Help desk
< July 3	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 5 >

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.

July 4[edit]

Question about using warning templates on my personal sandbox page[edit]

Helped
Hello. I have been editing Wikipedia pages for a really long time, but couldn't find the answer to this question:

Is it okay to test user template warnings on my logged-in personal sandbox page? For example, {{*Checkuserblock-wide*}} (those asterisks were intentionally added by me so that I didn't disrupt this page). I wouldn't permanently leave those templates on my sandbox page, but I also wouldn't want to inadvertently do something that would potentially damage or block my Wikipedia account. Thank you! Beauty School Dropout (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Beauty School Dropout: As long as you're not creating spam, autobiographies, and the like, your sandbox is intended for testing. You can always add a heading to the top of the page stating that you are using it to test templates so the casual observer doesn't think you're actually blocked. Orville^talk 03:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Beauty School Dropout (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty School Dropout, just as a further FYI - rather than munging the template, you can use the <nowiki></nowiki> tags to force wiki markup to appear as plaintext in an article. Ironically I used that method in this very response. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beauty School Dropout and Chaheel Riens: An even better way is to use the tlx template: {{tlx|the template name|argument1|argument2|...}}. Or {{tlsx}} for substitution-only templates. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's limited to template usage though. <nowiki></nowiki> can be used for any and all markup, hence its usefulness. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my article declined[edit]

Read subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamlucawild (talk • contribs) 04:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamlucawild: On the assumption that this refers to Draft:Static Services the declinature was explained in the comment at the draft. Most importantly the page does not have any references and fails WP:NCORP and / or WP:GNG. Please follow the links left at the draft and make the necessary adjustments. (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) 04:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody help?[edit]

In course of editing Dr. Shamsheer's article, I wiped off major part of the article by mistake. Can anyone restore all those informations properly? I'm sorry I didn't mean to do this mistake. Thanks. (223.230.162.28 (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Already undone by ht e time the above was posted. Just go into the page's history and undo your edit next time. Meters (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@223.230.162.28

Thank you! for taking the initiative to edit the article! It's fine to make mistakes, just like Meters mentioned you can undo your edit and try again. :) 👍 OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 05:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lupton family[edit]

In the Hugh Lupton section (at the very end of it), can you make the letters "OBE" slightly smaller - in the same way as they appear at the beginning of the Charles Lupton section on this page. I cannot do it on this device. Thanks 175.32.82.245 (talk) 06:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Orville^talk 06:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do GA and FA articles need to be accessible?[edit]

The requirements for WP:B class articles require that the article "presents its content in an appropriately understandable way" and that "it is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible." This would logically mean that classes higher than B (WP:GA? and WP:FA?) would also have this requirement, but it doesn't. As it is now, an article can be written for experts and ignore the needs of those not knowledgeable about the subject and still get GA or FA; all that is required is that the grammar and prose are of high quality. I think it would be a good idea to add an accessibility requirement for both GA and FA status.--Megaman en m (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think a GA or FA that needs prior knowledge to understand the subject would already fail the "well written" standard of both GA and FA but if you think this should be clarified, feel free to suggest a change at WP:VPPR or WT:GA / WT:FA. If you believe a certain article is too complicated to be understood without prior knowledge, you should list it for reassessment. Regards So Why 08:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I politely disagree. Many scientific texts are well written, yet they are still impenetrable to laypeople. I will take you up on your suggestion to take it to WP:VPR, my proposal should not be too hard to implement.--Megaman en m (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to ask at WT:FAC and the talk pages of GAN as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. My proposal can be found here.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've always made sure articles need to be readable from an outsider's perspective in all GAR and FAC reviews I've done. To me it's more important (especially for mainpage) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citing and referencing religious texts[edit]

Is there a standard way to use religious texts, such as the Torah, as references and cite them? How important is it to provide a link to the text being referenced in the citation, if at all, and how should the fact that when translated into English discrepancies are not uncommon between different translations? The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Editor's Apprentice: I'm not an expert. Ask the folks on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, who have probably figured this out in detail. However, Since the major religious texts are generally available online in multiple forms, I suggest you link to a site that presents the translation you cite together with the original and other translations and interpretations all on one place. If possible, use Wikisource, since that site on the one most likely to remain stable. -Arch dude (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude: Thanks for the suggestion. I'll head over to the Wikiproject ask them as well as try and look for a site that lists multiple translations and also check out Wikisource. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Editor's Apprentice: We have a ban upon original research. This ban includes your own research performed upon WP:PRIMARY religious sources. If you won't defer their analysis to WP:SECONDARY sources written by modern scholars, you'll end up blocked and banned before you know what's happening. So, I advise you to strongly avoid anything smacking of your own analysis, your own opinions or your own interpretation of the Torah. What has not been said recently by reputable, modern Bible scholars does not belong inside Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC

@Tgeorgescu: I am very familiar with English Wikipedia rules regarding original research, thank you for the reminder. To note, nowhere in my original post do I mention doing my own analysis or denying any others. I'm not new to Wikipedia, but if I was, I think your comment would have had a strong chance of scaring me off, especially the phrase "you'll end up blocked and banned before you know what's happening", which I would hope would never be the case for any editor and that instead instances of original research would be removed and then amicably discussed with and explained to the editor would did the original research. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Editor's Apprentice: Yup, I heard it from Sfbmod. However, the irony is that that editor was given enough advice and enough chances to repent from violating WP:OR, but he/she could not stop. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: I see. That is an unfortunate situation, and the negativity of Sfbmod's actions passed far beyond assuming go faith and led to their banning. Having to deal with such a user would understandably be very annoying and disheartening. I guess what I would say is that until a user has shown consistently bad behavior, as Sfbmod did, you should speak to them as if their intentions are to be kind and help build up Wikipedia. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Tgeorgescu:, I do not think that you competent enough to discuss who is going to be banned or blocked. Ruslik_Zero 19:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0: I always tell those people that if they won't repent from breaking our WP:RULES they will get blocked and banned. Of course, the choice is theirs, not mine. I'd rather wish that they comply with WP:RULES, but there are some people who are unwilling to do so. WP:OR performed upon primary religious sources is a perennial problem in religion articles. I could not read Apprentice's mind and I did not check his/her contributions. I just wanted to tell him/her that if he/she meant performing such WP:OR, this will lead to trouble. I did not say that I wish that he/she gets blocked. I have just reacted to to use religious texts, such as the Torah, as references and cite them. Such phrase rang alarm bells. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Password[edit]

Hello please I cannot log in to my page,and I want to place order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.40.47.245 (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have this confused with another website; this is Wikipedia, a project to write an encyclopedia. This is not a commercial website selling things. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion and redirects[edit]

I attempted to create an article for Rokudou no Onna-tachi by moving my userspace to the article title in question, only to find that the page was still bound to my userspace. I reverted the move by moving it back to my userspace, but now all links to Rokudou no Onna-tachi link to my userpage and the article titled Rokudou no Onna-tachi is blank. I am very confused as to what I can do now, as I would like the article proper to be created and I have the source for it, but it is bound to my userspace and I cannot move anything back because the article has already been created. Krushgarthe (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Krushgarthe[reply]

You first moved it to mainspace and then moved it back to your userspace, then the redirect was deleted. I now moved it back to mainspace; see Rokudou no Onna-tachi. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]