Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 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 10

The Wikipedia page I have edited has disappeared and the url has merged with a different page

This afternoon I edited the content on the 'Enviroschools' Wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviroschools I work for Enviroschools, and the content on this page wasn't an accurate representation of our organisation.

This Enviroschools page has now disappeared entirely and the url has been adopted by the page: 'Environmental Education in New Zealand'. Two urls now lead to this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviroschools and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_education_in_New_Zealand.

This page is a different page. It is factually inaccurate and needs editing.

I have cleared my cache and this hasn't changed anything. I check the Deletion Log - the Enviroschools page is not listed.

Is anyone able to help me retrieve my original Enviroschools page? Alternatively, is there a way for me to retrieve our url back - wiki/Enviroschools and recreate the page that has been lost?

Thank you Lisa LambertonLisa (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If you work for Enviroschools you are not permitted to edit Wikipedia until you have made the mandatory declaration of paid editing. You also need to read about conflict of interest. The page Enviroschools has not been deleted; it still exists as a redirect. You can get to it by clicking the link where it says "(Redirected from Enviroschools)" at the top of the page, or directly at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enviroschools&redirect=no . If you click on the page history there you will see that your material still exists in the history but that your edit was reverted because the material which you added was entirely unsourced, contrary to Wikipedia's requirement for verifiability. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

LambertonLisa: your original work can still be seen here, but is unacceptable as a Wikipedia article as it cites no references. Maproom (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

And please understand, LambertonLisa, that Wikipedia has basically no interest in what Enviroschools (or any other article subject) says or wants to say about itself: any article about it should be based close to 100% on what people with no connection to Enviroschools have chosen to publish about it. If you were to write an article about Enviroschools, you would need to forget everything you know about it, and write an article based wholly on independent sources. It would not thereafter be your article, and would not necessarily continue to say what you wanted it to say. --ColinFine (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Whitespace in Forced Witness article

Hi -- Gizmoch and I have been working on this article about an album: Forced Witness. Displayed in my desktop browser, there is a huge area of whitespace above the two-column table in the Personnel section. Do others see that? Does anyone know what's causing it? I can't figure it out, no matter how I manipulate the wikitext. Thank you. -- Cloud atlas (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cloud atlas: I tried to fix the issue, how does it look? If you zoom out (in your browser), the two cols should appear. If not there is just one col, but whiteout the white space. Another editor may come up with a better solution but this is the best I could do. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 05:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Request page move

I tried to move the article named Tate murders to Tate-LaBianca murders. The move would not go through, as there were some issues with "redirects" or some such. Can an administrator or someone please complete the move? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro did you establish consensus for this proposed move? did you post at WP:RM? On Talk:Tate murders I see you proposing a move, and no one else supporting it, albeit no one objected either. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

As you can see from that Talk Page, I posted about this two months ago. No one replied, since. And the comments above mine (on that Talk Page) indicate a desire for the move. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro there is an existing redirect at Tate-LaBianca murders, so you can't move the page yourself. As someone could reasonably object to the move, you should request a move following the procedure in Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves. TSventon (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It's a high profile article with four million page views in the last year and a stable title since it was split out in 2016. The issue is whether to only cover the Tate murders in this article or also the LaBianca murders which are in Manson Family#Murder of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. Talk pages have few readers and the suggested rename was hard to spot. It hasn't even been mentioned in an edit summary before today so article watchers would only discover it if they looked at the talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

Publishing physical Wikipedia as other encyclopedia

How to get Wikipedia be published as physical encyclopedia as well as other? How I to get know all about physical Wikipedia publishing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by K02VZ5d02y832ZN (talk • contribs) 06:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC) Is it mean I need not be signed as 1~2~3~4~? — Preceding unsigned comment added by K02VZ5d02y832ZN (talk • contribs) 10 October 2019 06:28 (UTC)

@K02VZ5d02y832ZN: There is no printed copy of Wikipedia. It would require thousands of volumes. See more at Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia. See Help:Books and Help:Printing for other options. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The dude who started the site couldn't get that to work, and his original goal was to print just the Featured Articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Text only, no pictures, Wikipedia would currently occupy about 7300 volumes the size of a Britanica volume. At the cost of $10.00 per volume (a ridiculously low cost) the set would cost you $73,000. It will weigh more than 7 tons, so you will need a truck bigger than a small moving van to carry it. -Arch dude (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there a Somali Wikipedia?

Hi, I was wondering is there a Somali Wikipedia?--SharabSalam (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

At the foot of the main page there is a link to the full list of Wikipedias. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The front page is here Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!--SharabSalam (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Having trouble with footnotes/references

I edit this page, and gets citation error, that I cannot seem to resolve. I have a list of footnotes (list-defined-references) who all have references inside them. Two of these references are named references and defined in the main content, while the rest are only for that specific reference. The names references works fine, but only the first of the specific references show up in the reference list. In addition, for the first four references the software thinks the footnote is invoked one time more than it actually is.

I have looked thought the help pages, and replaces all instances of <ref>-tags with {{refn}} templates, but this only seems to change the error-messages, not solve the problem. Everything looks good in the preview function, but not when published. Can anyone take a look? ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Nested refs don't seem to be possible when using list-defined references, phab:T22707. I've fixed this by moving them inline in the article. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought about doing that, but was certain I was just missing something. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Biden article

There are wildly biased and inaccurate information contained in the article. For instance Hunter took his naval reservist oath in 2012 and was chaptered out dishonorably in Feb 2014, not May and June 2013 as the article states. The opening information as well is hearsay, not evidenciary fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B10C:58BE:C832:515A:BB9B:B35D (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If you are aware of incorrect information in any article, and have independent reliable sources to support it, please bring it up on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Page has many gramatical errors

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancreas

The section under Structure has a lot of random gramatical problems like letters randomly missing and words combined together. Something or someone appears to have 'messed it up'. Im not good with coding so I hope someone can fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.82.200.31 (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The article's edit history showed vandalism earlier today. I've reverted it & warned the vandal. Thanks for pointing it out. In future it is better to give a wikilink like Pancreas rather than a url. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Forum for merging articles

Aside from WP:AFD, what is the correct forum for merging articles such as List of Menudo members and Menudo (band)? Please {{ping}} me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers is the place to discuss proposed merges. RudolfRed (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Contextual Law suit

     Their seems to be a problem with the context and meaning, nothing that can't be corrected!  Seems to me that your website is built with a foundation that crumbles and truth is in the name of this website. Ready and in place with rights.
                                 
                                               Dtj
                                                         ©  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.213.37.1 (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC) 

If you spot any errors in articles, please correct them, citing a reliable source, or discuss the errors on the talk page of the article. Dbfirs 20:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Fan opinions allowed in Cinebench Article?

This page is inactive for "multiple" people notice issues with this page. I realize most of the content seems falls into "fan opinions"? The article leaning towards WP:NOTFANWEBSITE. WP:FAN. and moving away from WP:NPOV.I made a proposal to have some content removed without deleting the whole page,but it may not pass. If it does not pass then it show we are allow to post our fan opinion on Wikipedia?

Example I can put information on Google page and say "Wikipedia is better information than Google Search"Regice2020 (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Regice2020. I don't understand what you're saying above, especially your last sentence; but it seems to me that the issue with Cinebench is not about fancruft, but the fact that it references no sources which say substantial things about the subject. If the article is provided with relevant sources (not just passing mentions), and written based on those sources, then the questions you are raising will not arise. I have tagged it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@ColinFine: I am saying are fan opinions allowed on Wikipedia?.

1 Example on that page

Cinebench is commonly used by popular tech show YouTuber host, Linus Sebastian, as a benchmark program to test a computer's performance. Regice2020 (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Regice2020 I do not think i would call that a "fan opinion" exactly. It would seem that Sebastian is being cited as an expert, or at least a person with an above-average degree of knowledge on the topic. Fan opinions are often published on fan sites or blogs, which are usually not WP:RSreliable sources. If a fan opinion is published by a reliable source, and seems relevant to the topic and of sufficient weight to be worth inclusion, then it can be mentioend in a Wikipedia article. All opinions, whether fan or expert or whatever type, must be properly attributed to the person or entity who expressed them, and should be cited to a reliable source that is either a writing of the person whose opinion it is, or that reports that opinion and names the person who expressed it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Regice2020. Opinions are not allowed in Wikipedia articles, unless they are ascribed to a reliable published source, independent of the subject of the article. However, the sentence you quote, apart from the word "popular", is not an opinion, but a claimed statement of fact, which may or may not be true, (and may or may not be reported in a reliable published source). It should not appear in the article unless a reliable published source, unconnected with either Cinebench or Sebastian, says that it that is the case; and in that case the source should be cited. If it is the word "popular" you are talking about, I agree: evaluative words like that should never appear in any article in Wikipedia's voice: they should be used only in a direct attributed quotation from a reliable published source unconnected with both the subject of the article, and whoever or whatever is being so described in the quotation. --ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine DESiegel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cinebench#Proposed_Content_Removal I already set a proposal to remove those 3 content is that good?. The article can focus on more details on what is "Cinebench". I think readers does not need info on a individual being a expert in tech stuff nor a competitor reacting another competitor. Regice2020 (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Not to note, one of edit from a users made very inappropriate remark. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACinebench&type=revision&diff=920573173&oldid=920420613 What should i do with that part? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regice2020 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

adding a footnote to a reference

Greetings During my first edit, I erased a link to a reference, and couldn't find a way to restore it. Appreciate your assistance. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drazouri (talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Your contribution record shows no previous edits. What page were you editing? --David Biddulph (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Drazouri: The next time, you can use the undo link to undo the mistaken edit. WP:UNDO. RudolfRed (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)