Help desk
< August 15	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 17 >

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.

August 16

Leatherback sea turtle article

It has the † witch is the extinct symbol on it but i cant find it in the article and its not extinct as i saw a few on the beach a few months ago 72.73.112.126 (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! It was a probably with the templates used—took a while for me to figure out. Thanks for letting us know! RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 00:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What qualifies as trivia, and what is a reliable source?

I recently made an edit to the page on Neil Degrasse Tyson, where I noted that he made an appearance on a song by Avenged Sevenfold. I understand how this could be seen as trivial, but I thought that it was uncharacteristic enough that people would be interested to know. If someone wanted to look into it, there's a nice story tied to it. For reference, I used a youtube video where a member of the band told an interviewer about it. User Dp76764 undid my edit with the message "GFE, but non-notable trivia. please find a reliable 3rd party source. youtube is not one". While this fact is somewhat trivial, I thought it made for an intriguing window into Tyson's character, as someone who would push boundaries to teach about science. Also, by using a youtube video for reference, I thought that the video of the band member themselves delivering the data was the source, not youtube. I believe my reference was as close to a first party reference as I could get. I have already looked through help articles and such, but I do not know how to communicate with Dp76764 about this issue. If I am in the wrong, I'd like to know why. If I am in the right, I'd like to know the proper way to resolve this issue with the person who reverted my edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neil_deGrasse_Tyson&action=history The edits were made on 11 August 2017 Samuel010898 (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find this rv rather odd based on the edit summary reason: considering the section specifically refers to Tyson's "Media appearances" and the question of "notable trivia" is a fine line, since this is mostly made up of "trivia" in "popular culture". Second, references within this section are cited directly to YouTube (i.e. "Everything wrong with Gravity") I think this editor is simply hashing with semantics, honestly. If they are going to nitpick a section that is mostly trivia and has YouTube videos for reference, then they need to heavily scrub and clean-up the section themselves. That being said, it is easily referenced by a third party to support your content. I say: get right back in there, find that reliable source and reinsert it WP:BOLD. Try these: [1], [2], [3]. There can be no contest regarding these sources. If you have any more difficulty with this edit, notify me on my Talk Page. Good luck! Maineartists (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The revert was correct based on the quality of the reference; Youtube does not cut it. Any of the other references given above should though. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the revert was incorrect, and I have restored the cite. It is not enought to say that Youtube does not cut it. Many YouTube videos are perfectly relaible sources, many more are not. Postings on the official channels of reliable sources are themselves relaible, and their beign on youtube matters no more than the quality of paper that a newspaper is printed on. In this case, the video was on the official channel of Metal Hammer, which is blue-linked and appears to be a relaible source for this sort of thing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DES Thanks. WP needs to begin taking YouTube clips individually into consideration and at their own merit, I believe. There is just too much umbrella blanketing of disqualification at present for the site as an unacceptable source. However, I do hope the other sources I brought will suffice, too. Maineartists (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I might have reverted this on the grounds of it needing a source that establishes some level of significance, as discussed at WP:IPCV. The text doesn't make it clear to me that his appearance on the album is particularly noteworthy. DonIago (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I might point out that the entire section of "Media Appearances" contains nothing particularly noteworthy, and is really just highlighting the plethora of avenues through which Tyson has tried to bring scientific interest to the masses. In this frame of mind, the more significant details are not the more major appearances, but rather the more erratic. For example, an appearance in a heavy metal song, where he gives a monologue about science. Samuel010898 (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New version of file (replace photo with rendering to improve resolution)

I want to contribute to the quality of the Santorini (game) article by adding a high resolution image which is a rendering of a model I made based on the infobox photo in the article. The rendering is (arguably) a replacement for the photo, and I have already added it to the wiki commons. How should I go about adding it to the article? Upload a new version of the existing photo? Replace it on the page?

I'd like for someone to take a look and advise, please. Thanks! Jsejcksn (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find your rendering clearer and better than the photograph currently in the article. Some editors may disagree. I suggest you put your version on the article's talk page and ask for opinions – and if no-one responds for a week or so, just go ahead and make the change. Maproom (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Maproom (talk · contribs). Jsejcksn (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden links to Wikidata: how to make more obvious?

So I figured out that the wrong information for a page here was coming from Wikidata, fixed that, then ranted about how arcane that whole process is at Wikidata.

Coming back here I'd love to attempt to make the mysterious more clear.

'Repository' in the infobox at page Blink (web engine) happens to come from Wikidata. There is no indication that that is true, except for maybe the existence in the left sidebar of an item under 'Tools' - "Wikidata item" - which does go to the 'shadow' page over at Wikidata.

?) If perhaps maybe one or more infobox items might have data infiltrated in from Wikidata, is the presence of the link under 'Tools' the trustworthy indication? Or are so many pages here now having tiny pieces from Wikidata that that link's presence is useless as an indication? (Carrot points to Carrot which informs me that a carrot is shaped like a cone. Ah'yep.)

?) Is there any foolproof way to determine whether infobox data is coming from Wikidata, other than comparing the page's source for the infobox with the presence and value of data in the 'shadow' page at Wikidata? This is all very complicated and non-obvious.

If one should happen to peer into the documentation for Template:Infobox_software/doc there are some BTW mentions in descriptions that two values 'might' come from Wikidata: 'website' and 'repo' (repository). How does one know that *only* these two values might come from Wikidata?

Limply helpful is a notice tucked away at top of the template documentation in the midst of so much else that it is completely obscured that "This template uses the Wikidata property: official website (P856)", and also that "This template tracks the Wikidata property: official website (P856)".

?) What is the difference between 'uses' and 'tracks'? I've looked around and still can't figure it out.

I wanted to know because we need to add one or both of

to the existing "{{Uses Wikidata|P856}}{{Tracks Wikidata|P856}}" in that documentation. This is an oversight. (And in how many other places also?) But again, which one?

And in fact links like P1324 should probably be added to the mentions in the template description, such that "..., infobox attempts to acquire the website link from Wikidata." ought to something like "..., infobox attempts to acquire the website link from Wikidata. (see P1324)"

There are too many mysteries here to think that anyone would be comfortable saying that integration with Wikidata is in a good state. But in the meantime, can you point to answers to any of these questions, here, at Wikidata, or elsewhere? Or... even better places to rant? ;) Shenme (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shenme. The best place to ask questions (and to rant) would be Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), since many Wikidata discussions happen there. You can search the Village pump archives to see the discussions and RFCs. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Shenme. I could not find any documentation. However, after reading templates and categories I have come to the following conclusions:

Tracks wikidata allows some process to go through articles and add them to the hidden categories in Category:Wikipedia categories tracking Wikidata differences such as Category:No local image but image on Wikidata. I don't know what use is made of this data; perhaps bots then move things to Wikidata. A template editor decides that articles using the template should be patrolled in this way.
Uses Wikidata shows the users of the template that the code of the template will read the value from the associated property in Wikidata. You can view the source and search for "#property" to see if that documentation is accurate. For example {{infobox software}} has a template that says it uses official website (P856). However the source shows that it also uses repository (P1324). {{infobox telescope}} is an example of template using Wikidata where Mike Peel has provided very clear documentation that is always up-to-date. That template also provides a little pencil icon next to each item from Wikidata (except for links to websites) in the infobox for the article. If you hover over it it says "Edit this on Wikidata".

Hope this helps a bit. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you greatly for pointers to that template. See below. Shenme (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All pages with a Wikidata item will link to that on "Wikidata item" under "Tools". A page has a Wikidata item if there is a Wikidata item with a sitelink to the page, for example wikidata:Q9603949#sitelinks-wikipedia. The page may or may not use the Wikidata item. Wikidata usage is usually but not always via templates in Category:Templates using data from Wikidata. Links under "Languages" and "In other projects" in the left pane are nearly always from the Wikidata item. If you edit a page or preview code then the bottom of the Window may have a collapsible list saying "Wikidata entities used in this page". It can vary whether and how template documentation mentions Wikidata use. That's the responsibility of English Wikipedia editors and not editors at Wikidata. Wikidata is used by hundreds of wikis and other features. Each wiki has its own templates. Some infoboxes display a Wikidata link in the rendered infobox but I think that's mainly infoboxes which get a lot of content from Wikidata. See Oxygen for an example with "in Wikidata" at the bottom right of the infobox. The use of Wikidata in the English Wikipedia could be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikidata but activity seems low. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shenme: As @StarryGrandma says, please do have a look at {{Infobox telescope}} (a good example of it in use is the South Pole Telescope article), and let me know what you think about the links and documentation there. For tracking categories it uses Category:Articles using Infobox telescope using locally defined parameters or Category:Articles with infoboxes completely from Wikidata. If that looks good, then I would be happy to work on a version of {{Infobox software}} that uses the same approach to including Wikidata values, and/or provide examples of the code for how it works if you'd like to have a go at doing this yourself. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: I have linked to the template and a usage in replies to my query at Wikidata, as demonstration that better process clarity is possible. Note there the last comment, where a short guide for the first-time visitor is contemplated.

I love the pencil shortcut. Does it appear only when the data item has actually come from Wikidata? Is there any way to do that for every Wikidata-source item, including such as 'website'? (the occasional editor won't have read documentation saying that is always a possibility. It would be fantastic to have a visible dead-certain yes/no indication - source locally or globally?)

I have no beef with the sharing of centralized data from Wikidata - that is working. But the implementation is incomplete when the difficulty is so great for the uninitiated, just wanting to fix one fact and return to their usual editing. You've shown good progress is possible here. Wikidata just need to realize the urgency of completing the implementation, the end-to-end round-trip process. Shenme (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rectifying contains content written as advertisement.

Hi I have edited the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currae_Hospital to resolve the issues highlighted. Namely "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (November 2016)". How do I get the error page removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.170.130 (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the lists of departments would help. Maproom (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Welcome to Wikipedia. You could consider reading Wikipedia's NOTADVERTISING policy as well as the SPAM guideline to know why Wikipedia does not welcome advertising attempts. SPAMMER is a part of the above mentioned guideline which recommends a few steps to ensure your material is not considered spam.

Adding to what Maproom has said above, in the particular article, most of the claims are unreferenced (you need to provide reliable sources to support the claims). Statements like "Currae Hospitals is now recognised by NABH (National Accreditation Board for Hospitals & Healthcare Providers, India) for its quality of healthcare" has the hospital's advertisement being provided as a source (and that's not acceptable). Further, giving all the department names of the various divisions under the hospital seems belabored and almost spammy. While you can work on these suggestions, the best place to discuss this issue is the talk page of the article. Some editor has already left their comments on that page; continue discussions there. Feel free to come back here for clarifications if you get stuck up somewhere. Thanks. Lourdes 07:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

editing an article

when some links given in an article are not correct, how to delete these links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goelmg12 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Goelmg12: Please be more specific about the problem. Is it about links going to wrong Wikipedia articles, or no article, or external links which don't work, or go to sites with wrong information, or what? Help:Link or Wikipedia:Link rot may be relevant. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

getting a new page live

Hi, I have successfully written a new wikipedia page. All edits have been made but the page is not live. I don't see any button/option that would enable the page to go live. Can you please help in getting the page go live?

I also edited an online page and after the edits I made I could see it in my browser but this new page is only in my account.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali.shaila (talk • contribs) 14:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ali.shaila - Firstly, please sign all posts on talk pages with 4 tildes ( ~~~~ ) which will add your signature and a timestamp
You didn't say, but I assume you are talking about the Ronald P. Rohner article which has been "live" since you started it on 1 August, as is clearly shown by it being a bluelink, as otherwise it would be a redlink. - Arjayay (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Ali.shaila: I have made some minor 'clean up' edits to the page. If by 'live' you mean visible in search engines, new articles will not be indexed by Google or similar, for 90 days or until they have been reviewed, whichever is the shorter period. Eagleash (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Create a page

How do I create a new page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.71.246.143 (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What type of page? At Wikipedia:Articles for creation you can create a draft article and submit it for review without having an account. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... and advice is available at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article not appearing in google search

Hi, I just created the article called: "Abdourahmane Sarr". It is on the main encyclopedia but not on google searches. Why is that?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by LigueyeKat (talk • contribs) 19:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles now have to be reviewed by another editor before they will show up in Google. Or 90 days if nobody reviews it by then. Crow^Caw 19:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

Hi,

I need help, can someone please make the following edit in this article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Veciana-Suarez

Someone wrote the article about my client with wrong information in it, I am requesting an edit on her behalf to correct the wrong information. Following are the details:

This is the a FALSE statement in the article:

"The Chin Kiss King (Plume, 1998).[3] It was originally published in Spanish as El Rey de Los Besos by Editorial Planeta, S.A. in 1997."

Following is the truth:

"The Chin Kiss King was originally published in English by Farrar Strauss & Giroux in 1997. It was re-issued in 2015."

Thank you! Nayab K. Siddiqui — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.255.103.12 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then please post reliable references to this effect on Talk:Ana_Veciana-Suarez. Point out that you have a COI from her being your client. Also, this writer does not appear (to me) to be notable either; anymore than having a book published and writing a few articles makes anybody automatically notable. Think this should go for AfD unless 'reliable' references can be provided. Aspro (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The existing cite to the publisher confirms the above publication info, so i am going to make the change, but Aspro is quite correct that such requests should normally be posted on the talk page of the article, with {{request edit}} to draw attention to it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does that reference or any of the others show notability in the WP sense? Aspro (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aspro There are now two cited sources which are reviews from major publications: the Washington Post and the New York Times. They are surely enough to contribute to notability. They may not be enough on their own to establish notability, but until a WP:BEFORE search is done, there is no way to know what other sources may be out there. This should not be nominated at AfD unless the nominator has done a BEFORE search (nor, in general, should any article when the issue is notability). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that neither of these two references indicate notability because they are both just reviews. Much the same as they have food critics reviewing restaurant etc. to provide the reader with a broad range of reading matter (which provides more pages into which they can insert even more adverts - in order for the publication can stay in business) . For this article to stay (as an encyclopedic article here) we need references to show that she is an author which has risen above the many tens of thousands of wordsmiths – and I can't find a single one! If Anaveciana had submitted her article about herself as a draft for review first, it probably would not be accepted for lack of reference showing notability. Aspro (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aspro and DESiegel,

Thank you both of you, for resolving my problem. About the notability part, I agree witth DESiegel, as the criteria for notability, to put it simply, is to have 3rd party publications about the personality, and that has to be renowned publisher. As confirmed by DESiegel, The Washington Post and New York Times are both authentic parties that WikiPedia considers for notability. If you can have some publications on there about yourself, then you can also qualify to be on WikiPedia for being an editor who was mentioned in such sources. There are tens and thousands of wordsmiths out there, who are mentioned in many sources, and should be on Wikipedia too. They aren't here only because they are unaware of the process, which is because of the limited staff of the non-profit organization. If we can spread the awareness, each and every of the wordsmith you mentioned Aspro, should be on wikipedia, because he has put in enough work and effort to have himself noticed by sources like The Washington Post and The New York Times.

Thank you for your time guys! I respect what you are doing for the community and thank you for educating me about requesting an edit in the proper manner. I rest my case here.

Cheers! Nayab K. Siddiqui — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.209.85.59 (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A false information regarding a company named Business Initiative Directions

Hi,

Since august 6 an entry appeared claiming that Business Initiative Directions is a company that sells "vanity awards" or fake awards. This company is a Spanish communication consultancy agency, specialized in marketing, corporate marketing and corporate events. They have several events, some of them called International Quality Awards have a fee and include an award gala at the end of the event. To call this a "fake" or a "scam" as it is imply in the entry, its dishonest. They have 50 years working under Spanish law and more than 20 years now under the European Legislation. Is a well known and renowned company in Spain and their line of business is clear: the promote other companies and organizations. Is marketing. Like many other things. The people behind this attacks is hurting a legal company, that is working in total compliance with the European law. The entry is TOXIC is causing massive damage to BID clients and BID reputation. Its unbelievable that Wikipedia will allow the use of its international renowned for some kind of business revenge. Please stop this. BID is willing to provide all information regarding the matter in their offices in Madrid at any given time. Wikipedia was never meant for ruining people business. This is shameful.

This is the entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Initiative_Directions — Preceding unsigned comment added by FernandoSantiago (talk • contribs) 21:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a candidate for AfD, which would solve the issue. Aspro (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia only cares about what is stated in published reliable sources. We're not saying anything about these awards, we're only saying that this group says something about them. I will also advise you to read WP:NLT before an admin blocks you for the legal threat you made in your last edit to that article. Crow^Caw 21:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aspro: it looked like a candidate for AfD when FernandoSantiago had deleted all the references. They have since been restored, repeatedly. Maproom (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still could be... of the 6 sources, 4 are the company itself and 2 are the watchdog agencies calling the company out... Crow^Caw 22:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But has anyone done a competent search for sources that exist but are not in the article? As specified in WP:BEFORE that should be done before starting an AfD. I don't know what such a search will disclose. it might confirm lack of notability, or make it clear that the business is notable. Meanwhile, please see User talk:DESiegel#Nomination of Business Initiative Directions for deletion or help. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of main pages 2-5

This is a mildly disingenuous place to put this question as I'm not an admin and so can't actually use any of these pages anyway, but I was looking at the source of the main page and noticed that not only it but also WP:Main Page/2, WP:Main Page/3, WP:Main Page/4, and WP:Main Page/5 are protected. Why do those four pages exist and why are they protected? Mehmuffin (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are there so many backups of the Main Page? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]