Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 January 9

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.

January 9

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staple_food I want to change the chart in the Staple Food article. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is not the world leading producer of maize, its the United States of America, everybody knows that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktb1300 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ktb1300: Your attempted edit [1] used the source [2] which says "We calculated the trend yields for key countries and regions", and lists 158.2 bushels per acre for USA in 2012. [3] says "1 bushel/acre = .0628 (.06) metric tons/hectare". That gives 9.93 tons/hectare for USA. The table at Staple food#Demographic profile of staple foods is sourced (I checked the source) and says 25.9 tons/hectare for Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. The most productive country per area will often be a small country where the whole used area has good conditions. The total production of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is far too small to be included in the key countries of the World in your source. Your edit was reverted and should not be redone but the cite error was to write /ref> instead of </ref>. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The table is misleading. The column is titled "World's most productive countries". A reasonable person would take "productive" to refer to production, as Ktb1300 has done, rather than to production per hectare. Maproom (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And if one adds an explanation 'most productive by the production per hectare' then it would cause even more ambiguity: is it a unit area of the whole country, a unit area utilized in agriculture or specifically a unit area of the maize fields... --CiaPan (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Format of titles on a Talk Page

Is there any rule, policy, or standard regarding the format of a title of a Talk Page? I have always assumed that it is supposed to mirror the actual article title, with the word "Talk:" preceding it. So, for example, see this Talk Page: Talk:List of The King of Queens episodes. Are the words "The King of Queens" supposed to be italicized or no? I am referring to the Talk Page, not the actual article page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have a manual of style. the particulars are Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The content guidelines like Wikipedia:Manual of Style are only for articles (which are meant for readers) and not talk pages (which are meant for editors). I think it's relatively rare that somebody bothers to italicize a talk page title but I don't think anyone would mind. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That is exactly why I have come to this Help Desk. (1) I always italicize the relevant words on a Talk Page title. In part, due to my assumption mentioned above. (2) Someone actually does mind, and keeps reverting me. Needless to say, I am quite surprised that this editor is so "upset" and adamant about it. So, what should be done, in such a case? Thanks. This is the Talk Page: Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in spending time discussing italics in a talk page title so if somebody reverts you then I suggest to be the bigger person and just let them "win" a pointless victory. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't actually consider it to be "pointless" (nor a "victory"). If things are worth doing, they are worth doing right. Why specifically encourage errors? Names of TV shows and names of newspapers are italicized. Regardless of whether it appears in an article or on a Talk Page. Correct is correct. Not sure why someone being adamant about his whim – with no valid reason whatsoever – should "trump" accuracy. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have bothered to format content in your posts in a particular way, no other editor should be monkeying with them; likewise, you should not be "fixing" other people's posts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure that you are clear on the issue at hand. I am not referring to me editing another editor's post, nor him editing mine. I am referring to the title of the Talk Page. Specifically, here: Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If I'm understanding what you are saying is that for the article whose title is displayed as Charlie Hebdo shooting , the dispute is between having the talk page displayed as

• Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting or
• Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting

I don't think there guidance to that at the Manual of Style on that as it says it can affect titles (I'll have to remember that the next time someone complains about something in text of a Category). the information in Template:DISPLAYTITLE clearly has examples from other namespaces, but nothing from a talk page.Naraht (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Your understanding is correct: Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting versus Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm here to make an encyclopedia for our readers. I don't consider it an error needing a fix if a page for editors doesn't follow a guideline for content aimed at readers. If italicized talk page titles improved editor communication then it might be different but I don't think it does. I actually have a slight preference against italicizing them but wouldn't make an edit or suggestion to change it. I am however annoyed by reading database reports and tool outputs with underscores instead of spaces such as Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles containing links to the user space. It hinders efficient reading and comprehension for me and I may tell the bot operator. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I have posted to User talk:BernsteinBot#Underscores in database reports. But if you ask the bot to check the article for displaytitle and add corresponding italics markup to database reports then I will object. It would just create unnecessary confusion. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

There are places outside mainspace where Publications are italicized in titles. For example: Category:The New York Times writers, but OTOH Talk:Category:The New York Times writers. I'm not even sure where to discuss this from a style standpoint other than here...Naraht (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:VPP, although I'm fairly confident most experienced people would call this a non-issue. Strictly speaking, Help desk should have answered the OP's opening question with a "no" and directed the discussion elsewhere. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 13:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

How is that helpful? Direct the discussion where exactly? Let me know and I will post it "there"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion was WP:VPP (Village Pump (policy)), but based on the instructions at the top of that page I'm not entirely sure that's the best place. Use your best judgment, and the worst that can happen is someone at A will direct you to B, where someone will direct you to A, resulting in the dreaded Information Purgatory. All I'm somewhat sure of is that Help desk isn't the best place to debate these things. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have posted at the following page, per your suggestion: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 117#Format of titles on a Talk Page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I rather suspect the issue might run into WP:NOBODYCARES as it has no effect on reader experience of WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not anyone else cares, I care. And it's a valid question that merits an answer. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Improve this Page

Respected Sir/Madam Please improve my article named "Rajiv Tomer". I would very thankful to improve this wrestler biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheetalsoni (talk • contribs) 01:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I made some minor changes to get the tmeplate to display correctly. However, I would recommend removing the items like "7th position" as (perhaps) those templates only support gold,silver,bronze finishes for competitions. Lastly, it is odd that the subjects name is spelled Tomer given that every google search seems to show his named spelled Tomar. —Noah (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Archive help

I noticed the auto archive is not working at Wikipedia talk:POV railroad. That is probably because there is no |auto=yes option. The problem is there is a Wikipedia talk:POV railroad/Archive 3 (because the counter is on 3), but there are no archives 1 or 2. Can someone with technical knowledge move the contents of archive 3 to a new Wikipedia talk:POV railroad/Archive 1 and reset the counter? I'm not sure how to do it without creating a bigger problem. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. A clean solution required a move without leaving a redirect. As an administrator I can do that. There were no links to Wikipedia talk:POV railroad/Archive 3 so it hasn't created any broken links. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for taking care of it. Ignocrates (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

My changes are being undone

I am trying to update my sons page - he is a professional sportsman but it keeps being changed back to an earlier version. What can I do to ensure my additions stay on the page.– — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.74.82 (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. You've posted here without being logged in, but I'm guessing that you are Raffs fan. Your edits to Andy Rafferty were reverted because they were unreferenced. As a general rule, every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article must be referenced to a published reliable source. (There are unfortunately many articles which do not meet this condition, but new edits tend to be checked more carefully, especially if the article relates to a living person). Information that has not been published should never appear in a Wikipedia article. If you can find a published reference for the information, it can be added; but because of your conflict of interest as his father, it would be better if you made a suggestion on the article's talk page Talk:Andy Rafferty and left it for an uninvolved editor to make the change. --ColinFine (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Backyardigans

There's a few sections in this that are completely inappropriate. Especially the section regarding one of the characters, "Uniqua". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.71.139 (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted an obscenity from the "Uniqua" section. What else is inappropriate? Maproom (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Croat historical bias and inaccuracies

I'm appalled by the bias in the articles on the former Yugoslavia. Croation revisionism (23 editor) of history is pervasive in the articles I've read on the Ustashe, WW11 concentration camps, Operation storm, Croat war criminals , etc. It does significantly diminish the credibilty of your enterprise. It appears that any correction of information is re-edited to reflect an nationalist extremist croat perspective, which does not reflect well on value of Wikipedia as a source of accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.114.7.4 (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ustaše starts:

The Ustaše were members of the Ustaša – Croatian Revolutionary Movement, a Croatian fascist and terrorist organization active, in its original form, between 1929 and 1945. Its members murdered hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews, and Roma during World War II in Yugoslavia.

I don't see how that "reflect an nationalist extremist croat perspective". PrimeHunter (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sadly there are a lot of contributors with Balkan connections who seem to treat Wikipedia as a platform for ethnic propagandising - it certainly isn't confined to Croats alone. To an extent, it is inevitable that such articles are going to attract such contributors, and there isn't a great deal that can be done beyond trying to ensure that specific problems are dealt with according to Wikipedia policy - in particular, by ensuring that articles are properly sourced. Neutrality is never easy to achieve, and with historically-contentious topics probably seen as something to aim for, rather than something we can ever claim to have achieved. What we clearly need are more contributors with knowledge of the topic area who's motivations aren't driven by petty nationalistic concerns, but frankly it isn't an area that many of us want to get involved in given the relentless behaviour of the POV-pushers. As for the articles you mention, I suggest that you raise your specific concerns on the relevant talk pages, ensuring to provide sources as necessary, and if the matter can't be resolved there, consider the options laid out at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Page deletion ??

Hi, last week there we some pages that I looked at but they are not there any more, is it possible for pages of articles to be removed, hidden or deleted ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.25.195 (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes - see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Proper Name Spelling

For historical figures, especially—but not only—monarchs, princes, etc., what is the proper spelling to be used in editing?

Example: Napoleon's second wife was "Maria Luisa" of Austria, which is the way her name usually appears in German texts. In French sources, she is "Marie Luise." Louis XIV's wife was "Maria Terésa" of Spain but in French writing she is "Marie Thérèse." In English, the diacriticals are often omitted. When should they be included in editing?

This question comes up frequently in the names of German or Austrian females who are historically noteworthy. In northern Germany, one more often finds "Marie" or "Christine" or "Eleonore" rather than "Maria" or C[h]ristina" or "Eleonora"—many more such pairings could be cited—which are usual in southern Germany and Austria; and vice versa. I suspect the difference may have something to do with the close connection between the Spanish and Austrian Hapsburg dynasties, so that the Austrian spellings reflect Romance-language naming conventions.

Does Wikipedia have a proper-name style sheet?

Anadessma (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people) and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility) will cover some of that. But the general rule would be to use the most common name used in English, but to provide redirects for any other common versions. So the article is Maria Theresa of Spain, but there are redirects at Marie-Thérèse d’Autriche, Queen Marie Thérèse and Maria Theresa of Spain, Queen of France. Rwessel (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

E-mail help

Dear editors: I have received an odd message, possibly through the Wikipedia e-mail system. I visited WP:E-mail, which says to contact an administrator in a situation like this, so I contacted myself and, frankly, I came away no wiser. Can someone suggest which admin or other knowledgeable editor I should ask about this? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is the message? What does it say? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's another problem. WP:E-mail says that copying the content of the message onto Wikipedia should not be done for copyright reasons. It reads as a reply to a message which was supposedly sent by me, suggesting that I am the great and powerful oz and can get someone's submission accepted (well, it's all true, but of course I would never send an e-mail like this). What I need is to find someone who can tell me if a message truly was sent in my name somehow through the Wikipedia system or not. If so, I need to know if there have been others. My e-mail address is not hard to find, so if it's just someone being a pest by faking a message, I can deal with it, but if it's internal and someone is spamming the AfC submitters in my name there may be something I should be doing about it.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Forward me the email if you want; just copy the code into the special:emailuser box. I can't guarantee that I know the answer, but I'll do my best. PS, please use {{You've got mail}} if you go this route. Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of family trees

Is there a guideline on the use of family trees? I've found a book that has a family tree for an architect, but besides his father the rest of the family is not notable. Is a tree appropriate in this case? Knight of Truth (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Knight of Truth, a lot of books about families are self-published by members of the family, and are thus not independent sources. However, if the book appears to have been written independently, with a real publisher and editor, the fact that some of the information is in the form of a tree shouldn't be a problem. Lots of non-notable people are mentioned in passing in books. This doesn't mean, though, that there should be a Wikipedia article about each one. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

are you specifically asking about whether we should be including a family tree within an article? it's generally not very relevant, from an encyclopedic viewpoint, about most subjects. Just having even a reliable source, does not mean that content is appropriate for an article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be relevant if the family itself had an article; for example, it makes sense in royalty articles and articles about commercial dynasties, e.g. the DuPonts or the Rockefellers. Given your second sentence, I'd advise against including it, although of course you could (and should, probably) use it as a source for "His mother was X", if it's a reliable source. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. I was asking about the inclusion of the family tree in the article itself. (The book is a scholarly biography of the architect.) Thanks for the input; I will probably stick to including the immediate family in prose. Knight of Truth (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't edit links to other languages in an article.

In one article, the link to the english version is wrong, and brings you to the wrong article, but this can't be changed, as I keep getting the message: "An error occurred while saving. Your changes could not be completed." and "The link nowiki:(article name) is already used by item (Q and random number). You may remove it from (Q and random number) if it does not belong there or merge the items if they are about the exact same topic."

How do I fix this? --77.222.163.151 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's likely that the inter-language links have been moved to Wikidata. See WP:Wikidata for additional information. If you tell us what article you were editing, we might be able to help (although if it was an article on another language Wikipedia, you would probably need to go to the help desk of *that* wiki). Rwessel (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Interlanguage links are now handled through Wikidata, where a particular Wikidata item is linked to articles in several different-language Wikipedias. One of the restrictions is that a Wikidata item may be linked to only one article in any particular Wikipedia. If you are trying to link it to a English article, but it is already linked to another one, it won't let you: you need to unlink it from the existing article first.

It is sometimes difficult to get this right, because articles in different Wikipedias may have different scope (for example, I remember looking at this once and finding that some Wikipedias have articles on "Adam and Eve" while others have separate articles on "Adam" and "Eve") and articles with different scope shouldn't be linked together. --ColinFine (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is called: "Sápmi (area)", I tried to add links to the languages norwegian, swedish, finnish, danish, icelandic and northern sami. Here are the links to those articles on those languages: norwegian: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sameland swedish: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sameland finnish: http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lappi icelandic: http://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lappland danish: http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapland and the sami language: http://se.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1pmi

The norwegian version of Sápmi also has the wrong link to the english version. At the moment, it links to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapland_%28region%29

When it should be linked to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1pmi_%28area%29 --85.113.164.184 (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sápmi (area) and Lapland (region) are about the same area and should probably be merged. Most languages only have one article about the area and then it seems hard to say which of the English articles is "wrong" to link. Wikidata doesn't allow both English articles to be linked to the same article in another language. The current choice at wikidata:Q62132 ("Lapland") and wikidata:Q2714126 ("Sápmi") seems to be: If a language only has one article about the area then it's placed in wikidata:Q62132 whether the local title happens to resemble "Lapland" or "Sápmi". It makes sense to ensure that the articles in those languages are all linked to eachother and not split in two groups. Four languages have two articles. The one resembling "Lapland" is placed in the big wikidata:Q62132, and the one resembling "Sápmi" is placed in wikidata:Q2714126 which only has those four articles. The system seems sensible so I suggest nothing is changed. I have reverted your Wikidata edits which removed a label and article from the current system without doing something else instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Currently, there are two different articles in norwegian aswell. The norwegian article Sameland (Sameland is the norwegian name of Sapmi) and Lappland. The Lappland article should of course link to its english counterpart, while Sameland should link to Sápmi (area). I think that if Sápmi (area) and Lappland were to be merged together, the Lappland article should be merged with Sapmi, and not vice versa. But as it is now, Lappland should link to Lappland, and Sameland should link to Sapmi, because currently those two articles are about two different things. --77.222.165.16 (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

no:Lappland is a redirect to no:Sameland. Do you have another article in mind? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Norwegian lappland should be this: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lappland_%28andre_betydninger%29. As in, if you are on the english lappland article, the link to the norwegian version should lead there. "Sápmi (area)" should lead directly to "Sameland". --77.222.165.16 (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

no:Lappland (andre betydninger) is not an article but a disambiguation page. "andre betydninger" means other meanings. It's already linked to the corresponding disambigutation page at the English Wikipedia: Lappland. All entries in wikidata:Q1168034 are disambiguation pages. They should not be mixed with articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it still make more sense to link "Sápmi (area)" to "Sameland"? Due to Sameland and Sápmi (area) being about the same things, while Lappland and Sápmi (area) are two different things. --85.113.181.253 (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)