Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Wikipedia help desk is a place where you can ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia.
  • For other types of questions, see Help:Contents and Are you in the right place?. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
  • 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.
  • If you need real-time help, you can join our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
  • If you are a new editor, you might prefer to ask your question at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with editing, article creation and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.

October 18[edit]

Two questions[edit]

First question: Could anyone please tell me if it's acceptable to abbreviate "science fiction" as "SF"? Second question: Could anyone please tell me if it's acceptable to count the file data for pictures between paragraphs as an acceptable space (manifesting as a normal space between paragraphs) or should a single blank line be included as well (with the same result manifesting)?--Thylacine24 (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Where would you be abbreviating to? Within an article, it's possible to create a shortning or acronym for a word or phrase by putting it in brackets for the first use. This is usually only for proper nouns though, so I don't see why it would apply to "science fiction". SF to me would be San Francisco.
I usually don't put in a line, but I'm not sure there is a policy on this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 00:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I know some of the article had "SF" in parentheses after "science fiction", but I agree that since it isn't a proper noun, it shouldn't apply. As such, I'll take your answer to the first question as "no", and your answer to the second question as being the former option. (Edit: Sorry if anything in the above answer came off as rude or condescending.) (Further edit: Changed "any of the above answer" to "anything in the above answer".)--Thylacine24 (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of prepositions when part of the name of an institution (also "the", when it's within instead of before the name)[edit]

I found a page in which the linked phrase "Office for the Victims of Crime" was written as "Office for the Victims of Crime", with the link piped with "for", "the", and "of" decapitalized. I changed the link so that the piped part of the link was the only part of it. Could anyone please tell me if it's ever acceptable to capitalize these words?--Thylacine24 (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Thylacine24: Your edit is fine. You can leave it in the article as Office for Victims of Crime. Not as Office For Victims Of Crime. I suspect that the original editor saw the official website of that agency (here: Office for Victims of Crime). And it (incorrectly) appears that all of the letters are upper-case / capital letters. On the official website, they are simply using "all caps" style of font ... which (incorrectly) makes it appear as if the letter "f" in "for" and the letter "o" in "of" are upper-case. But, they are not. They are, in fact, lower-case letters being used in an "all caps" style of font. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Joseph A. Spadaro: You're welcome, and thanks for replying to tell me.--Thylacine24 (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Thylacine24: No problem! Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


Can someone explain, briefly, how "consensus" works. I always thought that -- when there is a dispute -- the article remains in its status quo state. And when disputed content is introduced -- and challenged -- the article reverts to the status quo (i.e., the disputed content is removed). And the status quo version of the article remains until consensus is reached on the dispute. And, not that the disputed content remains, while the consensus discussion proceeds. Is my understanding correct? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Consensus help?--Shantavira|feed me 11:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
"Status quo" is defined functionally at Wikipedia (that is, in the practice of how people use it), as "The state of the article I like the best". Instead of worrying about which state is the actual "status quo" state (since in using that term, people just mean "the version I like the best"), the best practice is to not edit the article at all, even if the other person has. That is, what you yourself should do is to not edit the article. If the other person in the dispute edits the article themselves, what you should do is ignore them and do nothing. The advantage of that is that nothing bad happens to you. At all. The discussion continues, consensus will develop, and after the consensus is clear, any changes continue to be made. Remember, if you let other people do the wrong thing, and then do nothing yourself in response, nothing bad happens to you. --Jayron32 12:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Of course, the above advice is contingent on the disputed text not being in violation of WP:COPYVIO or WP:BLP. Those policies trump all other considerations. Otherwise, however, the best advice is to not edit the article yourself, and let other people screw up. --Jayron32 12:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Status quo (to me) essentially means "how the article looked prior to the disputed edit being added in". In other words, removing the disputed edit, while consensus develops. The "opposite" approach is: let the disputed edit remain in the article, while consensus develops. I always interpreted Wikipedia policy to embrace the former approach, not the latter. That is what I am asking here. According to Wikipedia policy, which is the correct approach? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Visual Editor problems[edit]

I have used VE (to add inline cites) without problem for a few years and now for the last few weeks, I cannot load the VE interface. The blue progress bar quickly moves to about the 75% mark and then freezes until I press <esc>. The problem appears to be specific to my browser (Chrome) as other browsers (eg. MS Edge) will work. I have cleared the cache, waited for an hour to see if it unfreezes, ensured windows and Chrome are updated. I am happy to edit solely in source mode, but do prefer the automatic references in VE. Any other things to try? Loopy30 (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It works for me in Google Chrome on Windows. Does or work? What if you log out? Do you know Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0 in the source editor? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello PrimeHunter, thanks for your reply. Neither of those examples worked for me in Chrome, either logged in or logged out. And no, I have never used RefToolbar for trouble-shooting WP editing problems. Is their a module in it that may be appropriate to try? Loopy30 (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't mean to use RefToolbar for trouble shooting. I meant whether you know how it can help make references if you use the source editor. I don't know what causes your Chrome problem with VE. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

When could my draft be accepted?[edit]


My draft have been under review for more than 10 weeks. When could I get the review result? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ql87 (talkcontribs) 08:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

You can get an indication of the age spread of pending submissions by looking at Category:AfC pending submissions by age. One thing which may have led reviewers to leave your draft to one side and move on to easier cases is that most of your references are bare URLs. If you expand them it may make life easier for reviewers. You can do the improvements while you are waiting for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Ql87 I ran through and fixed a few of the references so they don't use bare URLs, but there are still some more left to fix. You might want to look at what I did so that you know what to do. That said, I think that article is unlikely to be accepted in the state it is in. The last two sentences of the first paragraph should not be there. Instead those links should be at the end in a section called "External links". All of those photographs of various letters of appointments and certificates and covers of books he co-authored are primary sources. In fact, the article seems to be entirely built around primary sources. Wikipedia articles should be primarily based on high-quality secondary sources, with minimal support from primary and tertiary sources. Especially in a biography, where one would expect more detail about his life and who he is, rather than a bare list of academic appointments and works published. The draft does not use prose very much, and prose is preferred to long lists. The article also does not demonstrate how he meets the inclusion criteria established in the general notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for academics. I suggest you review those guidelines and then revise the article to be in compliance with them. Lastly, if you are Benjamin Lev, or if you are a close family member, friend, colleague, or were employed by him to write this article, I suggest you review the conflict of interest guideline and guidelines about autobiographies. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ql87: I would like to emphasize the need to establish notability, using our definition of the term, not yours. Please read WP:YFA. Note especially: if the subject is not notable, then no article is appropriate, no matter who writes the article. Any other shortcoming can be fixed, but no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Don't even try. Your article will fail to be accepted, and if it is forced onto Wikipedia it will immediately be deleted. If, after you carefully read and understand our definition of notability, you still feel that most reviewers will agree that your subject is notable, then add the references that demonstrate notability first. Then you can work on the other problems. -Arch dude (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I got your points. And could I revise my draft by myself to make it acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ql87 (talkcontribs) 23:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The last sentence of my previous reply was "You can do the improvements while you are waiting for review". Obviously, as stated in the other two replies, if the subject is not actually notable it would be a waste of your time to try. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Grouping references[edit]

Hello. I gather that there is a method of grouping citations together in an article so that the reader, instead of seeing a long string of references after a cited statement, sees only one. Can anyone explain how to do this? I'm sorry if the request is a little vague, but some advice here would really be helpful. The specific article I'm concerned with is Freud and Philosophy, where the sentence stating, "Commentators have evaluated it from a variety of philosophical perspectives, offering both praise and criticism for Ricœur's arguments and conclusions", is followed by seven different citations; I'd like to bundle these together but I'm not sure how to do it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by bundling them together? Ruslik_Zero 11:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know quite HOW but I think you mean like in Frank Gaffney, check ref in first lead-sentence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
You use multiple {{cite}} templates inside of one set of <ref> </ref> tags. If you're using the menu bar shortcut, simple delete all of the <ref> and </ref> tags except the first and last. --Jayron32 12:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
That was a brilliant explanation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Because all of those reverences use {{sfn}}, you might use {{sfnm}}. So this:
{{sfn|Ihde|Ricœur|1980|pages=xvi, 132}}{{sfn|Thompson|Ricœur|1981|pages=3, 7, 24}}{{sfn|Davis|1985|pages=247–248}}{{sfn|Kellner|1984|pages=193, 195, 434}}{{sfn|Abramson|1986|pages=ix, 26, 83}}{{sfn|De Sousa|1995|pages=85, 340}}{{sfn|Waite|1996|page=106}}
becomes this:
{{sfnm|1a1=Ihde|1a2=Ricœur|1y=1980|1pp=xvi, 132|2a1=Thompson|2a2=Ricœur|2y=1981|2pp=3, 7, 24|3a1=Davis|3y=1985|3pp=247–248|4a1=Kellner|4y=1984|4pp=193, 195, 434|5a1=Abramson|5y=1986|5pp=ix, 26, 83|6a1=De Sousa|6y=1995|6pp=85, 340|7a1=Waite|7y=1996|7p=106}}[1]
which renders as this:


  1. ^ Ihde & Ricœur 1980, pp. xvi, 132; Thompson & Ricœur 1981, pp. 3, 7, 24; Davis 1985, pp. 247–248; Kellner 1984, pp. 193, 195, 434; Abramson 1986, pp. ix, 26, 83; De Sousa 1995, pp. 85, 340; Waite 1996, p. 106.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Trappist the monk. You have accurately worked out what I wanted to do and provided me with the correct information. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Changing your username[edit]

Is there a way to change your username — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awromnessrulz (talkcontribs) 13:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Awromnessrulz There is, but as you have no edits other than to post here, you should just create a new account. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Awromnessrulz Yes, see Wikipedia:Changing username. That said, I notice you have exactly one edit, and that's this one to the help desk asking about changing your username. Please note that "User accounts with few or no edits might not be renamed, as it is quicker and easier to simply create a new account." ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Foreign edit summary[edit]

So, a new user posted an edit summary of "درست کردن اشتباه" (Persian, I think). Should I address him about it or something. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey EDG 543. You might consider leaving them a message using Template:Welcomeen-fa. GMGtalk 15:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Efficient way to mass-ReFill?[edit]

I'm currently trying to fix the referencing at List of introduced species. Up until now it just had external links, and lots of them (~900). What happened when NessieVL tried to run a little fixer-upper on it [1] has prompted me to try and format these correctly, as references. Wrapping each one in ref tags was easy enough, however it turns out that my fondly imagined next step - throwing it all into ReFill - isn't quite working. The poor tool just chokes when presented with this many entries. Now I'm trying to do it batchwise in my sandbox, but that isn't much more successful; doing a few screens' worth at a time works alright, but at some point bigger blocks (or the entire thing) have to be submitted to sort out the duplicate entries, and that overtaxes it again. So, question: is there some high-powered alternative to do this job with? Is it likely to be a resource sharing thing, and I should just wait for the dead of US night? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: might be one particular ref that makes it bog down - working well right now with further batches. Further bulletins as events warrant :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, it's definitely one particular ref that stops the tool cold. Can't figure out which one because it seems to stop before visibly switching to it. Will just have to leave a chunk unpolished. Feel free to close/archive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Auto-updating edit count[edit]

I have been trying to be more active on Wikipedia as of late, so I have been editing a lot. I like to keep my edit count up to date as I can, however find it tedious having to go and edit my edit count all the time. Is there something that I can put in my userboxes to auto-update my edit count? Thanks. EninE (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@EninE: I looked at the user boxes recently, and did not see any that auto-populated the edit count. It's not something to obsess over, just update it on your page once in awhile if it is important to you. Also: Wikipedia:Editcountitis. RudolfRed (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@RudolfRed: Ok, thanks. I won't let it bug me!

October 19[edit]

Notability of First Nations reservation locations[edit]

While doing new-page review, I came across Awmcphee's recent creation of several First Nations reservation pages, such as Muskowekwan_85-15 or Northern Lights 220. I'd appreciate a second opinion on the notability of these places - my understanding of WP:GEOLAND is that these places aren't notable since they appear to only be census subdivisions (and only have census-type data for sources), but I'm not certain and am willing to admit that I could be wrong. Also, is there a more appropriate noticeboard for this kind of question in the future? (Awmcphee: please understand that I'm not trying to tear you down, you did an excellent job creating those pages, I just am not certain the places themselves are notable) creffett (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just glad someone else is looking them over. The main reason for this proliferation is that, uniquely, many First Nations governments in southern Saskatchewan have recently won the right to arbitrarily purchase new reserve lands from local farmers. Some have chosen to annex every new purchase into the main reserve, such as Cowessess 73, but others haven't, creating the untidy situation that you might have noticed on Muskowekwan First Nation.
Every one of these entities is considered a separate Indian Reserve, enjoying the same legal status that notable Indian Reserves in other provinces do - they are not administratively meaningless census divisions. However, I agree that it would be absurd to create new articles for every uninhabited field from Muskowekwan 85-1 to Muskowekwan 85-69 on the basis of WP:GEOLAND alone. Statistics Canada agrees, and only records census information for a small subset of these single-field reserves. That small subset is what I've been using as my guideline for notability, hence why only 1, 2A, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 22, 23, 24 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, and 33 made the cut out of 1 - 69. At the very least, these particular fields have had their uninhabitedness verified by an outside source, but it's an ugly compromise.
In the sparsely populated northern half of the province, where all land is government-owned and there are no private owners to deal with, most uninhabited Indian Reserves were created to protect historically/culturally significant sites. For an example of a tiny reserve that seems like it's not notable at first glance, see ʔejëre K’elnı Kuę́ 196I. In my opinion, all of these page are notable under WP:GEOLAND, as there is usually some available information about why they acquired reserve status.
Awmcphee (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Awmcphee, interesting! That's what I was missing - that they're legally separate reserves, not just administrative divisions. I'll wait and see if anyone else has anything to say on the topic, but that's a good enough assertion of notability for me. creffett (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

How to increase font size for printed pages[edit]

I followed the article here Specifically I copied the print media rule into my own CSS and changed the body font to 12 px. But it does not make any difference. I tried printing using the browser button, and the menu option in the wikipedia menu (left hand side). I also refreshed the browser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimprince (talkcontribs) 03:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kimprince:, hmm looking at your css page it seems correct. Try say a 30pt font, and see if the font gets bigger (to test that it really works, make sure to not print it, just preview it). OkayKenji (talk page) 22:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Can a person have two User pages?[edit]

Can a person have two User pages? (Under the same name / same account, that is.) Let's say that I have "too much information" on my User Page ... and I need / want a second page. Is that at all possible? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

You can create as many user pages as you wish (within reason), but the second and subsequent ones will have to be sub-pages e.g. User:Joseph A. Spadaro/2. It's your talk page that is getting rather long, and you might like to archive old entries. Dbfirs 09:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. (1.) Would that show up in a "tab" on the top left ... where I currently have two tabs (User page and Talk)? (2.) Also ... is that somehow different than a "Sandbox Page" ... or is it basically the same thing? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't, Joseph A. Spadaro. All your user subpages have the same status as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and can be used as sandboxes or anything else consonant with User pages, whatever their names. The one called "Sandbox", if it exists, has that built in link to it. There's nothing to stop you putting an index of (some of) your subpages on your user page. --ColinFine (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
You can add your own interface links with JavaScript in your common JavaScript. User:PrimeHunter/My subpages.js adds a Subpages link to all your subpages. You can also add the below to make a Page 2 link to the right of your main userpage link. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
$.when( mw.loader.using( ['mediawiki.util'] ), $.ready ).done( function() {
    mw.util.getUrl( 'User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Userpage 2' ),
    'Page 2',
    'Your other user page',
@PrimeHunter: Thanks. If I add this "code" ... then I will get a new (third) tab to the right of my current two tabs that say "User page" and "Talk" (on the top left of my User page)? Where exactly do I place that code? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The code is placed in your common JavaScript where all sorts of Wikipedia:User scripts can be added. You can preview to see the effect on the interface without saving. It doesn't make a tab. It adds a link at top of all pages in the row with Sandbox, Preferences and so on. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Using Data in Table, we would like to express them as a Figure.[edit]

I am an author, writing a book. Interested in the article 'High-temperature superconductivity', I would like to make aFigure in my book. The data are obviously copyrighted. My question is "Can I get a permission from Wikipedia? or From the original publications?" Please advise in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The text in Wikipedia articles is available for reuse, if you attribute it. See WP:REUSE. Images are not necessarily freely licensed, so click on the image you are interested in to see the license for it. Anything from an outside source you will need to get permission from them. RudolfRed (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Check with your lawyer. In general, data cannot be copyrighted, only the creative elements of a publication can be copyrighted. The form of a figure may be sufficiently creative to be copyrighted, but not the underlying data. Where a contributor has created a figure from some underlying data and contributed the result to Wikipedia, the figure is likely to be sufficiently creative to be copyrighted, and the contributor may have asserted a copyright and then licensed it for use under CC-BY-SA. In this case you may use the figure if you attribute it, but that copyright does not extend to the underlying data. -Arch dude (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


accidently removed text in "box". Sorry - please fix if able. 2001:8003:D864:E101:EDCA:A3B6:C447:F8C8 (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

This has been fixed by another editor. If you make an error again, you can go to the page history and choose "undo" to undo your edit. RudolfRed (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Different colors: verbal names versus 6-digit code numbers[edit]


The above "box" contains three different colors ... "solid grey" ... "navy" ... and "white". How can I find the 6-digit code numbers for these colors, instead of using the verbal descriptions of the colors? For example, I can't find "solid grey" anywhere. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: solid is not part of the color name, it is property of the border. Other options could be dotted or dashed, for example. [2]. Color codes may be found here: Web_colors#HTML_color_names RudolfRed (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

complaint(what is the meaning of aragon crown they were not crown rule.)[edit]

List of monarchs of Majorca From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation Jump to search See also: List of consorts of Majorca

Monarchs of the Iberian Peninsula al-Andalus Almohads Almoravids Aragon Family tree Asturias Family tree Castile Family tree Catalonia Córdoba Emirate · Caliphate Family tree Galicia Granada León Family tree Majorca Navarre Family tree Portugal Family tree Spain Medieval · Modern Family tree Suebi Taifas Valencia Viguera Visigoths Family tree The Kingdom of Majorca (1231–1715) was created by James I of Aragon following his conquest in 1229 and the subsequent surrender of sovereignty by the Muslim rulers in of the Balearic Islands in 1231. It was ruled in conjunction with the Crown of Aragon until his death when by will it passed to a younger son, James (II), who ruled the kingdom as nominal vassal of the Aragonese Crown. He was removed by his nephew Alfonso III of Aragon, who conquered the island of Menorca in 1287, effectively recovered Menorca from Moorish rule.

By the Treaty of Anagni of 1295, however, these island territories were yielded back to James. In 1344, the kingdom was again united with the Crown of Aragon but still disputed by pretenders until 1403. It subsequently formed an administrative kingdom within the Crown of Spain periodically included in the royal style – as in Philip II's in the 1584 Treaty of Joinville – until the Nueva Planta Decrees abolished these divisions in 1715. Monarchs of Majorca — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

If you have concerns about a Wikipedia article, such as List of monarchs of Majorca, please raise it on the talk page of the article (in this case Talk:List of monarchs of Majorca. However, I suspect that the article Crown of Aragon will answer your concerns. --ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

October 20[edit]

(no header)[edit]

Hi. I'm having trouble with Template:Infobox cycling hill climb. It seems to be putting in an extra line above it in articles. For example - Cauberg Kemmelberg#Cycling Muur van Geraardsbergen. I can't see anything wrong with the syntax. Can you help please? Thanks Mertbiol (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixed * Pppery * it has begun... 03:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Knew it would be something which looked trivial, but was in fact important! Mertbiol (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Exclude day of week from a date?[edit]

Is there a WP guideline on excluding the day of the week from a date, for example: Sunday, 20 October 2019? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't find anything (MOS:DATE is silent about this), but IMO, as a general rule it should be excluded, unless there's something relevent about the day of the week (e.g. Sunday, December 7, 1941). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The true creators of the constitution[edit]

Extended non help-desk-related content

Greetings,,, I am an Autochthon Aborigine American the first people of America and the creators of true law. With the great amount of genocide taken place here in america many believe we are no more, however we are still here. in fact many are taking part in the genocide directly and or indirectly as this article on your site plainly displays. allow me to educate..... in searching for the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States, and choosing Wikipedia to read, I find I must set the facts right. It is a fact that before any colonizers came to America, there were ONLY copper Color people here in this land called America, north, central, south and all her Islands. According to Etymology the title "American" only applied to the copper color people of America. As Immigrants came upon our land they began calling themselves Americans. Walter Ashby Plecker who was an eugenics member, was a hateful racist who in the early 1900s Passed the "Racial Intregdy Act" as well as created the department of vital statistics and the birth certificate. Walter Ashby Plecker changed the Identity of Aborigine American Indians to "Colored" and through time other political constructs such as Black, Negro, African-American, were created for the purpose of genocide. So it is of no surprise that the hiding of the truth would also exist here. According to H.Con.Res. 331 In the senate of the United States October 5 ( Legislative day, September 26), 1988, Says" CONCURRENT RESOLUTION To acknowledge the contribution of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations to the development of the United States Constitution and to reaffirm the continuing Government-to-Government relationship between Indian tribes and the United States established in the Constitution. Whereas the original framers of the Constitution, including most notably, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, are known to have greatly admired the concepts of the Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy, Whereas the Confederation of the original Thirteen Colonies into one republic was the influence by the political system developed by the Iroquois Confederacy as were many of the democratic principles which were incorporated into the constitution. It is clear that The copper color people of America miss identified today as colored or African American or Black are the lineage of the creators of the constitution. The constitution was not created by colonizers, but Aborigine Americans to protect our people. It is referring to Aborigine copper-colored people when it says "We The People" It is Aborigine people protecting what is ours from the acts of the colonizers which for many has become to violate the law. No court can interpret the constitution but are sited by people who take an Oath to uphold the Constitution and the treaties created along side it. and no British law or any other laws of colonizers have anything to do with the shaping of the constitution and all must take an oath to uphold it upon entering America and must renounce any other jurisdiction or laws their of. Statutes, codes, policies, and rules are for corporations and the United States Has incorporated all of its citizens for the purpose of taxation. This does not apply to Aborigine Indians. All immigrants are bound by the laws of their governing corporation Washington DC however Aborigine Indians have their own government and the US government is in debt to Aborigine people of America (Indians) forever. According the The Constitution of the United States Article 1, section 2, Clause 3 Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed three fifths of all other Persons. It is time for the truth for all. give credit to the true creators of the constitution the true Aborigine coppor colored people of America. we are still here!!!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC) 
Please find an alternative value to pursue your agenda. Thanks, Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 09:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Why is a pole considered the tallest building? The US Bank IS the tallest building in Los Angeles.[edit]

Ditto47.39.105.7 (talk) 04:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you talking about the article List of tallest buildings in Los Angeles? OkayKenji (talk page) 04:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
If you are then List of tallest buildings in Los Angeles#Tallest buildings says: 'This includes spires and architectural details but does not include antenna masts.' Wilshire Grand Center#Construction says: 'The building, while recognized as "tallest" in the city by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, achieves this recognition through the height of its decorative sail and spire rather than highest occupiable floor space.' PrimeHunter (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
This is the kind of question you want to ask at the talk page of that article. A fuller, and longer lasting, discussion with people who are watching and interested in that article would ensue. You might be able to get the article changed. I doubt it, because apparently the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat thinks its the tallest building in LA. And we generally go with what they say. Altho in this case you have a legit point, that stupid pole. It's not really the tallest building in LA, according to common sense and perception, so it might be possible to marshal enough good sources saying this to get a change thru. Herostratus (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

How can I write new article?[edit]

I want create new Articles,but how I can do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephraimsklyansky (talkcontribs) 11:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ephraimsklyansky: I've written a guide that reduces article writing to about 9 steps, as part of a larger guide covering a variety of issues new users face. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Ephraimsklyansky(edit conflict) Successfully writing a new article is probably the hardest task on Wikipedia. You will be much more likely to be successful if you first build up experience by editing existing articles, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is looked for in articles. However, if you still want to attempt to write an article, you should read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial. You can then submit a draft using Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Correcting/Updating/Removing Incorrect Information[edit]

I am creating a personal list of Medal of Honor recipients from World War II through the current conflict in Afghanistan.

While reviewing the information on the page of Brian L. Buker (, the "Biography" section states he is one of three Medal of Honor recipients from Maine; the other names listed are Specialist Fourth Class Thomas J. McMahon and Sergeant Donald S. Skidgel.

In fact, there are at least two additional recipients from Maine (Master Sergeant Gary I. Gordon ( and Sergeant Edward C. Dahlgren (

I have not completed the list, therefore, I strongly suspect there are more recipients from Maine. Based on the additional names I have found thus far, what is the appropriate course of action to correct this error? Should it be removed and updated with the names of the remaining Maine recipients based on the total number, if feasible?

Thanks. Jdyates751 (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Try reading again. Brian L. Buker says "He was one of three people from Maine to receive the medal in Vietnam". Neither Gary Gordon nor Edward C. Dahlgren were awarded for action in Vietnam. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

how to remove wikidata link from article[edit]

How can I remove the wikidata link from Sankya (novel)? In edit view, it displays under "Wikidata entities used in this page", and in read view, it displays at the top of the page. I tried removing it at wikidata but failed with the error "Sitelinks should only be removed if the page in question has been deleted, or if that link is being moved into another item". The wikidata item has nothing to do with the novel article. Schazjmd (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

David Biddulph fixed it, thank you! Schazjmd (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the Wikidata item had been the subject of numerous erroneous edits by an editor who has been repeatedly trying to write an autobiography. I reverted the Wikidata item to its previous state. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


This page appears to be vandalized (?) --> Template:Userbox. It looked much different and more "normal" yesterday. I cannot edit the page or revert the last few edits. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: - I have restored the /doc page that was recently vandalized. GermanJoe (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

October 21[edit]

Changing font[edit]

In a User Box, can one change the font? I was looking at this page (Template:Userbox) ... and I don't see any field that allows for a change of font. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

A font can be set as part of the id or info parameter like in other wikitext: Here is Cursive. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is Cursive
Thanks. Is there a page on Wikipedia -- or on the Internet -- that has a list of the available fonts and their "official names" that can be used within the template? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps Wikipedia:Typography might be a good resource or as an outside source, but there may be more. OkayKenji (talk page) 04:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Martineau family[edit]

PLEASE PLACE THE COAT OF ARMS FILE further up the page - at the top of the page. THANKS Srbernadette (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Srbernadette: What you need to do is copy (cut) the code for the second image and paste it in front of the code for the first image. I.e. reverse the positions of the image markup. Both sets of code are at the very top of the source. Eagleash (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok I will try. thanks

Srbernadette (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)