Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 September 17

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.

September 17

Laird

On top of the photo of Kinnaird Castle - there is a column of 4 dots. I cannot remove them and they look wrong. Please repair of able. Thanks 203.132.68.1 (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Now, the photo is fixed. //nepaxt 00:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Joan Lindsay

Ref number 2 is in red - I have attempted to add "known as Lady Lindsay" into the introduction and also info box with the reference from Lindsay's entry from the official Australian Dictionary of Biographies text - http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/lindsay-joan-a-beckett-14176 - in which she is indeed referred to as "Lady Lindsay". Please repair the reference (number 2) itself. Thanks 203.132.68.1 (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Hello. As has been told to you multiple times before, if you cause such errors by your own edits – as you did in this case by this edit (where you seem to strangely, and apparently deliberately, name your added reference with the same name as another past reference) – you should undo your edits and then request assistance. Additionally, the error was clearly documented in the error message, which said "tag; name "oneill" defined multiple times with different content ". If you find it hard to understand simple statements like this, then please don't come here without undoing your edits first. Lastly, I have this growing feeling that you are continuing to edit without logging in because you want to avoid your disruptive edits being connected. Please note the warning message that I had left on your account's talk page and please don't edit while logged out for such a reason. Thanks, Lourdes 05:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How do i create a biography for the public to see?

hello,How can I submit an artist biography , and photographs for the world to be able to access. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoniobreez (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Antoniobreez: Welcome. Instructions are at your first article. NOTE CAREFULLY: the subject must be notable, by our definition, not yours. See WP:NOTABLE. Really. We mean it. If you try to write create an article on a non-notable subject, it will be deleted, and you will be frustrated. If you are the subject, read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. If you are associated witht he subject, read WP:COI. If you are paid (or compensated in any way) by the subject, read WP:PAID. If all of this is too confusing, come on back and ask for help. Good luck! -Arch dude (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Antioniobreez. Many people have the wrong idea that Wikipedia is a place to tell the world about themselves, or about something important to them. It is not, and attempts to use it for that purpose usually lead to a lot of frustration for all parties. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: its purpose is to summarise information which has already been told to the world. --ColinFine (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Easy Tagging of Articles with Twinkle ?

Is there an easy way that I can put tags, such as notability tags, on articles, perhaps with Twinkle, perhaps with a menu? If an article has not yet been reviewed, then the New Page Reviewer sidebar permits me to put a notability tag, a tag about references, a copy-edit tag, or a concern about the lede sentence, using a menu. If the article has already been reviewed, I know that I can edit the article and insert the tag, in braces, but that requires that I know what the appropriate tag is. If I can't do this with a menu, then a crib sheet that I can view in a separate window or copy to my C: drive would help. Is there a less cumbersome way to tag existing articles than to look up or memorize all of the codes in curly braces? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes Robert, Twinkle allows you to insert various maintenance tags quite easily, without having to remember the codes. Warmly, Lourdes 05:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Lourdes - Okay. Now I see it as 'tag' when a draft or article is displayed. Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Getting a sample of Wikipedians

Hi. For a small thing I'm working on, I need to get a small sample of (say, 20 to 50) reasonably active (say > 5 edits / month, or at least 1000 edits in total) Wikipedians. I can weed out obvious newbies and so forth myself. How would I go about getting such a sample? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Kingsindian, hello. One way could be to see the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits#1–1000 and see who all are currently active, and write an email to them directly. Lourdes 11:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Misha cross, legal and confidential info displayed without my consent.

Please erase my legal name and last name as well as early life info from the article „misha cross”. this information is strictly confidential and displayed without my approval. We have RODO you can face legal issues regarding this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.160.21.9 (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I have removed your name from the article, as it is not in the source cited. Maproom (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@185.160.21.9: You should remove your threat of legal action, or you will likely be blocked from editing per Wikipedia's policy on legal threats. TeraTIX 13:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How can I merge many citations into one ref?

Ok, here is what I would like to do: In Anarchism, oldid=859932300, there is this sentence: "Zhuangzi's philosophy has been described by various sources as anarchist" followed by four refs (44,45,46,47). I would like to merge all these refs into one, using shortened footnotes. I would like it to appear as ref.11 of the same article. Is it possible? Should I ask here? Thanks for the answers Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It would be possible. But it's not clear why you think it would be an improvement. Maproom (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Maproom thanks for the respond. Coz short-footnotes makes an article easier to edit, plus it summurizes the bibliography at the end of the article which is kind of helpful in many ways. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Shortened footnotes are most useful when one giant article is based on three of four refs, each of those a 1500-page book, and the many footnotes are actually different pages of the same book; not when you have conceptually separate refs, as it is the case in the exemple you give. Also, I doubt having four refs instead of one footnote greatly improves reading where the footnote is located. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks TigraanΤζερόνυμο (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

John Mogg (British Army officer)

Please restore pages to last version by Editor eaglash - there appears to be a problem with removal of text. Thanks175.33.45.21 (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for reporting it. Maproom (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

New Page Creation

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I have been trying to create a new Wikipedia page for Rakesh Khanna, MD & CEO, Orient Electric Limited. The draft URL is as follows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Rakesh_Khanna&oldid=859175427

Reference sources: 1, 2, 3, 4

This is to note that there is already a Wikipedia page for some other person of the same name. The page I have created is not going Live and I am seeking your assistance in this case.

regards, hitithard100 Naveen Kumar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitithard100 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hitithard100: The draft has not been formally submitted for review. I would suggest that you not do so at this time, as it is unlikely to be accepted. The draft does little more than state that the person exists, much like a social media page. The two sources offered are routine announcements that only mention the person. To merit an article on Wikipedia, the person must have significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen to write about him(and not merely publish a press release or basic annoucement). Please review the notability guidelines for biographies for more information. Please also understand that not every businessperson merits an article here, even within the same field. Each article is judged on its own merits. See WP:OSE. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony Whelan page

Dear PeeJay2K3 In the company of Tony Whelan at his home I edited his wikipedia biography both to update his profile and amend incorrect information on 14 September, 2018. You later decided to delete all this new information saying no sources were cited. In fact sources were already cited which verifies this information. Also, given your commitment to displaying misleading information about Tony Whelan - such as the details of his doctorate - it appears you have not checked the sources you cite. Please would you allow the new information to be displayed. Tony Whelan himself provided all the information yet it seems you feel you know his life better? Sincerely Phil Vasili — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil vasili (talk • contribs) 10:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Phil vasili: If you want to address a specific user, you should post to their user talk page. If you are working with the subject of the article, you need to formally declare your conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Phil vasili: Please discuss this on the article's talk page. Please assume good faith (WP:AGF): the other editor is as interested as you are in improving the encyclopedia, so if you point out the discrepancies with cited sources, the other editor and you can reach a consensus. You will need to find published sources for all of your information and cite them, because we do not accept original research (WP:OR). That's because we have no way to know that you are who you say you are or that you actually talked to Tony, and no interest in verifying it since we do not have the resources to spend on that: it's just not the way Wikipedia works. -Arch dude (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for an update of size calculations for splitting an article

The "rule of thumb" listed in Wikipedia:Article size for splitting an article has not changed since 2008 (at least). Is it possible to update these values? because I feel that many good articles (therefore long) are unnecessarily split by following this rule, thus reducing Wikipedia's readability. Nowadays, articles are significantly lengthened by the increased use of citations (many articles have hundreds of citations, often with external links). Browsers have made significant progress in ten years and can display such large pages; I think it is time for a change. Values in the scale should be at least doubled imo. Another way to improve this rule would be to exclude citations/references from the calculation.

Not sure I'm in the right place for this request though, if so, can anyone send it to the right person (like a bureaucrat)? Thanks--T8612 14:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@T8612: Guidelines are changed by consensus among editors, not by bureaucrats. Raise this issue on the guideline's talk page (Wikipedia talk:Article size). If this does not attract attention, you could in theory just change the guideline, but I think you sould first ask for input at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). -Arch dude (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I have done that, here. T8612 19:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

On n'est pas couché

Hi,

I just heavily edited On n'est pas couché but I'm not sure it is all written according to WP style (the table is fine, just the introduction). I don't know, a weird feeling I have. Can someone check it out?

Thanks.

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. see my comment on the talk page. -Arch dude (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Repeatedly correcting misinformation on a page + now can't seem to edit

Hello, through the years I have been checking in on the page about the acting teacher and artist Stella Adler. I make factual corrections and link to sources whenever possible. But misinformation is consistently posted over my corrections. Now I would like to make some factual corrections but I seem to not have the right approval. What can I do? Alternatively I'd be happy to provide the corrections if you'd like to make them on your side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackInk123 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have successfully edited the page after posting here. If there is a disagreement over content, please discuss it on the talk page of the article. Do you have some connection with the subject? If so, then please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. Dbfirs 20:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Wrong interwiki link?

Hello, Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System is linked to German Watchlist. However, in Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System the word "watchlist" does not even occur once! Moreover, the disambiguation Watchlist here links to Terrorist Screening Database, among other things, which I thought could be relevant for the aforesaid interwiki link. However, "Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System" it is not included in the list within Terrorist Screening Database either.--Neufund (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Neufund. The term "watchlist" does appear twice in the article, in the second and last line of the article. Post your suggestion, I've added links to the said article within Terrorist Screening Database and the disambiguation Watchlist. Thanks, Lourdes 22:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Yes, of course, you're absolutely right – I'm sorry for my mistake! However, I'm still not sure whether that is the right interwiki link ... What do you think?--Neufund (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not that well-versed with the topic so might not be the best responder. Why don't you open up a discussion the article's talk page specifically with respect to the interwiki link? Thanks, Lourdes 09:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

More opinions?--Neufund (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)