Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 December 15

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 15

2017 NCAA Division I FBS Template

Can you please create the 2017 NCAA Division I FBS football season template please I'm asking for a request to create it. But I Don't know how to make a template.68.102.57.28 (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought I told you this the last time you asked for a template. You do a search for "Template:whatever" and when it says that it doesn't exist, you create it. Same as an article. I also told you that you need an account. †dismas†|^(talk) 00:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not even 2017 yet. Once again, please just wait and someone will do it. And posting here won't get it created any quicker, as I don't there's many American sports fans who watch the help desk. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Where to request image renaming

The image at File:Dixon_Street,_Wellington,_Australia.jpg has an incorrect title - Wellington is the capital of New Zealand and has not (nor will ever hopefully be :D) part of Australa.

Where is the correct place to request that an image be renamed? Apologies if I've missed this somewhere in the FAQ or somewhere else, I did do a quick search for this question but was unable to find the answer!

Thanks Albeetle (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Asking for help here is as good a place as any. I've renamed it to File:Dixon Street, Wellington, New Zealand.jpg; links to the old name will still work as redirects. Bencherlite^Talk 01:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Cool; thanks! Albeetle (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Beit She'an

This is in regard to the beginnings of Beth Shean after the War of Israel's Independence. The city was inhabited by about 50 Holocaust survivors and it was not settled by North Africans from Morocco until much later. Noah Merdinger was the founder of the Beth Shean Museum and the Mayor of Beth Shean. WE had waves of immigrants from Turkey, Yemen, Morocco, Iraq and Iran and then again with an influx of Moroccans. But, it was Europeans who were the first settlers in Beth Shean and Noah Merdinger cleaned up the city and used law and order. He was the one responsible for the first archeological digs which no one seems to mention. He dug up the Roman Road using unemployment laborers and founded the Museum and was responsible for having bus loads of tourists from every where. There was no money in the fifties to unearth the Roman Theater which Noah Merdinger attempted to do with very little sometimes with just a hunting knife. Someone from the nearby Kibutz then decided that he could do better. Money talks. and you know the rest, but, the city was first and foremost settled by Holocaust survivors. Sincerely Suzanne Merdinger Chemtob --2601:581:8401:27A0:48A8:1193:1A3D:5991 (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Ms Merdinger: Thank you for your interest in the article on Beit She'an. You may edit the article or post your comments on that article's talk page. If you do either of these, however, please ensure that you quote reliable published sources in support of any information you would like to have added or modified, as we require article content to be verifiable and thus we do not accept personal knowledge as a sufficient basis for what goes into articles: Noyster (talk), 12:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

INDEXING ARTICLES TO SEARCH ENGINES

Could you please tell me how to have a wikipedia article that I authored about COMEDS appear when searching for the topic on typical search engines like Google? A search currently lists all references to COMEDS (including the wiki2 and wikivisual entries) with the unique exception of the wikipedia article. Even searching for "COMEDS wikipedia" does not result in display of the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adalbertus1 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It is useful if a question includes a wikilink to the relevant article. I guess that you might be referring to Committee of Chiefs of Military Medical Services in NATO? The problem is that a change was introduced in October which NOINDEXes each new page until it has been patrolled through the New page patrol process, see WP:NOINDEX. There are currently some 14000 pages awaiting patrol. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Article Not Indexed

Hi,

There is a Wikipedia article that was created about three weeks ago but does not appear to have been indexed by Google and does not show up in SERP.

Also, site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Beckman returns no results.

The page shows that Spiders have crawled the page many multiple times.

Any thoughts, tips or changes to make the article Richard_Beckman show up in Google searches?

Thanks for your thoughts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicetomccinci (talk • contribs) 14:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think your answer may lie in the above query. - X201 (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a hunch and nothing to do with your problem, but having a read of WP:PLAINSIMPLECOI may help pass the time while you're waiting for it to appear on Google. - X201 (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Alicetomccinci subsequently added {{INDEX|visible = yes}} to the page. I have deleted it as Template:INDEX clearly states this template "should only be used on User and User talk pages", whereas this is an article. We seem to have a COI editor desperate to get "their" article listed on Google.
I'm not saying that I agree, or disagree, with the change regarding No-indexing of unreviewed articles, but if getting round the change is that easy, it needs to be reconsidered. - Arjayay (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

My reading of Wikipedia talk:Controlling search engine indexing#Possible updates needed is that the magic word is ignored, so User:Alicetomccinci was wasting his/her time. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

HELP: Safety concern

This is a plea for assistance made by a newly created anonymous account. My real identity appears in a wikipedia article that contains numerous factual errors and semi-slanderous things. A few years ago, I complained to the wiki foundation abt this and was told to create an account and correct it. Done. Anyway, one of the wikipedia editors has some sort of vendetta against me and is, I believe, mentally unstable. Having forced me to connect my wiki account to my real world identity, they have continued to attack me. Within the past 48 hours, that editor (who has been cyberstalking me) has posted on their non-wiki blog attacks on my person along with graphic Notsafeonwikipedia (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)and explicit calls for violence against my person. I would like to know how to go about having this person banned from wikipedia but I would also like to learn that without revealing myself as I am concerned for my safety.

If a Wikipedia editor is harassing you either on or off Wikipedia, you can contact the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee privately at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org and they can investigate the matter while keeping your identity confidential. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Also emergency@wikimedia.org, and see Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. TimothyJosephWood 15:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Can one editor edited another editor like this?

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brandon_Iron_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=754109258 One editor (86.17.222.157) that voted "Delete" on an AfD removed bold text from another editor's reason for voting "Keep." I am the editor that voted "Keep." Is that type of editing allowed? My first inclination is just to do an undo, but being a newbie I thought I should check first and see what the guideline might be. I used the bold text for a reason, to emphasis that the original AfD resulted in a "Keep" resolution. The whole AfD is mighty suspicious as I explained in my reason for a "Keep" vote. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Zootsuit1941, bolding in AfD is usually used as a way to identify individual !votes. Removing the bold makes it clear that you are referring to someone else's contribution, and that these are not all individual !votes cast by individuals in that particular ongoing discussion. Also, as I understand it, it might screw up software that keeps track of AfD participation. TimothyJosephWood 18:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The edit summary for the edit in question made the reason clear. There is no need to emphasise that the original AfD resulted in a "Keep" resolution, as the closing admin will look at that before closing. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

TimothyJosephWood, David Biddulph Thanks for the feedback, I'll leave the "unbolding" as is. But in my defense, there was no "obviously a delibarate action because the equivalent "delete"s were not bolded" on my part, as there were no "equivalent Delete" votes in the original AfD to bold for emphasis. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Zootsuit1941: in the paragraph you wrote, you use the word "keep" four times, all bolded, and "delete" three times, none of them bolded. I am not surprised that another editor assumed this was deliberate. Maproom (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Maproom Yes, it was deliberate, but not as in deliberate to deceive any other editor, the closing administrator or software that keeps track of AfD participation; I'm not that smart. I was merely trying to make the point that ALL the votes in the original AfD were "Keep" votes, and those votes were in bold. And there were NO (as in zero, none) "Delete" votes in the original AfD, so no bolding required on "Delete.". Absolutely NO subterfuge on my part. But I agree with TimothyJosephWood and David Biddulph that it wasn't a good use of bolding text. I do think it's a stretch to think that it might deceive other editors, the closing administrator; although I have no idea about the software that keeps track of AfD participation. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The !votes aren't counted by software, they are assessed by the closing administrator, who is generally smart and experienced. I have seen various attempts at misleading an administrator, but I've never seen one succeed. I understand that you weren't trying to mislead, but I don't blame someone for the mistaken idea that you were. Maproom (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Probably could have been a bit more WP:AGF there. TimothyJosephWood 18:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

My own take on this is that I hardly ever (never) edit another editor's comments on Talk pages etc unless it is an obvious case of vandalism. I think the IP was wrong to have unbolded your comments in the first place, but instead, should have entered into discussion with you about this and asked you to change your own edit. This is especially the case because you are a newcomer to WP. Happy editing. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree DrChrissy. Furthermore, it is unsettling that the edit summary accuses the editor of an "obvious delibarate (sic) action"; which could be seen by other editors that Zootsuit1941 was reverted for either vandalism or improper usage of WP. It could have been handled better. Maineartists (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy], Maineartists Thanks for you comments. Based on Maineartist's comment, I went back and did an "undo" on 86.17.222.157's unbolding edit, and redid my paragraph using italics on the word "Keep" rather than bold. I hope that is satisfactory to everyone, including TimothyJosephWood, David Biddulph and Maproom. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. You have not made an earth-shattering mistake here, but the usual way of dealing with your own edits that are problematic is to use strike through the existing text and then adding what you want to change. This is so other editors can follow what is happening. My own view, which is not a strong one, is simply not to emphasise the words in any way. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy At this point, should I go back and change it to use the strikethroughs, or just let it go? I can also delete the italics emphasis. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) It would have been nice to know that I was being discussed here, but I acknowledge that I should also have put a message on Zootsuit1941's talk page about what I was doing - I didn't go to check that that person was a new editor so might need more gentle handling than someone more experienced. And I apologise profusely to the English language for misspelling "deliberate". Unlike other edits it's not possible to go back and fix such things in edit summaries. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

To zoot:I wouldn't stress too much about it. If someone takes issue with it, just assume good faith and do your best to get along. That's how all this works after all. Also, resisting the urge to hit the undo button is an essential skill here.

To the IP: Well...this is one of the advantages of registering an account. We would have certainly pinged you to the conversation, but you can't notify IPs. Welcome to the party. TimothyJosephWood 22:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

To Zoot: As Timothy says above, perhaps best just left alone now. In the scheme of things on here, these have been minor matters. Please feel free to contact me if you have any other concerns about what you should/not do. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

What links here

What determines the order of the pages in the "what links here" page? There doesn't seem to be an obvious pattern. As a follow up, if this may be too technical, where the hell should I ask this question at? TimothyJosephWood 22:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

A good place to ask technical questions is here:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Best to wait a few minutes to see if it is answered here first. --S Philbrick(Talk) 23:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I always understood that it was ordered by date of creation of the pages, so that the newest pages will be at the end of the "what links here" list. Bencherlite^Talk 23:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It's doesn't seem to be date. In case it helps, I'm looking at this which is used in about 3k pages. TimothyJosephWood 23:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The first page on that list is Talk:Exponential function, created 18 August 2001. The second page is Talk:1st century, created 10 August 2002. The third page on that list is Talk:Northern and Southern dynasties, created 20 August 2002. The final page on that list is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive940 created 8 December 2016. As I said, it's ordered by date of creation of the pages, so the oldest pages are listed first (no matter when the link was added to that particular page) and the newest pages are listed last. Is that clearer now? Bencherlite^Talk 23:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

And now the final page on the list is User:Bencherlite/sandbox9, created 1 minute after my previous comment here. Bencherlite^Talk 23:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I've seen other things have an effect; I can't remember what they are. I thought deletion and undeletion would interrupt the flow, so I created User:Nyttend/sandbox test with the same content as Belcherlite's sandbox (so mine was last, and his next-to-last), I then deleted his sandbox, and finally I restored it. Once again, mine is last and Bencherlite's next-to-last, so clearly undeletion doesn't restart the clock. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the ordering is by Page ID, which you can see as part of the page information. For many years the Page ID has been assigned sequentially, so the order matches the order of page creation. But for the very oldest pages it can be different. For this help desk page, the first two entries listed are Talk:Afghanistan/Archive 6 (ID = 823, created in 2002) and then Talk:Abraham Lincoln (ID=2301, created in 2001). -- John of Reading (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Bencherlite, Nyttend, John of Reading: Fantastic! This is exactly what I was looking for. Will link to this from WT:NAC. Also, anyone who is interested is encouraged to join in the discussion there.

What's going on here?

I added a CN tag to this article, which automatically added this category to the bottom: 'Articles with unsourced statements from 15 December 2016'. First of all, I've never seen this happen before; secondly, the category is a redlink, and I can't imagine that I'm the only person who's added a CN tag today. What's going on here -- and can somebody fix it? --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C878:CDFF:2DE:659D (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it. The date should just be December 2016, not 15 December 2016. It's not broken down that much! ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. (Interesting how that category mysteriously appeared, and just as mysteriously disappeared) --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C878:CDFF:2DE:659D (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

See WP:HIDDENCAT. Maintenance categories such as Category:Articles with unsourced statements from December 2016 are always created with code that hides them, so the only way you can see them on an article is if you've checked "Show hidden categories" in your preferences, and people editing with no username don't have the ability to change preferences. However, nonexistent categories can't be hidden (if you add the code to a nonexistent category page, it creates the category), so that's why you could see it. Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thx; that makes sense. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:1 (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Help with page move

Hello. Could someone move some pages please? As follows: CMA1 → CMA1 (gene). Note that the target page exists as a redirect. The move has been proposed on the Talk:CMA1#Page move to 'CMA1 (gene)' talk page with no response after 38 days. That will then free up CMA1 to be a disaggregation page as follows:

'''CMA1''' or '''CMA 1''' can refer to: 

* [[CMA1 (gene)|CMA1]], a gene that encodes for the chymase enzyme in humans
* [[United Nations Climate Change conference#2016: COP 22/CMP 12/CMA 1, Marrakech, Morocco|CMA 1]], the first meeting of Parties to the Paris Agreement, held in Marrakech on 7–18{{nbsp}}November 2016

Articles should really not be titled with acronyms in the first place. Many thanks in advance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:TWODABS says that there shouldn't be a disambiguation page with just two entries, so I'm not going to do that for you. In any event, it's hardly surprising that nobody's commented on your move proposal on such an obscure page. Try listing it at WP:RM and await further input. Bencherlite^Talk 23:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Even if a DAB with two entries was warranted, CMA is really an obscure term, so I would argue the gene is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for CMA1 anyways. I could not even find what it is an acronym for (if anything). At least this told me it means a meeting of the parties to the Paris agreement. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)