Help desk
< April 27	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 29 >

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.

April 28[edit]

I think that I deleted a bunch of stuff[edit]

So I was searching through Help Desk seeing if there was any questions I knew how to answer. I found a question that I could answer so I typed up a response and saved it but I got an edit conflict error. Me being new I just submitted it again and when I went to see if it saved correctly most of the recent edits were gone and the formatting was reversed so it started from April 25th and went up to the 27th. I edit from a E-reader sometimes when I can't sleep and that is what I am currently editing on. The E-reader has a issue where I cannot view the recent changes page unless I have a direct link due to the button being non existent. This means I cannot revert whatever caused this. I also hope this is only visibe on my end and that posting this fixed everything. 69.174.167.164 (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions don't reveal any edits matching your description, so I suspect no harm was

done. – Teratix ₵ 03:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the missing articles then? I checked the archive and they arent there. The one I replied to was one of the missing ones. 69.174.167.164 (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How where the articles called? We might be able to investigate, though, when the edits truely didn't save I am afraid there is nothing we (or anybody here) can do. I am not so sure if you can/should edit wikipedia from an E-Reader, but I believe you should rather refain from that, as the interface for edit conflicts currently in use is quite complex and definitely not something you should do when you originally wanted to sleep. Victor Schmidt (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant entries into the help desk instead of articles. I rememeber one of them was somebody being concerned about somebody inserting "help me" into a random article and the title of the section was the name of the article. I will further evaluate this when I have more time and figure out whatever caused this.

You have never edited the Help desk, or any of its archives, under this IP address (prior to the creation of this thread). GirthSummit _(blether) 05:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you’re experiencing questions and responses getting archived. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the edit before your first post was [1] which archived April 24. The section you describe is Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 April 24#Eid al-Fitr. You didn't delete or save anything. Dates are always shown in increasing order on the help desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you all for helping me. I guess I just happened to edit at the exact same time the archive happened. 69.174.167.164 (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pitcairn Islands Lat Longs Incorrect.[edit]

I've noticed that the lat. longs. shown are incorrect. Might be worth checking just in case someone uses them as a primary source of navigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_Islands

147.147.110.170 (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made more precise coordinates [2] which land on the islands. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with plagiarised content[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure what the best procedure is to deal with 2 paragraphs from Sydney JetCats that, according to edit history, were inserted by an unregistered user, who has only edited this specific article. The text from the original revision is a word-for-word copy of a Facebook post published a week earlier. I gave a little more information on Talk:Sydney_JetCats, but I thought I'd ask here as well.

aaPle (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AaPle, the issue has been resolved per the talk page. Have a nice day! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 12:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions containing the plagiarised text have been hidden. They amounted up to over a year in the history of the article. JIP | Talk 15:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a disambiguation page[edit]

Hi I want to create a new page for a Russian writer. There is already a page for an athlete with the same name. I think a disambiguation page is needed, but I don't know how to create one. Also, I don't know what order to proceed in. Currently if I try to start a new page for the writer I am just taken to the athlete's page. Thanks,

Ivan Ivan007 (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ivan007. One approach is to use AFC and create a draft: then the accepting reviewer will sort out the naming. If you want to create it yourself, then what to do depends on whether one or other person qualifiers as the primary topic. If so, then that article should have just the person's name, and the other article should have a distinguishing phrase such as "(writer)" or "(athlete)". Each article should have a hatnote pointing to the other, and there is no need for a DAB page. So in that case, you either create "name (writer)" or move "name" to "name (athlete)" and then create "name"

If neither of them has a reasonable claim to primacy, then the existing article name should become a DAB page. Create your new "name (writer)" article, move the existing "name" to "name (athlete)", and put hatnotes on each. The move will have left a redirect, so edit that and turn it into a DAB page. --ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ColinFine for that clear explanation, I understand now. My new problem will be deciding primacy. The (writer) is https://readrussia.org/writers/writer/maria-stepanova and the (athlete) is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Stepanova. My feeling is that they are more or less equal. Having read the primary topic guidance my proposal is to create a new Maria Stepanova (writer) page with a hatnote, add a hatnote to the existing page and then let the issue of primacy and/or disambiguation play out once both exist. Does that seem reaonsable? Thanks, Ivan Ivan007 (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ivan007, it does. --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

removal of citing warning[edit]

On the following page there is a warning for citations not being sufficient (or something along those lines) and I have seen others that have less information and less citations so why is this one being criticized so much? I don't want the page to be deleted. Help would be much appreciated

Jamie Miller (singer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Draypowis (talk • contribs) 15:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this article was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 April 22#Help with citing enough about a Living Person. TSventon (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The thing to realise, Draypowis, is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. At present, as far as I can see, not a single source in the article satisfies that. Unless several such sources are cited, then the article is liable to be deleted: see AMOUNT. As for your other question: Wikipedia has (at least) tens of thousands of seriously substandard articles, mostly created in an earlier period when we were less concerned with quality than we are today. Ideally, people would go through them, either improving them (starting with adding sources) or deleting them if the sources just don't exist. But we are a volunteer organisation, and people work on what interests them. For some reason, few editors are willing to spend a lot of time going through articles on singers (or sportspeople, or companies, or businesspeople or, or, or, ...) that they've never heard of, doing that job. See Other stuff exists. --ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So because I am not related to the source in any way I am not able to create an article about them? Someone replied to the one my last posts with an article which they claimed was a reliable source but yet you say none of the sources are reliable, explain please (see RadioTimes link on the link posted above). Please explain one example of a reliable source on an article and why it is reliable please.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Draypowis (talk • contribs)

On the contrary, we want articles to be created by people who are not related to the source in any way! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the references appear to be the product of reality TV and record label promotionalism. I see no independent journalism. He hasn't released his first album yet. This may be a case of "too soon" for a Wikipedia biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's article on reliable sources, which you'll find here, provides everything you need to become an expert on the subject. The article on verifiability is well worthwhile too. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing printed materials[edit]

I am Rane2030,

Please help me clarify this issue. I am contributing to biography page. For this particular page, most of my sources of information are from old printed books and old printed news papers etc. These sources have no any web links/urls etc. In case of this nature, how can I cite/refer such information in my bigrphay page. I couldn't find any clear Wikipedia citation/reference template to cite information that has no URL or internet links etc. Please help clarify this. Thanks Rane2030Rane2030 (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rane2030 Sources do not need to be online to be used as a source, but they do need to be publicly available(such as in a library or any publicly available book). See WP:CITE for information on citing sources. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 331dot. Thank you, let me check your links, and come back later. thanks

Whats a better way to show this info?[edit]

Hi

I'd like to show this info on a page I'm working on, however this table is very very long. Is there a way I could format this table or split into two side by side tables for EU and non EU maybe? I'm unable to find a good example of something I can copy. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Region	Country	City
European Union	Austria	Vienna
European Union	Belgium	Brussels
European Union	Bulgaria	Sofia
European Union	Croatia	Zagreb
European Union	Czech Republic	Prague
European Union	Denmark	Copenhagen
European Union	Finland	Helsinki
European Union	France	Paris
European Union	Germany	Berlin
European Union	Greece	Athens
European Union	Hungary	Budapest
European Union	Ireland	Dublin
European Union	Italy	Rome
European Union	Lithuania	Vilnius
European Union	Luxembourg	Luxembourg
European Union	Netherlands	Amsterdam
European Union	Poland	Warsaw
European Union	Portugal	Lisbon
European Union	Romania	Bucharest
European Union	Slovakia	Bratislava
European Union	Slovenia	Ljubljana
European Union	Spain	Madrid
European Union	Sweden	Stokholm
Non European Union	Albania	Tirana
Non European Union	Australia	Sydney
Non European Union	Barbados	Bridgetown
Non European Union	Bosnia and Herzegovina	Sarajevo
Non European Union	Cameroon	Yaoundé
Non European Union	China	Beijing
Non European Union	Colombia	Bogota
Non European Union	Côte d'Ivoire	Abidjan
Non European Union	Dominican Republic	Santo Domingo
Non European Union	Egypt	Cairo
Non European Union	Ethiopia	Addis Ababa
Non European Union	Georgia	Tbilisi
Non European Union	India	New Delhi
Non European Union	Jordan	Amman
Non European Union	Kenya	Nairobi
Non European Union	Lebanon	Beirut
Non European Union	Moldova	Chișinău
Non European Union	Morocco	Rabat
Non European Union	Russia	Moscow
Non European Union	Senegal	Dakar
Non European Union	Serbia	Beograd
Non European Union	South Africa	Pretoria
Non European Union	Tunisia	Tunis
Non European Union	Turkey	Ankara
Non European Union	Turkey	Istanbul
Non European Union	Ukraine	Kiev
Non European Union	United Kingdom	London
Non European Union	United States	Washington, D.C

As a non-table expert, you could just fudge it by making a single six-column table. There's probably a way to put in some sort of thicker vertical line between the 3rd and 4th columns. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Clarityfiend I thought about this, can't work how to make it not look weird. I also don't want to do something that looks fine of desktop and then looks bananas on mobile. I feel like there is probably a nice solution for this somewhere or other. John Cummings (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: Below I used Help:Table#Side by side tables. I also made proper headings. I added style="margin-right:1em;" to the first table because they are shown very closely together by default. If the tables don't fit side by side then the second table is shown below the first. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

European Union
Country	City
Austria	Vienna
Belgium	Brussels
Bulgaria	Sofia
Croatia	Zagreb
Czech Republic	Prague
Denmark	Copenhagen
Finland	Helsinki
France	Paris
Germany	Berlin
Greece	Athens
Hungary	Budapest
Ireland	Dublin
Italy	Rome
Lithuania	Vilnius
Luxembourg	Luxembourg
Netherlands	Amsterdam
Poland	Warsaw
Portugal	Lisbon
Romania	Bucharest
Slovakia	Bratislava
Slovenia	Ljubljana
Spain	Madrid
Sweden	Stokholm

Non European Union
Country	City
Albania	Tirana
Australia	Sydney
Barbados	Bridgetown
Bosnia and Herzegovina	Sarajevo
Cameroon	Yaoundé
China	Beijing
Colombia	Bogota
Côte d'Ivoire	Abidjan
Dominican Republic	Santo Domingo
Egypt	Cairo
Ethiopia	Addis Ababa
Georgia	Tbilisi
India	New Delhi
Jordan	Amman
Kenya	Nairobi
Lebanon	Beirut
Moldova	Chișinău
Morocco	Rabat
Russia	Moscow
Senegal	Dakar
Serbia	Beograd
South Africa	Pretoria
Tunisia	Tunis
Turkey	Ankara
Turkey	Istanbul
Ukraine	Kiev
United Kingdom	London
United States	Washington, D.C

PrimeHunter thanks so much, this is perfect :) John Cummings (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the documentation? Inconceivable! Clarityfiend (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT: FLUKA wikipedia page[edit]

Dear Wikipedia

The FLUKA Monte Carlo wikipedia page exists since several years and it is being created by one of the code authors. It was recently brought to the Author's attention that without them being noticed the page has been deeply changed trying to advertise as a legal "alternative" an unauthorized fork performed by CERN researchers. The legitimate FLUKA Authors had initiated legal proceedings against CERN on July 4th 2020, in order to quash this fork. They discovered only recently that the Wikipedia page had been extensively modified trying to give legitimacy to that fork. They have repeatedly tried to edit the page, without deleting the abusive content, but simply adding their point of view, but those edit have been systematically undone. After the last edit, they got a message reportedly below:

"Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to FLUKA. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

   Wikipedia simply isn't the place to talk about how some behaviour is a breach of someone else's moral rights. Everything added here has to be neutral and it has to be referenced. Please also pay attention to the guidelines on conflicts of interest. If you're an author of FLUKA, it's probably not a good idea to edit about it, precisely because it makes being neutral and relying only on what is said in secondary sources difficult. If you take issue with what is written in a Wikipedia page, start by bringing the issue up on the talk page for the article. › Mortee talk 17:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)"

The Authors cannot agree on that comment which is clearly missing the point that as it is now the Wikipedia page is not neutral and it has been altered by people in obvious conflict of interest. The Authors would be perfectly happy if the page comes back as it was pre-July 2020. Keeping it as it is now would violate the neutrality policy of Wikipedia, giving space and visibility to one side only of a complex controversy. They are pretty sure that the persons who altered the page in the last months never disclosed to Wikipedia that they were in conflict of interest and already under legal proceedings, and that they are using Wikipedia as a megaphone for their side.

The Authors have edited again the page to challenge the legally disputed statements contained in the page. If this is felt problematic, the only acceptable option is either to re-establish the page as it was prior to last year changes, or suppress it altogether. Again, keeping it as it is now would imply Wikipedia taking side in the ongoing legal dispute which the Fluka Authors don't believe is the policy and/or the vocation of Wikipedia. BTW moral authorship rights are something very well defined in laws, for computer codes they are the equivalent of the authorship rights for a book, in most countries their violation is a criminal offenceAuthfluka (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please summarize what you're asking a little more...succinctly? TAXIDICAE💰 20:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This regards FLUKA, which several helpers have gone and cleaned it out to its core sourced material. AdmiralEek (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, who knew there was so much acrimony in the world of particle physics coding... AdmiralEek (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Authfluka You could have asked me on my talk page about this, or indeed tagged me here so I could respond directly. I would have been happy to explain further what the issue was and how to proceed. As it is, I stand by what I wrote. The place for debating the content of an article is the talk page of the article, not the article itself and, whatever your grievances, this wasn't productive. I'm sorry that your experience on Wikipedia has been so frustrating but you really have brought a lot of that upon yourselves. › Mortee _talk 02:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard for current file move page requests?[edit]

Is there a noticeboard or a certain place I can go where it states current file move requests? This is the file in question that I would want moved because there was a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucasA04 (talk • contribs)

@LucasA04: File:Hibrid Toyota Prius 61 MIA 12 2008 with logo.jpg is located at Commons. Click the Commons icon at the top right to get to commons:File:Hibrid Toyota Prius 61 MIA 12 2008 with logo.jpg. "Hidden categories" at the bottom of the page has links to commons:Category:Media requiring renaming and commons:Category:Media requiring renaming - rationale 3. The file is currently in both categories where a Commons administrator or file mover will see it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter, Thank you. LucasA04 (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Ford, CO article hijacked[edit]

WTF?!? This is NOT the City of Rocky Ford, Colorado “official website”:

      https://rockyfordco.com/

This is:

       https://cityofrockyford.colorado.gov/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:c:6f33::8 (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed... feel free to make further edits to the article or discuss issues on its talk page. Thanks for noticing and pointing it out! DanCherek (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]