Help desk
< December 29	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 31 >

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.

December 30

Regarding GA

I have nominated Mother Teresa for GA but I haven't received any review on it do help me for the same --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 09:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Regarding GA. Please ask questions in one place at a time in future. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

same film

this seems to be the same film:

Queryzo (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DoneQueryzo I have merged the two articles, all the sources suggest the title is Eettillam. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thx can somebody merge the wikidata items? Queryzo (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merged them on Wikidata. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Editor - Adding Content

I'd like to add my Mother and have my siblings help edit. Is this possible? Or would it be considered a conflict of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettyssonnumber2 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is your mother and in which way is she notable in a Wikipedia context? Britmax (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Central discussion forum for content issues

I've heard that consensus was reached to create a centralized discussion forum for issues that would include merges, but that it has yet to be implemented. I'm trying to locate that consensus. I've skimmed the archives at the Village Pump and here, but am having trouble locating the discussion. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_98#Wikipedia_.22Merge.22_like_WP:RM_or_WP:AFD seems relevant. I had thought that there was something newer. Unscintillating (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Publish in Hindi language also. It will help spreading your knowledge at least one billion people.

Pl publish in Hindi language also. bnm' — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMehrotraBrahma (talk • contribs) 16:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NMehrotraBrahma: The Hindi version is at this link. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brook Benton Goldmine Article - "Let Me Sing and I'm Happy"

Hi,

Just following up on my message of 16 November 2016. I haven't heard from an editor so I thought I'd check to see if there's a problem. Here is my original message:

Brook Benton Goldmine Article - "Let Me Sing and I'm Happy"[edit]

Hi,

My name is Bill Bronk. I wrote an article about Brook Benton which was published by Goldmine Magazine on 27 September 2016. The article is extensive and covers his bio, chart activity, singing style, song-writing prowess, reviews by various music writers and the lack of recognition for Benton by the powers that be in the music industry.

Your coverage of Benton is excellent. Parts of my article, I believe, could be used to broaden that coverage. Or the article could be used as a reference tool by fans or researchers. Here's the goldminemag.com link: http://www.goldminemag.com/article/brook-benton-let-sing-im-happy.

I hope my article can be used to give the public a more enhanced picture of Brook Benton... and more recognition for a truly great singer, songwriter and performer.

Thanks, Bill Bronk 100.4.148.37 (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Bill Bronk 30 December 2016100.4.147.5 (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "editors" in the sense of paid, in-house staff you probably mean. Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", as it says on the front page. That means anyone at all, including you, can be an editor, and you already are, because by leaving this query in the Brook Benton article's talk page and here, you have already edited Wikipedia (though not an actual article). Also, no-one will contact you externally, only within Wikipedia itself (as I am doing now).

All activity on Wikipedia is voluntary, so if no-one has acted so far on your suggestion left in November, it may mean that no volunteer with an interest in the Brook Benton article has got round to doing so yet (remember, there are over 5 million articles here), or they have decided not to. If the latter, it may be because they don't think anything in the Goldmine article is appropriate to add to the Wikipedia article, or they might consider that Goldmine magazine is not a Reliable Source according to the standards required for use on Wikipedia.(Please read through that last linked article, and also study some of the linked 'Wikipedia Guidelines' you'll see listed there – I said anyone can edit, I didn't say it was easy!)

I suggest that you decide on some information in your Goldmine article that can usefully be added to the Wikipedia article, and give details of it on the Brook Benton talk page. If no-one raises objections by replying on that talk page after, say, a week, then you could add the information to the article, citing the Goldmine article as the reference for it (see Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources), and linking to that article in the reference. Once you've done that, you might then get some feedback/disagreement from other editors: please understand that this will (or should) only be intended to maintain or improve the article's quality by discussing the changes and coming to a concensus – no-one "owns" any article or has more right to determine its content than anyone else (see WP:Own).

Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notables

I went into my family name and wanted to add myself on in the 'notable' section. What would be the best verifications to use to support my information, such as employment?Nelag241 (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nelag241: Newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, etc. that have been written about you are what is generally needed to demonstrate that you meet Wikipedia's definition of notability (click that link). Also, it's generally a bad idea to write about yourself (click that one too). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COI. Wait for some independent Wikipedia editor to notice you from reading about you in reliable sources and write an article about you. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youNelag241 (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC) I have had articles written about me regarding what I do or initiatives but you're saying a Wikipedia editor would have to take notice correct?Nelag241 (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Although if you can point us in the direction of such articles, someone might take an interest. Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography is a good place to leave it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you.Nelag241 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

template for citation not specific enough?

Is there an inline template for indicating that a foot note isn't specific enough for a person to determine what is being cited as a reference? RJFJR (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Inline_cleanup_templates. There is {{where}} and {{when}} for example and many others. RudolfRed (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I went through the list again and didn't find quite what I was looking for but I was able to refine the citation. I'll keep a copy of your answer for future use. RJFJR (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RJFJR and RudolfRed: I'mhaving the same problem, and the closest I've found is {{Full citation needed}}. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject: Wikipedia:WikiProject External links

There is an informal group of editors who appear to be dedicated to eliminating all external links, whether in the "External Links" section or in the body of the article. These editors go around deleting all external links sections from articles at random. While they are editing an article, they often delete most of the "See Also" links, without so much as mentioning this in their edit summary. The reason provided for deletion is to "conform with WP:EL" or some variation such as "Not a Link Farm" or "Linkspam". However, these types of explanations are totally inadequate, and are NOT an accurate representation of the policy guideline. I have also noticed that some of these editors use terms like "pruning EL" in their explanations, which is basically dishonest when total eradication a better descriptor of their actions. (Pruning implies a small reduction in the number of links, rather than total eradication of an entire section, including section headings, which is what is actually going on).

Wikipedia guidelines do not specify maximum or minimum numbers of external links. And, while the guidelines recommend that external links be kept to a minimum or kept to a reasonable length, there is a case for including "acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic". The spirit of the guidelines on external links appears to be primarily concerned with improving the overall quality of external links, rather than eradicating ALL external links. Yet, total eradication, without regard for the quality of the links, appears to be precisely how many editors are interpreting and applying the guidelines.

In the last two weeks, I have seen all external links deleted, by a number of different editors, from multiple articles that I have been working on. In each case, the list of links was approx 6 items and only included links to peak industry associations and/ or high ranking journals in the subject area. (I find it hard to accept that 6 links to high quality sources for a 7,000 word article is excessive). Each external link was selected because it provided access to free articles, blogs, databases, trade directories or the like. None of it could be construed as Linkspam. If anyone, such as myself, has the audacity to challenge these editors, the response is often that the person who initially added the external link should provide details of their inclusion criteria on the talk page. I find this to be a form of bullying - these editors do not feel the need to account for their actions, but instead throw the responsiblity back onto others to account for themselves. In this way, the deleters will surely be victorious 9 times out of 10, because the editor who originally added the link will, in all probability, give up since the burden of providing evaluation criteria would be overwhelming (not to mention disproportionate burden for a single link!)

You will note that I have not mentioned any names of specific editors because this problem is very widespread. However, if necessary, I am prepared to name names and provide diffs to show some of this brazen and inappropriate action. Too many editors are hiding behind Wiki policy to revert content for personal and obscure agendas. It is a huge problem on Wikipedia. But the problem associated with the 'External Links' Project is that these editors are part of a movement, which gives them credence: a sense of strength and righteousness, and which is ultimately undesirable and disruptive. Wikipedia should take action to curtail this type of abuse of guidelines - especially when the abuse is being caused by an informal, but identifiable group of editors (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_External_links/Participants) BronHiggs (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier if you gave examples, but to tackle the "See also" section specifically, in one case when you reverted the deletion you used the edit summary"adding back deleted links; no explanation provided for deletion decision; these are SEE ALSO links, not EXTERNAL LINKS; no need for sneaky 'under the radar' deletions" The deletion can scarcely be described as "sneaky 'under the radar' deletions" as the editor concerned said in his edit summary "Removed duplicate wikilinks" If you read WP:ALSO you will see that it says "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." --David Biddulph (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Squad encyclopedic tone COMPLETE VIOLATION

<Hi, recently I was checking out the Odd Squad (TV series) page and I noticed that it had an alert for encyclopedic tone. So I went through the article and I noticed some MAJOR flaws in the tone. The article sounds like it was written by someone who has no idea what professional means. I was just wondering if you could send someone who knows what they're doing in there to help fix the article? I went through and fixed the basics, but it still needs a major reevaluation before anyone could even CONSIDER removing that alert, let alone considering it a proper article. Please get back to me as soon as possible if you can. Thanks!>

--2601:143:C700:4880:29AB:4E36:F7FF:ECC0 (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). TimothyJosephWood 20:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edited as much as I could already... 2601:143:C700:4880:29AB:4E36:F7FF:ECC0 (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then come back later and do more when you have the time. That's pretty much how all of this works. TimothyJosephWood 20:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another try (3rd time)...

Could I please get some help with this issue? Thanks in advance--Hubon (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you have not had a response. I expect you are referring to the navbox templates {{SS organizations}}, {{Allgemeine-SS}} and {{SS Divisions}}, which each display an SS symbol on the right. These are transcluded on to 50-100 other articles as well as the Schutzstaffel article, but as that article is the main one covering the subject you could go to its talk page and seek views on the matter. If there is no response there either, you could edit the templates yourself - just look for the "100px" in the code and change the number to produce your preferred size: Noyster (talk), 01:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing ping to User:Hubon : Noyster (talk), 01:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit title of page

The title of a page has been agreed to be misleading, and I was going to change it, however, I cannot seem to in the visual editor. How can I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerd1a4i (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please let us know the page in question and provide details of the new title requested together with a reliable source. A page is re-named by 'moving' it to a new location. See WP:MOVE for more information. This is achieved by clicking on 'more' at the top of the page and selecting 'move'. However, you will not be able to do this until your account is at least four days old and you have made at least 10 valid edits. Eagleash (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was implied by Eagleash, but not said outright, so I'll say it — moving a page is unrelated to the editor mode that you use. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend I experimented on a page (without actually moving it) and the vis. ed. does give the same drop down from 'more' at the top of the page. Selecting 'move' gives a very similar menu to move a page as does the source editor. However, I went no further than that so cannot comment on whether it would operate successfully. Eagleash (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say "a very similar menu" but not "an identical menu"; are you saying that all the differences are small, or are you saying that you saw no differences but you can't be 100% sure that it's identical? If you feel like seeing how it works, feel free to move User:Nyttend/directory wherever you want (just put it back when you're done, or let me know where it ended up if you can't return it to the original location) as a test. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend As far as I can tell, the menu is identical. Your page is now at Draft:Nyttend/directory. I moved it via the vis. ed. (I.e. more → move → 'move' menu, but I note that in the history it is not tagged "visual editor" as is normally the case. Shall I move it back or will you?.. I am slightly concerned about a convoluted 'history' here now. Eagleash (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information! Since you were concerned, I just put it back. You could have moved it half a dozen times without causing history problems, as long as you weren't doing anything beyond moving it; all that would be left over would be a few redirects, and those can always be deleted under G2 (since they're part of a test project) or G6 (since they're obvious leftovers). Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it occurs to me that perhaps when you click 'move' it automatically switches you to source editing. I expect someone at the vis. ed. project will know. I'll see what I can find out. Eagleash (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor#Page moves: A move is a log action and not an edit action so neither the source editor nor visual editor is involved at all. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]