Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 October 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 7 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 9 >
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 8[edit]

Preserved an archive of a web pge for a reference[edit]

Hi, I am working on a page in my user space as a spin-out from an existing article. One of the references I have used is http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article644 this one] which yesterday had an article from the journal on it, as can be sen from the google cache. How can I make an archive copy of the google cache version so the article can remain available as a live page for referencing. I've never used the wayback machine, but when I tried it said robots.txt not allowed. Help! Thanks, EdChem (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

archive.org is your friend: Einstein et l’astrologie : une citation fausse qui a la vie dure.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. EdChem (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking ties in date sorting (datetime sorting)[edit]

I'd like to sort data data where a few rows have the same date, and I'd like to the tie to be broken as I specify, i.e., avoid the behavior described at Help:Sorting § Secondary key.

Here is the situation. The two tables in Living Presidents of the United States §§ Table​ and Living Vice Presidents of the United States each have two rows with the same date value (July 4, 1826) in the first sortable column. One of them represents the death of Thomas Jefferson at 12:50pm, the other, the death of John Adams at 6:20pm.

As the tables are currently set up,you can observe the "secondary key" behavior as follows:

  • Sort the final column ascending, then sort the first column ascending and resort it descending.
  • Sort the final column descending, then sort the first column ascending and resort it descending.

In each case, notice the relative order of the July 4, 1826 rows. Their relative order depends on their order when the last column is sorted, and sorting and resorting the first column does not change the relative order of these two rows. This is not desired - we want the death of Jefferson to always sort chronologically before the death of Adams.

Here are some ideas I had

  1. Add {{sort|1|}} and {{sort|2|}} after the date in these two cells -- had no impact on sorting
  2. Add the time after the date to force the sort order - caused these rows to sort all the way to one end
  3. Add the time after the date and date-type-sort="date" on the individual rows - caused these rows to sort all the way to one end.
  4. Same as above two options, but using sort-data-type="usLongDate" - caused these rows to sort somewhere between 1969 and 1972!
  5. Add {{sort|July 4, 1826|July 4, 1826 hh:mm}} to these two rows -- also causes these rows to sort all the way to one end
  6. Add {{sort}} to each and every row. I know this would work, but I'd prefer something a bit less extreme if possible.

Any ideas? YBG (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with a fake sort date.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bold items in watchlist[edit]

In the past few days, recent changes have started showing up in bold on my watchlist. I have the preference "Display pages on your watchlist that have changed since your last visit in bold" in gadgets unchecked, so why is this happening and what can I do to prevent it? Thank you, --Viennese Waltz 09:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be an "upgrade" to the software which has broken several nice things. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Watchlist_bolding for more. DuncanHill (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Error for entry regarding Peter Curtin[edit]

I am attempting to correct the date of death of my husband, Peter Curtin. It is incorrectly stated as 19th may, 2014. That was printed in the newspaper at the time, but the correct date is the 18th May, as per the coroner's certificate and the death certificate, both of which I hold. Please can this be amended. Ailsa Piper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.124.39.204 (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP, presumed to be Ailsa Piper, appears to have successfully made the amendment herself, but this means the date is now cited to a source that gives the incorrect (19th) date, so someone in future may in good faith take the article to be in error and revert/re-amend it to the 19th. Ideally we need a new published Reliable Source to which to cite the date of the 18th. As the Coroner's and Death Certificates are considered primary sources, they are not themselves suitable according to Wikipedia's policies. Hopefully a reputable newspaper or journal has since published the correct date, providing an acceptable secondary source for Wikipedia purposes. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources have to be used with care and cannot be used for certain purposes. For example, they cannot be used for interpretation or analysis and are useless to demonstrate notability. Mostly, they should only be used to verify straightforward statements of fact. Somewhere along the line, the cautions and prohibitions of use if primary sources were conflated with a general opprobrium that they cannot be used at all, or that they are unreliable. That is not, however, what our policies or guidelines hold. Primary sources may be far more reliable for pure factual matters, just like this.

The only issue here as I see it is whether these sources are suitably published for citation – sources cited must be able to be checked by our readers, and so they must be available for that to take place. We do not require sources be online, nor that they be easy to access, but they do need to be reasonably available to be described as "published"

I'm not really sure if a death certificate meets that requirement. In the U.S., for example, it might be dependent upon the state at issue. That dependency is because, though a copy can be requested online to be sent to you through VitalChek (for a fee), or requested directly from a municipality's Office of Health and Mental Hygiene (NYC), or similar office, different states have different restrictions on who may request a copy of one – ranging from available to anyone, to only available to family members upon proof. In any event, for a person who resided in the United States in contemporary times, the Social Security Death Index can often be used, and is exquisitely reliable for purposes of a death date—and yet a primary source. I have no idea about Australia unfortunately. I'm going to see if there is some equivalent there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Australia's National Death Index is restricted. A search of the Ryerson Index, and then of the newspaper articles it finds, all point to the May 19 date.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason to not just give the years? I vaguely seem to recall some guidelines about when to give or omit birth/death dates in biographies, but I can't find it. I would err on the side of caution when there's a conflict between sources. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps give just the year and explain the conflict in a footnote. Leschnei (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A footnote would not really help, since it would still appear as unsourced speculation. However, I think just giving the month, with a WP:HIDDENTEXT mention, is the way to go: even if the IP editor is a malicious person, I fail to see how removing the day of death of Peter Curtin would be a big deal. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible solution: I would assume [citation needed] that (1) death certificates are non-copyrightable works (or at least not government-copyrightable ones), and (2) having one of those online does not constitute a serious breach of privacy for a dead person. If the IP editor agrees with it, it could just be uploaded to Commons via WP:DCM and used as a reference for the correct date.
If this goes against a demi-dozen of guidelines, well, that is where the one that trumps them all comes in handy. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Charles Hugh Smith page[edit]

As of 9:00 this morning, Saturday October 8th, the page of Charles Hugh Smith is still missing.

It was maliciously and abusively deleted.

I believe -- nay I KNOW -- but cannot prove that his page was deleted as retribution for a recent article questioning the Immoral and Unethical (William ) Clinton Foundation.

THe Charles Hugh Smith entry must be restored. But I would not even know how to begin to effect its restoration.

Help or action or advice appreciated !

SnowieGeorgie

SnowieGeorgie (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because "non-notable blogger; no significant coverage of Smith as an individual". A Google search confirms this: the hits are all pages written by Smith, not independent pages discussing him. I see no reason to suspect malice or abuse. Maproom (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Regarding "maliciously and abusively" and your claims that the Clinton Foundation had anything to do with this: read WP:Assume good faith.
If you check the red link, you'll see that it was deleted because it didn't have any sources for more than a week. (In fact, I see that it didn't have a source for over a bloody year). Our biographies of living persons policy requires that any statement regarding a living person must be reliably sourced. Our notability guidelines require that any article must have at least two reliable sources which are independent of the subject but cover it in-depth and at length.
No sources at all? No article. That would even apply to the Clinton Foundation. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, Charles Hugh Smith has been restored, in response to a Request for Undeletion. Second, the claims of malice and abuse are normally not a useful way to influence the content of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a rule to assume good faith, including with regard to the neutral point of view policy, and making allegations of malice very seldom persuades (even if there really is malice on the part of other editors). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What criteria at Wikipedia:Notability_(people) does this person fulfill? Syced (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page ghost writer?[edit]

I do apologise if there's somewhere else I should be posting this, but I can't remember where it should go!

I know someone who's submitted a page and had it deleted, and when I look at it it seems it's not been written in the Wikipedia style. I don't know enough to rewrite and resubmit it. Is there a panel of ghost writers who can help with this please? Thank you. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost writers? Do you mean editors who are willing to write articles for others? If so, you can request here. Fuortu (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you yes that is exactly what I'm after. Brilliant! --TammyMoet (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed navbox on energy modeling[edit]

Hello all. I have drafted out a {{Navbox}} on energy modeling. It can be found at User:RobbieIanMorrison/sandbox/energy modeling. A couple of questions. Should that be |bodyclass=hlist (as used) or |listclass=hlist (as suggested in the template documentation)? And can someone confirm the overall markup and, in particular, that in the <noinclude> block? Many thanks in advance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Switching bodyclass and listclass doesn't really have that big of an impact on the output. Bodyclass puts hlist into the overall table css, listclass puts hlist into each of the table boxes that are supposed to be lists. To be more clear, when using bodyclass, the entire table has the css class hlist. When using listclass, the content under |list1=, |list2=, etc, have the css class hlist. Other than that, nothing really stands out. Although, I do welcome any other eyes to take a look if they like. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 20:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello The Voidwalker. Thanks for your response. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The navbox in now in main space: Template:Energy modeling. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Library in Texas[edit]

I just read an article [sort of] that claimed that the Rosenberg Library in Galveston is the oldest continuously operating library in Texas. It is not, that honor goes to the Dr. Eugene Clark Library in Lockhart, Texas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.12.90 (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We base our articles on verifiable reliable sources. Could you please provide reliable sources to back up your claim, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

my mother is being framed[edit]

My name is edward s. Clarke and u have a lot of false information on my mother theda rose clarke the people that are putting this false info out are .Anna MA awash family and I would like if you would take all and every thing about theda Clarke out of your wikpidia page ...or I can get a lawyer to help ..thank you... Redcloud81 (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)edward s clarke..[reply]

  • Hello, if you have specific items that you feel are incorrect, please bring this up on the talk page at Talk:Theda Nelson Clarke. We require all information to be independently verifiable, so if something there is not, it will be removed. Also please read WP:NLT. We live in a litigious world, but you don't need to go there to get incorrect information removed, and indeed unless you retract the lawyer comment, you are likely to be blocked yourself (as described in that NLT link). CrowCaw 23:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redcloud81 First let me say how sorry I am that you are experiencing what is an occurrence that sometimes arises when dealing with a public accessed and edited site such as Wiki. That being said, after having reviewed your mother's article, the sources cited, and the sections in question, it does seem that there are some rather "un-encyclopedic" passages that do not belong. The article itself is short, and although it is sourced with 40 references, some are not viable sources: i.e. blogs, etc. Furthermore, the topic of Anna Mae Aquash should not be covered so intensely on your mother's page since Aquash has her own article on Wiki where the subject of her murder is quite in-depth and barely mentions your mother to the extent that this article does -- which raises questions in my mind as to motive of inclusion. For what your mother is most known for in the lede, very little is covered in the section Activism before the name of Aquash is raised. There are approximately 18 references to the murder of Aquash in your mother's article alone, which raises speculation; since her name was only included twice in the entire article on Aquash. In all, the article is bad and poor in editing. The "present tense" recalling throughout the Legal History section is terrible, and the discrepancy in the Personal History regarding her U.S. Military should be for the talk page, not in the article itself. I think you have every right to bring your frustration to the talk page and demand each inline statement be sourced correctly, and information stay relevant to the subject. I personally would remove much of the Legal History as it pertains more to Aquash than the subject. These are just my thoughts. Good luck to you. Maineartists (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2016_October_8&oldid=1142596319"