Help desk
< September 20	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 22 >

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.

September 21[edit]

Lupton family[edit]

Ref number 177 looks odd - and possibly incorrect - please repair if able - Thank you in advance. 175.38.42.62 (talk) 06:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i've fixed it.

honestly, i've seen you a lot, asking for help with references on the help desk. why don't you do it yourself? ltbdl (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assumng what's happening here is that the IP does not know how to fix the edit or why the references are broken (in this case, one of their previous edits removed one of two closing braces needed to end the template probably by accident), so they're asking for fixes here. after all, templates are kinda fragile and it's easy to mess things up with them. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 06:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because when she starts, you'll be requesting her not to... Not connecting IP to any user, but regulars will know clearly. Lourdes 06:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@lourdes: ?????? ltbdl (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ltbdl, this user makes a lot of edits related to the Lupton family and associated topics, but often makes mistakes in creating references. Old timers here know that there does not seem to be any point in explaining to her how to fix the problems, and have found it less frustrating just to fix them. ColinFine (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk[edit]

How many people here in wikipedia?@Adaa khan Zanokuhle zulu (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Zanokuhle zulu.

Interesting question. It's hard to pinpoint how many users are active on Wikipedia but, there are currently 46,185,682 accounts on the English Wikipedia according to WP:USERS. Out of those, 120,855 users have made at least one edit in the last 30 days. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 10:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you Zanokuhle zulu (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt Regarding verification of an admin[edit]

I have seen a user @katie_shah, who is seen to be so called "reverting" any edits without any good reason on the page Bhagwa Dhwaj, like I added a pic of the RSS's Bhagwa Dhwaj in the infobox of the article and after some minutes, this user "reverted" my edits saying something I cant understand that I am adding something "religious", but the point is that, it is just the logo or Bhagwa Dhwaj and I must say, the one of the original one, if there is any. And the fun fact is that the I did not got a notification that my edits were reverted which come after an admin reverts and the user is i think vandalising the page because I cant see her talk page nor user page which makes me suspicious. I hope someone replies, and if you are, please take some time and mention me so I got the notification.

Regards

The Yamantakks (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Yamantakks, I suggest that you follow the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and start a discussion on the article talk page, explaining why you believe your edits are justified and pinging the other user. Katie Shah (note the capitalisation) is not an admin, but a new user with three edits, so it is not surprising that they have not created a user page and no one has posted on their talk page. Be careful about referring to vandalism: on Wikipedia WP:VANDALISM means edits which deliberately damage Wikipedia, while this editor seems to be making edits that they believe are correct. TSventon (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon,

Thanks for your guidance which was pretty fast as I just got it when I again opened wikipedia. And I am now first looking to talk over that on Talk:Bhagwa Dhwaj as the article strictly says to that it should be followed only after being discussed in the talk page.

Regards and thank you very much.

Would not mind if you gave an overview once in a while to see any mistakes or revision.

:)

The Yamantakks (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Yamantakks, I suggest coming back to the help page if you have further problems. I don't know much about Indian religion and politics, so I may not be the best person to give detailed advice on the subject. TSventon (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and happy 5th birthday on wikipedia.

Thanks for your help.

Regards

Yamantakks (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liliana Segre[edit]

Should this article be lengthened or does it not require the "Expand Italian" template? The Wikipedia page in the Italian language is about 60,000 bytes longer. JackkBrown (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are some important aspects of her biography that are present in the Italian article but missing in the English one, I would not add the (rather ugly) {{Expand Italian}} template (personally, I think this type of templates should only be used on stubs). It also helps if you say what exactly is missing in the article. —Kusma (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation query[edit]

Hi, I created the page Christopher Hodson (director). Two pages for other people of the same name already exist: Christopher Hodson and Christopher Hodson (bellfounder). What is the correct way to handle disambiguation? Or is it unnecessary in this case? Thanks in advance for any advice.

~~~~ Tobyhoward (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that this comes under WP:NOPRIMARY and therefore following WP:USURPTITLE is appropriate. The steps I propose are:

Post notices on the affected page, allow a week for comments.
Follow WP:MOVE to move Christopher Hodson to Christopher Hodson (judge).
Follow WP:USURPTITLE to usurp Christopher Hodson which from the previous step will be a redirect into a disambiguation page.
Follow WP:MOVE#POST to repair links and prose.

I believe the above course to be non-controversial so will not be listing this at WP:RM unless any objections are received. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Martin of Sheffield (talk · contribs), I think none of these three qualify as an unambiguous, so a disambiguation page appears necessary, usurping the current Christopher Hodson page. Shazback (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the quick and very helpful reply. I'll do as you suggest. Tobyhoward (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A further query, if I may. I have read the WP: MOVE/USURP docs, and pondered, but I still don't quite get the process, and I don't want to do anything until I do! Suppose page X has a wikilink to Christophen Hodson. When Christophen Hodson is moved to Christophen Hodson (judge), Christophen Hodson automatically becomes a redirect page, so the link on X now transparently goes to Christophen Hodson (judge). All good. Next, if I usurp Christophen Hodson and turn it into a disambiguation page with links to the three Christophen Hodson pages (judge/bellfounder/director), won't X's link now go to this new disambiguation page, not to Christophen Hodson (judge)? So X's link is now wrong and needs manual fixing? I am sure I am misunderstanding something, but I don't know what! Thanks for any guidance. Tobyhoward (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tobyhoward: – Feel free to do the job if you want to, but I was originally offering to do it myself. I've already posted on Talk:Christopher Hodson which is step 1. You're quite correct about the links, that is covered in WP:MOVE#POST, step 4. If you go to the Christopher Hodson and under "Tools" click on "What links here" you'll see a list of links. There are only 11, of which over half are more technical (redirects, other disambiguation pages etc.), so it's not a major task. HTH, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your quick and helpful reply. Sorry, I didn't realise you were offering to make the changes yourself (although I saw your post on Talk:Christopher Hodson, so I should have twigged!). So yes if you're happy to, please do make the changes when convenient. I had also looked at "what links here" and as you say it's not much in this case. Thanks v much. Tobyhoward (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting a last name[edit]

Hi and thanks for this opportunity. Valerie Rockefeller Wayne is now just Valerie Rockefeller since being divorced in 2018 please. Vbr71 (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vbr71, I see an IP has added informantion about a divorce to Valerie Rockefeller Wayne, but provided no new source to back that up. That IP also changed the subject's birthdate without providing a new source (and the original source is terrible). It's important to provide reliable sources for information in a WP:BLP. Do you have any such source? 57.140.16.29 (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I assumed this was one of our older, pre-current standards articles, but no - created in May 2023, BLP violations and all. 57.140.16.29 (talk) 57.140.16.29 (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict] Hello Vbr71! In the case of persons, Wikipedia articles are usually titled with the name the subject is most commonly known by (and hence searched for), not what might be technically more correct: hence for example Bill Clinton, not 'William Jefferson Clinton' (which if searched redirects to the Bill Clinton article. For that matter, seaching Wikipedia for 'Valerie Rockefeller' brings up the article under its current title as the first hit.)

To re-title this article (which would actually be done by WP:MOVE-ing it), we would need two things: (i) a Reliable source showing that the subject does now use the name 'Valerie Rockefeller' (many divorced women continue to use their married surname), and (ii) evidence that 'Valerie Rockefeller' is how the subject is now most commonly referred to by the public at large.

I suspect from your User name that you may be (or be working for) the subject; however, we don't have (and do not want) proof of that, and pranks by third parties are often attempted, so we have to guard against them by relying on and citing Reliable sources. If you are the subject (or their agent, either of which mean you yourself should not edit the article directly) you will surely be able to find good sources to verify the facts. Having done so you should go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and follow the instructions there. I hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.107.25 (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they are working for the subject, we do indeed need to know that, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is helpful context and I'm grateful people like you are out there keeping us all honest! Indeed I am the subject :) who hadn't looked myself up, so I could share my (public) divorce document. I'm on the websites for Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors and other boards on which I serve (as well as voter records) under my maiden name, which I've used for several years. I'll look at requested moves and follow those instructions. Thank you very much and take care! Vbr71 (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vbr71, please review our guideline on editing with a conflict of interest (which includes editing articles about yourself) - WP:COI. 57.140.16.29 (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP address keeps tripping possible vandalism filter without vandalizing[edit]

Every edit IP address 204.148.142.250 makes seems to set off the "possible vandalism" filter. I don't notice the user editing against the policy, is there a reason for these continued false positives? ~With regards, I followed The Username Policy (Message Me) (What I have done on Wikipedia) 18:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's due to an unregistered user making certain kinds of changes to infoboxes, which is often vandalism, but the notes for one of the filters adding these tags mentions that it generates a lot of false positives. The only real thing anyone can do in this speicifc case is encourage this person to register an account, but looking at the type of edits they are making, it is likely they are editing as in IP by choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red lettering[edit]

Please advise why my edit of "Ackerman, Mississippi" has red lettering in the References section. Swingrfd (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Swingrfd, you made a small markup error - I fixed it in this edit (and also removed the archive parameters which still went to the old source). 57.140.16.29 (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Pontecorvo[edit]

The Nobel Prize in Physics was not awarded to Bruno Pontecorvo for political reasons (only because he moved to the URSS)? Really? So the United States of America has always considered itself a champion of freedom and the highest values (when it has committed some of the most serious human rights violations and some of the worst genocides ever seen in human history), while communism was to be wiped out? In conclusion: US good, Russia bad (always and in any case)? Anyway, back to the point: why did Bruno Pontecorvo never win a Nobel Prize in Physics, when he certainly deserved it? I would like to know more about this. If you cannot answer me (surely this is an incorrect place to ask this question), kindly point me to a more appropriate place, thanks in advance. 151.18.16.160 (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might get an answer over at one of the reference desks - probably humanities rather than the science desk - if Bruno Pontecorvo or one of its references doesn't have your answer. But I'd recommend toning down the political grandstanding. 57.140.16.29 (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in Wikipedia is an appropriate place for speculation. If there is a reliable source which discusses the question, then that could be cited and discussed in the article; and as 57. suggests, if there is such a source, somebody at WP:RDH may be able to identify it for you. But unless the question has been discussed in print in this way, it is not appropriate to discuss it anywhere in Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not a forum. ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does the United States have nothing to do with the Nobel Prize in Physics, but Pontecorvo's work wasn't released in English until several years after it would be considered revolutionary. Additionally, he was apart of the Italian Communist Party, so that might've had something to do with it. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A curiosity[edit]

Is it more correct (example) "Kaske in c. 1974", "Kaske, c. 1974", or "Kaske c. 1974"? JackkBrown (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would any of these mean? Kaske is a rather rare surname, does it have some other meaning? Maproom (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: I refer to the caption inside the infobox on this page: Robert Kaske. JackkBrown (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, if you Google "circa usage in a sentence", you will find out that correct usage omits "in". Template: Circa is recommended. Cullen328 (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I ask questions about the accessibility guidelines?[edit]

I am trying to mediate a dispute at DRN which turns on a question of accessibility. In particular, one editor claims that certain templates for displaying football results should not be permitted because they violate the accessibility guidelines. Is there a WikiProject or a noticeboard where I can take these editors for a well-informed neutral opinion? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility seem reasonably active, and at least worth a try. —Cryptic 22:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: You may also find MOS:COLLAPSE of use in this particular case. Bazza (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Cryptic, User:Bazza 7- I will mention that one editor is saying that there are "bizarre claims" being made about MOS:COLLAPSE. There seems to be anger and stubbornness. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to start a new page[edit]

I have developed a new way to score match play golf. I have already started the patent process and want to create a Wikipedia page describing my game. But I am not tech savvy and have no idea what I am doing. Help please. ConniesCowboy (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that isn't what Wikipedia is for, if you want to publicise your ideas, you will have to do so elsewhere. Read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. All I want to do is put my idea out there. If I'm not able to do that, please delete my account. ConniesCowboy (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot delete a Wikipedia account. You can just abandon and stop using your current account. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 23:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine. But how do I put my idea on Wikipedia. How do I start a page. ConniesCowboy (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you 'put your idea on Wikipedia' it will almost certainly be deleted. Wikipedia is not a place to promote things or publish your thoughts AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ConniesCowboy: Hi there! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Just like Encyclopedia Britannica and other print encyclopedias, Wikipedia makes decisions on what to include and what to exclude. Wikipedia's policy for inclusion is called "notability". Until there are multiple independent published reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the new scoring method, the topic won't be suitable for Wikipedia. Good luck with your patent! GoingBatty (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]