Help desk
< June 16	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 18 >

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.

June 17[edit]

Dariush Borbor[edit]

Hi, anybody here to tell me how to cope with the References? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lotje. The template that brought you here flags the issue of citations that display with ugly and lengthy url addresses, rather than as links. To fix this, you need to learn about recommended ways to display citations. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1. You might then see Wikipedia:Citing sources for a more involved treatment, noting that each contains see also sections linking to additional help pages, guides and tutorials. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: I was wondering, do you know if accessdates are obligatory? I mean, if for one or another reason there is an error in the accessdate, and it cannot be retraced in the history of the article, can I leave remove it or maybe pu between  ? Lotje (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again Lotje. The accessdate parameter predominantly functions to show that for a digital-only source, the version as of _X_ date verified the content it was cited for. This is useful because (unlike paper sources that never change), a digital-only source can be modified, and of course, the link can go dead. With an accessdate for a source that has or might have changed, you can try to find an earlier version that contained the content when it was cited. For dead links, it gives you a starting point to at least know that as of the accessdate, the URL worked. In either case, you can search for an archived version, such as at the Wayback Machine.

Two points result from this. First, in general there is no need to search for the date the url was accessed in the past, when it was cited. Rather, look for whether the digital source cited verifies the content it purports to verify by its citation now, and if it does, place today in the accessdate field. (If it never verified the content, the problem is of a different nature, which might involve placing {{failed verification}}, or removing the source and then tagging with {{citation needed}} or removing the cite and the unsourced content entirely; hard to predict without specifics). It would only be useful to search out and place the accessdate from the date the original person placed the citation if you can't check verification yourself for whatever reason. (For this article, this might be because the cited source is not in a language you are fluent in.)

Second, for digital copies of paper sources, PDFs, etc., accessdates are far less important to use, or, depending on the context, should not be used. The URL to an online copy is just a convenience link to the source that is physically held somewhere like a library, and will never change.

In answer to the last part of your question, IMO accessdates are far less important than providing transparent details about the source itself, e.g., for a book: author, title, page number(s), publisher, year, isbn if relevant, and so forth. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Fuhghettaboutit, you have been a great help to me.

Lotje (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

How to shift the "Contents" box back up in an article?[edit]

Hello, can someone get the Contents box back to its fitting place right under the lead section in the article of Catalonia ? Thanks in advance!--Joobo (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Joobo (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about WikiProject templates for the 50 U.S. states[edit]

I am having a problem understanding some particular WikiProject templates. So, here is an example. On the Talk Page for this article, Death of Conrad Roy, I typed in the phrase {{WikiProject Massachusetts}}. And, as a result, the Talk Page comes up with the article's inclusion in WikiProject United States (but not WikiProject Massachusetts). I have had this same issue happen many other times, also. Furthermore, I have certainly seen some articles listed under "WikiProject Massachusetts" or "WikiProject Name of Some Other Specific State". (See, for example: Talk:Otto Warmbier. He is listed under WikiProject Ohio and also WikiProject Virginia, somehow.) So, what is going on? And how does this get fixed? Or, perhaps a better question, how does one use these templates correctly? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this will answer your question, but did you try the syntax that's used in on the Warmbier talk page: {{WikiProject United States|OH=yes}}? In other words, try substituting {{WikiProject United States|MA=yes}} for {{WikiProject Massachusetts}} and see if that gives you what you're after. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 15:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I had considered doing that. But, I still want to know how and why this template works (or doesn't work). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Separate WikiProjects do not exist for all of the states of the US. Those that do not exist redirect to WikiProject United States. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then, why do I see this page: (Wikipedia:WikiProject Massachusetts)? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{WikiProject Massachusetts}} is a template that redirects to another template: {{WikiProject United States}}. Apparently no-one has written the 'template' for {{WikiProject Massachusetts}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some states have projects, but are still not an option - you can't use {{WikiProject United States|CA=yes}}; you need to use {{WikiProject United States}} {{WikiProject California}} MB 20:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, "they" made this much more complicated and involved than I had thought! But thanks, all, for all of the helpful replies! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger writing me[edit]

I did not create my own page. I made a factual correction and someone named "CFRED" wrote me (I think he's a volunteer somebody) wrote me "welcoming me" to Wikipedia, and giving me some kind of instructions. I was put in Wiki by your editors and do not need to hear from this person. (And I didn't think people COULD create their own pages. If that were the case, you'd have millions of people of no interest to anyone.) Can you tell me what this/CFRED is all about? Margo Howard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margo Howard (talk • contribs) 17:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. C.Fred is an administrator here. His post was to welcome you to Wikipedia, and to just drop a note about editing articles about yourself. The message sort of implied that you created the page, but the idea is the same: people who do have articles about themselves are discouraged from editing them directly, as it can be hard to maintain the neutral tone we need. The reason for this message, as you hinted at, is that anyone technically *can* create an article about themselves, so we developed this canned message about it, as it does happen a lot. Also, if you do get to editing a lot here (which would be good!), your talk page is how any other use can leave messages for you. Thanks and again, Welcome! Crow^Caw 18:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crow is correct. I used a standardized message that's geared toward people creating their own articles, but it also applies when people create accounts to edit articles about them. @Margo Howard: There may be additional steps you need to take depending on your edits to verify your identity. As Crow said, *anyone* can edit an article—we want to make sure that the person claiming to be Margo Howard is, in fact, Howard. If those additional steps need to be taken, you'd need to contact the Volunteer Response Team via email. —C.Fred (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the Julius Lederer (businessman) page to Jules Lederer. Please use the talk page of that article to discuss any other corrections. Dbfirs 20:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dbfirs who are you addressing here? Do you need help with something? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67: The Lederer page/pages are what Margot Howard had edited and led to their post. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eagleash, I've corrected my error. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have addressed my reply. Dbfirs 05:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing content[edit]

I'm a self-published author of books and short stories. Can I discuss/publicize them on Wikipedia? If the answer is yes, please explain how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.97.84 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't meet our notability guidelines, you cannot advertise here and you have an obvious conflict of interest Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline for a person's publications, awards, etc?[edit]

Hi all, is there a guideline on how extensive the "publications", "awards", and similar sections can get for a BLP? I'm watching a user editing the article about themselves, but so far the only edits they've made have been to populate those sections on their works. Problem as I see it, they seem to be adding everything they've ever done: every blog post, wiki article (including Wikipedia articles they've created), movie review, interview, etc. The person is clearly notable, and they're not editing anything controversial that might fall afoul of AUTOBIO, but their Works section is now the majority of the content on the page by far. Crow^Caw 21:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Crow I don't know of any guidance anywhere that targets this specifically, but there are a number of policies/guidelines that might be useful in an edit summary upon a removal or to refer to in a discussion about the issue: WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well as WP:UNDUE, the exercise of general encyclopedic judgement of course; if unsourced WP:BURDEN, and if sourced, it would all depend, but are they reliable sources (if not we're back to WP:BURDEN). If primary sources, then this might be seen as unduly self-serving for which primary sources are viewed as incompetent. There's also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists, which refers to the general notion that non-list articles should primarily be composed of prose and not lists, suggests splitting our embedded lists if they become too large, etc. Also, I can't pinpoint exactly where, but I have seen multiple discussions over the years where people have said words to the effect of "don't list trivial awards, if the award is not notable enough for an article, it doesn't merit listing". As to this person listing their blog posts and the like, this is truly trivial and indiscriminate information to include.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]