The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Help desk
< July 22	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 24 >

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.

July 23

Article mis-alphabetized in category - cause and how to solve?

I am currently working on a to-do list of potato-related articles that need work. Because of this, I ended up in Category:Potato diseases and was checking those against Category:Plant disease stubs to identify Potato disease stubs (and tag obvious stubs in Potato diseases as Plant disease stubs, which has in a fair few cases not happened) and then suddenly noticed that somehow, Candidatus Phytoplasma solani is listed under the letter B in the former of the two categories, and, since stub-tagging it as plant disease stub also shows up under the letter B in the latter category.

Does anyone have a clue what causes this and how to solve it? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Black wood of grapevine}} is what is causing it. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. Not too familiar with the workings of DEFAULTSORT, so it probably would have taken me a while to figure that out myself. Also thank you to Fuhghettaboutit for removing the defaultsort template before I had even read the message here. To both of you, thanks for the fast response. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AddWittyNameHere: (e/c) Hey AWNH. Articles can be categorized to not display by their actual names in a number of ways. We want to do this sometimes – for example, categorizing a person by last name. One way is to pipe the category ("|" ← is a pipe) like so: [[Category:Name|Waters, Roger]] , which will result in Roger Waters categorizing under "'W'aters". Another very common way is using the {{DEFAULTSORT:}} template: {{DEFAULTSORT:Water Rogers}} Using this will result in all the categories below it alphabetizing by what you've designated. That was what was at play in Candidatus Phytoplasma solani: if you looked to the top of the categories list in edit mode you would have seen {{DEFAULTSORT:Black wood of grapevine}}, which made it categorize by that name. I'm not sure why that was originally added, but I've removed it, so it should be categorizing by the article title now. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Wikipedia Google Search Result information

I am trying to assist a client (actor, R. Brandon Johnson - R. Brandon Johnson) with inaccuracies within his Wikipedia page. While the Birthplace/Birthdate information included within his Wikipedia page is correct, the information shown in the description of Google search results is wrong. Google Search result for search for R. Brandon Johnson shows the following INCORRECT information: "Born: January 14, 1968 (age 46), Byron Center, MI. It should read - CORRECT: "Born: January 14, 1974 (age 40), Bloomington, MN"

I have been unable to find where I can make edits to this search result description. Any assistance is appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOLAmanda (talk • contribs) 04:09, 23 July 2014‎

How Google displays what it scrapes together for its Knowledge Graph is something you'll have to discuss with Google. I have no idea how to begin that discussion. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this isn't something on Wikipedia's end, but at the bottom of the window in Google's search result is the word "Feedback" which you can click on to report false information.AioftheStorm (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people are fooled by Google's layout and think the whole box is from Wikipedia. It is only the text paragraph ending "Wikipedia". PrimeHunter (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying Wikipedia article does not list his date of birth. If you have a reliable source for his date of birth, you can post a link on the talk page, Talk: R. Brandon Johnson and it can be added. Otherwise, as per the biographies of living persons policy, it will remain omitted. As mentioned, the inaccurate date of birth is not coming from Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake with my last name

Hello, i wanted to denounce a mistake with my last name. In your article called "Monaco at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics", you wrote that the name of the athlete, a judoka, was "Nicolas Grinder". The exact URL where the mistake is written is : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco_at_the_2014_Summer_Youth_OlympicsMonaco_at_the_2014_Summer_Youth_Olympics This is a mistake, because my name is Nicolas GRINDA. I please want you to verify your sources and change this mistake on my last name as soon as possible.

Thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.90.186 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 23 July 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nicholas, unfortunately, that is the name given in our reference, at http://www.intjudo.eu/upload/2014_03/22/139548459716682772/yog_participants_02.pdf, which appears to be an official list from the International Judo Federation, and we have to go by what our sources say. Can you point us at another reliable source which gives the correct name? Rojomoke (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be of any use http://www.judoinside.com/judoka/41943 or http://198.71.59.59/www.judo-world.net/ijf/world/wc_cadets2013/tta.php?aktion=profil&nachname=GRINDA&vorname=Nicolas&klasse=-81&sprache=russia&modus=text ? Darmech (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better still the actual event on page seven Nicolas Grinda www.ffjudo.com/var/ffj/.../86166f8cd9ac6bbbdf597b266635d15d.pdf Darmech (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do. I am fixing the spelling, Grinder --> Grinda. Moriori (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution after a content merge from a draft article

Dear editors: While working at AfC I often deal with cases in which an editor creates an article only to find that there is already a mainspace article about that topic. Of course, the article is declined with the suggestion that the editor add appropriate material to the mainspace article. Often, though, that doesn't happen, so later on a different editor copies over some of the material. (Sometimes it's me; sometimes I notice that someone else has done it.) To maintain attribution, the merge instructions say to put in the edit summary, and/or on the talk page, the name of the article from which the material was copied. However, AfC drafts are deleted if not edited for six months, so, to preserve the original edit history, the draft is moved to mainspace with an alternative title and turned into a redirect, and an {{R from merge}} template added to the redirect. My question is, should the attribution text in the edit summary name the original title from which the text was copied (an AfC draft which isn't there any more), or should it name the current title (a mainspace redirect)? In the case of a single-editor draft, can the issue be avoided by naming the editor specifically instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anne Delong: Hey Anne. If the content is solely by one user, then the best solution is to list that user's name (linked), in an edit summary with attribution details. Doing so not only avoids the problems with linking to the unstable source name, but the source need not be kept. See WP:PATT. If you're going to list the source, then definitely use the name of the title where the history is located, i.e. the redirect name, as it's the history that provides attribution. It's obvious though that problems can arise with this, such as if the content was copied over before a move and redirection. As to the page I linked, they suggest the attribution edit summary "text originally contributed by [[User:Example]] on 2014 23 July". I would make it more explicit, something like "text originally contributed by [[User:Example]] on 2014 23 July for [[DraftName]]" (if the draft has been deleted, which should no longer be a problem) or if redirected anyway, "text originally contributed by User:Example on 2014 23 July for [[RedirectName]]". Note that if text has been copied over by someone else without attribution, you can later provide a copyright attribution note in an edit summary using a dummy edit (example).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should also consider whether a WP:Histmerge would make sense, such as if the 2nd editor copies from the decline AFC to create a NEW article. Monty ₈₄₅ 13:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit, what you have said agrees with my thinking, but the instructions didn't appear to cover the "draft" case, so I appreciate the confirmation. Monty845, there are times when a historymerge is appropriate, but not in the case I was discussing, in which the draft was created after the mainspace article, and was written independently by an editor who didn't realize that the topic was already represented. Thanks to you both for taking time to reply. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I missed that detail when reading the fact pattern. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Press

Would some one please be able to have a look at the article on Irina Press as it appears to have been hijacked for an article on Masmaraza Momin. 81.149.235.31 (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (and block issued) by OrangeMike.--ukexpat (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was "interesting" in that it appears that the vandalism was conducted by meatpuppets or sockpuppets, by two vandals and not one. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Transportation Museum.

This museum located in Spencer, North Carolina should be added to places to visit.

Maybe in a travel guide, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a travel guide. Try Wikivoyage, you might have better luck there. SpinningSpark 15:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with the Firefox Timeline Template

I'm having a problem with the Mozilla Firefox timeline template. Yesterday, I tried adding the Firefox 31.0 and Firefox 24.7.0 ESR release dates to the chart, but I ended up breaking the template with this error message. I wanted to lengthen the timeline template a little more, but I don't know how to do it. If only Raghusri were here to lengthen the timeline. Would someone please help me? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The error message was because you had "test" instead of "text". I've corrected that for you,& sorted out the lengthening too. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, thank you. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair deletion of my article.

Hi my name is Mendy Oirechman and i just recently posted a really nice article on the lenovo vibe z2 pro and it was wrongly deleted i would like to request that the article be put back up on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Oirechman.mendy (talk • contribs) 15:51, July 23, 2014‎

If your referring to Lenovo vibe z2 pro may be coming up with an upgrade to the vibe z called the vibe z2 pro, it fundamentally wasn't written as an encyclopedic article. If you want to try to improve it, we could probably move it to a draft space, but I don't know if it really justifies its own article about an unreleased device that has received some speculation. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would have helped if you had specified the name of the article, or if you had posted this inquiry from the account that was used to create the article. Monty845, who is an administrator, evidently found the article. Why did you create a new account to inquire about article deletion? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which account was used to create the article, Robert? The deletion notification was on the user talk page of the OP. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by the OP. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, perhaps you were being misled by the OP having only one edit in their history? This is because edits to deleted articles disappear from users' contribution histories as well as from the article history. However, they are still visible to administrators. However, this tool will tell you if deleted edits exist. SpinningSpark 16:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why edits to deleted articles are deleted, but it can cause confusion. In any event, it would helped if the OP had identified the former title of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's a pain to find for editors who are not administrators but in this case I doubt that even the OP would be able to remember that ridiculous title. You can find it by going to Special:Log/delete and then using your browser search facility to find "lenovo vibe z2 pro" (the informtion actually provided by the OP). You may need to go back through the log several pages, depending on how long ago the article was created, the log fills up quite quickly. Or you can set the "limit=" parameter in the url to some very large number (up to 5000 is allowed). Or you can set the date if you know roughly when it was created. That still won't tell you who created it, only who deleted it, but it might give a link to an AFD, or if not a CSD reason which usually answers the question "why was my article deleted?". SpinningSpark 17:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The name was ridiculous. It would have needed moving if it hadn't needed deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a paper with ten authors

Is it necessary to list all ten authors or is it permissible to shorten the list? If so how many authors should be named before the "et. al."? I'm using the "cite paper" template. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should include all. You can set the number displayed with |display-authors= per the documentation. {{cite paper}} → {{cite paper}}. -- Gadget850^talk 16:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (Note to self: RTFM!) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British/ UK culture - Folklore

I was searching for info on English national dress. I am English and we don't appear to have one. Wikipedia came up with a load of info on British culture, which I know and love so well. I hadn't realised how English I am. We have many immigrants in the UK today and they often ask me to explain points about our culture.

I know it's a really small thing, but in the section on Folklore it stated that Hallowe'en was a Scottish custom. I just wanted to say that I am English, all my forebears were English and we have practised Hallowe'en customs, the same as specified for Scotland ever since I was a child in the 1960's. I learnt them from my Mum who was a child in London, as was my Dad, during World War 2, and they got it from their parents, who were also Southern English. We cut up swedes into faces and put nightlights inside, we dressed up as witches and ghosts, played games, like bobbing apples, my mum made toffee apples (which are called turnips in Scotland I believe), as pumpkins were not as available in the 1960's as they are today.

I'm not sure how to edit. I went on the talk page, but it was about much more high brow stuff. (Thomas Tallis v Elgar - I'm a Tallis fan myself) I just wanted Hallowe'en celebrations included as an English custom as well as a Scottish one. I have a friend from Lithuania who is very interested in our ancient customs. People from various countries in Africa have also asked me questions about folklore.

Sorry if this seems boring to you, and I'd be more than happy to receive any kind of reply, regardless of how long it may take.

Regards

Elizabeth Butler

British culture it's under the Folklore heading

Mlqzu49876 (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can link to a section within an article like this: British culture#Folklore. I agree with the OP, it is odd that Hallowe'en is described there as exclusively Scottish and Irish. Maproom (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) — Hello Elizabeth, and welcome to the Wikipedia help desk!

We'd be very happy to have you join the ranks of Wikipedia ~~slaves~~ editors. I added a "Welcome" template to your talk page which has some useful links for new editors. Since you seem to be mostly interested in English culture, you might want to check out Talk: Culture of the United Kingdom; at the top there are links to "WikiProjects" that might interest you, and there is a "To do" list that could use your assistance. Of course we'd be glad to provide assistance here, but you should also check out Wikipedia: Teahouse: "A friendly place to help new editors become accustomed to Wikipedia culture, ask questions, and develop community relationships." ~I hope this helps, Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to national dress you will find that redirects to folk costume. According to that article, the closest we have to it in England is the smock-frock. However, that is completed uncited (citations are very important on Wikipedia). When I think of English national dress I'm thinking Morris men. SpinningSpark 00:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Encyclopedia of National Dress "England...has no official national dress or recognizable ethnic dress", but they do talk a great deal about smocks. SpinningSpark 00:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not bowler hats and furled umbrellas?--ukexpat (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling new pages

WP:NPP states about manually marking pages as patrolled: "In some editing contexts, editors will see a 'mark this page as patrolled' link." Can someone explain what "some editing contexts" refers to, and why some new unpatrolled articles don't have that link? It's quite annoying when going through Special:NewPagesFeed to see a page indicated as "unreviewed", and review it, only to find that "[mark this page as patrolled]" is not present in the article.
Random examples: Milroy State Bank Building (patrol log empty [1]), Javidan Gurbanova (patrol log empty [2]) etc. 2Flows (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the pages you found were recently moved, either from userspace to mainspace or within the mainspace. I believe that in that case, page curation will recognize the articles as new and give you the option to mark as patrolled from the page curation sidebar, but Special:Newpages will not, so you won't get the "[mark this page as patrolled]" link. Altamel (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be right. I found some other such pages, and they have all been moved. But is there another way to mark them as patrolled then? 2Flows (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to find them through the page curation feed, then the sidebar with the option to patrol should pop up. Altamel (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had closed that toolbar a long time ago and completely forgotten about it (cause I am using Twinkle + link at bottom of page). But now I reopened it and it works fine. Thanks! 2Flows (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]