Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 January 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.

January 29

Neighbours

Half the time I use wikipedia, the i.p. edit before mine is on a topic I never edit. So I'm wondering, are those my siblings/relatives making those edits or is it my neighbours, or simply people in the same apartment block as me? 92.10.239.240 (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, 92.10.239.240. We really have no way of accurately answering that question. We don't know the specific details of your Internet connection, and who else is sharing it with you. The best I can really say is: yes, it could maybe be one of them, perhaps. It could also be complete strangers in a totally different location, if your ISP works that way. If you wish to avoid being associated with other anonymous editing from the same IP address (or group of IP addresses), I suggest that you create an account, it's free and easy to do so. Murph9000 (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Amitash Pradhan

Wish to inform that Amitash Pradhan plays the male lead role in the Hollywood movie HeartBeats as an Indian dance choreographer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venuspradhan (talk • contribs) 06:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

That HeartBeats film is still an upcoming film. It is too early for an article on it. —teb728 t c 06:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

'Undefined' tags

Are other editors seeing <undefined> in 'small' in the edit tabs (source and visual editor) at the top of articles? Clicking on it just seems to open the tab in the usual way. Also Wiki has required me to log back in 4 times in the last 2 or 3 hours, which is not usual. Eagleash (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eagleash: The undefined labels on the edit tabs has been discussed at WP:VPT#"Undefined" on edit links. I.e. it's a known issue, and the people that can do something about it probably know and are hopefully doing something about it. I don't know what would be causing your login session to expire. I'm managing to stay logged in without any issue. Make sure you are ticking the "keep me logged in" box (assuming you are not on a public or shared computer). Also, if you are on the move, with a constantly changing IP address, that could be resulting in your session being invalidated for security purposes. Beyond that, if it persists, try deleting all wikipedia.org and wikimedia.org cookies, as sometimes a bad / stuck cookie can cause odd problems with web logins. Murph9000 (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. There was a tip at the VPT page which said change language via the tool bar on the left and change back again. Did that & it seems to have worked. If I spend more than a few minutes on other pages and then click 'watchlist' it tells me I'm logged out. Usually goes about 24 hours before logging out...& that's if I don't click the 'keep me logged in button'. Eagleash (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it not best to have paragraphs written by known experts to be highlighted in some way?

When reading an article in Wikipedia about some subject, say on history, it would be nice to know which paragraphs were written entirely by a professional historian on the subject, in comparison to other paragraphs that may only have been written by enthusiasts.

I find it a bit uncomfortable reading some text that sounds interesting, but may contain subtle biases. Some wikipedia contributors might have some axe to grind and could try to paint certain topics in the way they want things to be seen, rather than how they truly are. If a professional in the subject is prepared to have their name tied to a paragraph or more in Wikipedia, I think that would give greater comfort to the readers that the information presented is of top quality.

I would really like to be able to know who wrote a particular paragraph in each Wikipedia article, if the contributor is happy to attach their name at the end of the block of text they write.

What is the general thinking right now on this?

Thanks

Al — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.201.232.212 (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Paragraphs at Wikipedia are not expected to be written directly by experts. However, they are expected to be cited to recognized experts. See WP:CITE. What is important is not who presses the keys to make the words appear, but rather who did the prior works being read and used as research for the person who is pressing the keys to make the words appear. --Jayron32 13:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, paragraphs are not fixed. Any text can be edited by others and many users have often contributed to the same paragraph. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you should be a bit more sceptical about historians. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks I agree with that. What I was wondering about I guess is what happens over something contentious. Like in a history of a battle for instance. A majority of contributors to an article may feel a battle was justified, whereas a small minority may feel it was not. You might get a situation where the majority constantly tries to dehumanize or bad mouth any of the minority contributors who are just trying to express their views. The majority might try to drown out the expression of the minority by flooding the page with lots of propaganda or belittling information. If an authoritative professional voluntarily attached their name to some blocks of text, would it help to put an end to a dispute like this? Thanks again, Al — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.201.232.212 (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, this is something that's not designed into the system, unless we're quoting directly. But you would still have Professor X pushing his/her latest point of view as described in their latest book, and ignoring those with whom they have an academic dispute. What we do is not let Professor X write the paragraph. We say how Professor X says this thing, and Professor Y says this other thing. A competition of interests can reach surprisingly reasonable results, eventually. Our job here is not really to evaluate the truth, but to describe what is thought to be known. Have a read of WP:TRUTH. I've been here a while now, and frankly seriously doubt that 'authorities' could do a better job. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ideally, the opinions of contributors never ever figure in a Wikipedia article. Of course, this is an unattainable ideal. But if you ever find an article presenting an opinion - or any evalutive language - on anything whatever in Wikipedia's voice (as opposed to reporting that a cited relible source expresses that opinion), you are entitled to remove it. More subtle is the case where contributors disagree about which reliable sources to cite, or even which sources are reliable. --ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Something that might be close to what you are looking for is a tool to pinpoint who first added certain text to an article. There is such a tool called Wikiblame. Let's say you wanted to know who added the phrase, "disrupted, disputed elections were still on-going in July," to the article on Hammerton Killick. You would visit WikiBlame and put that you want it to search the English version of the Wikipedia article Hammerton Killick for the phrase in question, and it spits out results which you can use in conjunction with the article history to learn that I inserted that phrase with this edit on February 17, 2015. It may not tell you if I'm an expert or not, though some people will put that sort of information on their user page, but hopefully it'll be of some help to you. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with what I think @Zzuuzz: was hinting at, that if one imagines that the writings of "professional historians" do not include " subtle biases." . . ....well how about unsubtle biases? Carptrash (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Just as more food for thought: there are many, many subject matters for which there are no "experts". Wikipedia has articles about anything and everything. Is there an "expert" out there on the subject of the TV show The Brady Bunch? Is there an "expert" on the subject of the murder of JonBenét Ramsey? You get the idea. Many topics -- perhaps most -- do not have recognized so-called "experts". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the fine comments here. Considering all of this, I think that when we have such a powerful thing such as Wikipedia, we must not underestimate its power to influence the general public for the better or the worse. If some bad thing starts occurring in the world, say mobs of people slaughtering certain groups because leaders of their community began scaremongering. Readers will look up articles on the topic in Wikipedia and may find an unresolved mood in the tone of some or all of the articles. There may be some supporting the killings and others condemning. A reader may look to the article as part of his/her information gathering on which side to take.

I would expect that Wikipedia would always be doing its upmost to bring readers as quickly as possible to a full explanation of the matter in the most convincing way possible so that people stop being led by the scaremongers. The problem is how do you get through sane ideas to a mob? Maybe that is nearly impossible, but at least the goal of trying to resolve the dispute in the fastest time possible is worthwhile.

I am not sure what the best way to get through to people is, but generally it seems to me that people tend to stop what they are doing and listen when a widely respected leader, or group of leaders on the subject tries to speak to them. Which is why I brought up the point about having recognized experts comments highlighted in some way, in comparison to anonymous edits. In theory, experts' comments would be more influential on the general public.

When I want to be as sure as I can be about something, I like to find out what the people closest to the topic and most expert on it have to say first. I also give equal weight to the comments of those under fire in some way. When volatile opinions are flying all over the place it is easy to get swept into one camp or the other. That is why if Wikipedia highlighted in a special coloured box or coloured text the comments from known experts, readers could browse to the most heavy weight points first and then read the anonymous edits in black and white text later if they wanted. Maybe Wikipedia's design system cannot implement this, and if so does that mean it is a weakness? Does it mean we are at the mercy of anonymous editors who can flood an article with carefully crafted quotations from leaders of various communities with dubious motives? I know not to believe everything I read, but I would like to feel that what I read at Wikipedia is of the highest quality, and not subject to manipulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.201.232.212 (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. From time to time there are proposals regarding "experts" and article content - the most recent can be seen here Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 124#RfC on Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia. For the reason that these fail please reread my first sentence. MarnetteD|Talk 01:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

WHAT THE CRAP?

Why aren't my squiggles squiggling?!?! To be more precise the four tilde thing isn't working as of today... it's freaking me out!!! --Monochrome_Monitor 13:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It worked for you just now. --Jayron32 13:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh great, now it's working. But it wasn't working on page for some reason --Monochrome_Monitor 13:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There might be an open tag somewhere, like a nowiki tag or something similar, preventing the correct implementation of wikimarkup, on that talk page. --Jayron32 13:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not working on that page because there is an unterminated <ref> tag. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hurriya

The word Hurriya is from Hurriat. Hurriat means freedom, Hurriya means freedom fighter (not freedom) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.131.30 (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, 76.184.131.30. A very quick search for "Hurriya Arabic" in Google seemed to suggest that it means freedom or liberty. Can you provide a pointer to any reliable source for us to verify the meaning? I'm not saying that you are wrong, only that I am unable to verify that you are correct. Is it possible that there are regional variations in the meaning? If there's an inaccuracy there, or more information needed to properly describe it, we are certainly interested in making the necessary changes. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Lappin Foundation

Dear moderators, the page Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation should be titled as 'Lappin Foundation' (not Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation), as the name of the Foundation that this article is about changed in March of 2013 to Lappin Foundation. Could you please rename this article. Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lappinfoundation (talk • contribs) 19:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done The article has been moved to Lappin Foundation. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is the problem.

Resolved

 – Carptrash (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I am involved in Wikipedia:Meetup/Santa Fe/ArtAndFeminism 2016. I would like to be able to start satellite articles there, like I can at my own User:Carptrash/Whomever, but am not sure how to do this. Would it be Wikipedia:Meetup/Santa Fe/ArtAndFeminism 2016/Whomever? or what? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Einar. Yes, you should be able to create subpages. Your example is exactly what is needed, just add "/Whatever" on the end of your existing page. I'm not entirely certain what you mean by "satellite articles", so I'm just saying that from the point of view of technical creation of subpages. The consensus to support what you want to do is up to you, and I advise against adding a huge number of subpages without more detailed discussion (since I don't know precisely what you are proposing). If it is just a few subpages which are "on topic", and suitable for project space, then you should be fine to just BOLDLY add them. Murph9000 (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Carptrash. When you say "articles", are you talking about starting encyclopedia article drafts related to that project's topic area that are intended to become part of the article mainspace eventually? Or are you talking about some type of project page, such as instructions for the meetup or something like that? If you're talking about actual "articles" (a word we usually reserve only for encyclopedia articles), then they should not be at any name like you described. Rather, they should be started in the draft namespace, and then you might list them at the project for improvement or whatever. But if they are intended as project pages, then the name scheme you described would be common and appropriate. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Murph9000: and Fuhghettaboutit. The goal, at least my goal at this point, is to prepare for the March 5 project date by starting some articles but not really polishing them until March 5, and then, hopefully, publishing a bunch of articles on that day. Sorry about the unclairity of my terms, I now believe that "subpages" and "drafts" are the terms I am looking for. That is to say, articles in sort of a holding pattern until all the folks who want to contribute to the project get an opportunity to work on them without having to learn everything about creating articles. I think that I am set for now, but I know where to go if I need further help. Carptrash (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Referencing errors on M. C. Richards

Reference help requested. How do I delete and empty reference? Thanks, Chamlinkrout (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Caprice

@Chamlinkrout: Looks like you got it worked out. Dismas|^(talk) 22:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)