Help desk
< June 16	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 18 >

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 17

Archive sources

This sounds like an embarrassingly newbie question, but are there other sites like the Internet Archive that are considered good digital libraries for web pages that vanish over time? Archive.org is usually pretty good for finding pages to rescue broken citations, but I have encountered some links where no archive exists. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find a number of options listed at Help:Archiving a source. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks! --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheek

Hi Colin,

Such cheek. DEIGNING? I thought I phrased the question very politely (see below):

Q: You asked for the precise name of the newly created article? It is: FROM MONISM TO NONISM. I look forward to hearing if you are able to find it. Thanks. I observed nothing special after clicking 'Publish Changes'. No hitches. My IP address / ISP has been the same for the past 25 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.161.227.206 (talk)

A:   Thank you for deigning to give us some information about the item which you have repeatedly demanded that we help you find.

Remember that tacit assumptions are always the trickiest. By assuming I made a mistake, you are glossing over a possible problem on your end, which I have tried apparently in vain, to call to your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.161.227.206 (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three times you requested investigation of your submission, without giving enough information for anyone to figure out what submission you were asking about, despite being asked to do so. If that wasn't a mistake, what was it? Maproom (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think "By assuming I made a mistake" refers thinking that the edit was never saved because the user misunderstood the interface. That still seems far more likely than a software error. The MediaWiki software has saved around 1 million edits at the English Wikipedia in the last week, and it's used by thousands of other wikis. If it has an error where users are incorrectly shown that their edit was saved then why does this error apparently only hit new users who don't know the software properly? You still haven't been able to sign a single post in spite of the edit window saying "please 'sign' any statement you post here by placing ~~~~ at the end of your post", and "Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.161.227.206" being affixed to your posts with a link to more details. And please edit the existing section by clicking the "edit" link at the section heading instead of starting a new section for new comments. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the edit window also says:

Please give the exact title or URL of any page you want help with.
If possible, please be specific in your question rather than general and link to any page or article your question involves, or at least tell us the title of the page.

If I was cheeky, I might say your ability to see or follow instructions is not impressive for somebody who insists there is a software error instead of a user error. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have no technical way to find your submittal at our end. Our only information is in our logs, and those logs show no edits or other inputs from your IP address prior to the your first edit to this help desk. Note that Wikipedia edits (and their log entries) occur at a rate of more than one per second, so more than 86,400 edits occurred on the day of your failed submittal. None of the other 130,000+ editors that used the system in the last month has encountered your problem, so we are forced to conclude that it occurred somewhere between your keyboard and the network interface to our computers. -Arch dude (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Bola

Marc Bola is being released from Arsenal, so I removed him from the squad. I don’t really see anything wrong with real stuff, do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombo Elbo (talk • contribs) 13:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tombo Elbo: You need to provide a reliable source. Also remember that most football contracts run until the end of the 'official' season; 30 June. When making changes to football articles you also need to make sure that changes are consistent across all relevant pages. Team page (all sections), the player's own page, squad templates, new team page, where relevant etc. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage of primary sources

What is the preferabe percentage of Primary sources used in a WP article? I fell it must be lower than 10% and always supporting a secondary souce? But am I being a fundamentalist on that??? What does the Policy says? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Τζερόνυμο (talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have very few "policies" (WP:COPO). Our policies are expanded by a larger corpus of "guidelines". The sourcing policy is WP:V. The guideline for this is WP:RS. There is no guideline on percentage of primary sources that I know of: see WP:CREEP. Basically, an article subject must be notable (WP:N), or the article may be deleted. This requires multiple independent (i.e., not primary) substantive reliable sources. (The number is not absolute, but usually at least two.) If those sources exist, then the article stays. If not, it's deleted. This is independent of any other sources, primary, seconday, minor mentions, whatever. An article with only two sources that meet WP:N and no other references should be kept. An article with a hundred references, none of which meet WP:N, should be deleted. Beyond the notability requirement, editors must provide references for any fact that may be disputed (WP:V). If there are 100 facts from 100 different sources, then you need 100 additional references in addition to those that establish notability. The selection and use of these is subject to the discretion of the editors, who are supposed to be trying to collaboratively build the best encyclopedia article they can. The quality of the source is important, whether it is primary or secondary. -Arch dude (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Player numbers

Naby Keita has joined Liverpool, he wore the number 8 jersey at Leipzig, that number is vacant at Liverpool. Shouldn’t he just have that number now? I’m having this with Jonny Evans. Thanks. Tombo Elbo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombo Elbo (talk • contribs) 15:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's up to the club to allocate the player Nos. when submitting their final squads. Eagleash (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ndjoli

According to Soccerbase, Keenan O’Connell wears number 57 for Bournemouth, and Mikael Ndjoli wears the vacant 52 jersey. Tut tut tut — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombo Elbo (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Tombo Elbo: did you have a question about this? If you've found a mistake in one of our articles, you need to discuss it on that article's Talk page, not here.
Also, can you please sign your entries on Talk pages and other discussion pages (such as this one) with four tilde characters, like this ~~~~? Thanks, Rojomoke (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

saving my page

How do I save my page? I can't leave the page because it says my changes will be lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahmuffins (talk • contribs) 20:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarahmuffins: You save your changes by clicking 'publish' (which really means 'save'), the same as you did to create your post at this page. If you are seeing an error message, please provide greater detail so volunteers here can comment. You seem to have successfully saved Draft:Barbershop (shop). Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I did click on publish and it shows my page. I can click edit to make more changes and then click publish again. But if I click any link other than edit or try to close the window it says my changes will be lost. (Sarahmuffins (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a fairly standard message. If you click a link which would take you away frfom the edit window then you will usually see that warning. It should not appear if you click 'preview' but if you click 'history' (for example) or any other link then the warning will display. It will display even if you haven't actually made any changes after opening the edit window. Any changes you made previously and successfully 'saved' will not be lost or affected. Eagleash (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see 'preview'? But if I click 'Submit your draft for review!' for example it says my changes will be lost. But if I have clicked 'publish' (save) after my last change, my changes will not be lost?Sarahmuffins (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Preview' should be shown alongside the 'publish' button, beneath the edit window. It's a good idea to use that before saving changes to check for errors and see how the page looks before saving. If you click the 'submit draft' button with the edit window open, the aforementioned message will appear. A page would be 'saved' and then 'submit draft' clicked. Any previously saved changes will not be lost. On another note, I would not recommend submitting the draft for review as it stands. There are some layout and formatting anomalies. If you have not already done so, please read WP:YFA and WP:REFB and also WP:GNG. Also, the content is probably already covered in Barber and the page would very likely be rejected at review or at best redirected to the Barber article. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will read the links you gave me. There is nothing beneath the edit window, the 'publish changes...' button is in the top right corner and next to it is an image of a pencil. How do I preview? I wanted to write an article about barber shops, not about the barber. I'm sorry if Wikipedia doesn't want an article for barber shops, do I need to delete it?Sarahmuffins (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you editing from a mobile device? Scroll right the way down and select 'desktop', which should give you a different page display. (Or are you using the visual editor... where you click 'edit' rather than 'edit source'?) I believe the mobile editing interface gives you an automatic preview at the point where you are asked to summarise your edit. An article for the type of shop as against the profession may have a place in Wikipedia. It depends on whether it can be demonstrated as independently notable (see that link also). There's no need to rush into deleting it if you think it can be found worthy of a page. But, be aware it might well not pass review. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My laptop is a mobile device (I can carry it but it's a bit big lol) but I think I'm using the visual editor. The editing here looks different from when I edit my barbershop article. I don't understand the article about notability. I need to find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Does that mean I should link to a book about barbershops or something? Will that demonstrate it as independently notable?Sarahmuffins (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds as if you are using the visual editor: when you click 'publish' at the top right you should get a new small pane displayed wwhere you write the edis summary. At the bottom of that is a review button. The vis ed. can be a useful tool in certain circumstances but can create anomalies and a lot of experienced editors do not like it. I think notability for this topic is going to be problematic in that, there is little doubt that there would be a reasonable amount of information in reliable sources... but I suspect that however well-researched and sourced the finished page may be, when it comes to review, it is quite likely to be redirected to the Barber article. Sorry. Eagleash (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I copied the information to the article about barbers. I also tried to add a hair rinsing picture but it was not possible because of a copyright claim. They said I had to take a picture myself but I'm really bad at taking pictures. I now tried the Wikipedia link for finding images and found another image at https://pixabay.com/en/barber-barber-shop-clippers-shave-2507764/. It's not the same but I think it's a nice picture of a barber at work. Can this picture be added to the gallery of the Barber article? When I try to add the picture to the gallery it can't be found.Sarahmuffins (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]