Help desk
< February 16	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 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.

February 17[edit]

Citing rare books/catalogues[edit]

Quick question about print citations and references. I'm citing several rare books/exhibition catalogues that I viewed in a museum library - they all have publishers/dates/oclc numbers, etc., but they are really hard to access (as in, only 5 institutions worldwide have a copy of several, per WorldCat). Should I be adding the location that I accessed them?

To be clear, these are not publications accessed via an artist file/clipping file in the library; these were published books/catalogues included in the library catalogue (if only published in editions of <1000). Just not sure if I should/how to add that location access info. Thank you! 19h00s (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, if such works have been published (and a few hundred is not an uncommon print run for new hardback books of unproven or limited appeal) and are available in libraries, they are fine to cite in Wikipedia – they do not have to be easily available, just possible to access, even if one has to visit an institution with a copy to do so (something I used to do regularly when working in text research/editing). See Wikipedia:INDICATEAVAIL. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.45.226 (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 19h00s (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to add, 19h00s, other than: Excellent work on the article Sam Gilliam! -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing a draft as a restoration of a redirect merge.[edit]

Hello, I recently finished up Draft:Masters of Atlantis, however what I am trying to do is restore a merged page under Masters of Atlantis after I got together enough sources to pass notability. I am the only significant author on the draft itself and the 'legacy' content taken from before the merge is attributed in the page history, would it be preferable to do a paste-merge over the redirect or to publish the draft wholesale? Orchastrattor (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orchastrattor The very first creation of what is now the redirect page was an attempt to create a plot summary for the novel. Only later was that turned into a redirect to the author, which is its current state. I don't see any harm in you copy/pasting your draft into that, since the history will be retained. Then you can ask for your draft to be deleted. If you want feedback on your draft, submit it for review and the experienced editor who accepts it will sort out the situation regarding the redirect. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is !vote[edit]

I feel fairly dumb, I only just learned about the existence of "!vote" but I don't know how it works, I've just seen it mentioned on deletion discussions... I've just been surrounding the 1-5 word summary of what I want to happen with ''' to make it bold (Delete, Keep, etc). Has my vote not been getting registered? Is there a page that shows how to use !vote? Theooolone (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theooolone: See Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. "!vote" means "not vote". The "!" is used in some programming languages to mean "not". It's not a vote, because we are supposed to be using discussion to reach a consensus. Thus, a bare Delete or Keep does not add much. Instead, add your reasoning. Your !vote will be considered by the person closing the discussion based on your reasoning, not just a tally. -Arch dude (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude I've skimmed through Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion in the past (I think I read the lead and the next few paragraphs after that, although I should have read further down!), and I have been discussing instead of just a bare delete or keep (check), my initial question was phrased badly and did not specify this, so let me clarify now.

When I said "Has my vote not been getting registered?", I was thinking my reasoning wouldn't get registered by some software properly if I didn't use !vote, which I thought was syntax of some sort (like ~~~~) because in other software commands sometimes begin with symbols like / or ! or :. I see now that that is completely incorrect, thank you for the clarification! Theooolone (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theooolone This may not interest you, but there is a "afd statistics" tool [1]. This looks for and lists your (signed) standard !votes in afd:s, keep, delete etc. Others it lists under "Show pages without detected votes". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting tool! will keep it in mind, thanks! Theooolone (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a "!"? I thought it was an "l" all this time. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's always been a !. You should probably leave a !vote to state with more clarity which side you agree with, it's more like a headline for your rationale than an actual tick box vote. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dark mode[edit]

You have been out since 2001 and im curious about if you have a dark mode. Im a welder by trade most apps and certain sites have the option but its to hard on my eyes later in the day to be on here. 173.89.67.198 (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have a dark mode! Have a look at WP:DARK for info on how to enable it Theooolone (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't seem to publish some fixes today[edit]

On my phone, I just finished some minor proofreading fixes to the article about Mark Twain. As usual, I went through the procedure to explain what I did that's required just before publishing. But there is no Publish button.

I'm writing to the Help desk on my computer. What can I do to publish the edits on my phone? If I can't do it, then I'll have lost 15-20 minutes' worth of work.Augnablik (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: Changes you to that article about 25 hours ago were saved (Diff). have you edited since? Are you logged in on the phone? As a general rule, make smaller edits and save more often! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Pigsonthewing. I’d have hated to lose all that work.

Would you give me an idea of how often to save changes, since you recommended doing that? I don’t recall any advice about that when I was brand new to Wikidom. Assuming I didn’t miss seeing that advice back then, I think it would be a good idea to make it clear — along with reasons why. Augnablik (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment in this thread:

In addition to being stranded on my phone for lack of a Publish button to send my edits for the Mark Twain article I had what could be called a reverse issue just now when trying to reply to your reply. I planned to reply on my computer, but this time the Publish button was missing on that device — yet when I went to my phone to see if I could do it there, I could! This has never happened before on either device, and I can’t imagine what could account for it.

Gremlins galore. Augnablik (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: There is no hard and fast rule; but if you're loosing work, then you need to save more often. I have no explanation for your other issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did lose all my work from the editing I did on my phone, but I certainly learned about the need to publish more often. In long articles, though, publishing often means I have to spend time getting back to where I was when I published. It would sure be nice if the system would put editors right back at their previous location when they published. Augnablik (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get close by clicking on the edit link at the nearest section heading or leave myself an invisible comment and find that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

draft deleted - reason for deletion[edit]

Hi Team,

I created a draft on myself Draft:Dharmendra Sharma.

This was deleted as there was a violation of some policy.

I want to understand what was that content due to which policy got violated and that resulted in immediate draft deletion. Please share the reason.

Thanks, Dharmendra Sharma Dharmendrassallp (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your draft was deleted due to WP:G11 - for blatant advertising. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmendrassallp Please read the autobiography policy. It is highly discouraged for people to write about themselves. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Font size[edit]

Greetings!

How can I reduce the size of the letters in the caption of that table of images in the "tourism" section? It's very big.--Agent010 (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agent010, I've made it smaller. It's possible that other editors will disagree with my chamge, and undo my change. If that happens, you should discuss it on the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom, wow, that was nice, thanks!--Agent010 (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources[edit]

I just tried to publish an article I´ve been putting together to learn how to edit Wikipedia.

The message I got was I needed reliable sources, and I wonder.. How on Earth does the computer know so much about the six different sources I used? No loading bar or anything, just the blink of an eye.

Is there something wrong with one of them ?

Is there a requirement that you need at least one of a certain kind of source ?

This is the article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ABL_Group

What surprised me was that it´s not even up for review. I think there´s something tripping a wire somewhere. NilsenAudun (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you haven't actually submitted the draft for review. I'm assuming that the issue is the tag at the top of the page for "requiring more citations". That's something you added when you created the page.

Considering that is dated from 2022, is this information copied from somewhere else? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NilsenAudun Lee has explained what probably went wrong but on the topic of sourcing, you are some way off an acceptable article. You need to demonstrate the wikinotabiliy of the company, which means using sources that are entirely independent of them, reliable, and with significant coverage: see this guide. You should not say stuff like The company proudly traces it´s [sic] roots all the way back to 1857 (my emphasis) unless that's a direct quote from a cited source: we want Wikipedia to have a neutral point of view. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It´s a little late in the evening right now for me to deal with the first point, but I react to your point. I´ll admit it was a bit hasty in the end phase there, a mixture of fatigue and pride, but are you sure that I was so "way off"? I linked to Lloyds, which is two centuries removed, and of historical importance and significance, I linked to a stock excchange, which has no immediate commercial interest in the company, and I also linked to an independent magazine. What´s the cut off for you before it passes muster? I grew up on lexicons you couldn´t hold with both hands, and luxury like this was unthinkable back then.

P.S.

I just want to say that neutrality in journalism is called objectivity, as in saying what you see, as opposed to what you feel, or in the immortal words of Immanuel Kant; Ding an sich, und ding an mich. I appreciate your input, perhaps pride is a bit out of place. NilsenAudun (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a stockexchange lists a company may be proof that that company exists, but what Wikipedia wants is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Simply mentioning the existence of a company is not significant coverage. Offshore magazine is not a reliable source but WP:USERGENERATED content written by people trying to promote a brand. Polygnotus (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BOSS. Polygnotus (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every user has a WP:TALKPAGE, yours is at User_talk:NilsenAudun and every article does too, Draft talk:ABL Group. Polygnotus (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a company BIO and overview[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia, and I would like to create a company overview and Bio. I would like to find guidelines to ensure this is created correctly. Officially Organic (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will find that Wikipedia doesn't host a single company overview or Bio, we have articles on notable companies preferably created by people with no connection. Theroadislong (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is this company, the WP:USERNAME would be unsuitable. See also WP:BOSS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If only this were true! Wikipedia hosts many "profiles" of little or no worth, but sending them to AFD is such a chore. 126.254.248.239 (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]