google Book citation is still faster than finding and entering all of the information myself using the "cite" template, but as a poor typist I need all the help I can get.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There doesn't appear to be a readymade answer Anne, although in another case if you had a DOI reference you could try this. as you created this normally very useful citation tool, do you have anything to add? Noyster  (talk),  12:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, no harm in asking... and I agree, for books (its advertised use) the Citation Tool is excellent.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Why was National Apprentice Day article deleted?
Hello,

I am wondering why the article was deleted. It is not an advertisement. The article describes the history of the organization's inception, as countless other organizations have done on wikipedia

Thank you

Langeralx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Langeralx (talk • contribs) 00:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, countless other organizations have not described themselves on Wikipedia. Articles are written by users without ties to the subject.  The page was written more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article -- it was not a summary of professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that had no connection to the subject but were still specifically about it, it was attempting to "promote awareness" (i.e. advertise) of the subject.  It does not need to have a price tag to have a price on it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That being said: is the subject matter notable enough for inclusion, if it were to be created by a neutral, non-advertising, non-promotional approach separate from the subject? If similar topics have pages on WP. Curious. Maineartists (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, although I could certainly be wrong. Here's an interview in Allegheny Mountain Radio. Here's an article in The Register-Herald. There're a couple-few other ciations, but in even less notable sources. Unless something better is available (this was just a quick Google search), my guess is that the article would probably be deleted on the grounds of "purely local phenomena with purely local sources" (I'm not saying I personally necessarily agree with that; I merely describe). Herostratus (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input
Rohrbacher, Jake Jon. "2016 Ontario Provincial Championship." Ontario Armwrestling Association Message Board. Wikimedia Foundation, 2 May 2016. Web. 11 Mar. 2017.Cam Hancock0378 (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This appears to refer to Cambridge, Ontario. Subsequent edits have resolved this problem. Eagleash (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge
You might be kindly able to help please. I have ALMOST successfully placed the pics on this page in their suitable order. . But now there are little squares in the corner of FOUR of the pics - they are not needed and I cannot erase them. Please help. 101.182.96.231 (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Please help. 02:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not a bug. It's a feature. You can't get rid of them using the normal image placement syntax. --Majora (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

How come the first pic - Michael Middleton and wife - does not have the little boxes? An hour ago, none of the 4 pics had the little boxes in the corner. No other pics on other pages have the little boxes. Can you please remove them? Thanks so much 101.182.96.231 (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The first box is two images that are contained in an outer template, multiple image. The normal image placement method has those boxes. There is nothing I, or anyone else, can do to remove them. Sorry. --Majora (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The first two pics are being placed side-by-side using a box for multiple images. It's not just one pic. I can't say why you didn't see the little boxes an hour ago.  † dismas †|(talk) 03:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to go on! But I swear that an hour ago - the little boxes were not there in the 2nd 3rd and 4th pic! are you sure we cannot get them back to how it was?101.182.96.231 (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can assure you. They were there an hour ago and there is nothing we can do to remove them now. --Majora (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The single images are using the "thumbnail" markup which is why you're seeing the little box. Hover your cursor over one of the boxes and you will see the text "Enlarge". This is not a problem, so there's no reason for you to be concerned. The thumbnail syntax will appropriately size the image for the article. If you remove it, the image will be huge and you will not be able to add a caption for the image, unless you use Template:Plain image with caption. You will then have to size the image manually to make it size-appropriate for the article. If you want to do this, I suggest you use the WP:Sandbox to practice before directly editing the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Manually sizing images is frowned upon because the forced size does not scale with different screen sizes. Please do not use it for normal photos. --Majora (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Omission on Charles Bronson's Filmography
Hi, I found an omission in Charles Bronson's Filmography. When I tried to add it, I was not able to because the page is locked. How can I make note of the missing information? thanks, Kath — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:193:4103:BDF0:25DB:54EF:1DD:FA3C (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Kath you could go to the talk page of the said article, and start a new section on the talk page of the article requesting the addition. Please ensure you describe precisely which line you wish to change/add (a format of "Please change the following line:....... to the following line:....." or "Please add the following line:...... after the line:......." is highly recommended). You may consider adding to the top of your request; this will bring your request to the attention of interested editors. Hope this helps. Thanks.  Lourdes  04:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you cannot edit a page then it's easier to start by clicking the "View source" tab. Then you get some information and a link to submit an edit request. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Mistake in Visakhapatnam article
In Visakhapatnam main article,it is stated that Visakhapatnam economy is 26 billion USD.But in economy of Visakhapatnam article,it is stated that Visakhapatnam economy is 48 billion us dollars which is a huge difference.Please rectify it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sai krishna 98 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, You seem to have the change yourself appropriately. Come back if you need any other assistance.  Lourdes  15:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, if you notice any problems with articles being either incorrect or outdated please feel free to correct the change but always remember to mention your sources and how you know this - it would be useful for other editors to know that its not bias information.... Stewart Little (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

error on Bamyan article
Hello, I'd like to report a technical error in the article Bamyan. Even though the article has been assessed on several Wikiprojects it is part of, the assessment class doesn't show on top of the page as it does in other articles.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that the article's talk page is at Talk:Bamyan, Afghanistan, not at Talk:Bamyan. I've added a db-move so that an admin can put things straight. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, .--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've moved the talk page. Deor (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Accounts creation logs
Hi, Can someone pinpoint me to the accounts creation logs of where the new users are logged? I would like to expand my areas by welcoming new users to Wikipedia but don't know the link to that Special page... Stewart Little (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Special:Log/newusers, but note that users are not normally 'welcomed' until they've edited (so, blue-linked 'contribs' on that page) 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, thats the one which I was looking for. Regards Stewart Little (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Invalid character in URL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

The DASH between Talk:U.S.–Iraq  is an invalid URL character and in most all cases the URL can't be used as a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.239.49.222 (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's an en dash and works fine when I click the link in Firefox. Talk:U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement also works fine. En dashes are common and recommended in article titles. See MOS:ENDASH. An en dash can be percent-encoded as %E2%80%93 so the url becomes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement. Some browsers do this automatically when a url is copied but maybe not yours. Try the percent-encoded version if you use the url in some external software which cannot handle the en dash. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

OFFLINE READING
HOW CAN I SAVE PAGES FOR 8FFLINE READING IN MY LAPTOP?21:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Blacksan syp (talk)


 * Hi . With most web-browsers, you can save a single page by clicking on "File", "Save as..." or something similar.


 * For more, there are many offline readers, such as Kiwix (which is especially for Wikipedia) 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

"For hire" Wikipedia writers/editors
I'm on a freelancing site where at least once per day I see individuals trying to hire freelancers to write or edit Wikipedia articles.

From my understanding of how the place works, by its very nature hiring someone to do anything here means there's some sort of commercial or other gain intent that is not consistent with Wikipedia's function.

So my question is simple: is there any circumstance under which hiring a paid "Wikipedia editor" is legitimate? If not, I am just going to flag every job I see like this for review by that site's admins.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.142.70.154 (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a very hotly-disputed topic. The policies state that you can be paid to edit, as long as you disclose it, and adhere to policies and guidelines etc - see Paid-contribution disclosure, WP:PSCOI - some people think that's fine, but it can be problematic and contentious.


 * If you are interested in the debate, the Wikipedia "Signpost" magazine covers it quite well, for example Wikipedia Signpost/2015-07-15/Op-ed, Wikipedia Signpost/2017-02-06/Special report 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, very interesting stuff there. I'm sure most of these clients are up to no good, but they never provide details in advance, and as long as it is at least theoretically allowed, I can't flag it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.142.70.154 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You should check WP:PAID and WP:COI and if at all theoretically possible, you should flag the job. Please do remember that the paid editing has to be disclosed on-Wiki and almost nobody does this.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 00:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, at least I plugged your Special report :-) 86.20.193.222 (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)