Help desk
< December 23	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 25 >

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.

December 24[edit]

Referencing errors on Mentalism (philosophy)[edit]

Reference help requested. Please note that some of the errors that I have apparently made in editing may be due to the way options are presented for citing references. In a nutshell when i can I add as much info re a reference as possible. However this includes (in the drop down box for "citing" (e.g. of a book), 2 fields that are marked: "page". I have assumed that the first of these is for identifying the page number of the source, and the second is the total number of pages in the source. However it seems that your system flags up errors when both of these boxes are completed. I would be grateful for feedback about this please because it makes me feel that I had better delay any new contributions, hence I don't do as much as I might like.

Thanks, Blamethemessenger (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Blamethemessenger: The error message links to a help page that explains that you can use |page= (a single page) or |pages= (a range of pages) but not both, not the total number of pages. -- Gadget850^talk 02:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does 'thank user' do[edit]

In the "View History" tab (for example, this page's history), I see next to every edit "(undo | thank)".

What exactly does "thank" do when you thank a user for their edit? I would assume it does one or more of the following:

User who made the edit gets notified
The thank action is logged in the system somewhere
User earns some "reputation" - maybe visible only to admins?

Or maybe it does nothing at all and is just there for looks? I couldn't find an article in the Wikipedia namespace that discusses this.

Lime save 07:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Limesave: You can read more about thanking at Wikipedia:Notifications/Thanks. Basically, thanking a user for their edit sends them a notification that you've thanked them; all thanks are logged at Special:Log/thanks. Not much besides that, but it's certainly a nice gesture :) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperHamster: Awesome, Thanks! Lime save 07:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving an article that has been deleted multiple times.[edit]

Hi, I recently made a wiki for a voice actor for anime by the name of Joel McDonald. But the page I created it in is listed under Joel Mcdonald. I wanted to make a page under the original name, however, I couldn't do that thanks to several failed attempts that led to the page being deleted. I would prefer to have the page be listed under McDonald. So, what do I have to do in order for the original article name to be of access once again?Hugosworld92 (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mutliple times, someone has created an article in Joel McDonald, which has then been deleted on the grounds that he is clearly not notable. Now you have created yet another article on the same man, this time with his name mis-spelled, and asked for the title of the article to be changed. Maproom (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Rimmer[edit]

I have had this article tagged for some time and nobody saw it, so I decided to list it here. Thank you in advance!--The Theosophist (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link: William Rimmer. You're welcome, Dismas|^(talk) 13:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have commented on the article's talkpage. Looks like a false positive, almost the entire article is based (aka copies almost verbatim) on Encyclopaedia Brittanica content. GermanJoe (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be legal if you meant 1911.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the 1911 edition. I have provided a link to the online EB text on the article's talkpage, so all should be OK. GermanJoe (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems on my sandbox[edit]

my sandbox won't let me edit or pull up certain categories like "history" or"variants". Tomandjerry211 (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomandjerry211: A page move leaves a redirect to the new name. I have removed the redirect from User:Tomandjerry211/sandbox. See Wikipedia:Redirect#How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you were actually referring to the large image covering some of the article text. I fixed that in [1]. Different infoboxes can have different image parameters so an image size change may require other code in other articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query re. NPOV (Neutral Point of View) in a BLP (Biog.of Living Person)[edit]

My question is a general question about the application of the "NPOV" policy in biographical wikipages which state the publicly stated views/opinions/beliefs of the subject-person.

Here's the scenario...

A BLP (a biography of a living person) (Mr X) includes a section headed "Views". This section records (in a neutral/factual way) Mr X's publicly stated views on a particular topic (topic T). The appropriate references are duly given (i.e. when Mr X said these things, where, and who reported/published what he had said).

Obviously, there are other people living on the face of the earth who hold views/opinions/beliefs about topic T that are the opposite of Mr X's views. And also, of course, there are people who agree with Mr X. And, there are people with a range of intermediate views.

QUESTION: In the BLP, is it okay simply to state Mr X's views (together with the supporting references), and leave it at that, without in any way commenting on his views, and without mentioning any contrary views ? Or, would that be 'skating on thin ice' as regards the wiki NPOV policy ?

My own thoughts on this (for what they may be worth) would be that as this wikipage is not a wikipage about topic T, and is not a wikipage about other people or their views, it is probably NOT an appropriate forum to start stating or mentioning views other than Mr X's. The wikipage is about Mr X, and Mr X is not "neutral" -- he has some definite and distinct points of view !! ( -- as indeed we all do). It is obvious that not everyone will agree with Mr X on topic T, just as not everyone will agree with me, or you.

In addition to it being, in my opinion, not appropriate, one can't really do full justice to topic T in a sentence or a paragraph within someone's BLP, and the mention of other views starts to clutter-up and elongate the BLP.

However, Experienced Wikipedians, I seek your guidance and advice please Gentlemen/Ladies.

(By the way, if Mr X's comments/views had turned out to be influential in the overall public debate about topic T, for example if his views/comments had been taken-up in a public forum and challenged/criticized in a direct way, in other words if his comments had given rise to a storm of controversy specifically about what he (Mr X) had said, then I would have agreed that his wikipage should allude to that, but, so far as I am aware, they have not been taken-up in that way. Equally, if his comments had been taken-up positively in a public way, perhaps resulting in a groundswell or movement being born in support of his views, that should be alluded to in his wikipage, but again I am not aware that this has happened. As so often happens, people's views are reported (or not), but then life goes on much the same as before).

Thanks for your help. I hope I may have expressed the query clearly. Seasonal greetings to one and all. Diakonias (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a reliable published source that discusses X's views and alternative views, then the article may discuss what appears in that source. (It may be that it shouldn't, because this would give undue weight to an alternative view, but that is a different criterion). If there is no such article, then mentioning contrary views to Mr X's would be original research. and not acceptable. NPOV requires sticking to what reliable sources have said, and adducing sources on both sides if there are different sides, bu anything which has not been reported on cannot appear.

Forgive me if I am being overly suspicious, but I've often found that when people ask general questions about Wikipedia policies they are actually interested in a particular case, but for some reason don't want to say so. If this is the case (and I am wondering if this is to do with Doye Agama), you will generally get a much better answer if you mention the specific article, because specific questions can be answered far better than general ones. --ColinFine (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In general, in my experience, when someone poses a "hypothetical" question at this Help Desk, it is because they want to use the answer to it to wikilawyer a question about the actual article, and, like ColinFine, I am wary of answering hypotheticals. In this case, if the question has to do with same-sex marriage, it might be appropriate to add a link to that topic, where the opinions of other people may be discussed. If the question has to do with the presidency of Goodluck Jonathan, there already is a link to his article. I don't see any reason to add the opinions of others to the article on the bishop, and arguments can be made that adding the opinions of others to the biography of the bishop would be coatracking. The only change that I think might be in order would be to add a link to same-sex marriage. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the Doye Agama article, as Robert McClenon recommends, removing mentions of contrary views. I see that the article has no talk page; apparently an earlier version of the article was deleted along with its talk page, and no talk page for it now exists. Maproom (talk) 09:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: who was involved in discussion of the earlier version and its deletion. Maproom (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you "Maproom" for your edit (Doye Agama - Views). I am so much happier with this edited version. Diakonias (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for forgetting to restore talk page, history now restored and text complete inc. project banner. In all the years I've edited I'm not sure that I've seen this particular issue discussed (views are often given, but ususlly in a much more promotionial context), very helpful, thanks for the ping Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User rights[edit]

This is a contributions page of a blocked user. If you click on User rights at the bottom, instead of getting information about the named user, you get information about Example. Is this a bug or is there something special about this user name (it does have special characters) that makes it "impossible" to get this information in this way? BTW, clicking on Edit count does the same thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell this is an issue when usernames contain an equals sign. I don't know much about it but when you're entering an URL for, for example, contribs, you have the text "?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Example". I'm assuming the equals breaks this somehow. That's a guess but I'm relatively certain that the issue is the presence of an equals sign, tests with other usernames with equals signs produce the same effect. Sam Walton (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Sp-contributions-footer#Protected edit request on 24 December 2014. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting the issue. I have performed the requested edit and the problem is fixed for all links to MediaWiki pages and some of the external tools, but the Xtools ("Edit count" and "Articles created") can apparently not handle usernames with an equals sign. The issue could be reported at https://github.com/x-Tools/xtools/issues/ but I haven't worked there. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it works now. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping text around a table[edit]

Hi... so I've seen this a million times before, but can't figure out which WP namespace page would give me an answer... how do I make the text in an article round around a table? The first table in this section (Peel_Region_municipal_elections,_2014#City_council) is what I was experimenting on, but nothing would work. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try class="wikitable floatright". If that does not do what you want, try {{stack}} or a variant. -- Gadget850^talk 18:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of regions of France by population[edit]

I understand some articles being a little outdated by a year, or even two. But a list of the first-level administrative divisions of the 20th most populous country on Earth being outdated by 15 years is quite unacceptable.--The Theosophist (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has data from a more recent census been released? Sam Walton (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that there's 2011 data, but I can't read it :D Sam Walton (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are for the Communes.--The Theosophist (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think page two here might be it. I'll update with this info. Sam Walton (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here for 2014 LeadSongDog come howl! 19:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, excellent, I'll update with that info then. Sam Walton (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Searching[edit]

Is there a way to search for articles containing one word in their title but not another?--The Theosophist (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of a positive and negative modifier with the intitle: filter seems like it would do the trick. When I search for intitle:fish -intitle:migration I seem to get back articles with "fish" in the title but not where "migration" is in the title (i.e., Fish migration is most decidedly not in the results). source —Al E.^(talk) 19:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!--The Theosophist (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User page[edit]

Heading inserted by ColinFine (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to resolve the problem of neutral point of view of my user page? Is it possible to resolve it by submitting necessary proofs at your email address? Please reply ARUP LODH World of Art (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page to Draft:Arup Lodh, because that is the only way to avoid it getting very quickly deleted.

The best way to resolve the problem with Arup Lodh is not to attempt to write an autobiography at all. The next best way is remove all promotional language, which is nearly everything currently there. Examples: "quick success"; "high standard"; "receiving eulogizes"; "beautifully capture". Such evaluative language is never allowed in a Wikipedia article, unless it is quoting a reliable published source, independent of the subject.

The next thing you need to do (after reading your first article, autobiography, and referencing for beginners) is to find multiple published reliable sources, unconnected with you, such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers, that have written at length about you and your work. (I have picked three or four of the links in your draft, and none of them qualify: they establish that you are an artist and have exhibited, but not that a reliable source has yet decided to write about you at length. There may be longer articles in some of the other links). If these longer writings do not exist, then you are not currently notable (in Wikipedia's special sense): it is impossible to write a satisfactory article about you, and so no article, however written, will be accepted.

Once you have found a specific reference for every single piece of information in the article, and cite them properly inline, then you can submit the article for review. --ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]