Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 November 13

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.

November 13

IHS Markit: TALK says PROD, article has In_Use/7 days no activity, but no AfD

There are two issues regarding IHS Markit, each involving a different fellow editor:

• PROD tag on Talk, but no AfD
• In Use, but no activity for seven days.

I could just take off the In use but that would be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I don't see this as a crisis-level/ANI, but . . . this needs some intervention. Thanks.

A PROD does not require (and should not have) an AFD. It's a short form of deletion for what is believed to be a non controversial case that does require an AFD. In this case the concerns were addressed and the PROD was removed by user:DGG on Nov 1. Teh tal kpage notice is just a notice that the article was prodded, which means that it cannot be prodded again.

I will remove the under construction tag since significant work was done since it was added, and no-one is currently active on it. Meters (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

And it was an "Under Construction" tag, not an "In Use" tag. No objection of course if someone still intends to work on it and wants to restore the Under Construction Meters (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref

@Son of swamy 169:. When you request help with a reference, please provide the page you are having trouble with. RudolfRed (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Bill Taylor

My question to you just like it was to Google. Why have you hidden this man's political party, William Taylor. I want to know if he's a democtat, we know he's an Obama hold over. Why must you sanitize everything that is anti-republican like Google does. People like you are destroying this country. Facebook, Google & Wikipedia. Your misinformation you give is what's wrong today in America. Like the media in their articles, fail to give the political affiliation with all of these whistleblowers and these people going against our president for political purposes. Just to destroy this country when he's done nothing wrong but better this nation... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.215.219.115 (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, but WHAT? TheAwesomeHwyh 02:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

We have a lot of articles about different William Taylors. Which article are you asking about? RudolfRed (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Ehm... Which one? There are a lot of them. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I suspect the IP refers to William B. Taylor Jr. Wikipedia is not a political platform. We present subjects neutrally, with reliable sources. In regards to the Bill Taylor I linked, we do not list his political party because he is not a politician and reliable sources did not mention his political affiliation. He seems to be a career diplomat, and not an elected official, and thus his political affiliation was not relevant. We do not change articles to help or hurt any particular politician, and try very hard to ensure articles are neutral and complete. We are all volunteers, and may have missed something however. If you think something is incorrect or missing, you are welcome to propose changes to the article on its talk page, keeping in mind that any additions must have a reliable source to back them up. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Counting contributions

How can I tell how many contributions I've made, other than by going back and back in time over my Contributions page, 500 contributions at a time, and counting the clicks? Since I have been on Wikipedia over 14 years, that would be pretty excessive. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. I just found #Number of contributions, above. --Thnidu (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

​There's also this userscript which you can install, it shows the edit count of users when you visit their userpage. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Approval of Wikipedia article

To whomsoever this concerns,

I have created and formatted an article in the Wikipedia sandbox. When can I expect the article to show up in the Wikipedia search, and thereby in a simple Google search? What is the process for creating the article under a specific topic, if I haven't managed to do so already? Please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lodha Luxury (talk • contribs) 05:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lodha Luxury: Before we can go any further, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make any necessary disclosures. The latter page is mandatory where applicable, under Wikipedia's terms of use. The sandbox article you have created will need to be submitted for review, be approved and moved to mainspace before it can be indexed by search engines. Some useful links have been left at your talk page, please study them carefully and please note that Wikipedia reports on what has been written about a subject in multiple independent reliable sources (see the notability guidelines) and it is not a site where promotional content is acceptable. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Transferring image from one language wiki to another

Hello fine helpdesk volunteers, I need some help with an image-related query. There is an image on the Javanese wikipedia which doesn't seem to be located on Wikimedia Commons. I would like to be able to use this image in the English equivalent of the Javanese article, how can I transfer the image? werewolf (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: You will need to upload it here at WP:UPLOAD, if it meets all of the criteria at WP:NFCC. Unless it is a freely licensed image, and in that case, you should upload it to commons at that same link. RudolfRed (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Which image? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. @RudolfRed:, I don't have the file on my computer, it is on the Javanese Wikipedia but I don't know where it is stored, so how can I upload it? @PrimeHunter:, the photo is on this page: jv:Steven William. werewolf (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: You will need to determine the license on that image. It has a green (c) symbol which may mean it is licensed freely, but I'm not sure. We don't allow non-free images of living people on English Wikipedia. If you determine that it is freely licensed, then you can save a copy to your computer then upload it to commons. RudolfRed (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't even think to save the image to my computer. D'oh! Thanks for the help! werewolf (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: You uploaded commons:File:Steven william.jpg without required license information. jv:File:Steven william.jpg displays jv:Template:Kapanlagi.com which according to Google Translate says: "This image is copyrighted and is from any kapanlagi.com. Use of images from this site is permitted to be used on Wikipedia by redirecting the site www.kapanlagi.com". "redirecting" should probably be translated as "linking" and any copy at other wikis should at a minimum link to kapanlagi.com. But https://company.kapanlagi.com/tos/ includes according to Google Translate: "User agrees not to reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, trade, resell, or otherwise use for commercial purposes any of the materials contained in the KapanLagi.com™ service, without the prior written consent of KapanLagi.com™". Wikipedia allows commercial reuse of images we host. I don't know Javanese and may be missing something but jv:Template:Kapanlagi.com looks very problematic, also for use in the Javanese Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Right, I see the problem. I think I assumed that the green (c) symbol made it safe to use. Would you recommend removing the image from the English Wikipedia page? werewolf (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: Yes, unless there is more convincing license information somewhere. It has been marked as a copyright violation at Commons and will probably be deleted there anyway. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha, I will go ahead and do that then, thanks. werewolf (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Pageview Statistics for Bible

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been looking at page viewing statistics for some articles, and I would like to know if someone with knowledge of On 5 March 2019, it was 4326. Starting on 6 March 2019, I see 55,573 pageviews. By the way, that was Ash Wednesday. On 15 April 2019, I see 284,992 pageviews. That wasn't Easter, by the way. Easter was 21 April 2019, and was 256,054 pageviews. The pageview metrics drop off in May 2019, but then fluctuate between thousands of pageviews and hundreds of thousands of pageviews. How confident can we be that there really is a weirdly fluctuating demand for viewing of the Bible article? Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

IMHO, the reported values are not at all plausible. Maproom (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Maproom. Is there a trouble ticketing system, such as Phabricator, for reporting the issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I could make some sort of philosophical joke about a use-mention distinction or the difference between the symbol and the thing symbolized, except that on a given day, the number of readers who read the Bible is not in the hundreds of thousands, but the hundreds of millions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

In the year 2018, the daily viewing metrics are: 3800 average daily pageviews , and I find them consistent with other commonly read articles.

In the year 2017, we see an average of 4177 daily pageviews, and I believe that. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to ping a few other editors who sometimes work with pageview metrics in deletion discussions and for other reasons. Since there isn't a deletion discussion, I think that I am not canvassing, but just requesting some informed consultation on a strange technical matter. User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Mark Schierbecker, User:Newshunter12: Can you please take a look at these pageview metrics for the article on the Bible? I think that a few thousand readers view the main article a day, and that the figures through 5 March 2019 are plausible. (We don't have a way of counting how many readers read the Bible on a given day, or listen to it being read in a given week.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Comparison with other pages showing the view counter wasn't just broken or had changed. Don't see any major news coverage relating to the Bible spanning March/April 2019. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Looks to me like there is something v weird going on with the 2019 figures.

I suggest raising this at WP:VPT, where there seems to be lots of knowledgeable technie people who in my experience respond quickly and helpfully to a well-constructed query on even obscure issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of an Article

Hello,

Could I kindly ask that an article is deleted as it is inaccurate and duplicates information.

The article page is called "RAF Worthy Down". I am a member of the organisation and have been asked to rectify this issue by the head of the organisation.

The two articles which contain accurate information are "Worthy Down Barracks" and "UK Defence College of Policing and Administration". Please note the second article was recently submitted and is still under review.

Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.13.50.184 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

If you are aware of inaccuracies at RAF Worthy Down, you should give details at its talk page, preferably with citations that support your claims. Then the article can be corrected. Wikipedia does not delete articles just because someone doesn't like them. Maproom (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

T.R.Barathkumaar

Hello Sir, I have written an article in Wikipedia. It has been rejected several times but the article is true and not promoted someone else. That Content Contains only True Facts. What can i do to make it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barathkumaar (talk • contribs) 15:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Barathkumaar is using wikipedia as a soapbox and engaging in sockpuppetry. Not worth the time. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Rejection of my submission

Daer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheAwesomeHwyh, I don't understand the decision that my contribution is advertising.

description of changes

If I see it correctly, I have made three insertions. One is a factual description of a new technology in the field of Airborne Wind Energy. My quote: Crosswind Technology “With X-Wind technology, automatically controlled kites pull current-producing ground vehicles on an oval track.” What is the difference to: Carousel generator The “Carousel” configuration several kites fly at a constant height and higher altitudes, pulling in rotation a generator that moves on a wide circular rail. For a large Carousel system, the power obtained can be calculated as of the order of GW, exposing a law that see the power attainable as a function of the diameter raised to the fifth power, while the increment of cost of the generator is linear. The second change was the insertion of a literature source of a scientific book, edited by 3 renowned scientists of the article with over 60 authors of the industry and appeared in one of the most serious science publishers worldwide. The third insertion was the web address of a company working in the field of the article. This insertion has only completed the list of all other existing actors.

I cannot see to what extent these contributions should have been advertising. I ask for a factual explanation of the decision instead of a blanket rejection.

Many thanks in advance

Uwe Ahrens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwe Ahrens (talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Uwe Ahrens:Please discuss this with the editor who reverted it, on the article's talk page (ping the editor) or on the editor's talk page. It you cannot come to an agreement, then proceed to WP:DISPUTE. -Arch dude (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Help with User Page Formatting

Hey guys, I normally consider myself pretty good at editing Wikipedia but I have no clue how to fix the formatting on my user page. I'm trying to put my "Medal Record" floating, pinned to the left, the image of the USS Atlantis in the center of the page, and different collapsible tables pinned to the right, one on top of the other. No matter what I do, it seems like the two tables on the right end up messed up. I will be eternally grateful to anyone who can figure out what I'm doing wrong. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually your Medal Records are on the right and collapsible boxes on left. So, please, clarify. Ruslik_Zero 17:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You're correct, I had it mixed up in my original post. I'm trying to get the collapsibles one on top of the other on the left, the medal record on the right, and the image in the center. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 18:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Patreon

What are the policies about monetization? I have been thinking about getting a patreon to help support my editing on wiki, as well as my projects on archive.org and the online books page. Is using a patreon for my editing on wikipedia allowed?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Bellerophon5685, See WP:PAID MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

​It is fine if you're open about it and follow the COI guidelines. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

How exactly am I supposed to be open about it? Will a note on profile page be sufficient or do I need to mention it on the talk page of each article I write?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

​A note on your userpage is sufficient. Since it's mostly paid advocacy that other editors tend to dislike, you might like to add "I reject payment to edit or advocate on anyone's behalf" like Czar does. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

How to do multiple independent edits

There are two approaches to making a change that can be separated into multiple edits which are independent from each other. It can also be applied as one edit.

What is the preferred method in Wikipedia?

An example is a change that replaces an incorrect statement by a correct statement. Assuming the article is consistent after only removing the incorrect statement, doing so is a valid edit that solves the problem that the page was incorrect. It could be done alone, adding the replacement in a separate edit. Both could also be done in one edit.

Other examples are making a change in orthography while making a change in meaning, or adding content to multiple independent paragraphs. The latter could create a potentially long sequence of edits of the same person.

The use of separate edits has the advantage of preserving semantic structure, allowing separate reverts, and motivating much stronger to comment on every change in the publishing comments, rather than commenting it in summary.

Is there an established consensus which is preferred? If not, what is the advice to chose between them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volker Siegel (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Volker Siegel: It is preferred to do several smaller edits instead of one larger edit. RudolfRed (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It's really just up to you. In your first example, I'd say replacing with the correct statement in one edit would be preferable. In your second example, expanding on multiple paragraphs at once is also fine to do in a single edit. Potentially contentious edits might be better to do in several well explained edits. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Þjarkur: Perfect, thanks! That is exactly what I would think is best! Is it documented in some howto? (I did not find it) I see it as very relevant. Commonly doing it like that would create a substantial increase in information content of the metadata of Wikipedia. As a computer scientist, I see that on the background of managing program source code and related files. A large part of that is that it causes a very large increase in documentation of the separate changes. I found that for me, and see reasons to expect it to be the case for others: When publishing a small, self contained change, it is easy to write a short comment describing it. It may even be available in the short term memory. And it is a conceptual thing. It does not feel like a great effort to write a short comment in the process of publishing. A comment for a multi part change involve the long term memory, and I typically do not feel motivated to iterate all changes and often comment from the short term memory plus some incomplete summary of all other points. Volker Siegel (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this page CSD-worthy?

Came across this page. I was going to tag it with G10 but I wasn't sure if this was an attack page or something that wasn't quite that. Could anyone else offer their opinion? Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Zupotachyon: Yes, it is G10 or G2. Go ahead and tag it. RudolfRed (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Page on the Hayes & Harlington Parliamentary Constituency

I am logged as The Brexit Party candidate for the upcoming general election

I have never been affiliated with or a member of The Brexit Party

Please remove my name from this article

Thank you

Cliff Dixon

Page link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayes_and_Harlington_(UK_Parliament_constituency) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.40.127 (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

If you're not the Cliff Dixon who is contesting the election (and has contested the last 2 elections in that constituency), then it's of no relevance to you. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Cliff Dixon contested the last 2 elections for UKIP. The post is about the claim that he is contesting the next election for the Brexit Party. It was unsourced and goes against a source [1] saying Elizabeth Oyedoyin Babade. I have changed the Brexit Party candidate and added the source.[2] Thanks for telling us. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

True. Sorry about my mistaken reply which I've struck out. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

He did cause some confusion by saying "Please remove my name from this article". The name appeared as a candidate in four elections and only one of them was wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

How should I fix a missing population number in this Caribbean Netherlands article?

After this revision the population is missing from Caribbean Netherlands. In the Legal Status section, the text reads "The population of the Caribbean Netherlands is .". How can this be fixed? The population is present in the sidebar. Thanks! --Martinship (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

​Fixed, the name didn't match the one used in Template:UN Population – Thjarkur (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

​Thanks! --Martinship (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

editing

hi im trying to to edit a wikipedia article for my class and when i was editing a couple days ago i was able to hit the edit button on the top right of the article and edit it directly and now its only letting me edit the source code and i dont know how to change it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slovett23 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

​Go to Preferences > Editing > Editing mode > Show me both editor tabs. Then clicking on "Edit" should open up the Visual Editor. You can also switch between the source code editor and the visual editor by clicking on the pencil icon in the top right corner of the source code editor. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

thanks!--