Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 May 26

< Wikipedia:Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< May 25 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 27 >
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.


May 26

edit

Adding a Sortable Table to a Page

edit

I would like to add a bibliography or book list to the Shooting of Michael Brown page. I've set up the list with a sortable template, which I've added about thirty titles to, along with the authors, publication dates, topic, and descriptions. All the books are relevant to the Ferguson, MO incident. When I attempted to insert it into the category, the table I created didn't appear under the heading. It's appearing after the reference section. How can I fix that? B'H. 69.113.156.172 (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see your edit in the history of that page, but when a table is displayed at the bottom of an article, it usually means the end-of-table marker |} is missing or damaged. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I edited the file (which I've saved to my computer in text format). I experimentally tried to re-insert it. Unfortunately with the same result. The heading appears. Everything under the heading is blank. The table appears after the 'references' section. Here is a truncated version (with only several books added) ... .
Go into the "edit" view of this page to see my text file. It is hidden, for I have avoided the addition of clutter to this page with this experimental table containing my bibliography. B'H 69.113.156.172 (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The end-of-table marker |} must be on a separate line. But tables are not used for this purpose. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Further reading says "An optional bulleted list". See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Bulleted lists. Thirty titles sounds like too much. Other editors are likely to remove many of them. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I agree with you. Is there any way to make this into a hidden, drop down, format, in order to avoid cluttering the body of the article? B'H. 69.113.156.172 (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

edit

SO SORRY - I accidentally removed a section. Please replace. My fault entirely. Srbernadette (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. If you look in the pages edit history you will see a little "undo" button next to the date stamp. Clicking that will revert the most recent edit. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Pass thru" citation

edit

I have a citation in one WP article and I can to use it in another article. Unfortunately, the citation is a book which I don't have access to. I have no reason to believe that the specific information I want (or any of the book cited) is false. Can I just copy the citation from the first article to the other one and use it as a footnote? The reason I'm concerned about this is that I'll be using a piece of information in the second article for which I have not seen the specific reference; for example, the page number.

To be more specific, the article that I want to add the citation to is Resettlement policy of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, in particular, the CN in first sentence: "In the three centuries starting with the reign of Ashur-dan II (934-912 BCE),[citation needed] the Neo-Assyrian Empire...". My source is the article on Ashur-dan II which says "Ashur-Dan II (Aššur-dān) (934–912 BC), son of...". This is referenced by "Cambridge Ancient History. Cambridge University Press. 1924-01-01. ISBN 9780521224963."

I want to copy the entire reference into Resettlement policy of the Neo-Assyrian Empire and use it as an inline citation, replacing the citation needed: "In the three centuries starting with the reign of Ashur-dan II (934-912 BCE),[1] the Neo-Assyrian Empire...". Can I do that in spite of the fact that I have never seen the exact passage in Cambridge Ancient History where the years of Ashur-dan's reign is mentioned? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The proper answer is "no, you cannot do that". I fear that editors do it all the time, but your citation is an assertion that you have actually checked the reference. Your best approach is (probably) to see which editor inserted the citation in the first article, and ask them to add the citation to your article. You can put your information in your article but leave it unreferenced or add the reference and tag it somehow with the appropriate tag. You can also ask if someone at WP:REX can find the book and check it. -Arch dude (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe append the {{Verify source}} template. -Arch dude (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, a plausible reference is unlikely to be challenged unless you are aiming for FA or GA status, where the absence of a page number might be an issue Jimfbleak - talk to me? 04:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, sadly. This means that "anyone can edit" a plausible-sounding article into existence if none of the references are online. For references published before 1923, we are OK because we can usually find a free online copy, and for recent stuff we can usually find news articles, but stuff that happened in the interim (1923-1990 or so) we are forced to go to a physical source or behind a paywall to verify. -Arch dude (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That particular book (actually a massive multi-volume work) is available online behind a paywall. However, it's apparently part of the "Cambridge core" and you can request access via the Wikipedia library card platform. see this page for specifics. I've never done this personally because I'm a dilettante, not a scholar. -Arch dude (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The key to good referencing is to provide users with sufficient information that they can locate the original source with a minimum of fuss. In the absence of page numbers, readers might have to read an entire book before locating the relevant passage - and this is too much to expect of any casual user - and obviously should be avoided. However, I have noticed that e-book editions often don't provide pages numbers - which may not be a big headache because the text is usually searchable. However, if I cite an e-book, I always try to give other information that might assist users to validate the content e.g., Chapter 2 or Section x.x. or if an Encyclopedia then at least give the title of the article within the work and/or the name of the article author. Maybe this helps. BronHiggs (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it is completely wrong for any editor to add a reference to an article if that editor has not read and verified the relevant content. You do not need to read an entire book but you need to read the applicable pages. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you are right, it is a fundamental mistake to list a reference if you have not consulted it directly. But perhaps I did not make myself clear- my main point is that the key to referencing is to provide useful information (eg. page numbers) to those who might be reading your article or your writing, and want to investigate the subject further. And, very occasionally there are documents that for a variety of reasons, lack page numbers - in which case as a courtesy to readers, authors should provide whatever information might might be useful to assist readers in locating the relevant passage without going to a lot of trouble. BronHiggs (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, the article Ashur-dan II uses the ref five times and has no page numbers, but it's a 19-volume work. I added a link to our article on the work and a {{pages needed}} template to the ref. Using a ref to a massive work with no page number is like telling someone that your address is "Earth". -Arch dude (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bit hyperbolic. Such multi-volume works usually have indexes, and digital versions are often searchable. That being said, we should always encourage including detailed bibliographic information in references, including page numbers when applicable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have two other sources that I found using Google. One is a Wikia client here and the other is a history website here. Now they probably got their reign dates from Wikipedia's Ashur-dan II article, which leads to Cambridge Ancient History. But probably every online reference to Ashur-dan II's reign eventually leads back to the article in Wikipedia. WP is a tertiary source and we only require citations to go back to secondary sources like the two above, not primary sources as would be true in the volumes of Cambridge Ancient History. I think.

Unless someone has further objections, I will add the two sources as inline citations for Resettlement policy of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate name?

edit

I am a published playwright but there is already a Wikipedia page with the same name for a 17th century American. How do start a new page with same name for my own work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:2C1D:1800:20FF:CFFF:62D7:5F6D (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would very strongly recommend against creating an autobiography, or an article on something you have a personal connection to (see WP:COI). ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 12:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Macro to automatically add [[ ]]

edit

Hey there,

I can't help but think that there might be a macro or browser addon out there to help with editing/authoring. Is there a way to let a macro parse to a whole lot of article-to-be-text and add [[ ]] automatically (and only for the first occurrence) where a wikilink actually lands somewhere? Especially for a longer technical article this could be helpful. --AufdieSocks (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AufdieSocks: Unfortunately, this might add many links leading to articles that were not relevant to the text's topic! -- John of Reading (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see! But if it were to choose from a limited catalogue of 2-300 terms? Writing within the same themes, I often find myself linking to articles I frequently use, so a bit of time is lost while checking whether I did or didn't link to it previously already etc. This seems such an elementary time-saver that I'm not easy to convince that someone on the www didn't program it yet!--AufdieSocks (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nickj/Can We Link It did it but was shut down. I don't know a current tool. User:Edward/Find link does the opposite: Look for other articles which could add a link to a given article. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least you can use User:Ucucha/duplinks to highlight duplicate links that are already present in a page: Noyster (talk), 14:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you good sirs and madams!--AufdieSocks (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does one appeal an administrator's decision?

edit

Is there a hierarchy of admins such that one can appeal to an admin's "manager?" soibangla (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The answer depends on the type of the decision. There is not a hierarchy of admins, so the general process does not depend on finding somebody's boss. Please point us to the decision, and we can find the proper process for you. -Arch dude (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback/lockdown on Second Amendment article soibangla (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The handling by an admin of the content dispute is what I want to appeal, not the content dispute itself. The content dispute could/should have been resolved on Talk, but the admin chose to "go nuclear" and obliterate my very presence in the article by rolling back edits that were never in dispute. soibangla (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have already taken the first step in the process, which is discussing the reversion with the editor (who happens in this case to be an admin) who performed it. Since you have not yet received a reply and it has not even been 24 hours since you posted on that editor's Talk page, no request for dispute resolution will be entertained at this time. General Ization Talk 21:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was handled in a wholly inappropriate and unacceptable manner. If this was anywhere but WP, I would express my disappointment using considerably less polite terms. soibangla (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also it is clear from the editor's edit summary that what they were doing was reverting to the most recent version supported by consensus prior to what they determined was an edit war between you and another editor. This is standard procedure; an intervening editor or admin cannot always evaluate each and every edit made during an edit war to determine which should stay or which should go. General Ization Talk 22:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the rollback removed edits of mine from prior days that had never been challenged and had nothing to do with the current dispute, thus obliterating my entire history in the article. A reasonable person might wonder if a message was being sent: "get off our page." soibangla (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You also have the option of bringing up the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. However, beware the boomerang. Your posting there will by necessity trigger a thorough review of your editing behavior, and unless you are absolutely certain it is sterling (I make no judgment here), you may want to wait until you have thoroughly discussed the matter with the other editor on their Talk page. General Ization Talk 22:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, yet another "gotcha." It's fascinating how one editor can effectively throw another editor into a iron cage on a whim, then demand that editor leap backwards through rings of fire to prove his innocence, only to discover that their appeal can also be denied on a whim and/or bring retribution. I've been online for 35 years and I've encountered every known trolling technique, but this one is particularly amusing given the venue. soibangla (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you have been online for 35 years, you have no doubt during that time observed others shoot themselves in the foot. This has nothing to do with iron cages, whims, and trolling. Take the advice or don't. General Ization Talk 22:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, there are trolls on WP. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that you must notify the other editor(s) involved if you take an issue to WP:ANI. General Ization Talk 22:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Soibangla, your edits are still present in the edit history of the article. I suggest that you present your edits and your references on the article talk, page, with a request that they be added back to the article. In my opinion, your indignation is misplaced, and your characterization of the actions of an administrator is unfair. A calmer, more collaboratiive attitude is likely to lead to success. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My response to this event is entirely proportionate: My entire edit history in the article was obliterated, including edits that were never challenged and were not part of the dispute in question, and it was an absurdly disproportionate reaction to a routine dispute that could've been settled on Talk. soibangla (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where to go to ask for someone to take a 2nd look

edit

Hi.

I mainly do RC patrol, and occasionally I find something that looks suspicious or maybe problematic (I know where to ask for help if something looks serious0 and want a more experienced set of eyes to look at, is there a place to post a quick "hey can someone take a peak at this?" request

I have wondered this for awhile, and some recent edits on McMartin preschool trial are what is prompting this. please ping in replyTantraYum (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TantraYum Right where we are isn't a bad place for gaining attention, for matters where none of the editorial noticeboards seem to cover it. In this particular case I can see little of value in the activities of the other editor, who has been removing sourced content, adding unsourced content and editorial comment, and frequently using misleading edit summaries. If this pattern continues standard practice would be a post on the editor's talk page expressing your concerns. If this doesn't resolve it you may need to take the matter to ANI: Noyster (talk), 08:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noyster thanks! TantraYum (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bad-faith editor

edit

What should I do regarding an editor with whom I am in a content dispute, but who refuses to engage meaningful discussion on the matter? At Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, I am engaged in two discussions regarding some of the changes another editor wants to make to the article. I want to resolve the disputes, but the other editor now only makes mocking comments to whatever I say. Any suggestions are welcome. SMP0328. (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor to whom you refer. I have previously extensively engaged you in a sincere effort to resolve our dispute. I concluded that you were not acting in good faith, and I have good reason to wonder if your bringing this topic up here, only minutes after I had an extensive discussion about appealing the decision of a certain admin whom you had asked to lock the article, is a continued demonstration that you are not acting in good faith. It smacks of trolling. You and I have obviously reached an impasse in our negotiations, and I suggest that we both stand down until the article lock clears on June 1st. soibangla (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the fact that the article is protected for the next several days presents you and the other editor the perfect opportunity to discuss your differences of opinion about it on the article's Talk page without edit warring. Waiting until the protection expires and then resuming right where you both left off is not going to improve the situation in the least. General Ization Talk 23:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The immediate solution for "normalized relations" and continued negotiations is to restore my edits that were nuked for no reason, and to restore the edit that SMP0328 and I already reached agreement on. Do you actually think it's a coincidence he brought this topic up on this page just minutes after the previous thread? Do you think that's a "good faith" action? It reeks of trolling, just like I told you. He just proved it. That does not give me confidence that he is acting in good faith in this dispute, in addition to a number of other things he's said on Talk, and now he's actually here whining (trolling!) that I'm being a meanie. This is all just too funny. soibangla (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know you were talking to that admin. BTW, I didn't ask that specific admin. I asked for full protection and that admin is who responded. I'm not trolling you. I don't even disagree with all of your edit to the 2A article. I want to reach a compromise, but you have stopped giving me constructive feedback (e.g., "HA HA HA"). My worry is that once the full protection expires, you will restore the disputed edits and we will be back at square one. SMP0328. (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what else to do but HAHAHA! to someone who asserts s/he's only being reasonable after I provided 12 reliable sources that overwhelmingly establish that Warren Burger was a conservative, yet you blithely shrug it off and say it still seems subjective to you. And that was after you asserted that I was injecting bias into the article when in reality I was removing pre-existing bias that perhaps you preferred. And now you're here pulling this stunt. I mean, come on, do you actually expect me to take you seriously at this point? soibangla (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your question here, and it's timing, gives me very good reason to suspect you are attempting to bait me into a violation to get me blocked. soibangla (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please note my comment above: on the article's Talk page . This discussion belongs there or on one or the other of your Talk pages, or you (either of you) can take other actions that have been suggested above. But this Help Desk is definitely not the the place for mutual airing of grievances. Please move it to one place or the other. General Ization Talk 23:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree, this thread was a trolling stunt. soibangla (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2018_May_26&oldid=843582338"