Help desk
< October 8	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 10 >

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 9[edit]

List of cover versions of "I Won't Back Down"[edit]

The article about the Tom Petty (solo) song "I Won't Back Down" includes a list of cover versions. WP:COVERSONG doesn't prohibit such a list but this particular list seems messy and that WikiProject provides very little guidance for these lists. Any advice? Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My advice, Dyspeptic skeptic, is that every entry on that list needs a reference. Otherwise, the list should be removed or trimmed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating new Subcategory?[edit]

Hi, all. There does exist a Category Category:Art genres - and i would like to add a subcategory on "Object art" - as the artist i'm just writing about is doing Object art and is an "Object artist" and i cannot find a subcategory, which would be appropriate for this. I saw performance art and installation art - but both does not reflect, what this artist does and there are lots of other artists, who would perhaps qualify for this subcategory i believe. First question is - is it okay to just add a new subcategory? I read Creating Category Pages and it sounds as if it wasn't too difficult. Second question would be, how to fill in the description of this subcategory. Third question - would it perhaps be better to add Object artist in place of Object art.

I found a Wikipedia-article on Objet d'art - wouldn't it make sense to add a site Object art, which would forward to this french term - as this term is not very widely known, but Object art seems to be known better? Would be thankful for help. Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few suggestions, even though I don't know much about this. I think there are two simple things here that probably won't be objected to

making Object art a redirect to Objet d'art and
adding Objet d'art to the Category:Art genres.

As for the subcat. I'd drop a note to the WP:ART for suggestions. My most negative comment is that you shouldn't confuse what should go into the genres with what should go into the Artists. In short Michaelangelo and his works shouldn't flow to the same categories, one is a person, the other his works.Naraht (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Naraht, this helps. Will work on it tomorrow. Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "Object art" is, Gyanda, but I would assume it is a kind or genre of art. It does not seem appropriate to me redirect it to Objet d'art, which refers not to a kind of art, but a kind of object. --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ColinFine, in the article it says but in practice the term has long been reserved in English to describe works of art that are not paintings, large or medium-sized sculptures, prints or drawings. - and that is a good explanation of what Object art is - at least kind of an explanation. I will talk about this on the WP:ART section, perhaps they also have suggestions. Thank you for taking the time to answer me. Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Objet d'art" is an established term for a small collectible. See the Art & Architecture Thesaurus "Object Art" is sometimes used to refer to 60s minimalism. The two are completely separate. Mduvekot (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mduvekot, thanks for your comment. I'll look at it again, too sad that there is no proper category for object art. Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bebe & Bassy Tour[edit]

Good afternoon, how do I "legally" convince more people to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bebe & Bassy Tour? Please {{Ping}} me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jax 0677. That discussion is on four different lists, so plenty of people have had a chance to see it. Remember, these discussions aren't votes. The way to avoid deletion is not to get more people in, but to find some sources that will establish notability. --ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - ColinFine, if you look carefully, I nominated the article for deletion. I am trying to get more participation in the discussion, not get it kept. As of now, there is only ONE reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ref name irritation in the Heiner Thiel-article[edit]

Hi, all. I worked on the article today and now the result is: Cite error: A list-defined reference named "ref9" is not used in the content (see the help page). The same is ther for ref10, 11 and 12 - i looked it up - all the entries i made for reference concerning this numbers (chapter art in public spaces and curatorial work don't have a ref name= at all. I do not understand, where all these ref names are coming from - they count from number 2-12 - but i did not formate it this way. And as the references do have not ref name in the formatting, i do not know, how to get ridd of this redmarked info at the bottom of the article. I apologize for this - i just don't understand how it happened. Would someone be so kind to have a look at the article and explain to me, what i did wrong? Thanks in advance and Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gyanda. What's going on is that the references (or at least the one relating to Offenes Quadrat - I haven't checked further) are now defined in two places. You have an unnamed reference to it in the "Art in public places" section, but you also have a reference to it, with name 'ref9' in the References section. The warning is that that named reference is not actually used. I haven't looked at the history to see how that came about, but the easiest fix is simply to remove the named copy from the References section, leaving the active one in the other section.

On another subject, in my opinion, there are far too many works and collections listed. An article on an artist should mention or discuss only the works that the sources focus on, not contain an exhaustive list. --ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that you took the time to look on it. I will try to delete all ref name-references. I just don't understand, how they got there? Could this have been done by a bot? And also thanks for the info that the list of exhibitions is too long, i translated it from the german version of the site and there they seem to like long lists... i'll work on it! Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gyanda: No, those references were not formatted by a bot. The page history shows that the volunteer editor Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) spent an hour improving the article on 11 July 2016. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and i deleted it again, oh, shame on me! I will mail him and ask him about it, perhaps i can learn something from him on formatting. Thanks for having me alerted on this!!! Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox insert question #2[edit]

I previously asked this question and was helped but have a follow-up. I just added a 9th userbox though the latest one is left-aligned in the table on its own row. Is there a way I can have it centered or otherwise make it look better? Right now it seems to stick out where it is on the row. Thanks! FULBERT (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your userpage, you seem to have two sets of userboxes, one in a table at the top and one below it on the right hand side. You probably don't need both. If you are going for the top scheme, it would look best with userboxes in multiples of two or four, otherwise it is bound to be assymetrical. Copy the format of the first or second row and create a third one in a similar way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recommendations Cwmhiraeth; I think I adjusted my Userboxes as I wanted it to appear! Thanks for the link, Vchimpanzee! FULBERT (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Random Phase Multiple Access company technology page removed from Wikipedia[edit]

Hello,

My company, Ingenu is listed on Wikipedia and we noticed that the reference to our company's patented technology, "Random Phase Multiple Access" or "RPMA" has been deleted. There is a possibility that this was done maliciously. Is there any way to investigate this?

Please advise.

Thank you,

Kirsten Garvin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirstengarvin (talk • contribs) 17:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kristen, it was not deleted maliciously. The deletion reasoning on 10/6 was "This is nothing at all--at best it's a product name. Nothing I saw on the internet (of things) makes this pass the GNG." This means that the subject of the article wasn't notable or verifiable. Please check these two articles out before resubmitting. And please also read our article on conflict of interest editing. Thanks. uhhlive (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kirstengarvin. Please understand that a Wikipedia article about your company or its products is in no way part of your marketing or online presence. Wikipedia has little interest in what your company says about itself or its products, and no interest at all in how you would like to be presented. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with your company have published about it in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samovili / Samodivi[edit]

In the wikipedia page for Samodivi,i edited and updated that these mythical creatures exist in Macedonian folklore (my research) and a day after i found that it was changed ( i suspect someone from Bulgaria) edited that it was a Bulgarian/Macedonian word.Which is not true at all!These countries are separate and hold different attributes to these creatures.I only wish for justice.I also decoded their names,which i think no one has done before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatyZaseva (talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KatyZaseva. What you have is a content dispute, and you should follow the processes in WP:dispute resolution, starting with your best efforts to reach consensus. I am well aware that the status of the Macedonian language is the subject of a bitter dispute in the region: Wikipedia will not take sides on this issue, but in any given case will follow what the reliable published sources say. We work on consensus, and you will probably be more readily able to reach consensus if you discuss the matter collaboratively than come in shouting about justice. --ColinFine (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Osu Caste practice in Igboland[edit]

Re: OSU CASTE PRACTICE IN IGBOLAND. hello, i only want to say is that there were never a time the osus in igboland were like monks and respected. they were forced by the community and/or the king to worship the deities. the chief priests and priestesses were respected and treated like monks. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.120.108.167 (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. I added a header to your posting. Please indicate which of our five million articles you are talking about. Every article has an associated Talk page (sometimes called a Discussion page) which is the best place to discuss improvements to the article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This most likely refers to Osu caste system#Origin, but I notice that the reference for the relevant sentence links to a source that does not appear to support the assertion, although it is relevant to the article's overall subject.

OP, the place to discuss this is on the article's Talk page, here. I can see a case for removing the claim, but I'd prefer experienced editors, preferably with some knowledge of the subject, to find an appropriate and definive replacement reference in a reliable source and come to a concensus rather than being bold myself, and I suspect you yourself lack the Wikipedia expertise to do this. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.210.199 (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted article[edit]

Hello,

I created my first article 3 weeks ago and wanted to know how long it can take for it to be accepted, or declined. When I submitted it said it could take up to three weeks, sense it has now been that long I wanted to reach out to the community. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescasewashere (talk • contribs) 19:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you deleted the submission template, thus removing your draft from the queue awaiting review. If you want to submit it again, use the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button in the box at the top of your draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As further advice, it will make it easier for a reviewer if you expand your references from bare URLs to full citations. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging something that need clarification[edit]

If there is a sentence in an article which needs clarification or an explanation of why it is relevant, how can it be tagged? There should be something which can be put in the superscript (above to the right) of the sentence. Vital Forces 2015 (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Clarify. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Vital Forces 2015 (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]