Help desk
< June 10	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 12 >

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.

June 11

Citations to The London Gazette

Now I have stumbled on another citation question, which you appear to have a hand in. The typical output of the {{London Gazette}} citation template begins with the issue number in quotation marks, as though it were the the title of an article. But the issue number is not a title of anything, so I do not see a justification for quotation marks. I would have expected output resembling something along the following lines: The London Gazette. 10 August 1886. No. 25615. p. 3855. or perhaps The London Gazette. 10 August 1886. 25615: 3855. —Finell 04:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All cs1|2 templates require a title. In the very beginning, {{London Gazette}} rendered in a manner sort of similar to your examples. More recently, a decision was taken to simplify the template by implementing it as a wrapper for a cs1 template (originally {{cite news}} now {{cite magazine}}) for its rendering. Because the cs1|2 templates require |title=, the decision was made to use the issue number in lieu of a title. If the item that you are citing has a title or heading, you might use that:

{{London Gazette |issue=34000 |date=1 December 1933 |pages=7765–7766 |title=Tenders for Treasury Bills}}

"Tenders for Treasury Bills". The London Gazette. No. 34000. 1 December 1933. pp. 7765–7766.

The decision to utilize a cs1|2 template to render {{London Gazette}} was apparently uncontested. If you wish to contest that decision, the best place to do so is at the template's talk page.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. What is your opinion about this decision? Do you know whether all entries in The London Gazette are under a title? If they are, then another solution would be for {{London Gazette}} to require a title.—Finell 16:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indifference? Because there are more than 20k articles that transclude {{London Gazette}} as it renders now, and because there is/was no vocal opposition to that rendering when the template was modified to wrap a cs1 template, I would guess that the editing community, by dint of unspoken consensus, is content with how the template renders. I'm not much of an expert on Gazette content so can't really speak to that question. I do know that I have rarely seen Gazette citations that use the |title= parameter (this search suggests that there are very few). Making {{London Gazette}} require a title would seem an uphill slog. I guess you won't know unless you raise the topic in some widely visible place.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you need to include this in your diamond information

diamonds aren't rare this is a ploy from the diamond cartel there are several minerals and gems that are much more rare than diamonds to give them an overrated market plot you know like sale 1.98 from 2.00 I see no difference thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carzilla (talk • contribs) 00:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Carzilla. Much of Wikipedia articles are/should be based on information that is verifiable using reliable sources. We avoid including personal opinions or statements that are written in a non-neutral point of view. What you are mentioning seems more a personal opinion and also looks non-neutral. My suggestion would be, if you have reliable sources that support your claims, take up the issue on the talk pages of the respective diamond articles where you wish to include the said information. In the same way as you left a message here, leave a message on the respective talk pages and list the reliable sources you have, that support your contentions. If you see there is no opposition or there is consensus to your views, you can be bold and include the said information in the said articles, citing each claim to reliable sources; but write the statements in a neutral way. If you need more assistance, please feel free to ask again here. Lourdes 06:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some other materials are rarer than diamond doesn't mean that diamond is common. Our article is giving a referenced geological viewpoint, not a commercial opinion. Dbfirs 07:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although Carzilla's post above does not exactly inspire confidence about the required changes, it is true that non-competitive/monopolistic behavior in the diamond industry (see e.g. De_Beers#Diamond_prices) could use some coverage at Diamond (gemstone). (On the other point, i.e. diamond rarity compared to other minerals, the lead of our article already includes Though popularly believed to derive its value from its rarity, gem-quality diamonds are quite common compared to rare gemstones (...) so it is not like there is no mention at all of the fact other gemstones are rarer.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate template to warn user

Shoohbaa (talk · contribs) has made two gibberish edits to Talk:Splatoon [1] [2]. What would be the appropriate template to warn them with? Tera TIX 01:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend the use of {{Uw-vandalism1}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks for your help David Biddulph. Tera TIX 05:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how to edit Military equipment of the European Union.

Hello! I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so I don't know how most of the 'coding'works. (Yet) I've found a mistake on the page: Military equipment of the European Union, but I don't know how to fix it. The page basically says that the Royal Netherlands Navy counts: 2 Amphibious Support Ships, 4 Destroyers, 2 frigates, 4 patrol vessels, 6 anti-mine ships and 4 attack submarines, but it should be: 3 Amphibious Support Ships, 4 Destroyers, 6 Frigates, 4 Patrol Vessels, 6 Anti-Mine ships and 4 attack submarines. I'd appreciate it a lot if someone could change this for me, since I don't know how to. Sources: 1. https://marineschepen.nl/schepen/marineschepen-nederland.html 2. https://www.defensie.nl/organisatie/marine/materieel/schepen Two frigates of the Karel Doorman-class. The other four are from the Zeven Provinciën-class. The extra amphibious support ship is the HNLMS Karel Doorman (A833), a Joint Support Ship. Also, it says the Dutch airforce counts 2 F-35's, but it should be 37. -Stuart

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SjoerdvDonk (talk • contribs) 13:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SjoerdvDonk: Do you have a reliable source for these changes? I cannot read Dutch, but searching through the provided reference (which I assume to be the Dutch ministry of defense website), this says there are 2 amphibious transport ships, not 3 (assuming "support" and "transport" are the same), that says there are 2 frigates, not 3. So the current text looks correct to me. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SjoerdvDonk answered on my talk page

You said there were only two frigates, that's not true. The Netherlands has 2 frigates of the Karel Doorman-class and 4 frigates of the Zeven Provinciën-class. The extra amphibious support ship is the HNLMS Karel Doorman (A833), a Joint Support Ship. I did make one mistake though, because the Royal Netherlands Navy doesn't have any destroyers. Here are my sources: https://www.defensie.nl/organisatie/marine/materieel/schepen and https://marineschepen.nl/schepen/marineschepen-nederland.html

(In the future please keep discussions in one place unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise). As I said above, I do not speak Dutch, but more to the point I have about zero knowledge of military ships so the difference between frigate classes etc. is over my head. I will drop a note at the talk page of the article in question, located at Talk:Military equipment of the European Union. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Arbitration and Mediation - maintenance template removal

I have made the appropriate changes (removed "...from a select group of 46 nationwide") and a few other tweaks that may not have seemed "neutral" on the Awards/Accolades section of the National Arbitration and Mediation Wikepedia page and there have corrected the request of Maintenance Template. After doing so, I am unable to remove the template from the page.

Please advise. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jblankman (talk • contribs) 15:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any maintenance tags on National Arbitration and Mediation. RJFJR (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're not seeing the tag because the OP removed it subsequent to the original question. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can this article get GA even though the reception section is small?

So, me and a few other editors are currently working on getting Team Fortress Classic to GA. The problem is, we are having a very difficult time finding reliable sources for the reception section. It does have a bit of information, but it's quite small. My question is, is it still possible to get that article to GA, or because of the lack of sources out there for that specific section will it be basically impossible? Thanks, --LichWizard talk 15:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LichWizard, not my area of expertise, but as long as you have a reputable aggregator, and a perhaps one or two links to other good sources, you don't need more, that doesn't necessarily mean better. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LichWizard: As someone who occasionally writes and reviews game GAs, I wouldn't fail a GA for a section of that length, if there was nothing more to cover. (As a tip, I remember the UK PC Gamer reviewed TFC, so you might be able to dig that up.) Popcornduff (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that's a relief. We've already spent quite a bit of time working on it :P Thanks for the help, --LichWizard talk 16:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A question about a redirect / page move

I don’t understand all of the intricacies and nuances of how “redirects” work. Also, I don’t really know how to “dig deeper” and view the history, edits, etc., of these changes. So, here is my question. There was an article. It was called Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel. At some point, this article was redirected to another article called Death of Diane Whipple. My question is: Was this “redirect” done through some consensus? Was there any Talk Page discussion? Or was it just a unilateral decision of one editor? I believe that this article (Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel) should be a stand-alone article. And it should not be a redirect (to Death of Diane Whipple). If there was some consensus and/or Talk Page discussion, that is fine. But, I suspect that it was a unilateral action by one editor without any consensus. Or without any discussion on the Talk Page. Can someone offer some insight? And – if my suspicions are correct (that the redirect/move was a unilateral decision without any discussion or consensus) – what do I now need to do? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. There was considerable discussion of this in 2008 and again in 2014. You can find it at Talk:Death of Diane Whipple, and you are free to continue the discussion there. You will probably want to read the relevant Wikipedia guideline pages (which appear to be referenced and linked in those discussions) before commenting. -Arch dude (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks. Two points. One: There was not any considerable discussion. Only one or two people weighed in, and then it was "merged" (redirected). Two: I don't quite understand the history, etc. It's very confusing to try to follow. There was discussion in 2008, then 2010, then 2014. And some changes, edits, redirects happened in 2008. So, I can't follow the history. It was redirected in 2008, I believe. But, then there was discussion in 2010 and 2014 or so. Which was asking if the articles should be merged. But that doesn't make sense if they had already been merged in 2008. So, I cannot follow the history. If it was merged in 2008 ... why would there be discussion asking for the two articles to be merged in 2010 and 2014? Also: what do I do to "un-merge" or at least get some consensus on this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An "un-merge" is complicated because the redirects would need to be adjusted, and this (more or less) requires that an admin get involved. From a process perspective, you would need to make your case in a new section on that talk page and then attract an admin's attention. However, your request would likely be declined, because the two individuals are (apparently) not notable except as part of the event covered in the article. See WP:ONEEVENT. Incidentally, Whipple is also not notable except for this event, thus the article's title. It's not about her, its about her death. After looking at WP:ONEEVENT, look at WP:NOTABLE to see what we mean by the term. If Knoller is notable, then she warrants an article. If Noel is notable, then he warrants an article. I do not think you will find that either of them is notable except with respect to that one event. -Arch dude (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Click "Redirected from Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel" at top of Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel to find the page history [3]. It has been a redirect since 2008. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I saw all of that. If the articles were merged in 2008, why are there discussions in 2010 and 2014 (that is, after 2008) to merge the two articles? After the merge in 2008, there would be only one article, not two; and, hence, nothing to merge. No? Something odd is happening here. And I can't seem to follow it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The talk pages of at least two articles appear to have been merged, so some references to "this article" now appear to make no sense because it's no longer the same article. I think it's a better use of our time to go forward from where we are instead of figuring out how we got here in this particular case. -Arch dude (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But, the point is: this still makes no sense. The two articles were merged in 2008. Thus, after 2008, there are no longer two articles. There is only one merged article. So, after 2008, there is nothing "left" to merge. Regardless of whether or not we are looking at the Talk Pages of different articles. So, how could it be that there are discussions about merging two (non-merged) articles in 2010 and 2014, when -- at that time -- there was only one (already merged) article? This makes no sense. My question is valid. And still stands. Anyone? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to posts at Talk:Death of Diane Whipple#Shouldn't this article be merged with Noel and Knoller? then the merged article Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel is not linked or fully named in that section and it is not mentioned it was merged in December 2008. Posters (including yourself in 2014) may falsely have assumed there was still an article somewhere to potentially merge. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, that does make some sense. Thanks for the helpful input! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hatting off topic posts on talk pages

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Help desk

{{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I hat something that's off topic on a talk page? Bodding (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. The comments you wish to hat at Talk:Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission#Lede are not in an way off-topic, and if you try to suppress them just because you don't like what you are hearing you are very likely to end up being blocked from editing Wikipedia.

I suggest that you find a topic area to edit where your feelings are not so strong. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question from a technichal rather than personal perspective, one would use {{collapse top}}/{{collapse bottom}} for this task. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Fats Domino

You have Dominique listed in Mr. Domino's name on your site. This is incorrect. Dominique is not his name. His does not have a middle name. His correct name is Antoine Domino, Jr. Stage/Performer's name "Fats" Domino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:14D0:FCC0:11B5:6640:DE14:479F (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit which included his name also included a reference to his NY Times obituary. Someone subsequently deleted that ref, but I have reinstated it. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do we remove something that is no longer accurate from a Wikipedia profile?

How do we remove a numbered reference that is no longer accurate in the References section of a bio? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:448:C300:5EEE:D940:6507:B78D:B231 (talk)

Hi IP, we don't remove the information from Clay Johnson article, instead you would change the wording to say he use to be on the Board of Directors of the Children & Nature Network. NZFC^(talk) 20:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google only found Wikipedia mirrors. The only reference I can find is an Internet Archive copy [4] of https://www.childrenandnature.org/about/board-of-directors/, showing he was on the board at the time in 2017. I don't think that is a suitable reference so maybe we should just remove it as non-notable. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Im not sure why my edit not staying. I am the person and i provided reputable links. Please let me know what more i need to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarface6978 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scarface6978, you have only one edit on Welland and it was reverted - see here [5].The reason is stated in your talk page - see here - [6]. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scarface6978, also note that you should not write about yourself, make suggestions on the talk page instead, and be aware that IMDB is not considered a reliable source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]