Help desk
< June 11	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 13 >

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.

June 12

Lupton family

Two things please - There is a gap after the link "war effort" link - in the Olive Middleton section on this page. Also, the photo in the Francis Martineau Lupton and descendants section should be positioned down lower in the article in the Olive Middleton section - do you agree? Thanks 101.182.69.169 (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just do it yourself? RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 01:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have moved the photo down. I don't see a gap after the link - I see a new paragraph, but that seems appropriate to me.

RileyBugz, this is an editor who has done much work in this and related articles (sometimes logged in and sometimes not) but who frequently comes here asking for help in sorting out details. Sometimes they have asked repeatedly for somebody to correct the same problem in a new place, but do not appear to be able to take on board the method that has been explained to them. Some people have understandably got angry with them for asking people to do things that they would expect them to be able to do; but some of us have accepted that for whatever reason, they cannot cope with this, and just help them in the way they request. --ColinFine (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate RFC closure by inexperienced volunteer

Please note - I also posted this at the village pump, as I wasn't sure which place was more appropriate. Recently I had an RFC which was closed (inappropriately I feel) by an inexperienced volunteer. When I went to the volunteers page and asked (very politely I might add) for an explanation, I was at first told "No - I see no need". Upon further inquiry, the volunteer agreed to explain the reason for his closure, and then promptly disregarded his commitment to do so. Further entreaties were met with radio silence. Here is a link to said discussion - is this how volunteers are supposed to behave when asked a simple question that would take less than 5 minutes to answer? 2600:1012:B068:9A8C:51CA:D45C:30DF:BD0E (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - it looks like the situation had been handled during the time I wrote to his! Thank you - obviously the system works. 2600:1012:B05A:3A60:CCDD:CB0D:4EA6:40F2 (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My page was deleted

Hi how can I get access to the page that was proposed for deletion so I can add references so that it is eligible to stay on? The name of the page was Fiona Themann if that helps. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipagecreator10 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on Fiona Themann you'll be taken to our page on the Adelaide Thunderbirds. At the top you'll see a line saying " (Redirected from Fiona Themann)". Click on that link, and you'll find yourself at the redirect page, which your article was turned into. From there you can see the Version History and access all previous versions. Hope that helps. Rojomoke (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Wikipagecreator10:, please make sure that the article's topic is notable for a stand-alone article per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. If you can find enough sources for such an article, I suggest to follow the guidance at WP:Your first article to develop a new article version in draft namespace. This step is optional, but working with a draft gives new editors more time to create a sufficiently sourced article before it is getting reviewed. GermanJoe (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with cite book template

I am trying to understand why the following reference shows the contributing authors in red. The reference is
<ref>{{cite book|author1=Dr. J H Andrews|author2=Major-General R C A Edge CB|author3=Dr. J B Harley|authorlink1=ch. 7,13,20|authorlink2=ch. 27, 31, 34|authorlink3=ch 1, 2, 4, 6|editor1-last=Seymour|editor1-first=W A|editor1-link=ch.|title=A History of the Ordnance Survey|date=1980|publisher=Wm Dawson & Sons, Ltd|location=Folkestone, Kent|isbn=0-7129-0979-6|url=https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/docs/ebooks/history-ordnance-survey.pdf}}</ref>
This was input using the cite book template.
The reference is not complete - I have more contributors to add, but it is tedious typing if I am not sure if I am doing it right!!
Additionally, the template allows me to put in the full title and honours of the contributing authors, but not the editor - whose full title is Colonel W A Seymour OBE. It seems a bit mean not to get his full name correct.
Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ThoughtIdRetired: The 'authorlink' parameter is for the insertion of a the title of a Wikipedia page where it exists for the author cited. Suggest just cite the authors as normal and place the pages etc. in a 'pages' parameter. Eagleash (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is not 'typical' to add titles etc. to authors. It is usually done last1='surname'|first1='given name' and so on. Just the basic details will suffice. As long as you have the book details (incl. the page Nos.) it is not necessary to ad who wrote which parts. Eagleash (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll echo that: no author or editor titles and honors; names only. If you are citing A History of the Ordnance Survey as a whole, listing all of the various contributors is not necessary; rather, just list the editor. Remember that cs1|2 templates are one-source-per-template only. So, if citing Edge's writing in chapter 27, write a template that includes Edge as author, Seymore as editor, the chapter title in |chapter=, consider using |chapter-url= to deliver the reader to the beginning of the cited chapter, and include all of the other bibliographic information to make the template complete:

{{cite book |last=Edge |first=RCA |editor-last=Seymour |editor-first=WA |chapter=The Retriangulation 1935–1939 |title=A History of the Ordnance Survey |date=1980 |publisher=Wm Dawson & Sons |location=Folkestone, Kent |isbn=0-7129-0979-6 |chapter-url=https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/docs/ebooks/history-ordnance-survey.pdf#page=282}}

Edge, RCA (1980). "The Retriangulation 1935–1939" (PDF). In Seymour, WA (ed.). A History of the Ordnance Survey. Folkestone, Kent: Wm Dawson & Sons. ISBN 0-7129-0979-6.

That pdf is rather large and takes a while to download. If there are individual chapters available, consider linking to them instead.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all - I think I should be able to get this right now (when I get a chance to get back to it). The pdf used to be much quicker to download - OS have done something to their website. There is always the printed book.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Very questionable notability' - a page created about me (and by whom, I do not know) years ago has now been deleted.

Hi.

The page 'Robert Endeacott' was created, unbeknownst to me, a few years ago. When told I had a page on Wikipedia I was, I admit, rather pleased. Since then I have edited the page a few times but have today discovered it has been deleted as 'very questionable notability'.

Can this be reversed, anyone help please? I have a new book out in a few weeks which I hope will be nationally popular and if 'my' page is of questionable notability then why was it allowed here to begin with?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Robert E (talk • contribs) 11:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was deleted via the WP:PROD process and you have requested it be undeleted, I have restored the article. The article was nominated for deletion by Launchballer, you should talk to them about the article. It can still be nominated for deletion via articles for deletion. If it is then a discussion will take place and after 7 days an administrator will evaluate the discussion to determine what should be done with the article. ~ GB fan 11:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, a great help and very swift, much obliged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Robert E (talk • contribs) 11:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@James Robert E: Please read wp:auto In short, you should not be directly editing an article about you (with some rare exceptions.)--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Robert E here: I appreciate Wikipedia immensely and the work of editors etc is clearly something special. Just to comment on a point raised above, that I have had more than 'a couple' of books published and certain of my titles have sold well and continue to do so. Certain titles topped Amazon genre charts too, though I do not know how much relevance Amazon holds for Wikipedia's community. I don't doubt anyone's integrity on this but I am unsure as to how 'notability' is measured or ratified. Anyway, I will leave it at that, to reiterate I had absolutely nothing to do with the Wikipedia entry in my name but I was rather pleased it happened! And now I'm disappointed the reverse seems to be happening. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Robert E (talk • contribs) 12:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making an article that has been proposed for deletion public

My article was proposed for deletion but I have fixed it up with references and links but the user who proposed deletion redirected it to someonelse and that someonelse isn't responding right now so how do I go about getting rid of whatever tags that have been placed and making my article public. Thanks Wikipagecreator10 (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been copied from Wikipedia talk:Help desk where it was misplaced - Arjayay (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipagecreator10 - You didn't say, but I assume you are talking about Fiona Themann? This article is already "public" i.e. in article space, and does not (currently) have any deletion tags, as you have added some references. - Arjayay (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the author of the Fiona Themann article, so great to know that the tags have been removed but when I search up Fiona themann Wikipedia for example, it doesn't come up. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipagecreator10 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it is a new page and will not be crawled by Google until it has been reviewed, or until 30 ninety days have passed if no review happens in this time. This is Wikipedia policy. It prevents people creating articles just for their immediate advertising effect. Dbfirs 13:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's now 90 days...see thread "My article on Google" couple of days ago. Eagleash (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I've modified my reply. That's even better to avoid promotional material appearing on Google. Dbfirs 13:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with a dozen consecutive low-quality edits (still ongoing)?

Hello all,

I'm looking at the history page for Saint Thomas Christians and User:Mages Mathew has just made over ten edits, removing references, adding paragraphs that are unsupported by references and with no care for style. I undid one of the most recent changes without seeing the previous ones, but it would be better to return to an earlier version altogether. Can the page be protected or put on hold in the meantime? I don't know how to deal with an ongoing flood of low-quality edits.

Thanks in advance,

Maximilian Aigner (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a relatively large revert, could anyone verify if this infringes WP:DE guidelines? Thank you.

Maximilian Aigner (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is OK; you have attempted to engage the other editor at the talk page, which is as it should be. I note that the other editor has not left edit summaries to explain their actions. Edits are more likely to be reverted if they don't leave an ES. Please though, be aware of WP:EW and WP:3RR... continue to engage rather than revert again, should the other editor return to edit the page. Eagleash (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will keep those rules in mind next time. Just to be clear, should subsequent engagements take place on the article’s Talk page or is the user talk page more appropriate? Thanks. Maximilian Aigner (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you discuss, there is not really a hard and fast rule...the benefit of using the article TP is that other editors can more easily see what has been discussed. BTW I have left a 'welcome' message at the other editor's TP. Eagleash (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Maximilian Aigner (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017-18 NHL season articles

When will the other 6 NHL Teams like Senators Islanders Rangers Hurricanes Penguins and Capitals get 2017–18 season articles. 2600:8803:7A00:976A:80C5:E495:16F5:2951 (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When one of the volunteer editors is interested enough to create an article on it (if it is Notable). You can request an article at WP:RA, or if you create an account you can create the articles yourself since you seem interested in them. RudolfRed (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you move the 2017-18 NHL transactions from the talk page to the draft page please. 2600:8803:7A00:976A:80C5:E495:16F5:2951 (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reclaiming deleted page

Dear Wiki Admins

Our Wikipedia page, that explains the work of our NGO, has been deleted for 'unambiguous advertising or promotion' by 'seraphimblade'. It was titled, 'The Forest Trust'.

We would like to reclaim the content of the page so that we can edit it to meet your standards. It was deleted not long after we updated the page.

Is anyone able to help?

Thanks in advance

Rosie Pearce Comms Assistant, TFT (The Forest Trust) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.21.226.226 (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful if you link to the article in question, in this case The Forest Trust. You will find advice at WP:Your first article, but also at WP:conflict of interest and WP:Paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In such cases, the usual procedure (not that you are expected to know it immediately upon arriving here!) is found at WP:REFUND. Go there to request a copy of the material, or discuss directly with the deleting administrator (in that case Seraphimblade). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: well, apparently WP:REFUND says in small characters that your article is not eligible because it was a WP:G11 speedy deletion. I am almost sure that is a typo for WP:G12, but regardless you should discuss with the deleting admin rather than posting at this page. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: Well, from where I'm sitting, WP:REFUND says- in <normal sized-font>- 'Please do not request that articles deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7, G5 or G11 be undeleted here,' which seems sufficiently explanatory :) take care! — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: the meaning is clear, but I fail to understand why a G11 couldn't be userfied or at the very least emailed. Anyways, I am leaving a question at the TP of REFUND. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: Ironically, a discussion slightly relevant (although not precisely the same) has been ongoing. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dems da rules! 74.70.146.1 (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits keep reverting

Hello,

I work for Lynn Public Schools. I have tried several times this morning to make changes and they keep reverting back. Please advise.

Assuming that you are the user who has been editing that page today, your edits are unduly promotional and also appear to be a copyright violation lifted from this page. Such edits are wholly inappropriate on Wikipedia, and will always be reverted on sight. Furthermore, if you work for the school you are currently in violation of the paid editing disclosure policy and the guldelines for editors with a conflict of interest. In short, you should not be editing the article at all, and if you persist in doing so you are liable to be blocked. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia entry declined

I created an article in drafts which was declined because the 'This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability.'

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

I have since added many more citations, from the new york times, the Guardia, etc, about the subject, and have asked the moderator who declined the article to let me know if it is now sufficiently sourced, but they have not got back to me.

Does this mean the article will never be accepted?

No, it does not mean that. The draft has been resubmitted for review, so you will get more feedback when that review is complete. There is a long backlog of reviews, so it may take some time. RudolfRed (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that many of the sources you cite, including Guardian one, are articles based on interviews with Gold. While these may usefully be cited, they are not independent of the subject, so they do not help to establish that he is notable. Maproom (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know

I have created a new page. How do I submit it for review?

Hello,

I am not sure if I submit it or if having created it I just wait for someone to review it. It is in Draft Mode and called "The Vinegar Tree by Paul Osborn.

Thank you for your help.

Susan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selig1553 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Selig1553, you need to add {{subst:submit}} (including the double curly brackets) to either the top or bottom of the page. However, doing so now would actually be a pointless waste of time as it would definitely be declined. You have not cited any sources at all, even though you have quoted from two reviews you have not referenced them nor any other sources that you used to write the draft. See the Referencing for beginners guide for how to add references. Once you've done that you could submit it for review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Selig1553, while you are researching independent sources for your new page, I notice that the Paul Osborn article is also lacking in independent sources, so you might like to add some there too. Please note that we do not put works in BLOCK CAPITALS as you did there. Dbfirs 18:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Scholes Young Submitted for Approval?

Dear WikiHelp,

I'm not sure if the new page I've created, "Melissa Scholes Young," has been submitted for approval. After I save the draft, there is no option to "publish." Could you let me know if it's been submitted and how I can see this on my profile?

Thank you! Lindsey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsey.depasse (talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has not yet been submitted (It's still in your "User:Lindsey.depasse/sandbox") because you haven't yet clicked the prominent "Submit your draft for review" button (white letters on a blue box) near the top.

However, I'd advise you not to do so yet, because to me there is nothing in the piece that suggests to me that this subject is sufficiently "notable", in the special Wikipedia sense of someone with substantial information (rather than just entries in listings) published about them (rather than pieces by them) in independent reliable sources. You might in particular consult Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals for the criteria to be met.

If you can find and cite more reference material written about Melissa Scholes Young and her works by third parties (such as reviewers and critics) in recognised publications, you'll improve the chances of this piece being accepted when you submit it. You might also want to study a few existing Wikipedia articles about contemporary writers and organise the piece along similar lines, as its current structure is somewhat unconventional. Good luck. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.208.38 (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, Draft:Melissa Scholes Young has been submitted for review today and declined, for more or less the reasons noted above. Eagleash (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bulcher, Texas

How Bulcher, Texas got the name Bulcher. From a write up by Rebecca Harris, owner if Red River Motorcycle Raceway in Bulcher, the name was taken from an early traveler who camped along Camp Creek, in the vicinity of this community. He remained there for a short period of time and then moved on. His name was "BULCH". I was born there in 1934 but never met anyone who knew the name of this community until recently. I read in the information about Rebecca's enterprise, Red River Motorcycle raceway, where she describes how the community obtained its name. Thanks, Rebecca!!! Robert J. Samples — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert J. Samples (talk • contribs) 21:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert J. Samples. If this information has been published in a reliable source (such as a book from a reputable publisher) then it can certainly be added to an appropriate article: you may do so, or you could post the suggestion on the talk page of the article. But if this write-up is unpublished, or self-published, then I'm afraid that is not regarded as adequately sourced to go into Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]