This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:Help desk

Wikipedia Help Desk
  • This page is only for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. For other types of questions, use the search box or the Reference desk.
  • Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
  • We are all volunteers, so sometimes replies can take some time. Please be patient. Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.

  • New users: While this is a good place to ask questions, new users may prefer to ask for help at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with editing, article creation, and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.
Are you in the right place?

August 15

Margery Wentworth

Please help - ref number 2 is in red. Help please 175.32.106.109 (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Maproom (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Most livable cities in the world 2018

Three cities in Canada are listed in the top ten: " Canada had Calgary (fourth), Vancouver (sixth) and Toronto (joint seventh)". 

ref. [www.huffingtonpost.ca]

Calgary is in the province of Alberta, Vancouver is in British Columbia (BC), and Toronto is in Ontario. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.1.130 (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they are, and these provinces are in Canada. So? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The list is at Global Liveability Ranking#2018 results. We don't give the province in international lists but readers can click the city name if they want to know more. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Using sfn to distinguish between books by the same authors published in the same year

reference info for Winston Churchill
unnamed refs 255
named refs 70
self closed 42
R templates 10
cs1 refs 140
cs1 templates 158
cs1-like refs 1
cs1-like templates 1
sfn templates 362
rp templates 1
refbegin templates 2
webarchive templates 5
cs1|2 dmy dates 46
cs1|2 ymd dates 4
cs1|2 last/first 101
cs1|2 author 11
explanations

In Monmouthshire Houses I'm trying to use sfn to distinguish between three books by the same authors, Fox and Raglan, which were all republished in the same year, 1994. I'd be very grateful if someone could have a look and tell me if I'm dong it correctly. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

No guarantees at all that this is the best practice, but personally I put (1994a) etc in the Sources eg "Fox, Cyril; Raglan, Lord (1994a). Medieval Houses..." That's normal practice in other publications where the listings start with the date Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't use "sfn", it always ends up going wrong, and even when it works it's hard on the reader. DuncanHill (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
it always ends up going wrong... Evidence to support that assertion? Always? Really?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
OK then "far too often, going unnoticed for months, leaving other poor sods to sort out the mess". I am sick and tired of trying to fix poorly defined sfn refs on obscure articles like Winston Churchill or David Lloyd George, where someone's forgotten a year, or a page number, or someone else has trimmed the further reading section that the ref was defined in, or it was never defined in the first place. And I see you don't dispute it being hard on the reader even when it works, which it is. Too many clicks to actually get to the ref. DuncanHill (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
It appears that your real complaint is against short-form referencing, not necessarily about {{sfn}}. At least with {{sfn}} there are tools that can help editors discover and fix flawed {{sfn}} and {{harv}} templates, something that is not possible with plain-text short-form references like Picknett, et al. at Churchill which doesn't have a matching long-form reference. Yeah, referencing at Winston Churchill is a mess.
Your [too] many clicks argument doesn't hold much water for me because the number is typically one from the superscript in the article text plus one from the short-form to the long-form equals two clicks (only one click if mw:Reference_Tooltips is enabled). I don't know, but I'd rather click twice than have to search a bibliography by eye or by CTRL+F search.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd rather click once, or even better not at all - being able to hover over the ref number and read the ref in a pop up. My beef is with ref formats that make the reader work harder than they need to. They discourage the checking of refs, and they discourage people reading further. DuncanHill (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Really? Short-form refs discourage people reading further? You have evidence to support that? I guess I'm skeptical because here and now in the 21st century, clicking links is what we do, we are well trained and accustomed to it; it isn't some sort of onerous taxing endeavor that will leave us lying gasping on the floor.
With regard to Winston Churchill, I suspect that the James 1970 {{sfn}} references should really be Rhodes James 1970 which perhaps Editor Midnightblueowl can confirm (and repair since that editor placed most if not all of the {{sfn|James|...}} templates with this series of edits).
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I've been trying to get the Churchill refs fixed since October last year. I admire your optimism. If it was an article about a famous person I expect most of them would be fixed by now because people would be reading the refs, but as he's such an obscure figure nobody reads the article to see the tags placed on so many of the refs. If people read the refs, or the talk page, they might do something to fix them. People don't read the refs - or they don't give a damn that the refs are duff. DuncanHill (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
And as for "I suspect that the James 1970 ref is..." - not only should we not have to "suspect" what a ref is, we should never try to guess, that way leads to outright false refs. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I could have probably chosen better words because at the bottom of the diff that I linked you will find this:
{{cite book |last=James |first=Robert Rhodes |year=1970 |title=Churchill: A Study in Failure 1900–1939 |location=London |publisher=Weidenfeld and Nicolson |ref=harv}}
which was later modified with this edit made by ... you.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Which was well after I was tagging all the duff refs - it was the James with no dates that were really worrying. Thanks for pointing that out - it's a good example of exactly the sort of problem caused by this reference style - someone corrects an author's surname, and it breaks something that is not clearly associated with it. As you are such a fan of that style of refs perhaps you'd like to fix it? DuncanHill (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
You should also use |loc=preface not |p=preface, since preface is not a page number. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks indeed for the advice. I'm afraid "don't use sfn" isn't something I could follow, as I've forgotten any other and I actually rather like it. But I shall try the rest. KJP1 (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that seems to work. I don't think it's too cumbersome for the reader, one click from the cite to the Notes and then one more to the Sources. And "loc" does indeed work for the preface. Thanks again, all. KJP1 (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

What happened to Wikipedia's partnership with HighBeam?

I had a HighBeam account through the website's partnership with Wikipedia and was hoping to renew it, but all of the information on how to renew your account was blanked from WP:HighBeam late last year, without explanation. I asked about this on that article's talk page a couple days ago, but haven't received any response. Does anyone know if HighBeam still has a partnership with Wikipedia and why I can't find any information on this? --Jpcase (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Jpcase, I just checked The Wikipedia Library Card Platform page (which has replaced the old system of separate pages for signing up for partnerships). Highbeam is not included among the partners listed on that page, which makes me think that perhaps the partnership has ended. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Teblick - Thanks for looking into that! Someone else just confirmed to me that the partnership did indeed end, although the person who told me this didn't seem to be entirely clear on all of the details. Perhaps more information will come later. --Jpcase (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Subj's; Nicholas II, and U.S.S.R.

It has long been thought that the Soviet Union had the Romanov Family assassinated. It can't be. The USSR, as we knew it, did not come into existence until 1921, and 3 years after the mass murders. Either the information on Nicholas II's Wikipedia page is wrong, or the Wikipedia page on the Soviet Union is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.161.118 (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks. When you see problem with the contents of an article, please either fix it yourself or put a comment on the article's talk page. In this case, maybe put comments on both talk pages. If you fix it yourself, please cite reliable sources (WP:RS). If you are not comfortabl fixing it yourself, please put those citations on the talk page. When reliable sources conflict, the article(s) should mention the conflict. -Arch dude (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Removing templates message on the top of the Winnipeg Table Hockey League (WTHL) page

After reading the Wikipedia:Verifiability page, It states "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Between the several different reputable Mainstream newspapers and TV News organizations cited in the References section alone this page clearly validates their Verification more so than other pages that exist on Wikipedia. I believe the "This article needs additional citations for verification.' issue has been adequately addressed and should be removed leaving just the one existing issue and with time it can be removed as the contributors to this page increase and with the one left it would take away the large template that states "This article has multiple issues" as there would only be one issue. Can someone please assist? Thanks in advance. Scapizzi (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Addis Ababa Zoo Park Center

[Copyright violation removed. See talk page]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.88.74 (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC) 
If you think that this information should be added, I suggest you discuss it on Talk:Addis Ababa Zoo (without including copyright material). --ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

SLANDER [en.wikipedia.org]

Do not feed the sockpuppet.

InfoWars (stylized as INFOWARS) is a far-right American conspiracy theorist and fake news website and media platform owned by Alex Jones's Free Speech Systems LLC.[15] It was founded in 1999.

It should read This, but it is locked.

InfoWars (stylized as INFOWARS) is a Classical Libertarian and News website and media platform owned by Alex Jones's Free Speech Systems LLC.[15] It was founded in 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeeker369666 (talkcontribs) 17:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It lists a dozen reliable sources that call InfoWars "far-right", not "classical libertarian". Can you find sources that are more reliable or numerous and say the latter? – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
This isn't the place to ask for an update to a page protected article, you need to do so on InfoWars Talk page. Also it isn't slander as it's backed up by reliable sources what is said on the page and I'd be careful of making any legal threats. NZFC(talk) 18:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a request for comment about this very issue on the article talk page. Your comments belong there.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it NPOV to use the word "fake news" to describe any sites (other than those self-proclaimed ones) in definitive tone on the first paragraph when there are apparently some opinion disagree with such assignment?C933103 (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  • We go by what reliable sources say and we do not entertain "opinion disagreements" when those come from biased or unreliable sources. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. For instance, there is a large body of "opinion disagreement" about whether homeopathy, crystal healing, scientific creationism are pseudosciences as described by our articles. Feel free to provide reliable sources to the contrary. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    • What I mean is that, it might be better to write this out using a descriptive tones, something like "InfoWars is a far-right American conspiracy theorist website and media platform that is known to spread fake news and ...." would appears to be better than directly characterize it using the description of "fake news website". C933103 (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Trying to add an image to a Wiki page after uploading it through Commons

Hi there. I've successfully uploaded a company's logo through Commons, and indicated it as fair use. I was brought to a page that provided all of the information about the image, but now I'm unsure how to actually add the image to the page? When I search for it under the "upload new image" function, I can't find it. Any ideas? Thanks so much!Droshis (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Commons does not accept "fair use" images. If you have uploaded one there as "fair use", you should expect it to be removed when someone there notices. Maproom (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I see you haven't uploaded anything to Commons (or if you have, it's gone again). However you have uploaded "File:Canadian Club Toronto, updated logo as of August 15 2018.jpg" here to English Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Right, my mistake. Am I able to now add this photo to the wiki page now that it's been uploaded to English Wikipedia?Droshis (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes, though I'd be more concerned about the article. Every source is primary and if it was nominated for deletion, it probably wouldn't survive in its present form. It needs third-party reliable sources to show the notability of the Club. Black Kite (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

That's good feedback, thank you! I am in the process of updating it. Droshis (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

What exactly does it mean if a template is "deprecated"?

What exactly does it mean if a template is "deprecated"? For example, see this page: Template:Sortname. (I read this page: Deprecation.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It means that it probably still works, but you are strongly recommended not to use it because there's a better way to do it and it may one day stop working. Maproom (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. That is what I had assumed, more or less. But, this is the part that I don't understand. When a template (eventually) becomes "deprecated", there are probably many, many uses of that template all over Wikipedia. In other words, people made use of that template before it became deprecated. So, what happens to all of those "prior" instances of the template being used? At some point, all of those articles will be negatively affected and will not "work"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
That is exactly why such a template is first deprecated for a time before it gets deleted, to give editors enough time to replace it on such pages before it dissapears. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I've just checked, there doesn't seem to be a tag or category to mark/list pages that use deprecated templates, thus no way for editors to know that such articles need remedial attention. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
That would seem to be a problem. I am sure that some templates are utilized literally thousands upon thousands of times, throughout Wikipedia. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Linking to an article based on its Wikidata id

For example, wikidata:Q503129 is the entry for the "Chocolate brownie" article. How can I make a link to that Wikipedia article by using that id only, but not the actual article title? If the article should ever be retitled, the link should still point directly to it (not via a redirection). --Theurgist (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You can use a pipe, like this: chocolate brownie. The code is [[:wikidata:Q503129|chocolate brownie]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
No no. I need a link to the article in the English Wikipedia, a link to [en.wikipedia.org] (or whatever other title it may have one day). --Theurgist (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Add the chocolate brownie article to your watch list (click the star on the article's tab), and if its name ever changes, which is highly unlikely, you'll get an alert and can make the change then. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I actually don't know if what you're requesting is possible, Theurgist, at least not without a sophisticated template, none of which I am aware exists for this purpose. The closest I can think of accomplishing that would be something like [[{{PAGENAME}}|chocolate brownie]], but that would only work on the Chocolate brownie and Talk:Chocolate brownie pages because {{PAGENAME}} is a magic word that replaces itself with the current name of the page on which it is placed in the rendered output. The result of using it on this page is the following: chocolate brownie (notice the wikilink target).
I seriously doubt that will help you here, but am I at least understanding the sort of behavior you are describing? A wikilink piping (or template equivalent) that never redirects because it always uses the most recent live page name? I know you mentioned Wikidata, as well, which just adds more complexity to this very specific request. Given that what I just described does not appear to exist at this time, a more specific iteration involving the Wikidata item as the anchor inherits that. If I'm mistaken and something like this does exist, I would love to be proven wrong.
With that said, if what matters to you is simply monitoring the article for page name changes, then TimTempleton's suggestion above is the solution. You can do the same for the Wikidata item. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 00:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh wow, after thinking about it for a while, I recall that every page has an ID in its page information page, so I searched for templates using that. In fact, there is a template for this very purpose, called {{Pageid to title}}! For example, the page ID for Chocolate brownie, according to its information page, is 497794. Therefore, [[{{Pageid to title|497794}}]] (notice the wikilink brackets around the outside of the template, per its documentation) should provide a permanent live link to the article that never redirects and that always displays the current page title: Chocolate brownie. There you go!
Now, I have no clue about the Wikidata part of it all, which seems to involve some sort of piping that is not possible or otherwise a nonexistent template that can perform it, but maybe this is what you're looking for. If not, then explaining why you need such functionality may help. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 00:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC); last edited 00:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you're understanding what behavior I'm describing. I want a link that points to an entry in the English Wikipedia that does not depend on its current title, but on some other, permanent and unchangeable identifier. Note that some articles are more likely to ever get renamed than others; I'm using the chocolate brownie just as an example.
Thanks for that {{pageid to title}} template, it seems to work.
By the way, take a look at the tables at meta:Wikimedia CEE Spring 2018/Structure/Kazakhstan. If you view the code of any table, you'll see that its entirety consists of wikitext such as:
{{#invoke:WikimediaCEETable|table|Q483236|Q1236973|Q1046502|Q2369181|Q4275564}}
It only contains Wikidata ids, and yet the live version displays and links to the actual article titles. How does it manage to do this? --Theurgist (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
My guess is that it has something to do with the code at Module:WikimediaCEETable, Theurgist. In order for something like that to work here on the English Wikipedia, I suspect a similar Lua module would need to be created along with a template using that module (which does not seem to exist at the Meta-Wiki) in order for a user such as yourself to use it in talk pages. Regardless, it would be a rather sophisticated coding project. Especially when considering the page history and WhatLinksHere for {{Pageid to title}}, I suspect that any such template or module would have very low utility here. Even so, if you want to be the one to try making that a reality here, you are free to suggest it at the Village pump. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 01:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC); last edited 01:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
And {{pageid to title}} can make only internal links, but not URLs so as to link to an article from outside, right? --Theurgist (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
In principle, I suppose it can link anywhere, including external links, so long as the markup outside the template is correct. For example, [[d:Q503129|{{pageid to title|497794}}]] renders as Chocolate brownie. For an external link: [https://wikipedia.org/ {{pageid to title|497794}}] renders as Chocolate brownie. In both examples, the links do not change, but the page title will always remain current. However, as far as I can tell, there is no way to do something like [[{{pageid to title|Q503129}}]], which just renders as Q503129. At that point, something like {{Wikidata entity link}} is probably the closest equivalent.
For {{pageid to title}}, the options appear to be limited to piping and other link formatting, but not interwiki IDs within the template. That would require changing the template or creating a new one. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 02:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC); last edited 02:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I mean linking from outside Wikipedia: storing a URL elsewhere. --Theurgist (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
If you mean using this template in another part of the Wikimedia project, then no unless the template also exists on that project (which it probably doesn't). A similar template might exist there, but I doubt it. If that is not what you mean, then I do not understand. The template was created on the English Wikipedia to only work on the English Wikipedia by only using internal page IDs on internal page information pages. Any use outside of that is beyond the scope of the template. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 03:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I understand that the template works only on Wikipedia. I meant creating a URL, such as [en.wikipedia.org] or something, that could be used in emails or whatever, outside Wikipedia, to link to the Wikipedia article. I imagined this would be a fairly straightforward question. Thanks for the info anyways. Probably discussions like this one can ultimately prompt the implementation of such a functionality. --Theurgist (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for misunderstanding you, Theurgist; I was reading too much into your messages. That would be achieved with curid in the URL. For Chocolate brownie: [en.wikipedia.org]. As stated in mw:Page id, page IDs do change under (at least) one condition: when the page is deleted and restored. That is the only situation in which your curid link is likely to ever break. Barring some administrative mishap, however, I doubt well-maintained and -established articles like Chocolate brownie (or whatever) will ever be deleted so long as Wikipedia hasn't been. Even if so, apparently MediaWiki 1.27+ is capable of restoring the original page ID when possible.
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 12:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC); edited 12:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted! --Theurgist (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

August 16

procedure to improve an already-deleted page

Hello. This page about an aspect of Williams College history was deleted. There is now a book on this topic. With this book, it would be easy for me to answer the (reasonable!) complaints about sourcing raised in the deletion discussion. So, could an admin re-instate the page so that I could improve it? Or, better, how do I ask someone to do this? Yfever (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yfever I've restored it and put it in the draft namespace Draft:Elimination of fraternities at Williams College. It needs a lot of work. It can't have all those pdfs linked in the body - though some of them can be cited as sources. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

Sorry - I cannot put back the "redirect to other pages" lines at the top of this page. Please fix up if able 203.132.68.1 (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

A copy of Salvation Testment

with the Bible there is a portion by name: new Testment. But, with me there is a copy of Salvation Testment, and not new Testment which is a rarity. I need to sell it through auction. please, help me with the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.48.27.44 (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 5.6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Yunshui  05:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Bad interlanguage links (wikidata?)

I suspect there was none confident enough in physics and in wikidata-wonkery to spot this before. Well, I have the physics, but not the wikidata, so could someone do the appropriate changes?

The problem stems from the subtle difference between incompressible flow and incompressible fluid. Right now, on en:incompressible flow, there are interlanguage wikilinks (probably related to wikidata) to either of the two things in other languages:

TigraanClick here to contact me 08:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Quite funny, we do not have an article on Incompressible fluid – the name redirects to Incompressible flow. And that is a result of the article move. So possibly some of those other-languages' articles were quite properly linked to en-wiki in the past based on the titles, and now (i.e., after the move in 13 March 2006‎) those links became obsolete/wrong. IMO the only way to fix things would be manual removing wrong links in Wikidata records d:Q1663717#sitelinks-wikipedia (Incompressible flow), creating a new Wikidata item for Incompressible fluid and re-linking appropriate articles to a new Wikidata item. --CiaPan (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
P.S.
According to results of Google translation, the Russian article is about fluid, while Tamil, Japanese and Chinese about a flow (althought the latter contains a section about a fluid). --CiaPan (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tigraan: I found an item d:Q21086925 – it refers to a Catalan article, which is named Fluid incompressible and seems to treat on both, but mostly ...on an incompressible flow. Possibly this Wikidata item could be used to disambiguate the articles...? --CiaPan (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

delete a page

Good Day I work for a school in South Africa, Kingsway High School. Someone has created this page: [en.wikipedia.org] and we would like it deleted please. The information on it is incorrect and someone keeps editing it and putting content on that is damaging to the reputation of the school. Please delete it. Regards Elaine Woor School's Marketer

Elaine Woor (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Elaine Woor: Unfortunately, articles are not deleted just because the subject may not want one to be here. As long as information about the subject appears in independent reliable sources, be it good or bad, it can be in a Wikipedia article. If the article is vandalized, it will be corrected and if it is an ongoing issue the article can be protected. However, if there is information that, while not vandalism, is incorrect, we would like to know what it is. In reviewing the article, it does need better sources, but I don't see anything particularly bad in the article. Again, if the article is vandalized, it will be corrected.
Please review the paid editing policy, which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use of editors who are editing as part of their job duties. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for you reply. We have to keep looking at this page as someone edits it. The information is out of date and there was recently a comment on drugs at the school. This is damaging to us.41.162.91.58 (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I've removed that, and watchlisted the page so that I'll notice any further vandalism - if there is any, we could semi-protect the page so that IP editors can't vandalise it. Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, appreciate it. Have a good day. Elaine Woor (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I would suspect that most of the history content although not referenced appears to be a copy and paste from somewhere so possibly a copyright violation. MilborneOne (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I have just tagged it for citing no sources at all. Without any references the notability of the subject is in doubt. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Change language in infobox

How do I add a language to a journal that is currently only showing in English (it publishes in French too)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.145.214 (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox journal#Usage notes, but the article probably needs a source for the statement that the journal is published in both languages. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to transalate some English infoboxes for use on the Tw Wikipedia but it is not working please advice.--Rberchie (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Published author with a Wikipedia page

To whom it may concern,

I am writing on behalf of my boss, a published writer with a new book just out. We've gotten very good reviews on the book and the question is is it permissable to insert short "blurbs" from the reviews into the page? We would have gotten Permission from the owners of the reviews - the publisher and our author.

Thank you,

Mark Geier

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titta1920 (talkcontribs) 14:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Titta1920: Are you sure it's not WP:TOOSOON...? Why not wait for independent, verifiable sources?
Please remember There is no deadline at Wikipedia to add information, and Wikipedia is not for promotion. --CiaPan (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@Titta1920: Please also familiarize with our policies about WP:COI. --CiaPan (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@Titta1920: reviews and blurbs are promotional and do not help establish the notability of the book Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
You are subject to a stronger form of WP:COI. It's called WP:PAID. Please read it and adhere to it. Basically, a paid editor must declare paid status to meet the terms of use of this web site, imposed by the site's owners. This is a stronger constraint than our policies and guidelines, which are promulgated and enforced by consensus among our hundreds of thousands of volunteer editors. See Terms of Use, which is linked to from every page footer and from the sentence immediately above the "publish" button on the edit page. When an editor without a COI chooses to add material about the book, the editor will probably read those reviews and cite them and summarize them. The book does not need to be notable to be mentioned in the article about the author: it would need to be notable to have its own article. If you choose to recommend changes to the article per WP:PAID, I recommend that you look at some other author's pages as worked examples. I do not recall ever seeing quoted reviews. -Arch dude (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

ToC

It used to be that the default for displaying table of contents was "hide"; now, it always is "show" -- which is annoying, especially for long articles. Is this something that changed at my end, or something that changed at WP? And, how can I get it back to "hide" by default? —107.15.157.44 (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

That must have been long ago. I've been an editor for ten years, and don't recall that change. You are free to propse a change, butit sounds like a waste of time, as it sounds like a bad idea.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Only about a week or so ago ToC changed from default "hide" to "show" (at lease for me: Firefox/PC). (Same OP, new IP:2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC))

Matthew Falder

These edits were intended to be construtive. 86.128.2.145 (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is on the article's talk page (Talk:Matthew Falder), or on the talk page of the editor who reverted your edit (User talk:CLCStudent). —107.15.157.44 (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Professor Correct Spelling

Dear Sir,

Under the music notation and counting page there is an error for the spelling of a professor. The correct spelling is LAURDELLA FOULKES-LEVY formerly at the University of Mississippi. She is now retired. Please make the correct spelling for her name.

Thanks!

Former music student of hers at UofM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.226.158.50 (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", so you can change it yourself. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

ASCII Art strangeness

Two questions:

First, why did I have to mangle the spacing of the following ASCII Art to get it to display properly on Wikipedia?

EXAMPLE ONE:

    |                                            .--.
    |                              ______.-------|  |
    |                             (_____(        |  |\\\\|
    |    __..--``--.._               __/ `-------|  |---,
    |                 ``--..____.--'| \    ___   |  |  ||
    |    __..--``--.._         |    |  |  |   |  |  |  ||
    |                 ``--..___|    |  |  |___|  |  |  ||
    The plug is pulled.         `--.|_/          |  |  ||
    Ignored is the disruptive one. ____\ .-------|  |---`
    Feed him I will not.          (_____(        |  |\\\\|
    |                                    `-------|  |
    |                                            `--`

(Compare the displayed page with what is in the edit window)

Here is what displays when I don't mangle the ASCII Art:

EXAMPLE TWO:

    |                                            .--.
    |                              ______.-------|  |
    |                             (_____(        |  |\\\\|
    |    __..--``--.._             __/ `-------|  |---,
    |                 ``--..____.--'| \    ___   |  |  ||
    |    __..--``--.._       |    |  |  |   |  |  |  ||
    |                 ``--..___|    |  |  |___|  |  |  ||
    The plug is pulled.         `--.|_/          |  |  ||
    Ignored is the disruptive one. ____\ .-------|  |---`
    Feed him I will not.          (_____(        |  |\\\\|
    |                                    `-------|  |
    |                                            `--`

(Again, compare the displayed page with what is in the edit window)

Second question: does everyone see example one aligned properly and example two not alaigned?

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

No idea about your first question, but I can answer the second one: I can indeed see example one aligned, but not example two (both in Firefox and IE). Now I'm curious as well... –FlyingAce✈hello 20:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This help desk is for using or editing Wikipedia. Did you intend to add some ASCII art to a Wikipedia article? If so, I advise that you avoid it and instead use images from commons, even if you generate those images using ASCII art. There are just too many ways for ASCII rendering to go wrong. The reason that your images get borked is (I think) that the font used in the edit window is a fixed pitch font, while the font used in the display window is a proportional-pitch font. To force the use of fixed pitch in the display ("article") rendering, you would need to force the HTML to use "preformat". I've forgotten how to do that using wiki markup. -Arch dude (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Arch dude, the OP was asking about the article ASCII Art. That's the one place where ASCII art might be appropriate. Rojomoke (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Rojomoke, there is no evidence in the OP's question that they were asking about that article. The OP linked to the article, but did not indicate any desire to edit it. I considered that before I answered the question. -Arch dude (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Arch dude, Ach, sorry. I misread their first sentence. Rojomoke (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
That was tricky. A leading space on a line causes a fixed-width font but it does not cause wiki markup to be ignored. Your examples have lines with consecutive apostrophes which are interpreted as italics markup and not displayed as apostrophes. The italics are outside the words and not noticed in the other characters. Use <pre>...</pre> around a block of text of you both want a fixed-width font and want wiki markup to be ignored. Below I added <pre>...</pre> to example two so it displays the same in edit window and rendering. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
     |                                            .--.
     |                              ______.-------|  |
     |                             (_____(        |  |\\\\|
     |    __..--''``--.._             __/ `-------|  |---,
     |                 ``--..____.--'| \    ___   |  |  ||
     |    __..--''``--.._       |    |  |  |   |  |  |  ||
     |                 ``--..___|    |  |  |___|  |  |  ||
     The plug is pulled.         `--.|_/          |  |  ||
     Ignored is the disruptive one. ____\ .-------|  |---`
     Feed him I will not.          (_____(        |  |\\\\|
     |                                    `-------|  |
     |                                            `--`
@Guy Macon: It's because a doubled single quote character: '' in the cord part got interpreted as an 'italic' switch and disappeared from the rendered text. See a copy of your first example with a column of letters added at ends of lines:
EXAMPLE ONE (plus some letters):
    |                                            .--.                  A
    |                              ______.-------|  |                  B
    |                             (_____(        |  |\\\\|             C
    |    __..--``--.._               __/ `-------|  |---,            D
    |                 ``--..____.--'| \    ___   |  |  ||              E
    |    __..--``--.._         |    |  |  |   |  |  |  ||            F
    |                 ``--..___|    |  |  |___|  |  |  ||              G
    The plug is pulled.         `--.|_/          |  |  ||              H
    Ignored is the disruptive one. ____\ .-------|  |---`              I
    Feed him I will not.          (_____(        |  |\\\\|             J
    |                                    `-------|  |                  K
    |                                            `--`                  L
Note also how vertical bars in respective lines got slightly slant.
HTH. --CiaPan (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Moving fair-use images from Commons

Hello! New user Vsunbeach has updated a few articles on films with the corresponding posters ([1]). It looks like the correct fair-use rationale was provided with the images, but they were mistakenly uploaded to Commons instead of en-wiki ([2]). What is the easiest way to move these images from Commons to here? –FlyingAce✈hello 20:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey FlyingAce. There are like five different tools that semi-automate transfers to Commons, but as far as I'm aware, none of these work the other way round. May have to manually transfer and then tag for deletion there. GMGtalk 20:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

microcytosis

This is the only bad article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Poor, incomplete, and lousy grammar and punctuation. Someone needs to look at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.161.6 (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you can do better, then please by all means do so. If you do not wish to edit the article directly, then make specific suggestions for improvement on its talk page. If you think the current article is hopeless, then create a proposed replacement article as a draft. See WP:YFA for how to do this, paying careful attention (really, please) to citing reliable sources. -Arch dude (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Changing an article header

Hi, it seems that this person's name has changed since the article started (from Nina Fallenbaum to Nina F. Ichikawa). How do we go about changing it?38.125.168.178 (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that article titles are changed by moving them. But in the absence of any reliable sources which report that she has changed her name, the article should not say that she has changed her name, and should not be moved. A Wikipedia article, especially one on a living person, should not contain one single fact that is not referenced to a reliable published source. Since at present the article does not cite a single independent reliable source, and so does nothing to establish her notability, it should possibly be deleted; at the very least have some independent sources added. (See notability and BLP). I am also concerned about your use of "we": are you connected with Fallenbaum/Ichikawa? If so, you have a conflict of interest, and should not be editing that article directly. In addition, if you are in any way paid to edit this article, then it is compulsory that you declare the fact according to the policy in Paid editing. --ColinFine (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Mobile Formating

As of a few days ago I've been pretty much unable to use Wikipedia on my IPhone through the mobile page. Basically the caption text below an article's images runs over (or under) the first paragraph below it making it unreadable. I tried using different apps (Safari, Chrome, Firefox) and tried changing the phone's text size in settings as well as the cache but the problem is still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D3A0:C5F0:3C47:393A:AAA7:23A3 (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There are many limitations of mobile view, and the normal advice in such cases is to use the link at the foot of the page to switch from "mobile view" to "desktop view". --David Biddulph (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Really? I loved my mobile view and have used it on the same phone now for months without any problems (desktop view also not being conductive to reading). This just suddenly happened, affects any article with pictures, which are pretty much all of the good ones. Didn't update anything on my phone. What is different now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D3A0:C5F0:3C47:393A:AAA7:23A3 (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Footnote linking to wrong reference

At Ponte Morandi#Victims and rescue efforts I've added an explanatory footnote with a reference. However, the footnote is linking to reference 1 (New York Times) rather than reference 3 (CTV) as it should. I can't see anything I've done wrong but I'm very inexperienced with footnotes so I suspect an error on my part is more likely than a bug. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

You applied the <ref name ="CTV"> label to the New York Times ref, not to the CTV one. Does this change look like what you intended? --David Biddulph (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Your link to the change doesn't work, but looking at the article history that is indeed exactly what I intended. It seems I was looking in completely the wrong place for the error! Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Link corrected. Thanks for pointing it out. Too long a day! --David Biddulph (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

August 17

JSTOR Access

Does anyone have access to JSTOR? I am trying to get this article ([www.jstor.org]) for a page that I am working on. Thanks. //nepaxt 00:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi //nepaxt, please send me a wikimail and I’ll reply with the paper. Hint: for future requests, there’s WP:RX. Cheers  hugarheimur 01:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! //nepaxt 01:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Nepaxt, if you need access to JSTOR more often, you might want to apply for a free account via the Wikipedia Library. The JSTOR page shows that no accounts are available now, but you could get on a waiting list. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

KHAWAJA REAZUDDIN ATASH

Hi, I noticed that the page that I had created and maintained for the last several years has been removed! The name of the page was "Khawaja Reazuddin Atash". Atash was a popular Urdu poet and writer. All the information provided about his life and accomplishments were true and informative. Can you please let me know what was the reason the page was removed and who initiated the process? Why was the page not considered worthy of Wikipedia? You may send your response to <redacted>. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkhawaja (talkcontribs) 01:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Fkhawaja! What happened is an editor didn't think that the article met our notability guidelines, so decided to nominate it for deletion. The type of deletion process that was chosen was Articles for deletion, a process usually lasting 1 or 2 weeks but will rarely go for 4 or more weeks, where multiple users can discuss whether they think the article in question is suitable for Wikipedia, usually based off of the notability guidelines. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khawaja Reazuddin Atash is the venue where the deletion discussion for this specific article was held. Several users participated, and because the consensus seemed to be to delete the article, an administrator deleted it. I hope this helps clarify things, and if you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Harry Levy-Lawson, 1st Viscount Burnham

I cannot see clearly on my device - please correct re number 11 - it is in red. Sorry 203.132.68.1 (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Eagleash (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

amitor

Amitor was created by Tom Hufford and Dianne Kisselberg to develop a word that expresses nonviolence. The word comes from the word Amigo or friend in English and to powerful ending, Amitor is accepted by many people throughout the United States. It has not been accepted by the noraal dictionaries, but we cannot determine why it has not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.34.64 (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:Neologisms. Unless there's professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources discussing the history and use of the word, it's not getting an article. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Transwiki notification

I received a notification to go to a page titled exactly "Community Tech/Newsletters/Commons notification bot and SVG translate - August 2018" on another wiki. I thought it was from meta wiki I copied the page name and posted directions to it on several important en talk pages. The link I posted goes nowhere, meta wiki does not find the title. It must be somewhere else but my notification has also disappeared so I can't trace it. How do I find the notification and correct this link? Trackinfo (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes and I received an answer. Trackinfo (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Bravissimo company page

Hi, I work for Bravissimo and am trying to update our page but my edits are being reverted. Please can you tell me why? [en.wikipedia.org] LoveBravissimo (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

LoveBravissimo I don't know why the editor who reverted your edits did so, but I would have done the same. Your edits were not supported by citations, and could not be verified. We need independent, reliable sources for our articles. Please note that as an employee of the company, you must comply with our policy on paid contribution. --Vexations (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your info. I did have links for everything I posted. None of them were links to our own company website, therefore were independent. Why could these not be verified? For example, I've tried to update the number of shops and employees that we have to give you more accurate information - how can I get these updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveBravissimo (talkcontribs) 12:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You were reverted due to the fact you work for the company (IE your changes were IMHO on the promotional side), As per WP:COI you should refrain from editing the article and use the talkpage. –Davey2010Talk 12:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for clarifying - could you tell me why I can't update the factual information such as the number of employees or shops? I can't see how these can result in a COI. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveBravissimo (talkcontribs) 13:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I know you've been open about the edits and who you work for, but I need to point out that your username is in violation of Wikipedia's policy. See WP:ORGNAME - X201 (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

If I change my username, can I update our page? Even though this seems less transparent and honest IMHO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveBravissimo (talkcontribs) 13:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
No, you should not edit the article directly, but you can make suggestions on the talk page. Please do provide references, even for simple factual changes like the number of employees or the number of stores. Practical advice applicable to your situation is available at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide --Vexations (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I've blocked LoveBravissimo as a username violation, although since he or she been transparent, I've not prevented account creation. I've also posted an advisory that there is a mandatory requirement to post the {{Paid}} template on the user page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Does nationality need to be verified?

Hello, Could I ask if the nationality of a biographical subject needs to be verified? I've tried googling this and reading various Wikipedia pages, but I can't find the answer. I had always assumed that it didn't, but the nationality of a subject has been removed as unsubstantiated. Thanks very much for your expertise! Srsval (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Everything needs to be verifiable. Things that others have removed as unsubstantiated need to be verified (i.e. you need to provide a citation). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
No reason why it shouldn't. However, if there's no sources that disagree, you may "get away" with using something selfpublished (like Facebook or Twitter) per WP:SELFSOURCE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Dragon boat

In the Dragon boat article, why is the caption on the dragon boat drummer photo in bold? †dismas†|(talk) 12:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

There was a ; in front of the file link, I have removed it here. DuncanHill (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

the WIKI Page: Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia

I think someone needs to go and freeze the information on this page and start doing a great deal of fact-checking.

Already, some of the information is not being reported accurately from the Grand Jury report -- OR, people are going in and editing/changing the data, misrepresenting a lot of the numbers and information.


[en.wikipedia.org] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.74.231.177 (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Publishing

Now that I have my article ready, how do I submit it for review so that it can go public? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownca1 (talkcontribs) 16:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Brownca1: You're really going to want to start over before asking anyone to review it. As it is, it's a PR piece, which we don't allow. Here's what you should do:
1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.
2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.
3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
4) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.
5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Uploading a Page on Wikipedia

Dear Sir or Madam;

I have created a page on wikipedia, have edited a couple of times and uploaded but it still does not come up in a general search.

This is the link info: [en.wikipedia.org]

Can you please guide me on how to continue the process.

thanks

Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelbens (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User pages, such as yours, User:Abdelbens are intended to facilitate communication between editors. They are not part of the encyclopedia and are not indexed by search engines. If you want to publish the article, you have to move it to Hind Arroub You may want to consider working on it a bit more, move it User:Abdelbens/sandbox or Draft:Hind Arroub instead and then submit it to the Articles for Creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or sandbox page. You may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article. Vexations (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I moved it to Draft:Hind Arroub; but it's going to need a lot before it becomes even remotely acceptable. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Parts of the article look like they have been copied: Notice the similarities between the draft article and [aims.cmes.yale.edu] here for example: [3]. We take copyright violations very seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talkcontribs) 21:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


August 18

Imran Khan

Please note for the bibliography section under this individual's entry that my name is correctly spelt "Christopher Sandford" . Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.139.90 (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed on publisher's website and corrected in article. Rojomoke (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Scam external link

Users 35.233.176.122 and 35.230.118.148 have been adding a fake external link into the articles of various NFL-related shows and services. The link is to a scam website pretending to be an NFL website and offering paid subscriptions using credit cards. I found and removed ones that were inserted by those two IP 35 accounts but have no idea how to find any others. I'm sure there are a lot more that were sneaked into articles. So if anyone can find and eliminate them, that would be good. Thanks. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)