Help desk
< August 6	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 8 >

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 7[edit]

Taiwan[edit]

Your Taiwan entry claims Taiwan is a country, it is not. What are you doing with this? No country recognizes this position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.114.214 (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not accurate, as 13 countries recognize the ROC over the PRC- but in any event, please visit Talk:Taiwan for more information. 331dot (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The description "Country" has a wider range of meanings than you imply. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.196.45.159 (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of Bahir Dar[edit]

Please help me de-linking History of Bahir Dar with Bahir Dar § History. I want to add Draft: History of Bahir Dar. The Supermind (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Supermind: eh? Draft:History of Bahir Dar redirects to History of Bahir Dar. i'm not sure what you want. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 06:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Supermind, lettherebedarklight, I think this problem was solved here at 05:18 today when Draft:History of Bahir Dar was moved to History of Bahir Dar. TSventon (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Middleton[edit]

Refs/ citations numbers 9 and 1 are "doubled up" - can you do the right thing here please and fix this in the citation section of this page? Thanks 49.198.41.28 (talk) 06:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done by using a named reference – I hope that's what you wanted. Maproom (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to create my Online Newspaper Page here[edit]

Kindly help me to create.

Thanks and Regards IndianMayor (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is you can't, this is an encyclopedia not a place to promote your newspaper. Theroadislong (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read What Wikipedia is not. ColinFine (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to nominate an inactive wikiproject and related taskforce for deletion[edit]

How do I nominate WP:BITASK & WP:BITSE for deletion? It's been inactive for over a decade. GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is to MfD, similar to the last time. However, I think you need to ask why deletion would be preferable to just blanking ('archiving') it with a big 'historical' tag. IMO this would, or should, be the number one question at any deletion nomination. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calendars[edit]

Is it correct that even start and end dates in article «Six-Day War» are listed only in Gregorian calendar? 94.25.164.209 (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English-language Wikipedia. Our manual of style pretty much sticks to the Gregorian calendar, which is in use in all English-speaking countries. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a general principle, that is not quite correct, Orangemike. See MOS:JG and the paragraph immediately preceding it. From my experience, we generally provide dates in the format used at the time / place of the event as well as a Gregorian conversion. Consider for instance the lead of February revolution, an event that took place in (Gregorian) March.

For the Six-Day War, I am not sure though. I could not find any information about the calendar historically used in 1967 with a quick search, but it seems to me that (in 2022) Egypt uses only Gregorian while Israel uses a mix of Hebrew and Gregorian. I could see an argument either for inclusion of Hebrew conversions of major dates or for pure Gregorian.

In any case, I would suggest that when a source uses a given date system, that date is used in-text (with a conversion to Gregorian). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stem matching[edit]

I was wondering if it could be explained to me how to create keywords similar/related to an article or page name when searching. For example, when searching for the band Motörhead, you do not need to include the umlauted Ö, and can search "Motorhead" or "Motorhead band" instead. I have looked through the Help:Searching page and found the Help:Searching#Under the hood section's topic on Stem matching but it doesn't explain how to perform the action. Any help is appreciated. – HPSR (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you're looking for is a redirect: see WP:REDIRECT. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion, however, I believe my question is in regards to the Search string syntax rather than WP:Redirect. – HPSR (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors cannot give input to the search engine. It generally treats o and ö as the same character. Character equivalence classes like this is not the same as stemming. Stemming is to treat different words the same way if they have the same root like cloud/clouds/clouded. Editors can only create redirects. For example, Motorhead is a redirect created at the English Wikipedia. It redirects to Motörhead. Without this redirect, Motorhead would be a broken red link, and a search on "Motorhead" would not go directly to Motörhead but give a list of search results. Motörhead would probably still be the first result. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Apologies for the slight misinterpretation. I have created redirect links, but to sum this up, I created a new article, Stöner, recently and have noticed a further example regarding the issue when you search "Motörhead ban" without completely typing out the word "band", Motörhead still shows up in search results. However, despite providing a redirect link for "Stöner band", the search result is nonexistent in the middle of typing; for example when "Stöner ban" is in the search bar. I believe this has to do with a missing real-time search factor that the former article has and my newly created article does not. Again, sorry if this is confusing but this seems to be a stretch rather than just providing a redirect link. – HPSR (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You created the redirects a few hours ago. Autocompletion in the search box can have a delay for new pages. I think the data is usually updated once daily. If you type the whole exact title then it doesn't need autocompletion but can see that the page exists. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense. Thank you kindly for all your help and cooperation. – HPSR (talk) 0:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The data has been updated. Typing "Stöner ban" or just "Stöner b" now suggests Stöner band. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-archiving a talk page[edit]

Hi, I used a template from another talk page to setup auto-archiving at Talk:Press Freedom Index. It worked but the Archive is not visible/searchable on the talk page (e.g. Archive 1, Archive 2, etc). How do I make it visible? Thanks -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Somedifferentstuff: It needs counter = 1 when there are no archives to start with Archive 1.[1] I have also moved Talk:Press Freedom Index/Archive 15 to Talk:Press Freedom Index/Archive 1 so {{Talk header}} can find the archive. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: great, I see how the counter works, thanks! -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there limits on cosmetic edits made by human editors?[edit]

Hello!

I read recently in WP:Cosmetic edit and WP:COSMETICBOT that bots are limited in carrying out some cosmetic edits such as fixing links who's title and linktext are identical ([[link|link]]) because they do not change the visual look of the page and can bloat page histories and by extension watchlists. Generally, such edits should only be done in concert with other, more substantive edits.

I prefer to improve Wikipedia from behind the scenes, fixing typos, broken links and so on through the WP:TT/M and WP:CHECKWIKI projects — basically only minor and usually cosmetic edits.

My question is, are these edits considered disruptive when done by a human editor? I quite enjoy doing them but if there is community consensus against them then I'm sure I can find something the community considers more constructive to do.

rbstrachan (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rbstrachan: Absent a specific sanction, no (and such sanctions are Not A Thing and haven't been for the past decade or so). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rbstrachan Fixing typos and broken links are not cosmetic edits. Most of the Checkwiki errors are not cosmetic edits either. GoingBatty (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]