Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 August 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.

August 17

Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

Ref 143 is wrong, I put the page number in the wrong place. Please leave in the quotes from this old newspaper article. Sorry. Thanks 175.33.139.143 (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. (You had put "page 9" instead of "page=9".) Maproom (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

IP.143: I don't understand why, if you knew what was wrong ("I put the page number in the wrong place"), you could not fix it. Same story, different day. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

How do I report broken links?

For Henry VII, Elizabeth of York, and Henry VIII, in the Quick Facts box, the link for additional issue does not give a complete list of the person's issue, but rather opens a box referring you to the same article you're already in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plculver (talk • contribs) 06:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Plculver: In Henry VII of England, in the infobox, clicking on the "more..." under "Issue" links to Henry VII of England#Henry's and Elizabeth's children, which is section 6 in the table of contents. It correctly scrolls to that section on (desktop) Firefox and Chrome. Are you maybe using the mobile app? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Minor edit

Hi

I changed the name of the Principal at the College but the change is still not being shown?

Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by South Lanarkshire Collge (talk • contribs) 08:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Please, refresh the page in your browser (F5). Ruslik_Zero 08:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

South Lanarkshire Collge, assuming it's Aileen McKechnie, it's showing. I've posted a welcome on your talk page and blocked your user name, which is not permitted. In future, request any changes on the article talk page, since you should not edit that page directing in view of your COI Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Luke Swindlehurst

Hello,

Could you publish my draft please?

I think for the first time it's pretty good.

thank you so much

Thank you a lot

Page : Draft:Luke_Swindlehurst

--SuperTabarka (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@SuperTabarka: Thank you for the submission; unfortunately it is not suitable for the encyclopedia as it stands. The subject does not seem to have played or managed in a fully professional league and thus fails WP:NFOOTY (please see those pages for more information). Therefore, I have declined the draft. If more sourced information can be added to demonstrate that the guidelines can be complied with then please feel free to re-submit the draft. In the meantime I will tidy the item and will also leave some useful links at your talk page. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I have made some changes to your draft and a note in "talk" as to some matters you will have to deal with but I agree with Eagleash.Spinney Hill (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Am I included in the list of graduates in 1967?

I graduated in 1967 with a degree of AB Economics. I would like to find if you have a list AB Eco graduates at that time as I would like to get in contact with my fellow alumni.˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.32.113.11 (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I think you have come to the wrong place. This is the Help Desk for Wikipedia, an encyclopaedia which contains articles on notable subjects. You'll need to contact your university to get lists of graduates. --ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Unified Login Question

I tried to view a description of the Terms of Use and was (properly) redirected to the Foundation site, where I was shown as not logged in, presumably meaning that I was an IP address user. I tried to log in using what I thought was my password as User:Robert McClenon, but was told that my combination of user ID and password were not valid. I started to follow the procedure for a forgotten password, but I saw that that would reset my password to a temporary password, which would presumably reset my password for English Wikipedia (and for Commons and Wiktionary and everything). My question is whether my Foundation login is unified with my Wikipedia login. If so, I will just try again to log in. If they are separate, I will reset my Foundation password. Are they unified, or separate? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: AFAIK they are unified, but since the foundation Wiki is kinda special as its the foundation wiki, non-staff members may intentionally cannnot login. It's some sort of the same with The checkuser Wiki, which is only accessible if you are a checkuser. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Same for me. On that login page, it says ... You can only log in if an account has been created for you ..., which suggests that Victor is correct. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 14:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I suspect it may NOT be unified - my OTRS-wiki account is separate to my standard project account (though, of course, they might have linked it in) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Victor Schmidt, User:AlanM1, User:Nosebagbear - I took another look, with the knowledge that you have said that it is designed to be a read-only site, and that it only looks like a Wikipedia page. I looked at the talk page for Help Logging In. There are messages from users saying that they tried to log in. The site implies that they will be answered, but doesn't promise that they will be answered, and they aren't. So the WMF has copied the look and feel of a real Wikimedia site, but is really only providing an information page. So I wasn't the only user who thought that it would work like a protected page, when it is differently protected by restricting the logins. So that's just the way it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Wikimedia sites use the opensource MediaWiki software, which is also used by thousands of sites that are unaffiliated with Wikimedia. If you fire up a Wiki of your own using MediaWiki software, It will by default look a lot like a Wikipedia. -Arch dude (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Biased page

I have donated to you and now I feel very bad to learn that you are an Anti-Hindu organization. You say "Jai Shree Ram" is a war cry and hurting Hindu's sentiments. I will never use this page in future and never promote. Sick Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:4823:C0BE:2:1:698B:198 (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

We are not "anti-Hindu". Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources state. If you don't like what those sources say, you need to take that up with them. Whether you donate to the Wikimedia Foundation that operates the computers Wikipedia is on is your decision, and donating or withholding donations has no effect on content, as if it did, this would no longer be a neutral encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note: See section #Jai Shree Ram above. Eagleash (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC) Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not actually an organisation. Every Wikipedia contributor is an individual volunteer who operates independently. There is no concept of membership of or belonging to Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 15:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

publishing

when I Publish the article it has not shown it has been over a month and also it wont let me change the heading it still says draft:in the long run In the headding what can I do to change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenDoorPics (talk • contribs) 14:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@GreenDoorPics: - it wasn't submitted to our review process. I have now done that on your behalf, so it's been added to the list and will be looked at in time. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@GreenDoorPics: The button miss-labelled "Publish" below the edit window does not mean "make article part of Wikipedia mainspace". It means "save this edit and I agree to the copyright license": "publish" is a legal term associated with copyright law. Your work, when saved in draft space or anywhere else on the Wikipedia site, is "published" in the copyright sense for other editors to see. The button used to be called "save", but the lawyers made us change it. -Arch dude (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding Information to WIkipedia

Hello. I would like to add information on the topic of Old Filling Stations (from Kansas). I just wanted to verify if I need anyone's permission before doing so. I have compiled a list of them in addition to the very short list shown on Wikipedia right now. Thanks for your time. ~Juliet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.195.16 (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. Assuming that the page (not sure which page it is) isn't protected you can add the information to it yourself, so long as the information is coming from a reliable, independent source. As the page you're describing sounds like a list article, if you're adding a new entry, it should have its own article already on Wikipedia which meets the project's notability standards. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Unsigned Comment

If I forget to sign a comment, is it accepted to remove the unsigned comment template and then sign it properly? Hmanburg (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hmanburg: We all forget sometimes, so I wouldn't worry about it. However, if you really want to, and as long as nobody has replied to it talking about how you should sign (which would make them look silly if you had signed it), I suppose you could carefully remove the prefix <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by and the suffix </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> leaving the linked user info and original timestamp. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Thanks for the very helpful response! Hmanburg (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Creating a new page

 Courtesy link: Draft:Secure World Foundation

Hi, I submitted a new page for Secure World Foundation a few weeks ago and have been trying to figure out what else I need to do for it to go live.

Can you help? Thanks!

Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacedaporras (talk • contribs) 19:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Spacedaporras Your draft is "live" in that it is visible to the public if they know where to find it in draft space, but it is not formally part of the encyclopedia. You need to formally submit your draft for review in order for it to be placed in the encyclopedia. I will shortly add the appropriate information to allow you to do so, but you should not do so yet, as it would be rejected quickly.

Your draft does little more than tell about the organization, and is sourced mostly to primary sources. Wikipedia articles must do more than merely tell about the subject, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization wants to say about itself. Please read Your first article for more information.

If you are associated with the organization, you must read and formally comply with the paid editing policy and conflict of interest policy. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

When you find suitable sources, you need to add each reference immediately after the text which it supports. References are not added to section headings, see MOS:SECTIONS. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Request to increase ggsradius > 10000

It looks like the API:Geosearch limits the radio to 10000 meters (10km, 6.2 miles). Is there a work around for this and/or a way to request to increase it?

See for example error result here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&generator=geosearch&ggslimit=100&ggsradius=100000&ggscoord=51.500688%7C-0.124411

- Scarpy (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Scarpy: mw:API:Geosearch doesn't have a talk page (so is probably not watched), but says it is supported through mw:Extension:GeoData, which does have a talk page with activity, so I'd suggest asking there. Someone at WP:VPT might know something, too. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Searching on Wikipedia

Hi - I'm doing ancestry research and was given the below url from a person on Facebook. You'll see this page is in English, and it gives me the meaning of the word "cãshar" in the Aromanian language.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/c%C3%A3shar

How do I look up additional words from this web page? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.70.166.66 (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Your example URL is a specific page inside Wiktionary, which is a sister site of Wikipedia. You can look up other words in the Wiktionary dictionary by typing your word into the "search" box at the top of any wiktionary page, including the page you mentioned or the Wiktionary main page. -Arch dude (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead author formatting

So I have this ref:

• Syson, Luke; Keith, Larry; Galansino, Arturo; Mazzotta, Antoni; Nethersole, Scott; Rumberg, Per (2011). Leonardo da Vinci: Painter at the Court of Milan. London, England: National Gallery. ISBN 978-1-85709-491-6. OCLC 938763590.

I know Syson is the lead author and when ever I see this work quoted, he is who's quoted. Is there a way to mark this in the ref, or should I perhaps take out the other authors? (Maybe bold his name?) Aza24 (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: My opinion: you are quoting the ref. The ref is quoting Syson. If it matters, add Syson's name either in the text, or on the ref:

"I am the lead author, and you can quote me on that!" -- Luke Syson

or

"I helped write this stupid book"

Others may disagree. -Arch dude (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Arch dude: The reason I bring this up is because as an exhibition catalogue, the main curator(s) (just Syson in this case) of the exhibition are almost always credited as the lead author of the exhibition catalogue. Just wondering if I should make that clear in the formatting of the ref it self, but it seems like you don't think that's too important. Aza24 (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: I'm not a cite expert (I'd be lost formatting a cite without the templates), but it seems to me that the cite should represent the order of the authors as written in the material. So, the lead author is identified just by virtue of them being shown first and used in Harvard-style short refs (Syson-2011 in this case), and should not need any other formatting to indicate them (definitely not bold or italic, which has other meanings here). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: our citations styles follow broadly-used standards. If those standards, as used in other venues such as academic papers, journals, other encyclopedias, etc. have special-case modifications for exhibition catalogues, then perhaps we should adopt those exceptions. The place to discuss this is on the talk pages of our citation guideline (Wikipedia talk:Citing sources), or maybe the talk page of the {{cite book}} template. -Arch dude (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24, AlanM1, and Arch dude: Two answers. 1): Agree, the first author in the list is the lead author. Lots of books have many editors, plenty of scientific articles have many collaborators, and certain old books have many publishers/booksellers. I don't think it would be a big problem if you want to leave the other authors out - try {{cite book |title=Catalogue |last1=Smith |last2=and 6 others}} giving or {{cite book |title=Catalogue |last1=Smith |last2=Jones |last3=Brown |display-authors=1}} giving but the others will never be seen except in edit mode. A conscientious bibliographer would list everyone on the title page. Also, I probably wouldn't have 'London, England' - it's pretty well known - but definitely 'London, Ontario' or 'Paris, Texas'.

Answer 2): "Our citations styles follow broadly-used standards." Yes, but no, but hmmm... I recently made enquires about this matter. As I understand it, {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} and similar templates invoke Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2, deep-down techie stuff written by WP coders specifically for English WP. The output of these may be termed "Wikipedia Citation Style"™ which is NOT Chicago, NOT Harvard, NOT APA, NOT MHRA, NOT anything except Wikipedia's own internal citation style. I agree that using templates makes it very easy. On the other hand, what I call "Oxford" citation style (ie works about eg English literature, with the date at the end and allowing 'Volume I, No. 3' rather than '1(3)') is almost impossible to create with any WP template. You can do this by hand, of course, and many bibliographies have something approaching like it: but you have to be very familiar with it, and many people make a mess of it.

The weird thing is that every individual article can (and does) have its own cite style, which should be internally consistent, with consensus having been reached. Each article sets its own standard. I dislike citing WP rules, but I think WP:CITESTYLE and WP:CITEVAR cover everything, however vaguely. If you create an article using your own recently-invented 'Flying Spaghetti Monster style', especially with the rules laid out in the talk page, and are prepared to defend its use to the death (and there are a load of argumentative people out there), technically no-one can stop you. On the other hand, most people really don't care in the slightest, except for FA or GA etc. MinorProphet (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd use the |display-authors=1 approach if it's really necessary to trim the list, not put meta-text in |last2=.

I don't know if most people care or not. I certainly know some who do, and I think you should have a decent reason for deviating from the widely-used templates. MinorProphet mentioned the admittedly cryptic "1(3)" that is used to represent Vol. 1 No. 3, for example. Not that I would choose to create another cite template, or manually format all the cites in an article, to change it. It's just not worth the hassle that I believe would undoubtedly ensue, or the ongoing maintenance headache as other editors add/edit cites in what would likely be the "wrong" format. (I corrected "Sayson" to "Syson" in two places above for the benefit of future readers.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

References

How to remove any info I've added in Wikipedia and delete my page?

I just am wanting help with removing any information I have previously provided and to also delete myself out of Wikipedia completely. Is it possible to remove everything? TIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PickledPilot (talk • contribs) 23:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

PickledPilot A courtesy vanish may be an option for you. Accounts cannot be outright deleted for both technical and legal reasons(as all edits must be attributable to someone), but a vanish is possible. Your edits cannot be removed just because you want them removed, as once you save an edit to Wikipedia, it belongs to Wikipedia. If you go through with a vanish, your username will be changed to something random so that your edits will appear to be from a different account. 331dot (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)