Help desk
< April 22	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 24 >

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.

April 23

Thomas Frey

Thomas Frey needs to get fried., "Talk:Thomas Frey Articles for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on January 13 2007. The result of the discussion was Delete." It's 2016, it is still there. Administrator, please expedite. GangofOne (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was recreated in December 2015. If you think it should be deleted, you'll have to nominate it for WP:Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weird watchlist notifications

I get mail notices of changes to pages on my watchlist. Lately I've had a small handful of notices of changes to User pages, which are anomalous on their face because they lack the usual diff link; and then I find that the page doesn't exist, or has not been changed in five years! What gives? —Tamfang (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have email notifications enabled and don't know which actions cause them but it may be user rights changes. Since a recent software change a lot of users are automatically updated to extended confirmed user next time they make an edit. It doesn't produce a diff or page history entry but the top of page histories have a link "View logs for this page" which shows it. User pages (including red links) also have a "logs" link under Tools in the left pane. You didn't give examples so I cannot check whether this is it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

main page articles

Why are there statistically more articles about australians (and australian military men at that) than any other category ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.186.67 (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 83.134.186.67 The number of articles depends on the notability of subjects, and also what Wikipedia editors choose to write about.

Also, why do you believe there's the most articles on Australian people? I believe there's more articles on American people for the reason I gave in the last sentence- American editors are the most prevalent on English Wikipedia, and lots of people tend to write about their own country more. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There probably aren't statistically more, you perhaps just have the perception if it. The summary written here in the FAQ does a good job of explaining the systematic bias Wikipedia suffers from and how to change it. CaptRik (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean today's featured article on Main Page then it's picked from a limited set of featured articles which are articles deemed of high quality. I don't know statistics for Australians but some fields have more editors who make the large work of getting an article to featured status. All editors are volunteers and choose what to work on. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-wiki amount of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines

Hi everybody,

I noticed that some of wikipedia's sister projects have far less Policies and guidelines than English wiki. This probably means that community is much more based on ad-hoc consensus rather than predetermined policies. It's also interesting to see which of the policies doesn't have a parallel article on other wikipedia's. For example out of the Pillars of (eng)Wiki, the most common is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not while surprisingly enough, the least common is Wikipedia:Civility. Even the pillars themselves are not accepted by all wikis, which metaphorically means or doesn't mean that they should collapse?

Anyway i was thinking wikipedia's got to have some kind of measuring tool to compare sister projects by their Policies and guidelines, at least by total sum or even total kb size. Can you direct me to such tool? This can also be a tool that isn't dedicated to this affect, but just compares between sister projects. Are there more advanced ones where one can, for example, count the amount of time the word "Voting" (On each language) comes up?

Much appriciated!

10:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)

Communication between Wikipedians

The fact that most interaction among users of Wikipedia is done through Wiki is a given. But it's quite obvious there are other ways of communication between Wikipedians (Mailing lists, Facebook groups, Prehaps even gatherings). Nonetheless I couldn't find an article about it. Could you please dierct me to one?

In a more general note, if those other ways of communication become a major part of Wikipedia, couldn't that undermine the strangth of the community and gepredize the essence of Transparency, which is a core value of Wikimedia foundation?

Thank you,

Mateo (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could look at Wikipedia:Meetup, and Wikipediocracy. Maproom (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those links. Im more interested in the community's POV on the relation between Wiki-interaction and other ways of communication. Obviously policies can't be determained in meetups or by skype. It's probably froundupon to use a mailing list to gather voters. Or is it? 15:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)

The community encourages meetups, and has mixed attitudes to use of other off-wiki communication among editors. It definitely frowns upon canvassing, whether done within Wikipedia or elsewhere. During the Gamergate controversy, Reddit was used by one of the sides to organise its campaigns, including its actions within Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the whole contraversy page but couldn't find any mention to the use (missuse?) of reddit, regarading wikipedia. What was the community response to this event? Also can you direct me to the written policy about canvassing? Thanks again. Mateo (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When signing, please sign at the end of your post, no need to add spaces. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on CLLI code

Resolved

Reference help requested. I found a changed URL for reference #4 and changed it, but I don't know what exactly is broken or how to fix it. 75.118.63.45 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Thanks, 75.118.63.45 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there has been a subsequent edit to yours which has fixed the problem. You changed the name of the reference which means that the other points in the article where that ref name was used now had no 'base ref.' A bot has rescued it so that one of the later refs now has the full citation; and there are no reference errors now showing. Eagleash (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Harris

Dear Sirs, I would like to draw your attention to the Wikipedia article entitled: "Alec Harris- Alexander Frederick Harris (1897-1974) was a Welsh Spiritualist Medium." The article goes on to say that Alec Harris was a fraud. I am most alarmed that an article of this nature has been published on Wikipedia, as claiming that Alec Harris was a fraud is completely untrue. I know that Alec Harris was a genuine medium, and I know this from personal experience as I am his grandson and grew up with the great blessing that his gift gave to many thousands throughout his life. It is a great disservice to his memory and also to those who wish to learn more about this very rare gift that he possessed. I feel that this article should be removed from Wikipedia as it is completely untrue. My grandfather was a quiet and humble man, who never spoke personally about his great gift. I am one of the few left alive now who had the good fortune to witness his great gift, so this should be removed from Wikipedia. Please can you inform me how this can be done. 79.67.57.173 (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Anthony Harris[reply]

The article reports (with sources) on the results of an investigation by a seemingly reputable publication. It doesn't necessarily draw any conclusions as a result of that investigation. Having said that, the section heading could possibly be changed to something less 'judgemental'. Eagleash (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the section in question. It was headed "Fraud", however it was actually an account on an investigation by an individual, who concluded that Mr Harris was a fraudulent medium, and it seemed to me that calling the section 'Fraud' did indeed commit wikipedia to accepting the conclusion of the investigation, which despite being carried out by a reputable individual did not defintively prove that Fraud had been committed. Unlike, for example the case of Helen Duncan also referred to in the entry. So I replaced the heading "Fraud" with the more neutral "claims investigated" which is exactly what happened (That the claims investigated incontestable, while the outcome of the investigation contestable.) This does not commit wikipedia to saying Mr Harris was a fraud, nor does it commit wikipedia to saying he was genuine. I was, of course, put on this track by Eagleash's comment above. Daithidebarra (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template redirect

We're wondering how to solve a problem were a renamed template redirect doesn't seem to work properly? Please see: User_talk:Chicbyaccident#template_move. Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it being a double redirect is part of the issue.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed, ~~you might want to go and purge several of the pages that have {{BibleHistory}} in them.~~ -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 16:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NVM, unless you just did them, they seem fine. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 16:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make several rows in a Wikitable have a colored background?

How do I make several rows in a Wikitable have a colored background? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There must be coloring code in each row, each cell or the whole table. See Help:Table#Color; scope of parameters. Some tables make coloring with a template in each colored row. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess I misread that page. I thought I could do several rows at once. I guess not. So, how do I even do one row? I can't seem to make it work. And those instructions are confusing. Here is my chart: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page80#Revised. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Place the coloring code in the line starting with |-, e.g.:

|- style="background-color:yellow;"

PrimeHunter (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a template that calculates how many years elapsed from a given year until today (the current day)?

Is there a template that calculates how many years elapsed from a given year until today (the current day)? I want "years" only, not "days" or "years and days", etc. So, for example, if my input "field" is, say, 2004, I want the returned value to be "12 years ago" (or such). And, next year, the Wikipedia article would (automatically) say "13 years ago". And so forth. Like a continuous counter, like we currently have for a person's age, etc. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Age will do this. 24 < --- this will be 16. I feel like there's a cleaner way to do this but can't find it right off. Dismas|^(talk) 16:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Yes, here you go. 24 years ago {{Years or months ago|2000}}This will render 16 years since the year 2000. Dismas|^(talk) 16:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. We are on the right track. But is there a way to "modify" the output so that it only says "16 years", instead of "16 years ago? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am essentially creating a table that says (in prose), "This record was set in 2000. So, that record has stood for 16 years." So, I would need output that says "16 years" as opposed to "16 years ago". It wouldn't make sense to say: So, that record has stood for 16 years ago. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a way but you could reword the sentence to This record was set 24 years ago, in 2000. Though that sounds a bit redundant to me. If you're already saying it was X number of years ago, why bother putting in the year? People can do the math if they like. Dismas|^(talk) 17:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not prose. It's in a chart/table. And the heading of the column is "How long did this record stand?", not "How long ago was this record set?" Two very different things. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just use {{Years ago|2004}}. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. This record was set in 2004. So, that record has stood for {{Years ago|2004}} years. renders as "This record was set in 2004. So, that record has stood for 20 years." Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. That seems like what I need. Thanks. In the page for Template:Age ... can someone add some reference (maybe in the "See also" section) to Template:Years ago? It seems like it is relevant there. And I am not able to edit that page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit the documentation page here. Documentation pages are not protected like templates are. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did so. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions since I began reviewing new articles

I started reviewing new articles about four months ago after receiving reviewer privileges on my account, and I am willing to use that ability to help others. But, I have noticed that, when viewing my edit count page, the number of deletions on my account have gone up exponentially in this short amount of time from around forty before December to over 900 now. I assume that whenever someone removes a template or stub classification which I had placed, it registers as a "delete". But, I think that this is unfair to those who of us who do due-diligence trying to help others improve articles. I think that removed templates and stub messages should not be counted as deletes, but rather should be placed in a separate newly-created category called "removed templates". I pride myself on the accuracy of my work, but I feel that doing conscientious and helpful reviews for others is now unfairly putting a blemish on my record. I think that it would be right for someone here to re-classify those removed templates and stub messages to another category rather than "delete" on my account. That would not be an unfair request, and I think that other reviewers would want that too. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Garagepunk66: I am assuming you are refering to X!'s tools. I may be wrong, but I think that deleted edits refers to edits on pages that have now been deleted, rather than edits that have been reverted (as the latter is fairly undefined and not particularly useful). — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 17:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Garagepunk66, deleted edits means old edits to currently deleted pages, or in rare cases edits which have been revision deleted by an administrator to hide them in the page history of an existing page. Administrators can see a list of your deleted edits similar to the normal list of edits at user contributions. Most of your deleted edits have edit summaries of from "Added tags to the page using Page Curation (...)". Many of the pages were later deleted. Deleted edits are not an indicator of having done anything wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize that it doesn't mean anything bad, but one of the hazards of reviewing new articles is that a lot of them end up getting deleted (when we as reviewers were only trying to help people improve the articles to prevent them from getting deleted--or in extreme situations placing a CSD template ourselves at the top of the articles as a last resort when needed). I realize a delete doesn't imply wrong, but still... other editors look at our edit pages and make judgments about us... say if we are "error prone" and in need of correction or "reliable" and to be trusted. Personally, I like to be seen as reliable, and I'd suppose that most good editors do as well, so I hope that Wiki could create a separate category (rather than delete) for when we do review templates. Why have something that causes even the slightest unnecessary embarrassment to reviewers? We want to encourage people to do reviews, don't we? I ask you to be cognizant of this and do something about it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that a competent editor, one whose opinion I care about, would know enough about the process of reviewing new articles to both value those who do it and recognise that despite their best efforts it involves in a lot of deleted material. Maproom (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. Most experienced editors know what deleted edits means and will not in any way hold the number against you. And few people will ever look up your number of deleted edits. After 10 years and 40000 edits I have never seen anyone indicate the number of deleted edits by another editor is a problem. I have only seen people ask what their own deleted edits mean. Anyone can accumulate deleted edits for any number of reasons. When a page is deleted we are not going to let the software analyze each edit to it and categorize them in two or more classes of deleted edits. If we did try that and one of the classes was considered "bad" edits with the number held against the editor then the number of false positives would cause real concern. Software is very bad at evaluating the quality of an edit. And I don't see reason to make software to single out review templates among the hundreds of constructive ways to edit a page which happens to be deleted later for some reason. If we did do it then there would probably soon be other groups of editors who requested that their edits are also discovered and categorized. The developers have better things to spend their time on. Maybe more places than now could add information about what deleted edits means. If you tried to look it up and found a page you think should have mentioned it then you can add it. You could also make a suggestion to the developers of Wikipedia:xTools to add an explanation. The tool os currently down and I don't remeber exactly how it looks. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that software should determine the quality of edits--that would be too complicated--but only that removed templates not be counted as deletes (even if the articles they were placed on were deleted)--they could be classified as a separate category. That would be simple and easy to do--and I would really like that to be done to the point of insisting. So, can you please have the development programmers make that change and, at least for me, remove all of the unnecessary deletes from my record. I have that right. But, I could go to Wikipedia:xTools, but maybe you could say something to them as well. I would appreciate it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly unlikely the developers would falsify the count of deleted edits for you. It would add significant programming complexity, create inconsistency and confusion (for example when the edits are undeleted or viewed by administrators), and require server resources. I would strongly oppose it so I'm not asking them to do it. Also note our MediaWiki software is used by thousands of different wikis with different templates, practices and so on, and millions of editors. Even if you did all the programming yourself and just asked the developers to add your code, I'm 99.99% certain they would say no. But I will make a post to Wikipedia talk:XTools#Meaning of deleted edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DAB page or Anthroponymy page?

Hi, is it correct to include entries other than given names or surnames in an Anthroponymy page, like what we see in Huygens or Madelung? It seems to me that in this way we blur the border between DAB pages and Anthroponymy pages, since so many DAB pages containing human names can turn into Anthroponymy pages with some non-human names, and vise versa. Saeidpourbabak (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Two options are to split the article in two (which I recommend for Huygens) or reclassify it as a dab page with name categories. In the case of Madelung, the non-name entries are only partial matches in any case, so I'd either delete them entirely or move them to See also. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Clarityfiend: and thanks. To summarize suggested options:

split into a DAB and an Anthroponymy page
Turn the Anthroponymy page into a DAB page
(As for partial matches):

Delete
Move to See also

I have doubt about two options: 2 and 3.2. Regarding 2, as far as I understand, human names do not really belong to DAB pages, since they are not ambiguous with the DAB page title (they are always partial matches), and we keep them in the DAB pages only if and as long as they are very few and the Anthroponymy page has not yet been created. Therefore I am not sure if this is a good idea to turn an Anthroponymy page into a DAB page with several human names. As for 3.2, I think moving non-name entries to the See also section of a Anthroponymy page would not solve the contradiction of having non-name entries in an Anthroponymy page: they are still there, just in a different section. If it is so, we are left with two extreme solutions: 1 (ideal, solving the problem forever) and 3.1 (sweeping it under the carpet, until next user add those entries here and there). Any thoughts? Saeidpourbabak (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A proper anthroponymy page provides referenced information about things like the frequency of use of a name, its etymology and historical usage, and how it relates to other names. A disambiguation page can do none of these, so if such information exists to report, it is more useful to use a format in which it can be reported. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kootenay Formation page

The term Kootenay Formation should be redirected to the Kootenay Group page, and the page Kootenay Formation should probably be deleted. It would then also need to be fixed on the Kootenay disambiguation page. I think this probably requires an admin. Could someone please help? Thanks Georgialh (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought...WP:FMERGE. Eagleash (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That should work. Thanks! Georgialh (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref

Mophandl (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Don Mopsick[reply]

See what I did here. Even while naming references, you must include > before the reference content. For more help on referencing, see Help:Referencing for beginners. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You got some of them but there were several errors of the 'invoked but not defined' variety where extra quotes had been inserted in the secondary refs ie <ref name=""c_and_s"/>. However the OP has now gone back to the page and undone some of the good work. I got an edit conflict with him so had to abandon what I'd done! Eagleash (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mophandi: You need to apply the ref names you have used e.g. 'c_and_s' to an actual citation. Eagleash (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Got 'em all at third attempt. Eagleash (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make that fourth time. OP removed the closing > again. Eagleash (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

extended confirmed user ‎

What is an

"extended confirmed user ‎"? Daithidebarra (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED. Dismas|^(talk) 22:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]