Help desk
< October 27	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 29 >

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.

October 28[edit]

Guidance on an Article for Deletion[edit]

As a new editor I was asked to review '1986 Lewisham London Borough Council election'.

The 'This article has multiple issues.' dates back to July 2019 and June 2021. I agreed with those comments and proposed that the article should be deleted.

The editor who removed that proposal seems to be the author of the incomplete information from May 2010.

I do not understand the reason given for keeping the article: "not prodable".

As the editor responded promptly, I consider that they would have been aware of the 'multiple issues' concerns. Does the other editor have a COI by being the author?

Please can someone else consider this matter. I only came to this article because it was one that needed consideration. BlueWren0123 (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: 1986 Lewisham London Borough Council election ayakanaa ( t · c ) 01:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueWren0123: per WP:PROD article creators may object to the proposal and remove the PROD. I suggest that since you are a new user, you work on improving articles rather than proposing deletions. RudolfRed (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know that I have a lot to learn. Please can you help me to understand "not prodable" as by understanding the reasons given, I can improve. BlueWren0123 (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that I have come to the wrong place, I will follow the recommendation at the to of the page and direct my question elsewhere. Is it possible that when you read "new editor" you did not consider the remainder? BlueWren0123 (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueWren0123 See WP:DEPROD. The author is allowed to remove the template. If you believe the user has a connection to the subject, that is a separate issue. What the editor meant by "not prodable" is that it does not fulfill WP:DEL-REASON. Hopefully this helps. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 02:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueWren0123: Thanks for trying to help. "PROD" is strictly for non-controversial, completely uncontested deletions. Anyone can contest a PROD simply by removing the PROD template: that indicates that at least one editor disagrees with the deletion, so it is no longer eligible for this particular deletion process. If you still think the article should be deleted, you must use the more formal AfD process instead (WP:AFD) where discussion will occur. In this case the editor who objected believes that the article is part of a set of articles that must be considered as a whole. As a new user, I would avoid this sort of complex mess, but if you are interested in the process, please start reading the AfD discussions for a little while, and then start participating in some of them. After that, you will have a better feel for which articles need to be deleted. Please do not be discouraged. -Arch dude (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BlueWren0123, you've been given some excellent advice. As an addition, the reasons you gave for deletion were "Not Notable & Incomplete data"; but whereas lack of notability is a reason for deletion, incompleteness (or even the impossibility of completion) is not. Please read and digest the (valid) reasons for deletion. And as for the subject, I should warn you that, in my experience, even pretty vapid articles about local elections have vigorous defenders: If I'd known how much of my time this AfD would consume, I wouldn't have launched it. -- Hoary (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou ayakanaa, Arch dude and Hoary, I had started to look at the reasons for deletion, where I found a non exclusive list of 14 reasons. When a recommendation to improve an article had not produced an improvement after 4 years and 2 years, I was surprised to find that there was such a prompt response to maintain the status quo.

I do not believe that I have gained any knowledge (or even useful information) beyond that an election took place there in that year by reading it. I had not expected that this would be controversial and contested. I will leave it alone. No AfD from me on this.

I did understand that this was one of many elections at that time. Is this one in any way notable?

I saw that there is a method for removing articles from the list to be reviewed. Would it be helpful to do that, so that another editor does not get into trouble as I have?

And I have extended my vocabulary. Thank you.

(I notice that there has been input from other editors while I have been writing this. I hope that I do not cut across their comments - I have just been a bit slow doing this) BlueWren0123 (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think some would consider any London Borough Council election inherently notable, although I don't know where that would be specifically confirmed (or denied) in policy or other Wikipedia guidance. If (if) that is accepted, then the goal should be to find further citable sources to complete any missing information and to unequivocatably demonstrate the notability. As a last resort, consider Draftifying the article. It's not as though we're pressed for space and have to cull the least notable articles to make room for more.{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 46.65.231.103 (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not recommend draftifying an article that you have unsuccessfully prodded as the editor who rejected the prod is likely to reverse the draftification. TSventon (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not going back to this article. Borough turnout was 40.7%. The local consensus was that it was not notable? BlueWren0123 (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BlueWren0123 where is the local consensus that you are talking about? TSventon (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately under the box for 'This article has multiple issues.' and above the heading 'Election result' is the line: Elections to Lewisham London Borough Council were held in May 1986. The whole council was up for election. Turnout was 40.7%. BlueWren0123 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK so possibly some of the electorate in 1986 may have thought the election was unimportant. TSventon (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly washing the cat.

I started this because I did not understand the word prodable as an explanation. When I saw the 'multiple issues' were 2 and 4 years old I did not expect it to be contentious. I now understand differently. This article has gaps in information where other Boroughs at that time have no such gaps.

I think that I have no more to contribute at this time.

I have been given good advice and I hope that I will remember that at times when it is necessary. BlueWren0123 (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The search box[edit]

For the second time this week, Wikipedia's Search Box has disappeared from the top of every page. Please restore it. It is most frustrating to have to go back to the same article two or three times by an alternate route just to pick up small pieces of information from an article. 90.254.176.43 (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The search box should be there, but depending on your display size it might be reduced to a magnifying-glasss symbol that has to be clicked to bring out the box. Have you been using different devices, such as sometimes a PC & screen and sometimes a smartphone? That might explain the inconsistent appearances. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 46.65.231.103 (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even on a PC in a browser, The box will disappear if you narrow the window and re-appear when you widen it again. You can watch this happen to the page you are viewing as you narrow and widen the window. -Arch dude (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Street art[edit]

On this page I have specified all places, e.g. "Florence, Italy"; perhaps for some places, e.g. "Lower East Side, New York City, United States", I have specified too much? JackkBrown (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.33.56.248 (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, the overwhelming majority of fluent English language speakers know that New York City is in the United States and there are no other communities by that name. On the other hand, Florence in Italy is obviously the best known Florence, but there are about 30 cities, towns and communities in the United States alone that are called Florence. Florence, Kentucky, for example, has about 30,000 residents, larger than any town I have lived in for the past 42 years. Cullen328 (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: done, I just removed the superfluous. JackkBrown (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make all elements that is written by the following: Name of the element is a chemical element and has the symbol...?[edit]

Title explained. 2001:EE0:4BC4:D3A0:8C60:E4FE:CDA3:8239 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is not clear. Do you mean the second and third columns in the List of chemical elements? Bazza (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP is asking if the lead for all the element articles could start the same way, like in oxygen and sodium? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reasonable idea. Feel free to go ahead and make these changes yourself. Wikipedia is edited by millions of volunteers each doing whatever tasks they wish to do within our policies, and with no task assignments and only ad hoc coordination. If you choose to do this, you should probably create an account, to make it easier for others to communicate with you in case other editors have other ideas on the subject.-Arch dude (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

== Yes, fix it including [[potassium]] that follows with 'the' not 'a', bring not an objective view for readers. I hope Wikipedia's editors care for the matter. ==

As title mentioned. 2001:EE0:4BC4:D3A0:8C60:E4FE:CDA3:8239 (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to the help desk. This section title is both long and confusing as it is non-specific. Could you please try to rephrase this as a coherent question? Otherwise it is going to be difficult to provide any help. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see now it was a conituation of the above section, so I've merged them. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're better off creating an account and waiting for it to be autoconfirmed so you could make those changes yourself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor: now see WT:WikiProject Elements#"a" chemical element or "the" chemical element Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Errors on the Wiki page on Non-Mendelian Inheritance[edit]

Dear Help Desk: The wiki page on non-Mendelian inheritance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Mendelian_inheritance) has numerous errors. It categorizes incomplete dominants, codominance, multiple alleles, and polygenic traits as non-Mendelian. That is wrong! They follow Mendel's laws and display Mendelian inheritance. They are nicely explained in Genetics textbooks (e.g. Hartwell et al.) as "extensions of Mendel's laws". Wikipedia is doing a disservice to students and other resources that rely on it for accurate information. Fixing the page would require a major over-haul, which I and my university professor colleagues who teach and understand the topic could do. But I'm not sure how. Please advise. - UCgenetics UCgenetics (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @UCgenetics.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and if you're knowledgeable on the subject I'd recommend you improve the article if you can! But you need to keep in mind that Wikipedia relies on published, reliable, independent, secondary sources to verify all content. Please do not add any original research (even if you are an expert researcher!), as this is prohibited.

To get started on editing, you might want to turn on the Visual Editor which is a word-processor style interface for editing articles. Tutorials on using this editor can be found at Help:VisualEditor. I would recommend familiarising yourself with the editor first, perhaps in your sandbox.

Let us know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UCgenetics: Please take a look at WP:USERNAME. I think you need to change yours, as it looks like a group name, which is not allowed. You and each of your colleagues will need a personal username. You are still free to work together on this project, of course. It might be nice if each of you makes a note to this effect on your user pages.-Arch dude (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UCgenetics: A single massive update to the page is possible but difficult. If you can figure out an incremental approach, it will probably be easier in the long run. You might start by describing your approach to the project on a section on the article's talk page so interested editors will know what you are doing. -Arch dude (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UCgenetics You could also seek help at WT:WikiProject Molecular Biology, which is a fairly active Project. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Main page - help needed[edit]

Hi. I would like to ask for a help with Serbian Wikipedia Main Page visual output. The problem we encounter is that low lines of boxes with content are not vertically aligned left-with-right and that looks ugly. There is a scratch version at this page, pretty much working except that we do not know how to align buttons and icons and text and three dots to stick to the lower part of any of the boxes i.e. their low line. Please check w:sr:Шаблон:Одељци Главне стране/тест, as well as w:sr:Шаблон:Главна страна/styles.css and w:sr:Шаблон:Одељци Главне стране/styles.css where problem can be resolved by someone who knows how to float css element at the bottom of the div container. This is pretty much what we aim to do.Thank you in advance! — Sadko (words are wind) 18:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadko This is the general Help desk for the English Wikipedia. It is unlikely that there are Serbian speakers here who can help with a complicated technical question. It is just possible that someone at WP:VPT would have the technical knowledge to do so, but you will have to explain in detail what you need. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. Mike. — Sadko (words are wind) 18:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]