Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 December 19

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.

December 19

SHINee

Hello!

I'm Dorothy, me and other SHINee fans would prefer if you left Jonghyun as an honorary member, and stopped deleting things that grieving fans wish others to know about SHINee, we find it rude and disrespectful to disclude Jonghyun from SHINee as he was extremely loyal to them, and seeing as your not fans and do not know them, you have no reason to remove what I wrote.

Not trying to be rude but this is how I see it. PLEASE LEAVE IT ALONE. SHINee has 5 members, 4 singers, and an angel, do not forget it :). He also did not LEAVE SHINee, he comitted suicide which is already awful, please give him the recognition he deserves, as that was his dying wish...to be told he was good and did good, stop taking that away from him and respect his wishes.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MinjiDorothy (talk • contribs) 02:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC) 

Hello, MinjiDorothy. I see that that is how you see it. Clearly Tibbydibby disagrees with you as to what is appropriate, and has reverted your edit to SHINee. Wikipedia works by consensus. If two editors disagree about something, the way forward is not for either of them to insist "I am right! Leave this alone", but for them to discuss the matter and try to reach an agreement. Please post on Talk:Shinee, explaining why you think this is appropriate to the article. Remember that Wikipedia is not interested in what you, or I, or any random person on the internet knows, or thinks, or says: it is only interested in what reliable published sources say. If you can find a reliable published source that describes the band as still having five members, that may appear in the article. Otherwise, I'm afraid that would be inappropriate in an encyclopaedia. --ColinFine (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry you feel that way, but Jonghyun's dying wish was for people to tell him he worked hard. I felt that was important to note, and I published this before that pages edits, so that was not what I was refering to....I was refering to how he is still a member of SHINee. Because he is, in spirit and that is I feel it appropriate to answer his dying wish and if that's not acceptable, I'll take my leave, but if you actually look at the time stamps, that edit was not what I was refering to, and they already screamed at me VIA computer over it although I'm grieving heavly, which may not be understandable to some people, but I know what Jonghyun wanted, and that is good enough for me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinjiDorothy (talk • contribs) 12:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

avoid the or change the veto power in uno

sir/madam, Jerusalam is the capital of Palesteine this true and history, but jews states created by uk include coalitions this true, UNO officers show to trump world map before 1967 or 1947 there is nothing in the map jews country this fact and true, but mr trump decisions world muslims firing and many palesteines were killed by jews forces mr trump's unanimous decisions. BUT We convet to our thanks for uno security council members they try to maximum force for stop mr trump about jerusalam decision. we hope as soon 194 uno members support with defeat this unanimous mr trump decision. thanks for give write this opportunity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.247.48.36 (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the 'desk' for help in editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question in that respect? Eagleash (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Table damaged

I have published addition with table layout. While editing it was fine, but when published some cells floated off.

04:02, 19 December 2017‎ Vlasat (talk | contribs)‎ . . (146,275 bytes) (+1,154)‎ . . (Alternative translation added)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlasat (talk • contribs) 04:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note: Relates to Bangkok

@Vlasat: Hello, I have fixed the table so it displays better. Please check that the right info. is in the right cells as I am not certain what you intended. Eagleash (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

latest versions

how to check latest versions of Indian standard organization — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.209.212.194 (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Your question isn't clear. Could you please explain what you mean? And if possible, please provide a wikilink to the article to which you are referring. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox help

Can anyone provide a little bit of advice for using one's personal sandbox? Sorry, I know that's a rather broad question. I've been editing articles for about a year now and wanted to try my hand at writing some. I'm using my own personal sandbox, and for the most part it seems to be coming along quite nicely. But what happens when I actually publish what's in the sandbox? And once I'm content with the editing process of the new article, is there a way for me to migrate that article to be published in a public capacity? Shaggyski (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Shaggyski. You don't appear to have created your user sandbox. You can use it, but my suggestion would be to use draft space instead - you can use the article wizard to do so. That will insert a header in the draft which includes a button you can use to submit it for review: if the reviewing editor accepts it, they will move it to main space. Have you read your first article? If not, I recommend you do. --ColinFine (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe that it said that my sandbox would be created when I first published something, and I haven't done so yet. Does that make any sense? Anyways, I've been using it to write and edit the page while constantly using the preview button. I think I'll try moving everything over to the Article Wizard instead of continuing to use the sandbox. And, I admittedly only skimmed through "Your First Article" before I began the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaggyski (talk • contribs) 12:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Shaggyski: There was a confusing change required by the Wikimedia foundation where the "save changes" button was replaced by "publish changes" (the idea being that this will make clearer that you are publishing under the CC-BY-SA license and anyone can reuse it etc. even if it is not in the mainspace). You can "publish" the sandbox even if it is not complete, the point of sandboxes is to be a work in progress. Using the preview button, you run the risk of losing your changes if your computer or internet goes down. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

General Reference for articles with only one source

There are several dozen articles copied from an old encyclopedia that is now in the public domain. None of the articles include inline citations, but only a general reference at the end. Someone came along and tagged all the articles demanding inline citations. Cannot the general referencing be justified by Wikipedia:Citing sources#General references? Few of the articles are of the interest level to attract further research and additions beyond what the encyclopedia found useful. Jzsj (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Jzsj, general references are a horrible idea, whether you cite one, two, or a dozen. There are a few reasons. The obvious reason is that after a while when material is added, removed, moved around and altered, it becomes impossible to say what is covered by the "general reference" at the end and what is not. The pessimistic view that some articles are so uninteresting that no one will ever edit them after the first draft is unrealistic.

The second reason is a bit more technical, but underappreciated. Under our Verifiability policy only inline citations can meet the requirements of demonstrating verifiablity: "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" (my emphasis). General references are no different from Further reading or External links content: while article contents may be verifiable from them, they are not verified by them. The verifiability policy calls for content to be verified in addition to just being verifiable in certain cases. Insofar as tagging an article for needing inline citations in spite of general references means that material is "challenged" (and I think it does), then inline citations are necessary in order to justify keeping that material in the article. Because such a situation arises quite regularly, as you have observed, such content is probably "likely to be challenged", so it should have had inline citations in to begin with.

It's also not true that none of these articles feature inline citations. I try to fix them. This is always considered an improvement. See for instance: Gallicanism before and after. I use Earwig's Copyvio Detector (designed for another purpose) to see where the source matches our article.

I could also rant about why "attribution templates" are a very bad way of attributing anything, but that's another story. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time for a long explanation, but I still need an answer to whether the following quote in Wikipedia:Citing sources#General references justifies what experienced editors did dozens of times: "The disadvantage of general references is that text–source integrity is lost, unless the article is very short. They are frequently reworked by later editors into inline citations." Here we are dealing with short articles most of which are likely to remain that way, and I have no interest in changing what these other editors have done unless it is clearly against Wiki policy. If you are saying that it is, please tell me how you interpret the quoted line. Gratefully, @Finnusertop: Jzsj (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Jzsj, as with countless policy issues on Wikipedia, the answer is neither "yes" or "no", but: it depends on the context. WP:MINREF lists those cases where keeping content in articles is contingent on the editors' ability to present inline citations: direct quotations always require inline citations, contentious material about living persons (hardly an issue with such old sources), content that is challenged (the policy does not elaborate what exactly constitutes a "challenge"; common sense applies), and content that is likely to be challenged (even more vague). I think it's best to stick to the following rules of thumb: inline citations are always better than general references, but any kind of references are better than no references at all. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you much for this clarification. The person who originated most of these articles (without inline citations) is (I notice on further checking) currently an administrator. I plan to take this up with the person who recently placed all the (ugly) tags on these articles, and see if he minds my removing some of them. @Finnusertop: Jzsj (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Help needed immediately, please!

Dear helper, We are stuck. We tried to move a German article - which was translated from German into English. We are new in Wikipedia. After we moved the article, we realized that the title is Wikipedia: Childhood in War. It should say Childhood in War. How can that be changed?Thanks in advance. --IrmaCan (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I have moved it for you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Finnusertop this was great. We have to move another article and in drop-down-menue there is no option „article“! What can we do? What option did you choose? --Andrea014 (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The first option should be "(Article)" in parentheses. It is in parentheses since unlike every other namespace, the word is not added to the name (basically the empty namespace is equal to articlespace).Naraht (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, shit happens! I am the author of two articles about Childhood in war. I wrote them for the deWP. IrmaCan was so kind to translate my articles into English. Now we tried to move both. The fist was wrong and Finnusertop was so kind to help. Then Irma tried to move the second article but took the talk page instead of the article. Problem is that neither on her computer nor in my in dropdown-menue it is possible to move to the article-namespace. Now CiaPan gave speedy delation to the talk page. Now nearly desperate and Irma had to leave and my English is not so good. Is there another help possible? The actual name of the article is User:IrmaCan/Kriegskind (Deutschland), the new name should be German Childhood in World War II. Puh. Is understandable what I mean? --Andrea014 (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User:GreenMeansGo and I tried to fix this at almost the same time, but I think everything is OK now. Please doublecheck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey Andrea014, Floq. Looks like the article has been successfully moved to German childhood in World War II. Per our naming conventions, "childhood" should be lowercase, and so Floq has done us the favor of deleting the alternate all capitals title. GMG^talk 16:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I spoke too soon, but now I think it's all ok. I moved the talk page to the correct capitalization, and added a redirect from German Childhood in World War II to German childhood in World War II. Everything should be at German childhood in World War II and its talk page now, including edit history. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

What are you doing with two old ladies, coming from the Middle Ages before the middle of last century? Bringing them close to nervous breakdown! But now I calmed down and Irma, the lucky one having been absent in this drama, will come back tomorrow and will see what happened. But now: Many many thanks to GreenMeansGo, Floquenbeam and all the others who have been engaged with our incompetence. 💐 You all have been wonderful!

One question remains: it was not the first article we moved and never before we had such problems. But today there was no chance. In the drop-down-menue there was on first place the option (article), but when click to: nothing happened. This was the reason why I at the end had choosen Wikipedia as option. Is there any explanation for that phenomenon? Why could you move and neither Irma nor me?

Thanks again and have nice times Irma & --Andrea014 (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Andrea014. I wish I could tell you. I really don't know what the problem was. As far as I know all you need to have in order to move pages is to be auto-confirmed, which you appear to be. GMG^talk 17:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The crazy thing was, we both were connected by phone (Irma in Canada, me in Germany) and both had the same problems. Hmmm. Anyway: Thanks GreenMeansGo! --Andrea014 (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Change title of a page

Hi!

I've noticed an incorrect spelling on an Afrikaans language page: https://af.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minotourus&veaction=edit The title should be Minotaurus, not Minotourus. But how does one change a page title?105.227.107.2 (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Instructions are at Wikipedia:Requested moves. There is a lot of information on that page, but I think the relevant portion is Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_technical_moves. Deli nk (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The instructions which Deli nk gave are for the English Wikipedia, but you will also find a move process on the Afrikaans wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks David. I missed that the question was specific to Afrikaans Wikipedia. Deli nk (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andr%C3%A9_Macedo

Hello,

I wrote this article today (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andr%C3%A9_Macedo), but it is still in draft and has the wrong title. The title should be "RealFevr" just like the Portuguese version https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealFevr. Can you help me?

Thanks

André Macedo — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreMACneto (talk • contribs) 20:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If Draft:André Macedo were eventually to be submitted for review, and if it were accepted for publication to mainspace, the reviewer could set the title correctly at that stage. It is, however, obviously not fit to be submitted for review yet. You need to read the advice at WP:Your first article, and also read about reliable sources and about references. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Adjust blacklist

Years ago, there was a spamming revert-war at Put-in-Bay, Ohio (it's a lake resort village) in the external links, and as there's no official website for the village, we ended up using the website of the chamber of commerce in place of an official website. Thanks to this and other incidents of spamming for vacationers, MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist has lines for \bohioputinbay\.net\b and \bputinbay(?:attractions|fallball|hotel|house|online|rentals|reservations|springfling)\.com\b. I just got a related note on my talk page:

I was trying to fix the Chamber of Commerce link on the External Links section, but it keeps telling me that another website is blacklisted, and that the Chamber website can not be edited. You have the Chamber website listed as visitputinbay DOT org and that is NOT correct. The Chamber of Commerce website is DOT com, not DOT org. However, Wikipedia won't accept that link because it says "The following link has triggered a protection filter: putinbay.com". Is there any way you can correct this link so it doesn't go to the advertising site of DOT org and instead goes to the real Chamber site? Or provide info on how to get it done? It looks like the revert-war person changed it 3 years ago and no one else has caught it.

I've checked the URLs and agree with what was said here. Can someone tweak the blacklist to make an exception for putinbay.com? I know how to put it back (delete the article, restore a revision with the link, make a new edit with that link, and then restore the page), but that's clunky, and another removal of the link will require the same process. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Those two blacklist entries do not forbid putinbay.com; that one is on the blacklist at meta. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, John. The situation there I find a bit confusing, so I've requested help at the admin noticeboard. Nyttend (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

How to add to Wikipedia?

I'm looking to add some content to wikipedia. Are their directions on how to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenste (talk • contribs) 21:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Karenste: Thanks for asking and for wanting to contribute. Check out the getting started page at the link in the below reply, which include a link to a tutorial. RudolfRed (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Or Wikipedia:Tutorial. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I think RudolfRed meant to link H:GS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Oopsie. Thank you. RudolfRed (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Where to report a personal attack?

I have noticed a personal attack, where should I report it? Τζερόνυμο (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You could report the same to WP:ANI. Before that, you may consider reading our policy on how to respond to personal attacks to get more clarity. Thanks, Lourdes 23:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)