Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 September 9

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 9

Table cleanup

Hello hardworking help deskers! I'm not very good with tables. They hurt my head. Can someone more inclined please take a look at Naagin_(TV_series)#International_broadcast_and_dubbed_versions this table and adjust the rowspans accordingly so we don't get the Season 3 danglers? Much obliged, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Done. GhostOrchid35 (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, GhostOrchid35! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42

I am trying to review Draft:ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42. However, I am finding that the name causes it to behave oddly because the slashes designate subpages. So I tried taking out the slashes to try to move it to Draft:ISO IEC JTC 1 SC 42. That move tells me that the title is on the Title Blacklist. I see that the Title Blacklist actually consists mostly of a series of regular expressions, and, based on past experience, the problem is likely that the title contains too many upper case letters. What is a form of the title that won't have subpages, which are a complication, and won't violate the rule about capital letters in title? Making ISO, IEC, or JTC into title case would be wrong, for instance. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The slashes are (apparently) not a problem in the article namespace: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Forward slashes and periods. I'm not sure about the Draft namespace. If you end up with a subpage of a subpage in draft space, it should be movable into mainspace, but whoever moves it will need to be aware of the situation. -Arch dude (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

How to submit a preliminary partial protest to a WP:Prod to "Gunkies"

I (too, as per subsequent to WP:Prod citation) found the Wiki discussed by the article to be useful. I'd guess that I hesitated adding it to the List-of-Wikis article, at least in part, due to the unusual name "Gunkies." The CHWiki name (Computer History Wiki) is only a secondary name. Question, can I ask for an impartial opinion re "Does my article, especially since I've added to it since the WP:Prod, stand a better chance if renamed to "CHWiki Computer History Wiki" or somesuch similar name?"
P.S. I worked on the FOLDOC article some time ago, but _it_ seems to have more backing in Academia. This Wiki is more for hobbyists and for people who want to write their technical memoirs, even though I found it to be great in researching to edit a Wikipedia article about an "older" operating system. It helped, even though I then had to source the info. Pi314m (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Pi314m: You contest a prod simply by removing the prod notice. See WP:PROD. If the editor who added the notice wishes to proceed, they must use the full afd process (WP:AFD). I suppose a "preliminary protest" would be a discussion on the article's talk page addressing the points in the prod. Be sure to notify the other editor. -Arch dude (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Does your reply mean that the statement below re "speedy deletion" was somehow inappropriate, and that my removing of the WP_PROD would escalate to a discussion with _NO_ speedy delete (where nothing is wrong viz. re Biography of Living Person, Slander, etc.) Saying that removing the "proposed" header simply escalate to discussion would be fine, but saying that "speedy delete" is an option of the proposer seems, to put it mildly, unnecessarily "threatening."

QUOTE Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process(emphasis added) can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. endQUOTE Pi314m (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Pi314m: No. In general, "speedy" is used only when there is no doubt that the article must be removed, based on very specific criteria. "Prod" is used when one editor thinks an article should be deleted, but it leaves the issue open for 7 days to allow for discussion. "AFD" is the process for a formal discussion. To go from "prod" to "speedy", an editor would need to decide that the original "prod" was not strong enough, that the article meets one of the "speedy" criteria, and that they made a mistake in the first place. This would be unusual. The article in question here is nowhere near meeting any of the "speedy" criteria. -Arch dude (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Lupton family

in the section titled William's descendants, after the link on Headingley Castle, there is a strange symbol at the end of the word castle. Should this strange symbol be removed? Please d o so if this is a typo. Thankyou175.32.106.109 (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a stray bracket. Removed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm a new user on English Wikipedia that previously contributed on other projects.

Are people other than English speaker eligible to edit on here? - PlavorSeol | T | C 09:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

On en-WP, we write the articles and communicate in English, so you have to be able to do that at a reasonable level. Wether or not English is your first language doesn't matter at all. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@PlavorSeol: If you think something should be changed but you think your English skills are not adequate, make a suggestion in a new section on the talk page of the article and ask for help on the wording. If you add {{request edit}} (with the curly braces) to the section, another editor will fix your wording and make the edit. If you wish to add a new article, create is as a draft and ask for help as outlined at your first article. -Arch dude (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I want to change my Wikipedia username

I want to change my Wikipedia username — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjamukesh (talk • contribs) 11:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Changing username. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you confess old nonconstructive sockpuppets that have not been used in years without being punished?

Hello, I was just curious on what would happen if this possible scenario played out: Someone used to have sockpuppets, which has been edited in an nonconstructive way, and they get banned. One year later, they make a new account but edit constructively, getting user permissions and not vandalising. Is there any that user could confess his past sock puppets, and not get banned? Thank you. The Duke ^{Talk page, please ping me anywhere else.} 17:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You have asked this question before. Are you sure this is hypothetical? Bradv 17:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

::@Bradv: I asked that nearly a year ago and I was only wondering what would happen if the scenario took place. The Duke ^{Talk page, please ping me anywhere else.} 18:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bradv: In fact, that request was not hypothetical. I am the same user as User:HowToDoLife, User:HowToDriveACar and User:Sir Jimmy Wikipedia, CBE and I apologise for my previous vandalism. Things have moved on though. I now write articles, participate in WP:AFC, review new pages, also participate in requested moves, and many other things. And, the last time I vandalized anything was nearly 2 years ago and I no longer vandalize now. I know you're not an admin, but if anyone reading is, please consider not blocking me, as I have learnt my lesson and have moved on. Thank you. The Duke ^{Talk page, please ping me anywhere else.} 21:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

There's Wikipedia:Clean start which may be applicable. I suppose it depends on the quality of both vandalism and subsequent edits. Clean Start also says:

Users who may not have a clean start

Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions imposed (including, but not limited to, those listed here); or is currently or about to be formally discussed for their conduct (such as at an administrative noticeboard or in an open case with the Arbitration Committee); or is attempting to evade scrutiny, may not have a clean start.

Do any previous accounts meet that criteria? Although announcing your previous accounts on a high volume noticeboard is hardly avoiding scrutiny. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@The Duke of Nonsense: For years I dealt with a persistent sock operator who was a real pain in the ass. But at some point I got the sense that the teen legitimately wanted to contribute constructively. I made him a deal that if he took the Standard Offer (go six months without socking), I would strongly consider unblocking his original account. I might have even only asked him to stop for 3 months... I can't remember. He kept his end of the bargain and I unblocked him, and he then legitimately sought a clean start and had his account renamed. As far as I know, he's been constructive ever since, although school may have started occupying his time. Anyway, that's the best way to do it. And honesty is always the best policy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Template import steps

how to template importing steps. Lokesha kunchadka (talk • contribs) 17:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

What template do you want to import? Ruslik_Zero 20:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Using the Search box and limit results to not include redirects

I'm trying to do is search using "intitle:" but I wish to only to get actual article titles and not redirects. I tried searching for information at Help:Searching, but couldn't find any. Hope someone here can help me out. Thanks. --Gonnym (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Change the title of an article

Hello - I am the associate producer of a new film. Someone created a page for the film (not us), but entered the wrong title. According to WikiHow, there is no way to change the title if there is no "More" tab at the top of the article, which takes you to the "Move" option. Any way I can submit this change? Thanks for any help.

Here is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene_(film)

The full title should be Anthropocene: The Human Epoch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BonjourNadia (talk • contribs) 18:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi BonjourNadia, the reason you don't see the 'More' option that would let you move the article is that you're not WP:autoconfirmed, because you're so new. Since you're involved with the film, it's best not to edit it directly anyway (WP:COI) and I see you've mentioned this move on the article talk page, which is exactly the right thing to do. Since this does seem to be the usual name for the film, I'll make the move for you. › Mortee _talk 19:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Mortee! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BonjourNadia (talk • contribs) 22:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Respelling entry name/URL

Hi there, I'm editing a new entry for a composer but somehow ended up with their surname without a capital letter. I would like to capitalise their surname, but is there a way of doing this without redoing the whole page on the correct URL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpharris (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I have moved Draft:Alexandra harwood to Draft:Alexandra Harwood but in any case when you submit the draft for review if the reviewer decides to publish the article they would normally correct the title at that stage. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Many, many thanks. That's a great insight to know in the publishing process. --Lpharris

How to cite the ref for the Uk National Archives document.

What would be the appropriate property for a doc reference in the UK National Archives, using cite web. This is an example of the the ref:[1]. Or is there a specific cite, like cite doc. scope_creep (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

How about the template {{UK National Archives ID}}? If that does not suit, perhaps you could get more specific guidance at Wikipedia:GLAM/The National Archives. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Very cool. Thanks very much. Gronk Oz. scope_creep (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

St Pauls Symonds Street Auckland New Zealand

St Paul's Church, Auckland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. There is some information on the above Wiki page that is factually incorrect. The below paragraph is not correct. It refers to a period where my recently deceased father was vicar and is not correct at all. If it mentioned his name i would be taking legal action as it would defamatory. St Pauls is rewriting the history next year and my brother and I will be talking to them so they can write an accurate history (the person who wrote this is not accurate at all with what they have written). There are details in your article besides the below that are factually incomplete or incorrect. Below the paragraph that need sot be deleted due to being factually incorrect. Thank you.

In the 1970s, the Anglo-Catholicism that had provided the theological framework spiritual and social justice revival of the 50s and 60s at St Paul’s "dissolved into a bundle of conflicting theologies without strong leadership or good biblical teaching". During the 1980s and 1990s "the young congregants of the previous period moved away or lost their faith", although a remnant of Anglo-Catholics remained loyal to the church that had supported them for nearly 100 years.[7][10] At this time a Friday night gospel service was established which became an outreach to immigrant families and students from Asian countries. The group still meets weekly at St Paul’s today.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.142.79 (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Is the paragraph misrepresentative of the three cited sources, or are you saying that the sources (one of which appears to come from the church) have issues? —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see our policy on legal threats and our policy about people closely related to the subject editing articles. What is incorrect in that article? LittlePuppers (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia operates as a chaotic collection of random volunteers. These volunteer editors get information from published reliable sources and place that information into our articles, together with references to the sources. This information is verifiable (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). It may or not be true: we have no method of determining truth. When you see a referenced statement in Wikipedia (or indeed in most publications) you should mentally add the words "the reference assserts that..." prior to the statement. Like all other encyclopedias, we don't explicitly add that wording because it would make all of our articles harder to read. If you have information from a better source, please place that information, and a reference to that source, into the talk page of the article (Talk:St Paul's Church, Auckland), and another editor will come along and fix the article. We will not remove information referenced to a published reliable source. We will not change the article based solely on your assertion that the source is incorrect. -Arch dude (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. You have not indicated which parts you think are wrong, nor what the CORRECT information would be. Please be specific, and provide appropriate reliable sources for your claims. ("Because I said so" is not generally considered sufficient.) Where are you getting your information from, so we can compare it to the sources that provided the information that is there now.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Just for reference, the IP's post seems to be related to what is mentioned in Talk:St Paul's Church, Auckland#Copyright history: FYI, the paragraph deleted twice by 81.141.100.111 was done by the daughter of a recently deceased vicar who took personal offence to Kate's published history. Another person challenged this section a number of years ago. We asked for reliable source information that showed Kate's history was incorrect. They weren't able to provide anything. Out of respect, St Paul's have removed the paragraph from the website while it's being reviewed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)