Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 March 15
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < March 14 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | March 16 > |
| 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. |
March 15[edit]
Sibghatullah_Mojaddedi[edit]
Can you please stop saying he is deceased he's well and alive and spreading these rumors are terrible as someone who Skype's him last week this upsets me so much please take down the death date from his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:9A1B:1765:19F7:A199:4D0F:8937 (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- As the article explains, there were false reports that he died earlier this year.
- It did have a "template" message at the top, querying it; I've removed that. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
How to update business school rankings infobox[edit]
Many business school articles (e.g. Harvard Business School) contain an infobox of various rankings. How does one change the url, title, and date of the source when a specific ranking is updated? I've gone to Template:Infobox business school rankings and clicked on every "edit" button, but can't find any of the fields in question. Contributor321 (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- You need to edit the fields of the infobox within the article itself, not by editing the template page. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- That's not correct. Every business school article with a U.S. News & World Report MBA ranking in an infobox, for example, shows as a reference ""Best Business Schools". U.S. News & World Report. 2015. Retrieved 2016-02-06." It must be possible to make changes in just one location, somewhere, which will then populate ALL the business school rankings infoboxes, just like clicking the top edit button on Template:Infobox US university ranking/National allows you to make changes which populate every "Infobox US university ranking/National". Contributor321 (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- This is above my pay grade, but it seems like it's necessary to edit each individual transcluded template to change any url/title/date for a rankings provider. I've looked also, and don't see a place that gives access to edit all the sources on a single page for biz school rankings. For example, you mentioned "National," but there are separate templates for university types like "Liberal Arts" and "Regional." For biz schools, there are separate templates for "USmba," "USundergrad," "Worldgeneral," etc. DonFB (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The references are defined in {{Infobox business school rankings/USmba}}, {{Infobox business school rankings/USundergrad}}, {{Infobox business school rankings/Worldgeneral}} and {{Infobox business school rankings/Worldmba}} 86.20.193.222 (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks very much - I appreciate your tracking down those templates. Contributor321 (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Photos from Google Drive?[edit]
I'm using the sandbox and want to upload a picture that I made on google drawings. The photo won't upload. Echo9001 (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Echo9001: A .gdraw file is not an acceptable file type on Wikipedia. Most normal image types are accepted though. .PNG and .JPG are the most common. However, images hosted here must follow a set of rules due to copyright law. Judging by the content in your sandbox I'm going to assume you want to upload some album art. 99% of album art is covered by copyright and can only be placed in main article space. Not sandboxes, not userspace, nowhere else. If my assumption is correct please do not upload this image yet else it will be subject to deletion. If you want you can also file a request at files for upload so someone else can take a look at it. --Majora (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@Majora thanks Echo9001 (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Timeline Halp[edit]
Just starting a new thread since the old one is getting pushed up the page. I'm trying to figure out Template:Hominin species during Pleistocene. I tried to just pull dates from every article on every species, and I changed the overall timeline to Period = from:2588000 till:15000, representing "number of years ago", so that the table would run from left to right with right-most being most recent. But it looks like I'm getting an error for pretty much every value because the darn thing doesn't recognize periods that run from a larger number to a smaller number (basically all of BCE, but also a "number of years ago" or "mya" format).
So I'm pretty much stuck. I'm still in preview mode, since I don't want to save a fundamentally breaking edit, but here's what I've got currently. Hopefully someone can fix me. TimothyJosephWood 12:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- BTW, I know there are other values that are just not even close, but I was expecting to narrow the thing down to four or five errors and work from there. The fact that I'm getting a dozen errors means something in fundamentally wrong. TimothyJosephWood 12:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Current attempt
|
|---|
|
|
- Looking at the right-hand chart at WP:EasyTimeline#Charts_examples, I see the source code using the negative sign (-) for "from" numbers that are less than zero (0). The "establishing" code in the example is:
Period = from:-4500 till:0DonFB (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC) - Timothy, I was able to turn it around by inserting a negative sign (-) in front of all the "from", "till" and "at" numbers, so it reads left-to-right with no error messages. However, elements are not all in correct places with correct colors and some apparently are overlapping. So, I...uh...leave it to the student to iron out those issues (or try something completely different). DonFB (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- DonFB, Awesome. You don't happen to have your solution still open in an edit window do you? TimothyJosephWood 16:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
My draft page was deleted, need to speak to someone ASAP[edit]
Good morning,
I received a notification that my draft article (which was located in my draft space / sandbox) was "speedily deleted" for "unambiguous advertising or promotion." This article is not an advertisement, but information on a company, which was indicated when following the Wikipedia Article Wizard. I cannot seem to retrieve the draft entry and need assistance.
Name of Article: Draft: ContraVir Pharmaceuticals Deleted by: Anthony Appleyard on March 15, 2017, 05:29
Please provide assistance ASAP and feel free to call me at <phone number redacted>.
Best, Victoria Milevski
Lnovick (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Your user talk page includes an explanation as to why your draft was deleted, with wikilinks (in blue) to further information. That explanation also includes a link to the log which shows you who the deleting administrator was. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Victoria; and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm sorry for your situation. I can see that you put in a lot of hard work on your first article. It must have been a shock to see it suddenly gone; deleted from your own "Draft Space/Sandbox" with only a WP Template placed on your Talk Page without a personal comment offering either explanation or assistance. That can be very discouraging. Furthermore, getting WP jargon thrown at you doesn't help either. I understand your intentions were/are in "Good Faith"; but have run up against WP protocol administered by those that may not realize your first-time experienced knowledge. It seems your Draft has been restored: [1] Here is your draft link: Draft: ContraVir Pharmaceuticals Draft. Please welcome the editor(s) to your Talk Page (or on the Draft Talk Page:[2]) to start the appropriate dialogue with them. (Which perhaps should have been instituted by those who knew what they were doing at the outset IMHO) Exemplo347 & Anthony Appleyard . Best of luck. Maineartists (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Lnovick, Maineartists, and David Biddulph: I have undeleted Draft:ContraVir Pharmaceuticals; but as it stands it has an advertisory tone. For more information see Wikipedia:Spam. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- That's why it's a draft ... in a sandbox; and why this newcomer needs guidance, advice and assistance. I don't think anyone disagrees with your assessment; but the manner in which the editor was informed could have been more sympathetic toward their future understanding. IMHO Maineartists (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- You may want to check it for, ahem, "close paraphrasing". 81.168.78.73 (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- That's why it's a draft ... in a sandbox; and why this newcomer needs guidance, advice and assistance. I don't think anyone disagrees with your assessment; but the manner in which the editor was informed could have been more sympathetic toward their future understanding. IMHO Maineartists (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
to whom it may concern[edit]
Re: Titanic... It may be much better to replace trade words like starboard [right side of a ship} with common words RIGHT Etc. Not only in article about Titanic, and not limited to Wiki. Minor, but still interesting change would be to use a ton [1000 kg] instead of long ton , and mesing with explaining the negligable diffrenecw between two.
Sorry falks, I am 80 and can't do this in a better way
<eMail redacted>.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.97.23 (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where the best place to discuss this would be but port and starboard are common enough English words that I think they're fine to use in an article, especially one about a ship. †dismas†|(talk) 16:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Welcome, friend. Thanks for taking the time and effort to make suggestions.
- We do like to use slightly technical words sometimes, so that we can offer blue linked words to other articles. OK, so that was a silly example, but you get my point.
- I think I may have a solution for the 'starboard' issue; I'm going to put (right) after the first use of it, which is near the start of that article. And I'll link it to Port and starboard as well.
- As for "long tons" - I couldn't see which part you meant. There's some mentions of gross register tons, which would be hard to change while remaining factually correct - because that's not the same thing as weight at all.
- Perhaps you can explain which part you mean?
- We do try to offer other units where possible, for example saying "Ship length = 882 ft 9 in (269.1 m)*".
- Thanks again for the ideas, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Adding a note to a specific instance of a reference[edit]
On an article I'm writing, I'm using the same 3 books over and over. My citations look something like this:
Lorum ipsom lorum ipsum.[1]: 46 Blah blah, fjowon nosnosn.[1]: 98
Now, I'm including a place where the author has quoted another source. I'm wanting to indicate that the quotation is the author I'm citing quoting another source. Is there an easy way to add that information but make it specific only to the specific instance that I'm citing? Something like the ref page template?~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- For now I'm using a work around diff, but I don't like the way I'm doing it as I'd prefer any explanatory notes presented like that to provide further information on the subject, rather than further information on a source. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- @ONUnicorn: A quick question; could you just cite the person he's quoting instead? Or is the quote only available within this other publication? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- He doesn't do a great job of providing a specific citation to the source he's quoting there, referring to it as "A War Department booklet published for supervisors of German POW laborers" rather than by the title of the booklet. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. And presumably the original was German, so very hard to track down. I just can't think of a way to do it with rp without duplicating the source; I mean, the [x] has to link to one thing; if in one case that one thing is just the book detail, and the other case the one thing is the book detail plus the where-he-quoted-from, that means the book detail is duplicated. It could sort-of be done with Harvard-style refs,
{{Harvnb}}, but that's quite different really. Hmm... 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. And presumably the original was German, so very hard to track down. I just can't think of a way to do it with rp without duplicating the source; I mean, the [x] has to link to one thing; if in one case that one thing is just the book detail, and the other case the one thing is the book detail plus the where-he-quoted-from, that means the book detail is duplicated. It could sort-of be done with Harvard-style refs,
- He doesn't do a great job of providing a specific citation to the source he's quoting there, referring to it as "A War Department booklet published for supervisors of German POW laborers" rather than by the title of the booklet. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- @ONUnicorn: A quick question; could you just cite the person he's quoting instead? Or is the quote only available within this other publication? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
For info, the source can be seen here in Google Books. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@ONUnicorn: What I meant by the above was, this. Not ideal, for sure, but I don't see how duplication can be avoided - it has to highlight one thing or the other. Thoughts? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- That definitely works; although I'm not fond of the duplicated ref, I do like it a lot better than trying to use Harvard-style refs. I'm not sure if I like it better than the idea of using a note though. Thank you for the idea; I'll have to think about it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Do you really need anything special? You've already found a way to quote most of the text so perhaps modify what you've got to: 'The War Department believed that the prisoners would "have a strong ..."' and then cite where you saw it (e.g. in Robin at page 8). You don't have to also cite that which you have not seen.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- I also think it'd be fine to say, A War Deparment booklet said "prisoners will [..] have a strong influence in future German affairs, just citing Barbed-Wire. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- That's a better idea! The phrasing is much better. I'll do that. Thank you both! ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- I also think it'd be fine to say, A War Deparment booklet said "prisoners will [..] have a strong influence in future German affairs, just citing Barbed-Wire. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Call for merge?[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_pluripotent_stem-cell_therapy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell
seem to be about exactly the same subject. How do I either suggest a merge and redirect ? Do I use some template, or is there some page where I submit a merge as a suggestion? Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Please see WP:MERGEPROP for detailed instructions. It's fairly straightforward if you take it step by step, but please return here if you need more help. Please ensure to tag both pages and to initiate the discussion. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- @DanielDemaret: adding a ping. Eagleash (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm a relative newbie, but have cited Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell and know a bit about the subject. I think Induced_pluripotent_stem-cell_therapy is problematic for multiple reasons. First, note the problems mentioned on the banner. Also, the rather large section Induced_pluripotent_stem-cell_therapy#Basics of sickle-cell anemia appears to violate WP:CFORK with Sickle-cell disease. I think that the section Induced_pluripotent_stem-cell_therapy#The experiment doesn't meet Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). In summary, I would not bother trying to merge the articles. I would simply make Induced_pluripotent_stem-cell_therapy into a redirect to the more substantial, less problematic Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell. I'm pinging jytdog who is more experienced with this sort of thing and may take care of it.DennisPietras (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oops, didn't get the ping done right above. @Jytdog:DennisPietras (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- I just did the redirect. The "therapy" article was essentially a PROMO Fork of the section already in the induced stem article here: Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell#Clinical_trial. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you @Jytdog: DennisPietras (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm a relative newbie, but have cited Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell and know a bit about the subject. I think Induced_pluripotent_stem-cell_therapy is problematic for multiple reasons. First, note the problems mentioned on the banner. Also, the rather large section Induced_pluripotent_stem-cell_therapy#Basics of sickle-cell anemia appears to violate WP:CFORK with Sickle-cell disease. I think that the section Induced_pluripotent_stem-cell_therapy#The experiment doesn't meet Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). In summary, I would not bother trying to merge the articles. I would simply make Induced_pluripotent_stem-cell_therapy into a redirect to the more substantial, less problematic Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell. I'm pinging jytdog who is more experienced with this sort of thing and may take care of it.DennisPietras (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Using wikipedia for the first time... when will my draft get reviewed?[edit]
Hi there, I'm using wikipedia to create a page for an artist. I've finished the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rob_Fairley I was wondering when my draft might get reviewed? I've read the guidelines and wasn't sure how the next step proceeds All the best. FelixClovelly (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Felix Clovelly: Place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page and it will be submitted for review. Prepare to be patient though, there is often a large backlog of articles. Eagleash (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)