Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 December 20

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 20

Articles missing WikiProjects

Hi, according to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment there are approx. 536,000 articles without a WikiProject in their talk page. Is there some way to see a list of articles not in the scope of a WikiProject? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

If I'm looking at the same figure you are, that isn't the number who don't have WikiProject tags on their talk pages. That is the number of articles that have tags but are, as yet, unassessed. If you click on the word "Unassessed" in that chart, it leads you to Category:Unassessed-Class articles which is broken down further into more categories. †dismas†|^(talk) 00:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Ahhh... makes sense. So does that mean that just about every article on Wikipedia is within the scope of a WikiProject, if there are 5.5 million articles in that table and about 200,000 list articles? Icebob99 (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not as confident with my answer on that. Maybe someone else will be. That said, I'm not sure I follow the breakdown and it may just be in the way they cut the pie. According to that page, as you say, there are about 5.5m articles (lists included). According to Special:Statistics, there are 5.3m content pages, which I assume includes lists. So, I'm not sure where the extra ~0.2m pages come from.

And yes, I would say that every article falls into one WikiProject or another but I know for a fact that not every article is tagged with one. †dismas†|^(talk) 06:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

A single page can have multiple projects, so what you are actually seeing is a total of all project templates. If you assumed (roughly) that the average for each tagged article is say two projects, then only around a half of the total 5.3m pages has a WikiProject template on its talk page. You can use Pet Scan to find articles in a particular category that don’t have a specific WikiProject template...Jokulhlaup (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text - Sunburst

Article: Sunburst (community_ I don't know the correct way to enter in the information about the article written about Sunburst in a newspaper entitled The Lompoc Vision. The name of the article is Sunburst Sanctuary: "The Central Coast Retreat", by Lisa Andre.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arya73 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Your removing content

I was looking info regarding David Wilcock and you removed it. I donated money to you to keep honest info alive and apparently your not doing that! I'm very disappointed that you sold out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:8300:D735:D9A0:6D4F:8331:F71 (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

After a long public discussion, we concluded that obscure fringe theorist David Wilcock was not notable enough to merit an article in an encyclopedia. How does this constitute selling out? --Orange Mike | Talk 04:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wilcock for that discussion. Icebob99 (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, this is the page that held the discussion that led to deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wilcock (2nd nomination). Icebob99 (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Leaving A Legacy

Hello,

I was wondering if I could create a wiki page about myself.

After being severely abused as a orphan in America, I am now a motivational speaker and child welfare advocate.

I want to tell my story and leave a page on Wikipedia for viewers who research me on the internet.

Is this possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collegeman8532 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Collegeman8532. The short answer is No, you should not create a Wikipedia article about yourself: read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for why autobiography is very strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. The longer answer is that if you determine that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, you declare your conflict of interest openly, you use the articles for creation process to create a draft and submit it for review, and you make sure that you do not put a single word in your draft that is not supported by a reliable published source independent of you, then it is possible you could get the draft accepted as an article. You must realise that it would not be your article, and others would decide what was appropriate to go in it. I suggest you look at Your first article as well: creating an article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, even without the issue of autobiography. --ColinFine (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

HELP

I just wanted to know who and how to become a Administrator101users (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, 101users. You can find the information in WP:RFA. But to be frank, you need to spend several months (probably years) doing valuable work in Wikipedia before anybody is going to support you. I also wonder why you think it worth asking: Administrators on Wikipedia are like janitors: they have the keys to the cupboard where all the cleaning materials are stored. They don't have any particular status. (I've been an editor for 11 years and have over 12000 edits, but I've never asked to be an admin). --ColinFine (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to add to Colin's comment, admins have the ability to delete articles and block users, so you will need a long period of constructive editing and patrolling to show that you can be trusted with potentially disruptive tools Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

to answer the first half of your question these people are the administrators of which there are over 1200. Administrators should not be confused with Wikimedia system administrators ("sysadmins"). Which is a totally different group of people. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Posting new article as a Draft

I posted a new article as a draft. Do I just wait, or did I need to alert someone that it is there? When can I add a photo? When I try to add a photo to the draft, I am told my account has not been confirmed yet. - Leigh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leigh Page (talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

When I look for contributions from your account, all I see is this posting to the Help Desk. Are you sure that you saved it?Naraht (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, it would be helpful, if you could provide a link to the draft, so volunteers here could see if it has submitted correctly. With regard to a photo', you will not be able to upload until your account is at least 4 days old and has made at least 10 edits. Your edit above seems to be the only one made from your account. Any photograph will need to to be one for which you own the copyright (usually this would mean you took it yourself) or you have obtained permission from the copyright holder and uploaded under the appropriate licence. You cannot just 'copy' an image from elsewhere on the web. Please sign your posts on talk-pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

With regard to the photo, Leigh Page, most photos on Wikipedia should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, so that they will be available to any Wikimedia project (eg other language Wikipedias), and there is no requirement of autoconfirmation in Commons. There is, though, a requirement that all material uploaded to Commons be either public domain, or have been explicitly released by the copyright holder under a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA. --ColinFine (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

LinuxInsider

Is there any quick way to revert all of an editor's deletions on every article that uses LinuxInsider as a reference? Also, think he needs at a minimum, a block on editing. See: Special:Contributions/Knowledgebattle.--Aspro (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I left a talk page message asking what was going on here. I reverted some, but didn't get them all - David Gerard (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Aspro: This is my rationale: User:Knowledgebattle/interesting. It's nothing more than a blog, part of a sockpuppet network by the owners. Yes, administrators can revert all my edits at once, but that shouldn't be necessary. Credible sources should be sought out, instead. There's no need for blocking, just better sourcing by Wiki editors. ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 16:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Deciding on your own that LinuxInsider.com is a bad source and then taking unilateral action based upon your conclusions was a huge mistake, and you are likely to end up blocked if you persist. On the other hand, raising the question on the reliable sources noticeboard would be exactly the right thing to do.

BTW, for a "bad source", it sure gets cited by a lot of books... [ https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=LinuxInsider.com ] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I've addressed this point on my talk page. ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 17:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

New section in mobile

When answering OTRS tickets, I often urge them to leave a comment on an article or editor's talk page and I give them some brief advice on how to do so. That advice includes telling them to click on the "new section" tab. However, in a current instance they are using an iPhone. I took a quick look at our mobile version and do not immediately see how to add a section. I see the icons to edit an existing section but not how to add one. Can someone tell me how one does this?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Using Chrome on an Android device, I don't see a way to add a section. On a talk page, I get a pencil icon at the top which edits only the top section. Then more pencil icons on each existing section. †dismas†|^(talk) 15:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems this may be more of a Village pump issue than a help desk one. TimothyJosephWood 15:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I would tell them to scroll all the way to the bottom and click the link for desktop view, at which point they'll have the new section button. The mobile view sucks and doesn't have all the necessary tools. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Or "open the last thread a the bottom of the page, at the bottom of that thread enter two equal signs to indicate a new level 2 header, do the hokey pokey and turn yourself around, then ask your question."

There really should just be a "new thread" button. TimothyJosephWood 16:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

FRW?

I run across references that have "(FRW)" inserted in authors' names, and I can't figure out what it means. Examples can be seen in the references for Arturo Mercieca, Jacques Alexandre Bixio, and Jean-François Foucquet. At first, I thought it might mean that they wrote the foreword to the book. But why have it between the first and last names? Is it a title of some sort? It certainly isn't limited to one subject area, though it does seem to be only in book citations. I am baffled. — Gorthian (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gorthian: If I've researched this correctly, it means they wrote the foreword for the book in question. I got this from looking up the example on Jean-François Foucquet. The book in question on amazon lists both Jean Gernet and J. Dhombres as the writers of the foreword. --Majora (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Forward? If not part of an authors actual name, then it doesn't belong in |author= (or alias). Frankly, unless the reference is referring to the forward (or introduction), authors of those parts of a book should be omitted from the citation. When referencing a forward or introduction by a separate author, use |contribution= and |contributor= ({{cite book}} only).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I did some history searches on about 10 different articles where this appeared. All the editors were different, but the time frame was mostly in 2009, with a couple in 2011. Perhaps citation standards were different back then? In a Google search, I see other sites (not mirrors, I don't think) using the acronym in book citations. It does seem to stand for "foreword". I suspect there is some library or catalog style for which it is standard, and it bleeds over to Wikipedia. @Majora and Trappist the monk: thank you for your replies. — Gorthian (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)