Help desk
< September 24	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 26 >

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 25[edit]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keenauk (talk • contribs) 06:01, 25 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

I see that you found and corrected the <ref> tag errors which were causing the error to be reported on Wembley Stadium (1923), but I have reverted your original edit as it was malformatted, unsourced, and of no obvious relevance to the article subject. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Fletcher - Nurse Ratched[edit]

Article states "In 1974, she returned to film in Thieves Like Us, co-produced by her husband and Robert Altman, who also directed." then Personal life Fletcher married literary agent and producer Jerry Bick in 1960, divorcing in 1977.[6] The couple had two sons, John Dashiell Bick and Andrew Wilson Bick.[7] Fletcher took an 11-year hiatus from acting to raise her sons.[6]

Also Spouse(s) Jerry Bick (1960–1977) (divorced); 2 sons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.106.229 (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of your post? If you think the article claims her husband is Robert Altman then it doesn't. "co-" in co-produced means there is more than one. "co-produced by her husband and Robert Altman" means co-produced by two people, one is her husband and the other is Robert Altman. Even without "co-", "produced by her husband and Robert Altman" would have indicated two people. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World primary energy production[edit]

I wrote this article. The purpose is that it, with World final energy consumption, gives short and clear information about where in the world most energy is produced and consumed.

World primary energy production was speedily deleted - it would duplicate Energy development. A short discussion followed:

 This page should not be speedily deleted because... World primary energy production does not duplicate Energy development. I know this article. It does not conveniently list countries producing most of primary energy, divided into fossil, nuclear and renewable. Rwbest (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
   Maybe it would be better to merge the two pages? --BeowulfBrower (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
       No. Energy development is a very long verbose article. I prefer a link to World primary energy production, not mergence. Speedy deletion was not justified. Please reinstall it. Rwbest (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

But Beowulf did not reinstall and added my title World primary energy production to Energy development, blocking the possibility of a separate article with my title.

 I feel that this is an abnormal situation, not in the cooperative spirit of Wikipedia! Please help to restore a normal situation.

I put my article temporarily on User:Rwbest/World primary energy production but I want to see it as a Wikipedia article. (If there is a tendency to merge small articles in larger ones, then I'm willing to cooperate, but I'm not aware of such tendency.) Rwbest (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft appears to be purely a personal commentary/essay/analysis and not an encyclopedia article which consists of collecting the existing analysis of reliably published sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary. User:Rwbest/World primary energy production fits perfectly in collecting the existing analysis of published sources., here the International Energy Agency. It appears that you did not really read the article and its sources. Rwbest (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, basically what you have created is IAEA Report on Energy and sourced it to the IAEA Report on Energy. There is no third party interest to indicate the subject is notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you did not read the references, not IAEA but IEA. See International Energy Agency, an intergovernmental organization where about 200 experts collect and analyse energy data from all countries. Do you know a more reliable source? Rwbest (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. An organisation cannot provide notability (in Wikipedia's sense) for itself. If a topic has been written about by only one organisation then it is by definition not notable, as that requires several independent published sources to have written at length about it. The IEA is notable (and we have an article on it) but a particular report is usually not. And an article sourced to a single report is inappropraite - if the report is notable, then the article should be on the report, not on its contents; but if the report is not notable, then there cannot be an article. --ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is reliability of IEA data. If you do not accept the IEA as a good data source then you should tag many Wikipedia articles for deletion! Most data are published also by other organisations, e.g. World Energy Council and the US Energy Information Administration, but the IEA presents them in the most convenient form. Primary energy sources are covered in many articles (search Google!) so notability is not the point.

I welcome constructive criticism, of course. But I'm not going to waste my time to respond to more confused criticism like the above. Rwbest (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When determining whether a topic is appropriate for a stand alone article, "reliability" is only ONE of the three prongs of coverage that must all be met by the source. asically what you have created is cliff's notes to IAE Report on Energy and sourced it to the IAE Report on Energy. There is no third party interest to indicate the subject is notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

??? I can't find IAE Report on Energy. Rwbest (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World primary energy production was speedily deleted by Beowulf - it would duplicate Energy development. It does not. Energy development does not conveniently list countries producing most of primary energy, divided into fossil, nuclear and renewable. Speedy deletion was not justified. I asked to reinstall, but Beowulf did not and added my title World primary energy production to Energy development, blocking the possibility of a separate article with my title.

  I feel that this is an abnormal situation, not in the cooperative spirit of Wikipedia! Please help to restore a normal situation.

Rwbest (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links in list article[edit]

Dear editors: I was surprised to find in this article: List of art schools in Europe a link in the list to every school's web site. Shouldn't these links be deleted and the ones after redlinked schools replaced by a book, magazine or news reference demonstrating the existence and at least some notability of the school?

WP:External links, which prohibits links in lists, says "This section does not apply if the external link is serving as a citation for a stand-alone list entry that otherwise meets that list's inclusion criteria." Does that mean that if there is no Wikipedia article a link to an organization's website is acceptable? I was under the impression that list article items had to be verified with an independent references. For example, in the List of bluegrass bands, any band that doesn't have a Wikipedia page at least has a link to a concert or album review to show that they are a functioning band in the bluegrass genre. If organizations' own websites are acceptable, anyone in Europe could start an art school in a basement, make a web site and add a link on this list.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a WP:NOT#DIRECTORY violation to me. Having an article be a list is OK but that is a bit excessive in terms of links.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going through the list and removing all the external links when I noticed that a lot of the listings have interwiki links as well. Is that alright to have links to other Wikipedias inside a list? For example, the French section and the Polish section go to their respective Wikipedias. Should I remove those as well? --Stabila711 (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interlanguage links are okay. See Help:Interlanguage links, but also MOS:LINK which conflicts slightly saying they're discouraged as they could cause "confusion". Really, in general interlanguage links can be left. However, the list article you mentioned virtually has whole sections made up of them. It's a matter of editorial discretion but, generally, reasonable is a few at the most within an article. 84.92.129.87 (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a list article I think they are OK in the absence of en Wikipedia articles. In fact they are helpful as they indicate articles that may be translated to create relevant en articles.--ukexpat (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see right now is that some of the interwiki links actually have English equivalents. Also some show as a blue link but the article does not exist. For example, this line in the French section École intuit.lab, Paris. links to an article on the French wiki that does not exist even though it shows a blue link (bug?). --Stabila711 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If an English language article is missing, and belongs in Wikipedia, it should be a WP:REDLINK. People, for aesthetic reasons, seem to feel the need to make sure every link is a pretty blue color. This is not useful in building an encyclopedia. If an article does not exist, but should, it SHOULD be a redlink. Period. Full stop. If a Wikipedia article shouldn't exist, it should be normal text. External linking is a feature of the MediaWiki software but that does not imply that we should use it as much as we do. There is almost no useful reason why the main text of a Wikipedia article, list or otherwise, should contain an external link. Either segregate them to the bottom in an "External links" section (if relevant), use them as a properly formatted reference citation, or get rid of them altogether. This includes interlanguage links to other Wikipedias, as this sort of linking confuses editors in two ways: 1) it implies (by its blueness) that an article already exists an en.wikipedia and 2) when they click it, they are taken to another language Wikipedia, which can be a bit disorienting and confuse the fact that we're not the same project. --Jayron 32 17:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, done. I removed all the interwiki links and changed the ones that actually had English articles. Now blue links actually point to existing en articles. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use the ill template, it allows for the best of both situations.Naraht (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Stabila711, Stabila711, ukexpat, Jayron32, and Naraht. I was out all afternoon and came back to find not only my question answered, but a lot of work done. I made some changes to the template asking for citations, since the text was garbled. I guess now the redlinked items need proper referencing.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Freon template error[edit]

Why is the Freon article in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls? I looked through the coding and didn't notice any parameters that were used multiple times in the same template call, and there's no Big Red Message specifying the location of the problem, so I'm not sure where the problem's located. Nyttend (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: This ref <ref>{{cite web |title=Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer - 7th Edition |year=2007 |title=Annex A - Group I: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114 and CFC-115 |url=http://ozone.unep.org/Publications/MP_Handbook/Section_1.2_Control_measures/Annex_A_-_Group_I.shtml |publisher=United Nations Environment Programme - Ozone Secretariat }}</ref> is using the title parameter twice. --Stabila711 (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I fixed it. When an article is that small, you can just look through all of the templates on the page. Bruto (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Obviously I missed the doubly-used |title= parameter. That's why two or three heads are better than one :-) Nyttend (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Walk in the Woods (film)[edit]

I can't get the first section heading (Plot) to render correctly in A Walk in the Woods (film). Over to you.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone fixed it. Are you using a non-English keyboard? Perhaps a strange character was inserted somewhere? Bruto (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Fixed. It had an invisible 'Unicode control character' before the == so the section header didn't work. A marker for the invisible character was visible using the rather funky wikEd add-on. There's a page about the characters somewhere that...has some words, but it's not worth linking it. I find the characters can creep in when copying text from a text editor or perhaps it's when the wind blows. Or gremlins. Either way it's all sorted now. 84.92.129.87 (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A zero-width joiner was added before ==Plot== in [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References added but warning remains[edit]

Hello. My page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Giordano has been edited and a proper reliable reference added. However, the tag stating "You need a reliable source or the page will be deleted" is still present. I thought once I added the source this would be removed. What am I doing wrong? Thank you. Lutrition (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lutrition: Unfortunately, it shouldn't have been marked with BLPPROD but it should have been marked for speedy deletion. The article is written like an autobiography and it looks like you have a conflict of interest as it seems like you are Louis Giordano. The article also reads like a resume and does not provide enough information to ascertain notability which is not appropriate for Wikipedia articles. It looks like you have a copy of the article in your sandbox which is good as you can continue to work on it but as of right now it isn't ready for mainspace. Once you have brought the article up to Wikipedia standards I suggest using articles for creation by placing {{subst:submit}} on the top of your sandbox. This will signal that it is ready for review. In the meantime, another editor has marked the page for speedy deletion. If you have other questions you can ask them here (or at the Teahouse where I see you have duplicated this question). --Stabila711 (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]