Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 December 24

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

December 24

At wit's end

Greetings! I have been trying to get an article accepted for months and months now. I feel like Don Mattingly on Montgomery Burns' softball team. Shave those sideburns! Can someone just come out and tell me what is wrong with my submission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveInCO (talk • contribs) 00:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Animal Help Now presumably?--ukexpat (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

If ukexpat's guess is right, the problem is not with the "submission", it is with the subject of the proposed article, which is just not notable enough to justify an article. Maproom (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. And yes, sorry. Draft:Animal Help Now. The program was used in 11,000 emergencies in 2015. It has been the model for a similar effort in New South Wales. Who gets to deem that it does not justify an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveInCO (talk • contribs) 18:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Last comment here. If you search Wikipedia for animal welfare organizations, you'll see that most have less notability than does Animal Help Now. Is there an appeal process? DaveInCO (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The draft will remain 'extant' for a period, usually a minimum of 6 months to give the author a chance to bring it up to scratch. It needs much more in the way of WP:RS in my view. I.e. multiple references in independent, good quality reports. No tabloid type papers or sites like Huffington Post etc. Good luck. & if you keep working on the draft it won't be deleted. Eagleash (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Eagleash. I still don't see how that standard applies to almost all of the animal welfare organizations I looked at. I feel the bar is being set much higher for us than it is for, say, any of these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Tortoise_Rescue

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Rescue_League_of_Iowa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winslow_Farm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Wildlife_Center

I'm an editor by trade, and I have a decent idea of the difference between subjective and objective content. I'll do my best to improve the notability, but this sure seems to be a moving target. Again, Eagleash, I appreciate your feedback. DaveInCO (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

At least one of those articles has been previously tagged as lacking notability. One I would not question notability. Of the other 2, one has no references at all and the other has few that would pass RS. If you or I tag either of those 2 now it might be seen as WP:pointy. I.e. "look Sir, so & so is running in the corridor too" :P. It's not the best way to get one's own work accepted by pointing out failings elsewhere. Find as much as you can on your subject, expand it as much as possible, add the references and re-submit when you're happy with it. Again, good luck and happy yuletide editing. Eagleash (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@DaveInCO: What we are looking for is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic." Has Animal Help Now (as opposed to the app) received that? —teb728 t c 00:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Teb728:@Eagleash:Thank you again for indulging me in this conversation. I regret to say I think that last comment (about the nonprofit versus the app) has left me feeling even less certain about what is expected of me. I'm not sure why an encyclopedia would not include a mention of the world's first 911-type system for wildlife emergencies. If anyone wants to see why this exercise has left me stupefied, check out our website, check out our testimonials (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ehaB-W0FPWMhik2KZYDz8lvM_qEJlaFWFWilwk5aHJ0/edit?usp=sharing). I think what I'll do at this point is just back off and wait for the pleasant surprise that comes the day I discover Animal Help Now listed on these pages.

-beyond wit's end but nonetheless still appreciative of Wikipedia and grateful for this community's timely responses. DaveInCO (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@DaveInCO: I didn’t mean to suggest that there shouldn’t be any references about the app—but rather that there should be reliable references for the 90% of the article which is not about the app. I don’t see any mention of AHN in your theiwrc.org ref. Judging from the references, the draft gives the impression that AHN is notable only for the app. —teb728 t c 22:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The old UK and her constituent countries debate

Hi, I need a quick piece of advice. I'm wondering what our policy is on the BLPs in regard to the UK and her constituent countries. I reverted this a bit earlier on this evening (as per Redrose64 yesterday), and advised the editor concerned not to make the change without giving a good reason. However, through a series of posts on my talk page it quickly became apparent that this could be a spot of partisan editing, and the editor seemed perfectly happy to ignore advice and engage in an edit war. The user has also been warned previously about his conduct around the subject of the UK. Was my handling of this correct? What is our position on this topic? I'd always thought that whatever term has been used in the article should continue to be the consensus unless a good reason can be found to change it, or am I wrong? This is Paul (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've always been under the impression the PoB would be Xtown, and then the country; not adding 'UK' as there is no need to disambiguate. It seems as if the other editor is pushing a POV and one which likely goes against consensus also. Individual editors may (or may not) be proud of the Union but it has no import upon Wikipedia. Eagleash (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah that's pretty much what I said to the guy in my final post to him, but I had to step back from this because I'd reached my third edit, and didn't want to start treading on thin ice. This is Paul (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks as though his edits are pretty much all the same and although the account is only a few days old, in view of the number of similar edits possibly WP:SPA would apply. You are not the only editor to revert him and you've attempted to explain, so if he continues then it would ultimately probably end up at WP:ANI. Eagleash (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on things. I won't revert him for now though as I know he'll just change it back and continue arguing. This is Paul (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we're supposed to drop a note on his talk page about the discussion; so I will do that now. Regards, season's greetings, Eagleash (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I kind of crashed out in the end because it was late, but I see he's done a couple more since then. If it continues I'll mention it at ANI because this kind of thing just causes hassle. Anyway, happy holidays and thanks once again. This is Paul (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to add I am sure that the consensus was to leave alone (neither add or delete UK) but I cant remember where that was discussed or agreed. MilborneOne (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned when reading this article. The person is a citizen of the UK. This is not clear when I read this article. This is wrong for an encyclopedia. The nation of citizenship is important information. A non-informed person reading this article will think this person is a citizen of Scotland, an independent nation, and as can be read its own parliament. This can be very easily misread and we would be misinforming the reader. A person from Bavaria is a German and that should be in the article. A person from the state of Zanzibar is a citizen of the nation of Tanzania. I am fine with mentioning Scotland, but the UK should be in there somewhere. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It's just a matter of clicking the link for those who don't know anything about Scotland (a country in its own right). We have thousands of articles that fail to mention USA, but one has only to click on the state if one is not familiar with the 50 subdivisions. I'm neutral about whether we should include UK. I did wonder whether to revert earlier today, but decided it wasn't really important. Dbfirs 14:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I think an article should be able to stand on its own. Someone is from a state, or a town, or a street. Put a wikilink in there and we are done. That is not how we should work. Just because some articles are bad and only mention a US state, does not mean another article should follow the bad example. Yes it is seen in the UK as a country. I am fine with that. Following MOS:ID, MOS:BIO and WP:UKNATIONALS, I fully allow people to be identified as they wish. even if it were not a country. Do what is most logical and name people as they are identified in sources. However, I believe the sovereign nation should be mentioned somewhere in the piece to make it clear. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

We already have "Nationality: British" just below, but I suppose there might be someone somewhere who doesn't know that most British people live in the UK, and that most American people live in the USA. Dbfirs 14:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that one I missed. This will do fine. I just thought it weird it was not in there, when I think it really is a minimum. I will leave the rest of the discussion to you guys again. All the best, Taketa (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Conventionally we don't link countries per WP:OLINK (major geographical locations). I've always understood this to include the 'home-nations', as further clarification is unnecessary. As observed above, as a general principle, I habitually neither add nor remove 'UK' in the infobox. (I do reduce 'United Kingdom' to UK where seen). Scotland is indeed a country in its own right and does have its own parliament, but also returns members to the UK parliament, similar to the UK electing to the European parliament. Really I have no objection to UK appearing in the infobox (unlinked obviously) but the recent edits are to multiple pages without seeking consensus and perusing the various discussions reveals a POV. And yes the infobox does include a nationality field; the birthplace therefore does not need to include the UK.Eagleash (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed, what was of particular concern to me was the statement posted on my talk page: "I don't care whatever discussion has gone on! Anyway, I am proud of the union....and I will continue to edit it in." This does smack of someone with an agenda to push, though I must confess that as I don't know the subject I've no idea what her preference actually is. Changes of this type (i.e., British vs the nationality of one of the home nations) seem to happen a lot, particularly with BLPs relating to people born in England. As I've mentioned above I tend to stick with whatever the consensus has been (such as Ellie Goulding is an English singer or Laura Robson is a British tennis player) and revert to that, unless there's a strong enough argument for changing it, but this is probably an issue that we need to address. This is Paul (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's the statement that indicates an unhelpful intent. Sporting nationalities would usually be the country represented or eligible for, or place of birth if either felt not applicable. For racing drivers the lead would say British racing driver (racing licence) from England/Scotland/Wales but PoB would say Town, Country (but not UK). Nationality in the infobox would be British and of course nationality and PoB can quite often be different things. Footballers would be described as one of the home nations (usually). Defining nationalities in BLPs probably depends on how the subject sees themselves (if known) or how described in RSs. The edits discussed previously aren't really concerned with an individual's nationality but with unnecessarily adding 'UK' to geo locations. Eagleash (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

Hello. I added the article on Jeff Fuell and the posting is stating that it contains errors that I do not know how to fix.Bookman111 (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello; please could you provide a link to the article in question as (though it might be me!) cannot find Jeff Fuell on wikipedia. Also, the account you used to post your question only shows edits to this page and an arts and entertainment page. Thank you Eagleash (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bookman111: Is it [1] you call an article? It's not an article but an entry in a list of requested article topics. I see you fixed the cite errors in the next edit after posting here. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

WP: alias

When did the prefix WP: became an alias for the Wikipedia namespace? Also, when did the old WP: redirects got deleted in favor of the alias? For example, WP:AFD was a MediaWiki (not an HTTP) redirect to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion before WP: became an alias. Evidence is provided by the Wayback Machine and File:Wikipedia-The Missing Manual 1908.png. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

12 December 2007. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 4#WP: pseudo-namespace, phab:T8313, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 12#Wp: and Wt: pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

How do I space contents from one section into another?

If I have an article that has a picture or extensive text in section A, how do I prevent the picture or text from extending into section B? Is there any spacing template or code to help prevent this? Thank you.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Without seeing an example I can only really guess what you are talking about but I believe the {{clear}} template is what you are looking for. Place it at the end of section A and it will force section B to "clear" everything before starting. Please let me know if that is right. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try that. Thank you Stabila711--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but

How do you create public articles! I'm dying to make one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annarebekahhindfan001 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Annarebekahhindfan001: How about checking out My First Article and then heading over to The Article Wizard? By using the Articles for Creation process you can have your new addition reviewed, which decreases the chances of it being deleted. Have a great winter festival! -- samtar ^whisper 08:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

UK Films, which UK poster?

Is there a policy whereby a UK film has to have a UK quad poster? UK quads are the usual release poster but more and more promotional material is a 1-sheet even though cinemas still use quads. Another user and I are having an issue over at Absolutely Anything. Most UK films, including the majority of James Bond films, use quads but the 1-sheet currently being used does have the UK release date. Any advice would be welcome. Quentin X (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Quentin X: I would raise the issue at WikiProject Film. MOS:FILM is the most applicable guideline, but it does not discuss how to choose a poster. If you can't get consensus on the talk page, it's often helpful to go to the WikiProject, where you can get more input from less-involved editors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The Moors

Hello of all the pictures and paintings depicting in there proper person as darkskinned to medium brown North Africans all i see is caucasians dressed in Moorish garbs. Not saying this wasnt the case as they were mostly coverts see The Golden Age of the Moors. It is clearly biased and misleading and should be corrected immmediately. There are coats of arms depicting the Moors the way the etymology of the word denotes specifically its Greek origin Mavri which means burnt or very dark as in burnt by the sun (ie.darkly pigmented). The said write up wreaks of reconstrutionist modus operandi. The true Moors who are erroneosly called arabs are by definition non European which by the Greek sources as one of the oldest etymon clearly denotes persons of dark complexion. I humbly demand this matter be remedied for it is a matter truth and principle and not conjecture but credibility on this websites. Golden Age of the Moors Ivan Van Sertima They came before Columbus and House resolution 689. The Freising Moor The Pope's Coat of Arms also Mulâtresse Femme Arabe 1884. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.21.71.197 (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I think I understand your concern, but it's very hard to act on such a general request (and demanding anything is not likely to encourage volunteers - which is what we all are - to make the changes you want). Please go to the talk pages of the specific articles you would like changes made to, and suggest there what specific changes you think should be made to each article. --ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that many of the images seem inappropriate. Can anyone find some better non-copyright pictures? Dbfirs 08:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose College

Hello Wikipeeps. I am new here and I have found something odd. This article: Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose College has a spoken version, but the speaker is a robot and speaks way too quickly. Should this be removed? Thanks guys! --Incledon (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Holly Short also uses a robot. --Incledon (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the first is too fast though not incredibly so. And I don't like that a bot is reading it since it doesn't seem to pause in a natural spoken voice sort of way. That said, I didn't see anything about using bots at WP:SPOKEN. Though there is a review process mentioned. Between that and the project's talk page, you might be able to find more knowledgable editors in this particular area. Dismas|^(talk) 20:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Statue of Ebih-II

I moved this page from Statue of Ebih-Il because I thought that "Il" (I, L) was a mistake, but after searching around a bit on Google I see that it really is Statue of Ebih-Il. Could you help me switch it back? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Dismas|^(talk) 22:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)