Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 October 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< September 30 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 2 >
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 1[edit]

Template help[edit]

Can someone edit this template (User:Prisencolin/Pro gamer achievements) so that a number other than 1, 2, and 3 will display under the "placing" parameter? Thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The normal procedure would be to have one template for each row in the table, and a main template with everything else. The only example I can find at the moment is this permalink (the "list entry" would be "row"). That template has been replaced with a module that uses techniques I would not recommend for your application. Having a "row" template for your application would greatly reduce the amount of repetition in the main template. Regarding your question, please provide an example of what the input for "placing" would be, and what output would be wanted. Should input "4" generate output "4th"? If 20 is the largest reasonable input, after handling 1, 2 and 3, the default could output the input with "th" added. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{Ordinal}} might help, as it can be used to output st/nd/rd/th asappropriate. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: @John of Reading: Ideally, the output would just be the same as the input, in this case something like "5-8th" or "5-8". I still want the medals to be displayed for 1-3rd though.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I think the template would need serious work to remove the repetition I mentioned above, and I've got too much else going on to take another project. You could try asking at WT:WikiProject Templates. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstreaming essays[edit]

I created essays about competence.

I need to know how to mainstream them and to reflect the wide consensus. Is any one good to go? --George Ho (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If "mainstream" is not the right word, how about writing a constructive essay for everybody to read? George Ho (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was explained at the MfD. The userspace essays above conflict with standard procedures because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia—commonsense and experience show that some people are a net positive, and some people aren't. WP:CIR is saying that people in the latter group need to contribute at another website. The userspace essays above would be deleted if moved to Wikipedia space. The questions posed are outside the jurisdiction of this helpdesk. Wide consensus supports WP:CIR, and a constructive essay would need a constructive idea. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You want to "reflect the wide consensus". What consensus do you think that there is about competence? However, I agree that the questions are beyond the scope of this Help Desk. I have further thoughts, but we can discuss on a talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving my biographical article on a person from Draft to main wikipedia namespace[edit]

Hi Can anyone help me out to move the page Draft:Sunil Rao from Draft to the main namespace. Also list out the steps in which i can move any newly created article to the main namespace without having to save it as draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdityaPratip (talk • contribs) 07:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That draft provides no evidence that its subject is notable, in the sense in which that word is used here in Wikipedia. So if it does get moved to mainspace, it is likely be be deleted soon afterwards. Maproom (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AdityaPratip: I agree that it does not clearly demonstrate eligibility under Wikipedia:Notability (people), in its current form, so would likely be speedily deleted if moved to main article space. I have added the standard WP:Articles for Creation draft header to it, so that you can easily submit it for formal review, if you wish. Before submitting for review, please read the above notability guideline carefully, as it would likely be declined by the reviewers in its current state. We strongly recommend to new editors to always use the AfC review process, rather than creating or moving articles into main article space themselves. We are not saying that the subject definitely lacks notability, only that the current draft article does not clearly indicate notability (which must be supported by citing reliable sources). Murph9000 (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that there needs to be disambiguation because Sunil Rao already exists as a redirect to Sunil Raoh, who is someone else. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But let's make it clear, Robert McClenon, that that is an issue for the future, which AdityaPratip does not need to worry about at present. Aditya: if you draft is eventually accepted, the reviewer who accepts it will sort out the disambiguation. --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Maybe my comment, which was meant for present and future reviewers, could have been misinterpreted by the author. As User:ColinFine says, a reviewer who accepts an article must sort out the disambiguation. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Java Script Disabled[edit]

https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=An_Hoa_Combat_Base&params=15.785_N_108.073_E_&title=An+Hoa+Combat+Base

On this page a map is displayed on the right hand side. My map is "grayed" out and says "java script disabled". I've checked my IE11 settings and Java Script is not disabled. Same thing in Chrome. How can I get the map back?? 68.63.236.247 (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same here report it at Village pump technical (Wp:Vpt) VarunFEB2003 09:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the same thing happens in Firefox and Opera. Dbfirs 12:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced & unencyclopedic article[edit]

Hey folks, I'm not a complete newbie but I'm sorta stumped here. Look at Fritz Christen. Zero inline refs. A couple of sources listed though. However, also highly unencyclopedic/dubious ("he killed a hundred guys!") content & a several months old refimprove. Now unsourced stuff may/ought to be removed, obviously – but in this case that would be removing basically the entire article! So a PROD? An AfD? Pruning the body so it is seemingly more plausible and not overly contentious? But then it would boil down to "he fought on the Eastern Front, got a medal and was captured" and it doesn't solve the unsourcedness (whew!) of the whole thing. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A number of Knight's Cross recipients are currently up for Afd. The consensus is that this award is not quite on the same level as the Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross, which both automatically confer notability, because the Knight's Cross was awarded much more freely during the latter stages of the war. Complicating matters is the fact that he was awarded it early on. I'd suggest running it through Afd to see what the experts think. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My best advice is to do a WP:BEFORE, meaning look it up on Google or some other search engine. Yes, you will get a bunch of junk, but also you can find sources like this and this and this plus a Video on YouTube. Yes, they are in German, but what would you expect for a Nazi? Use translation programs. So my advice to editors who want to make wikipedia better. If you see a problem, fix it. Trackinfo (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to tell, but those don't look like reliable sources, and the video's been taken down, so I stand by my recommendation. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't put a lot of effort to discern the reliability of those specific sources. They contained different views of the information, so were not wikipedia mirrors. They were not obvious non-reliable sources like Facebook (which is not to dismiss Facebook entirely, there are some experts who do use Facebook as a means of publishing their research into a subject). The point is, instead of complaining about other people's work . . . how can we destroy it? Do your research. Go deep google and become informed about the subject you intend to edit. Then fix the problem. Wikipedia content should be backed by sources. If your research shows the content of the article is a fraud, then by all means take it to AfD. If it is inaccurate or only reports a POV incomplete view, fix it. But WP:BEFORE do the work first. Trackinfo (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I do agree that there is sufficient information on this subject that could be collected and sourced to make a worthy article, after doing a lengthy Google search, it seems that this article was plagiarized word for word from this online article: [1]. Maineartists (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maineartists the article on warhistoryonline is actually a copy of our page. The article here was started on 25 January 2008 with basically the same content as it has currently, the page on warhistoryonline is dated 25 February 2015. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dodger67: Then that page is a copyvio of our articles, as it doesn't appear to provide attribution required under the CC BY-SA license. Pppery 23:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the respones y'all! Lots of food for thought. I admit I was about to go full AfD as there were no inline citations and most of it was plenty unencyclopedic, but then I decided to cull the fanboyish/unencyclopedic content while retaining the article as a sort of a stub. Because after some (admittedly half-hearted) googling and google translating the guy did keep popping up here and there. But then I saw someone had already beat me to it! Although judging by the previous German medal recipient articles (& the GNG doubt right now) I guess I might have followed through with my initial instinct after all. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Devil facial tumour disease[edit]

Reference help requested. My first time editing and changing a citation, it seems to have introduced a error, but not sure how to fix it. Any assistance appreciated. Thanks, Kevbonham (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Kevbonham, you seem to have cracked the code yourself and corrected the error. Don't hesitate to ask for further assistance. Lourdes 14:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does an individual edit the page summary that appears on Wikipedia's mobile apps?[edit]

I'm not 100% sure if it's just the official Wikipedia app on Android or if it also pertains to Wikipedia's app on the iPhone, iPad, etc, but there are page previews in the search results. Two example images are seen below. Note where it says "American musician, songwriter, record producer and table" on the screenshot of the search of James Hetfield and "Getcha Pull" on the screenshot of the search of Dimebag Darrell. I was wondering how one would go about possibly editing those summaries.

File:JamesHetfieldWikiAndroid.png File:DimebagWikiAndroid.png
NiklawskiMSTM traveled from the fourth dimension to deliver this text to you. Please thank him on his talk page. Or don't thank him. I'm Binary code, not a cop. 16:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikidata, which is where the descriptions are kept. ‑ Iridescent 16:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before changing the description on Wikidata, please always verify that the article is linked to the correct Wikidata item. In some cases, the description may be wrong, and in others the link (also stored on Wikidata) to the article may be wrong. If in doubt, please do ask for a second opinion here, as Wikidata may be unfamiliar territory. Murph9000 (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page Missing[edit]

I created a page for a community/company and when I went back to make a few updates a week later, it was gone. What is this about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sblume4 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sblume4: Please see Why was my page deleted? The most common reasons are:

To find the specific reason a particular page was deleted:

  1. Go to the Deletion Log
  2. Type the page title in the case-sensitive search field
  3. The date, time and reason for deletion will be displayed
Also, please sign your post by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button above the edit box which looks like this: . Do not sign in articles. Pppery 17:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To give you an actual answer rather than the above cut-and-paste, assuming you mean Om Lifesyle LLC, it was deleted because it was unambiguous advertorial. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a webhost; we don't host adverts, only neutral articles sourced to reliable independent sources. ‑ Iridescent 17:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Usually when an article is nominated for speedy deletion the creator is notified on his user talk page. It isn't obvious why this wasn't done in your case. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the article is usually nominated for deletion by any experienced user and deleted later by an admin. In this case admin Randykitty seems to have deleted on sight as blatant spam (which is what I would have done too) Jimfbleak (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.. and just to add that it is not permitted to "create a page for a company", though it is OK to create a referenced encyclopaedic article about a notable company. Dbfirs 10:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of the main Wikipedia article on 9/11[edit]

How do I access the history of edits to the main 9/11 article, including when it was locked? How many 9/11 related articles are there? Politicstahl (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Politicstahl. Please read Help:Page history and Help:Log. The former explains how to access a page's history and read it in multiple ways; the latter explains how to access a page's logs, including its protection history (its "locking"). For how many 9/11 related articles there are, it very much depends on what you mean by "related" – how attenuated or direct the relation you might mean – but Help:Category may provide a framework for answering the question, such as by viewing what pages are contained in Category:September 11 attacks. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having seen what you are on about, I regret giving you instructions. I have learned the folly of trying to convince credulous conspiracy believing people so I won't try but it disgusts me to the core.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2016_October_1&oldid=1065763619"