Help desk
< April 20	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 22 >

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.

April 21

Parameter numbers out of order

MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext has parameters $1, $2, $5, and $6, but no $3 or $4. They're not even in the code itself; it's not a matter of them just not displaying when you view the message. Why wouldn't parameters simply be named consecutively? Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The parameters are passed to the message but just not used. Click Edit (or View source for non-admins reading this) in the MediaWiki namespace, and try the links in "It may be documented on MediaWiki.org or translatewiki.net." There is usually documentation at translatewiki.net but not MediaWiki.org. In this case they both have documentation. The default message at [1] uses $3 but not $4. Our customized message omits both. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: "parameters simply be named consecutively" One reason can be that a parameter was 'deprecated'. In order to not break current translations and php extensions, it is then often still available, simply no longer used (sometimes replaced with a new parameter index). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can see in old versions (e.g. the one from 20 December 2007‎) those 'missing' parameters were actually used. Apparently, at some day they turned out no longer needed... → special:diff/482634590 & special:diff/605117142 But their positions are kept probably for compatibility with messages still present on some pages. --CiaPan (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions for adding photo to infobox

I cannot upload a picture from the commons section into the infobox on this page about Fiesta Mall in Mesa, AZ. Any help would be appreciated. The directions provided are unclear to me.

Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiesta_Mall — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadMallEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 03:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you succeeded. For future reference, the full URL will never work; you always have to use just the filename, as you did in the edit I've linked. Unfortunately, there are two standards for file links (lots of templates use one, and lots use the other): with one, you add "File:Macy's at Fiesta Mall.jpg", and with the other you use just "Macy's at Fiesta Mall.jpg". Unless you're familiar with a specific template, you can't know which standard it follows, so my advice to you is to add a photo, hit the "Preview" button at the bottom of your screen, and see if the image comes out properly; if it doesn't, add or subtract the "File" so that it complies with the other standard, and most of the time it will work great. This isn't an attempt to tell you to go away, of course; you're always free to come here if you wish. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference style choice

In Charles Vere Ferrers Townshend, there are a ton of individual references to different pages from the same sources. Would it be better to use the rp template or shortened footnotes in this case? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a confirmation that {{rp}} indeed would work, although as I never figured out shortened footnotes, I'll not opine on whether it would be better. I'm cutting down the reference list slightly, however: three citations to the same page of the same source could be consolidated into one, and a named reference (used two or three times already) was identical to a different citation, which could thus be replaced by the name. Nyttend (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Account no longer exists?

Trying to log into my account tells me there is no user with that name. The user page doesn't appear to exist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Harlequin_Squash), and yet, I can see my account name on the edit history of pages, e.g: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Huxtable&action=history

I've also failed to find any email from wikipedia in my emails, so I'm rather very confused right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.195.95 (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What user name did you put in? Harlequin Squash is your account name, if you copied Harlequin_Squash (with the underscore in it) from the URL, it won't work. - X201 (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userpages do not always exist for user accounts — when you create an account, there's nothing that creates a userpage for you, so it won't exist unless you go out and create it later. If the account itself didn't exist, it couldn't have been used to edit Richard Huxtable, so it wouldn't be showing up in that page's edit history. Nyttend (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The list of contributions for Harlequin Squash is here. Shows edits to the Huxtable page in 2014. Eagleash (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to create a user page for yourself click on that redlink which will allow you to do so. You can then write a little bit about yourself and how you intend to contribute to Wiki. You'll need to be able to log in first though. Eagleash (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried both with and without the underscore. But there seems to be no email associated with the account, so since I can't remember my password, I guess I just can't access the account.

about edit request

I would like to add my website link in the article "online shopping" is it possible? Can i post my article content in that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbagsuae (talk • contribs) 11:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asked in 4 places - and answered at Wikipedia:Teahouse - Arjayay (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Information regarding new linga build in kotilinga

I am planning to offer one linga for my parents could you please provide me the info regarding it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.246.61 (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. I'm afraid I have no idea at all what you are asking about. "Linga" means nothing to me, and Wikipedia doesn't help me understand it. In any case, this page is for help with editing Wikipedia. You might be able to get some help at the reference desk; but I suspect that most people there will be just as mystified as I am, so you'll have to explain more clearly what you are talking about. --ColinFine (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

I realised that I would not a get a notification when someone ping me or mention my username. This cause me to miss stuff where I am being mentioned. --Saqib (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, you might want to read over WP:PING. In general, mere mentions of your username will not give you a notification. And if someone uses a template, like I have done at the beginning of my response here, they must also sign their post in the same edit or else you don't get notified. If they forget to sign and go back in another edit to then sign their post, that will not trigger the notification. †dismas†|^(talk) 23:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

someone keeps on deleting information on a page

i represent Efrayim Shlomo Goldstein the founder of Shomrim in London and someone keeps on deleting the info on the page

please advise how i ccan fix this issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:151F:4013:E125:2CC5:701:63C6 (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you referring to, please? Also, you need to be cautious editing an article for someone you represent, and it is strongly discouraged. Read the guidance at WP:COI. RudolfRed (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Think the OP may be referring to Shomrim (neighborhood watch group). However worthy the neighborhood watch group may be, edits about them still must be encyclopedic and referenced. Otherwise they will be reverted. You need to declare your COI and suggest you get a proper WP account – not difficult. Then you can suggest corrections on the article's talk page. Simple. Aspro (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What has happened to the Teahouse?

Normally the Teahouse has several new posts each day, but now the latest post is dated April 18. Has a technical problem interrupted activity? Eddie Blick (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look further down. New posts now go at the bottom, as on other talk pages. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 21:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I never thought to check there. I wonder why they haven't added date dividers like this page uses.Eddie Blick (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That suggestion (date dividers) has been made once or twice. I'll take a look at how it gets done here (manually?). Maybe the same method can be applied at the Teahouse if there's consensus from the participants. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that the date headers are added by User:Scsbot which appears to be maintained by Steve Summit. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking on that. The date headers aren't essential, of course, but they make it easier to find where I last stopped reading. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic article biased and doesn't reflect latest research

I’m with a PR firm representing Logan University, a private special focus institution providing college education in chiropractic and the health sciences. We noticed that the Wikipedia page on chiropractic is woefully biased and ill-informed.

For instance, it refers to chiropractic as “pseudo-science,” when in fact major medical journals have published recent research legitimizing chiropractic as medicine. For instance, a 2017 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that spinal manipulation therapy improves pain and function among patients with acute low back pain. In addition, for the first time in its 140-year history, the medical journal Brain published research on the power of acupuncture (which many chiropractors offer) to reduce pain. Chiropractic medicine was also recently recommended in the American College of Physicians’ recently updated guidelines for acute and chronic low back pain. Non-drug therapies, including chiropractic, were also recently endorsed by the CDC and the Joint Commission, the organization responsible for accrediting thousands of U.S. health care systems.

All this is to say that we would like to edit the page to reflect the latest research and to erase any bias. We’re happy to work through your system of editing, but wanted to draw your attention to this, as we would like to skip the requirement to edit 10 other pages before touching the chiropractic page. Is there anything we can do to make the process easier? We are not interested in making this page a big plug for Logan, but rather just want to ensure accurate information is being relayed about this field of medicine.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CGPR (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CGPR: Since you are with a PR firm and wanting to edit in connection with your employment, I highly recommend you read our guideline on conflict of interest before making any changes to the article. Make sure you disclose your conflict of interest appropriately. Do not edit the article directly. For small changes I recommend you use the article talk page to make recommendations and requests. For major changes, such as a total rewrite of the article, you can create a draft, then use the article talk page to discuss if the draft should be accepted. Be aware that any changes must cite appropriate sources. A good guideline for those is this guideline on using medical sources. Also, alternative medicine (including chiropractic) is quite contentious, and be prepared for any edits in that area to be highly scrutinized and to invite criticism. Please make sure you have a good understanding of consensus works on Wikipedia. Good luck. I'll leave a welcome template with some helpful links on your talk page. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You stated "Be aware that any changes must cite appropriate sources." Even if reliable sources are used sourced text was replaced with original research. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence of WP:OR says: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist".

You say that "reliable sources are used" (not merely "exist", but "actually were cited"), but that the cited material still somehow "original research".

I say: Your conclusion is logically impossible under the definition given in the policy. Material supported by reliable sources cannot be original research. It can be many things (e.g., WP:UNDUE), but it cannot be a violation of WP:OR, according to WP:OR's second sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the sentence there is a reliable source but the text is not supported the source. Things were easier when I was editing the article alone. The lede is messed up. QuackGuru (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the likelihood that a reliable source exists that could be used to support that sentence – anywhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online?

WP:OR (unlike WP:V) doesn't require anything to be cited in the article. It only requires that out of the many, many millions of published reliable sources in the world, that one of them contains that material.

On your other point, IMO the article was a near-disaster when you were the only person editing it, and I'm certain that I'm not the only person who shares that opinion. I note, however, that it's a distinction that is not unique to you; it's been a near-disaster every time a single, strongly biased editor has been the sole person editing it. On complex, multifaceted subjects like this, we get a much better article by compromising instead of letting any single biased editor write whatever he wants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CGPR . You need to declare your COI and be extra careful to ensurer give proper reference from reliable sources when you edit. As you may be aware, chiropractics, snake oil (the real stuff from the Chines water snake), herbal medicine, etc. is the bane of modern financially orientated health care and they want to ban all of it -to increase their profits. Their supporters and prophets will fight you all the way on this -even on Wikpedia . As Upton Sinclair is quoted as saying: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"Aspro (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 April 21

Contents