Help desk
< October 19	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 21 >

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 20[edit]

Old AFD only has listings for October 8, 2022[edit]

The Old AFD section only has listings for October 8, 2022. Please {{ping}} me when you respond. Jax 0677 (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: Please link pages you refer to. This is about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. I have reported it at User talk:Oleg Alexandrov#Afd Old not updated. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:@Jax 0677: It should work now. I usually respond faster when contacted directly on my talk page. PrimeHunter, thanks for the note. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about citing magazine/booklet with no page numbers[edit]

Hi all! I've been working on the article Unwanted (album) for awhile, and one of the sources I'm using is this mini-magazine released as an exclusive by Rock Sound. There's a lot of rich info (mostly quotes + interviews) that I'm using, but the work doesn't have any page numbers noted. Is there an established protocol for how to handle this situation? I assume I shouldn't 'make up' page numbers, but at the same time, I fear just citing it as-is might be confusing to readers. Any help would be greatly appreciated!--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 15:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no page numbers, then you can't give any. But a more serious concern is whether or not that is a reliable source. ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine, thanks for the response! As for its reliability, I don't see why it would be suspect. It's an official Rock Sound release featuring interviews with the band members; it's effectively a long(ish) magazine feature that was turned into its own physical product.--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 16:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a Wikipedia article about a record be citing interviews with the band? 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. ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine: Hmm, that seems like an odd take. When detailing the production of a record (or movie, or book, etc.), often the best source of information is that which the individuals involved can provide. Sure, such an interview might be a primary source, but there's nothing wrong with using those within reason. Additionally, the work was solicited, reviewed, edited, and published by a reputable publisher otherwise unaffiliated with the band, making it independent of the subject matter. In other words, this isn't a work self-published by the band, for instance (but even then, such a source could be used within reason). I see it as no different from using "behind the scenes" books/sources when working on TV or movie articles.--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 15:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not independent of the subject. In my view, saying much about what the creator said about a work is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, which should be based almost entirely on what independent people have said about it. ColinFine (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine: That's certainly true for statements of opinion or controversy, but when it comes to production, insider sources (and those sources that quote them) are often the only sources for that sort of information. I have no idea how you'd write a "Production" section without their use. That's why the rules state that "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia".--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 19:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there's an official Wikipedia solution (there's nothing addressing this in Help:References and page numbers, though you could ask on its Talk page), but I face similar problems while cataloguing my own book collection. Book pages are sometimes Arabic numeraled from the first leaf, but often from several leaves in, after what are called the "prelims". Traditionally these were numbered with lower-case Roman numerals, but many modern books leave them un-numbered, and I think it appropriate to count and assign LCR numbers where the need arises.

Similarly, some modern Graphic novels do not number any pages, in which case one has to grit one's teeth and count them. I suggest you be bold and do so in this instance. If you need to reference the outside or inside of the front or back cover, which in a magazine might well bear information, I suggest you specify "front cover" (or "fc"), "inside front cover", etc., as assigning numbers to these could be confusing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.212.157.244 (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

90.212.157.244 Personally, I think this is what I would have done normally, but I wanted to check. This seems like a rather noncontroversial bit of "routine calculation" that anyone with access to the source could confirm.--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 15:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gen. Quon: That's what |at= is for in the WP:CS1 templates. You might want do write something like |pages= just to clarify to future editors they shouldn't tag it with {{Pages needed}}, but I think making use of |title= as you've done is probably your best indicator. I do recommend being as thorough as possible with citation information since this is a bit of an unusual source; is there any sort of ISSN or ISBN listed? And this being a special issue means there's no volume or issue information, correct? I'm presuming none of these are applicable but just wanted to double check nothing like this was listed in the fine print of the publication page. Umimmak (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Umimmak: This is very helpful; thank you! Yeah, I scoured the entire thing for any identifying information. It provides author, title, and publication name, but that's it!--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 15:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can I limit a table's width?[edit]

I am admittedly not very good at wikicode - I've pretty much exclusively used the visual editor for the last six years! I'm wondering if there's a way for me to limit the width of tables on this page so that they're uniform the whole way down regardless of screen size. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ThadeusOfNazereth: You can add a width specification style to first wikicode of the table, like this:

{| class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" style="width:100%"

That causes the table widths to fill the available horizontal container space. The columns of each separate table won't line up, however, but it is not worth the trouble to make them do that. The browser adjusts the column widths of a table in the most optimum way to display the content of that table. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit After Submitting the draft.[edit]

Hi,

I am creating a draft for a new page. After submitting the draft for review to be published, will i still have the option to edit the content in the draft after submitting for review? or will the content that i have written before submitting will be locked until it gets approved and published? Vamsy Alapati (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may edit it even after submitting it for review. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vamsy Alapati: the more you can improve the draft before a reviewer sees it, the greater chance it has of being accepted. You can continue to improve the draft even after submitting it for review.

If you are referring to Draft:Mark Keil (IS Professor), the draft is far from being ready for review. Being a Regents Professor, he probably meets WP:NPROF criteria for inclusion. However, you need to remove all those inline external links. If they are not citations, then use wikilinks instead to link to other Wikipedia articles, not to external websites. If there is no Wikipedia article, then either don't link it or accept that it's a red link. You should also try to add more citations that are independent of Prof Keil, which also cover him in depth rather than merely mentioning him. We don't really need citations to his works. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anachronist

Thank you. That is the page I'm working on. I understood the part about the inline wikilinks. Right now, I have external pages as wiki-links since there were no pages for those journals/publications in wikipedia but they are popular journals, since there was a option allowing me to do it. You are suggesting that that I remove those external in-line links and accept them as red-links (as that there is no wikipedia page for them)??

I understood until that. What about the citations, I didn't quite catch that. I have cited the references that I can find of him and his works in popular journals and etc. Can you please elaborate on this? Vamsy Alapati (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And by WP:NPROF, you mean this is a wiki project that I can include to my page? Vamsy Alapati (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vamsy Alapati: Wikilink the external links that are possible to wikilink. The rest you don't have to link at all. Inline external links are considered linkspam and should be removed from article prose. If you believe that someday an article might be written about one of those topics you're linking externally, then you can use a red wikilink. Otherwise, don't link it. And don't convert those inline links into citations if the citation doesn't verify anything that isn't likely to be challenged.

It is not useful to cite works by Mark Keil. You need to cite sources that are about Mark Keil and that are independent of Mark Keil. See Wikipedia:Golden rule.

WP:NPROF is not a Wikiproject. It is a notability guideline for academics. Please read it. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When will my draft publish[edit]

Hi when will my draft becomes a published page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hi melvin m (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi melvin m When you submit it for, and it passes, a review per the information I just added to the draft. However, if you were to submit it now, it would be rejected quickly, as it reads like a resume and not an encyclopedia article showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable artist. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link to simple wikipedia page[edit]

I want to create a link on a Wikipedia page that takes the reader to the corresponding page in Simple Wikipedia. How do I format this? Rosieredfield (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

like this ([[:simple:Foo|Like this]]) or use {{ill|pagename|simple}} -> pagename [simple] * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Rosieredfield (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosieredfield: if the article on the Simple English Wikipedia is about exactly the same subject as the one here, then add the Simple English article to to the Wikidata item. This will place the link in the "languages" section of the sidebar on the article here, and also on all the other Wikipedias that have an article on the subject. -Arch dude (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks! Rosieredfield (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to delete a page?[edit]

There is this page without any sources and with a broken website. And probably doesn't comply with Wikipedia's notability guildlines. How do I delete it?

Al-Bassel High School for Outstanding Students MichaelRostom (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. You've already applied the proposed deletion process, which leaves other users seven days to object before the page is actually deleted. If someone objects, then you have to start a Articles for deletion discussion * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]