Help desk
< July 18	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 20 >

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 19

Does a composer need to be credited as a songwriter in the infobox?

For example, if a song's music was composed by A and its lyrics were written by B, should A and B be in the infobox or B only? I don't really see composers get credited in the songwriters section of many infoboxes (Far Away (Ayumi Hamasaki song), Vogue (Ayumi Hamasaki song), etc). Please help! Beyoncetan 2 (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically both should be credited. Ruslik_Zero 09:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should be using {{Infobox song}}, those articles are using Infobox single which is being merged into Infobox Song. - X201 (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

reFill appears to be not working

cheers soibangla (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has also been noted here Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#What's going on?. I've been getting a "502 Bad Gateway" message for a few hours now. MarnetteD|Talk 01:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is working again. MarnetteD|Talk 04:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to add citations to an article, "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain"

I was trying to add & update a reference to this article. I was able to add the book: William Manchester & Paul Reid, "Defender of the Realm", etc. BUT when I tried to correct & update references in the opening paragraphs of this article I got extremely confused. Wikipedia guidance on how to update citations appears to me, as a novice to be extremely confusing. Would be grateful to anyone who can assist or clean this up for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uffizi98 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Uffizi98:

Fixed with this edit. Please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help I could just cry.

I only even signed up because I need assistance concerning this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Zenk. I’m so upset about one of your volunteers called https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:InedibleHulk and think he needs to be banned from editing this page or from the site all together. I knew Tom Zenk from the 80’s and loved him dearly. His family and I noticed this user had posted garbage about Tom being arrested for steroids and domestic assault back in 2001 without even checking Minnesota criminal records that were open yet slandering him just the same. He tells zero story of who Tom was in his personal life or about his death because he didn’t know or even talk to those who knew Tom as a person. Yesterday Tom’s sibling, another wrestler and I sat down and erased the slander and added facts and details about Tom’s personal life and death, even noting it was “edited by the Zenk family” and another volunteer edited it and accepted it. Last night this human garbage IncredibleHUlk (and I’m sorry but I’m destroyed beyond words) came in and deleted everything except the garbage he added from old wrestling magazines and TV, with nothing about who Tom was personally. Tom died less than a year ago and in life he was a kind man who went through enough pain, now for his legacy to be tarnished this way by a man who didn’t even know him and his loved ones to be disrespected. Even his false arrested this person had posted for God knows how long, his excuse for removing it was “So old, like it didn’t even happen”.....IT DIDN’T! Wrestling is not real and these men are playing a gimmick, that is NOT who they are in real life. This volunteer seems to think he knows better than people who actually knew Tom because he read it in a magazine and saw him on TV. Is this what your site is about? He even used a source of how Tom got Arteriosclerosis speculating it was PROBABLY from something like HGH “Which is common with wrestlers and bodybuilders” so IncredibleHulk runs with speculation as if it is fact! Arteriosclerosis is hereditary (ask a Doctor and check Web MD) and Tom inherited it from his father who needed heart surgery for the same thing in 2000, and Tom’s father never used HGH so in IncredibleHulks version how does that fit? Cardiomegaly is caused by Arteriosclerosis and is just a fancy term for an enlarged heart.

Tom’s father also passed on February 20th, 2018 and this “Volunteer” you have and his obsession with controlling Tom’s Wikipedia, even though he has posted falsely and only goes by misinformation and old clippings that are far from factual, has caused those who knew and loved Tom Zenk undue grief beyond words and Tom’s page tells nothing of the human being he really was and only name drops other wrestlers and sounds like a fan who thinks everything seen and written about wrestling is real. Someone needs to fix this and this “Volunteer” needs to be banned from touching this page! HOW DARE HE DELETE ALL FACTS POSTED BY THOSE WHO ACTUALLY KNEW/LOVED TOM IN LIFE AND APPROVED BY ANOTHER VOLUNTEER??????? He destroyed those people who knew this man and knew the facts more than words can begin to describe. Is this what your site is about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrestling Angel (talk • contribs) 11:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the losses you have suffered. However, personal attacks are not acceptable here and I would ask you to refrain from making them despite your anger. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such it is interested in what independent reliable sources state about a subject. As long as information appears in an independent reliable source, it can almost always be on Wikipedia. I'm actually not certain as to if the source of the information in the article is reliable, but the proper place to have a discussion about that in a calm, civil manner, is the article talk page. Please go there to express any concerns you have about the information. However, if the information is accurate and properly sourced, it will not be removed just because it is negative.

I would add that Wikipedia is not a place to memorialize loved ones or post personal recollections and feelings about a person. Any information that is not in an independent reliable source, and solely based on personal knowledge is not appropriate for Wikipedia as it is hard to independently verify. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrestling Angel: I second what 331dot said above. Whoever comes to read a Wikipedia page can not know which pieces of information were added by 'someone who actually knew' the subject and which were caught from the thin air by some bored child. The only way to make sure the article presents FACTS is checking the information (see WP:Verifiability) in independent, reliable sources (see WP:VER#Reliable sources). That's why Wikipedia is not interested in what YOU or I personally know – any eyewitness' reports, family memories, tales or documents, personal experience etc. are not verifiable, and as such they do NOT COUNT (see WP:No original research).

Believe me I can uderstand pretty well it's disappointing and frustrating for you, but please understand it's the ONLY way Wikipedia may (try to) guarantee the quality of information it delivers.

And that's the reason InedibleHulk reverted your contribution. As long as information is not documented in publicly available, reliable sources, it is considered inappropriate in Wikipedia. If you can support your information with reliable publications, they should be accepted in Wikipedia. If some sources present opposite innformation, they also can be reported in Wikipedia article as a part of public controversy about the presented facts.

Best regards,
CiaPan (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.
When some editor 'accepts' changes, it just means he or she did not find the changes obviously disruptive. That in no way means the change got accepted 'forever' as 'definitely good' – each piece of each article can be verified, modified or reverted at any time by anybody, whenever someone finds it disruptive, false or otherwise inappropriate. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, which means anyone can add, change and remove information. And it always can be discussed, and the most appropriate place for such discussion is the article's talk page. --CiaPan (talk)

Take this content dispute to Talk:Tom Zenk

AS I SAID ABOVE- HE HAD FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES ON THERE FOR WHO KNOWS HOW LONG WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN EASILY CHECKED OUT WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA THAT HAS A FREE OPEN BOOK CRIMINAL SEARCH. Ya I”M SURE THE WOMAN WHO GAVE BIRTH TO TOM AND THOSE WHO KNEW HIM OVER #) YEARS INCLUDING BRIAN BLAIR THE FORMER WRESTLER AND HEAD OF THE CAULIFLOWER ALLEY CLUB ARE NOT CREDIBLE SOURCES....AND I DID TRY TO TALK TO INCREDIBLEHULK in a private TALK. EXCUSE ME IF I’d been unkind but everything i posted could be also easily found on Tom Zenk’s find a grave as well as other articles posted after his death. God, I hope those being less than kind never have to know this kind of hurt for someone you love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrestling Angel (talk • contribs) 13:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop SHOUTING. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrestling Angel: I can understand how you might feel, but your message is getting lost in the manner in which you are acting. Please remain calm and civil. If you need to, step back for a moment to collect yourself. We want all articles to be correct, but it must be done civilly in the proper manner. Again, personal knowledge is not appropriate for Wikipedia. If you have information in a reliable source contradicting another source given in the article, or if the source given is not reliable, please discuss it on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize but I tried to contact him directly and was blown off. It may be a conflict of interest as I was pointed out in a private talk by Ian BUT everything I posted can be verified in articles since Tom past found easily online as well as from his FIND A GRAVE, instead IncredableHulk couldn’t be bothered to check and he would have known the stuff he had posted about being arrested in 2001 could have easily been discredited if he had done a simple search of Thomas Zenk on the completely free background check web site offered if you simply search criminal records in Minnesota. I’m sorry I’m coming off hostile but this was a human being not a cartoon character and there is no excuse why this guy used old articles to make up a biography, articles that were not credible and only speculated on why he got sick, and had false criminal history. Just imagine if that was someone you cared about. How any of you can tell me to calm down and see it as “NO big deal” shows zero humanity. Their are human beings behind these people you are researching, not just words, and you all need to take responsibility for that fact. I’m sorry. Nothing more to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrestling Angel (talk • contribs) 14:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what private conversation, direct contact or blow-off you mean. I certainly wasn't there for any of it and my Talk Page doesn't show a trace of it. ~~Nothing on Zenk's Talk, either.~~ (Finally found it tucked away up top, my bad.) I have absolutely no connection to The Incredible Hulk and am not responsible for his reactions, on the off chance you tried reaching him instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that InedibleHulk has removed the paragraph mentioning steroid possession and battery. Maproom (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, no charges stuck even if it happened. Seems undue, especially alone in a section that ostensibly covers several decades. Done of my own volition after own reflection, but seems even more reasonable now that I see it helped cause this hullabaloo. Before anything turned emotional, I'd also removed these unsourced criminal allegations and this bit about Zenk essentially killing himself with drugs. I'm not trying to slander the guy or fawn over him, but I did appreciate his work and wish Angel could appreciate mine. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sending a ping to Wrestling Angel to bring the attention to the above comment by User:Maproom. --CiaPan (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well hope this helps someone give Tom a proper biography because I do not have the heart to go through that again.

https://wrestlerdeaths.com/tom-zenk-death/

———————————————————-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkJcpvk2CbM

—————————————————— https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mYaLBcjIgU

——————————————————

https://www.f4wonline.com/other-wrestling/tom-zenk-passes-away-59-years-old-248116 —————————————————- http://tomzenkforum.blogspot.com/

—————————————————-

Tom in his own words on wrestling Radio after retirement In one he talks about his father needing heat surgery for the same condition Tom died from. -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiO_9QcLdQc -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E00J3o5r34 -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny6J2wBNghs -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny6J2wBNghs

——————————————————————— http://prowrestling.wikia.com/wiki/Tom_Zenk

——————————————————————— Tom’s father who passed 8 weeks after Tom http://www.startribune.com/obituaries/detail/0000245370/?fullname=robert-james-zenk

——————————————————————- https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/185961189/thomas-erwin-zenk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrestling Angel (talk • contribs) 14:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrestling Angel: No, sorry, those don't help at all. Wikipedia tries to stick to professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject but independent from and unaffiliated with the subject. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IAN YOU HAVE ONLY BEEN A MEMBER 4 MONTHS...those radio interviews are with DAVE MELTZER the #1 Wrestling journalist in the world and with Tom himself in TOM’s OWN VOICE...NOT CREDABLE!!!!!! K THIS IS HARRASMENT BY YOU IAN AFTER YOOUR STUPID PRIVATE TALK!!!

I edited Tom’s page and that was the ONLY reason I even signed up. I watched for two days before I edited it and IncrediblyHulk had gone on multiple times to edit Tom’s page because it kept saying “last Edited...” only a few hours earlier...multiple times by this guy. He seems to take down anything anyone changes...not just me or Tom’s family. I am not adding any page and I gave links to many things that verifies everything i changed earlier today on the help forum, I have nothing more to say and hope someone takes those links and properly edits Tom’s page with the FACTS. If anyone would bother to look at the references listed under Tom’s page it includes articles that are NOT in your version of credible. Articles speculating why Tom got sick, and nothing beyond Tabloid Rumors. Yet I’m getting stuff like this about your rules, well enforce your own rules against your volunteers. Yes I am upset, but if you loved someone and knew them for 25 years and they died and you see the web site that many refer to for reference acting like your loved one wasn’t a human being and posting false criminal activity, then when you try to change it get trashed and ignored....well wouldn’t you be upset? I don’t think this is what Jimmy Wales planned when he started Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrestling Angel (talk • contribs) 16:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrestling Angel: We are explaining these policies and such so that you can figure out how to accomplish your goals or to at least provide information that would allow us to help you. It is in your best interest to try to work in a calm and civil manner. Do you want the article in Tom Zenk improved, or do you want to make hysterical posts? "Both" is not an option. If you are not interested in working with our policies, that would be more of a problem for you than for us. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about Meltzer, but quite wrong about Ian's tenure (the man dates back to Atlantean times) and my editing habits. If you'd like to add factual claims that're directly supported by Meltzer interviews (with timestamps), I'll likely have no problem with it. But if you want to attribute quotes like "Funny, kind and super nice guy" to the vague "everyone who knew him", you're damn right I'll revert you again. It's wholly unbelievable, and I say that as a guy who believes The Undertaker can summon lightning. I'll reiterate I removed the speculation on why Zenk got sick five months ago; adding other speculation that he inherited his disease is not the answer. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) Please stop...It was determined it was inheareted from his father by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner. 2) Not once have any of you thought about the actual person or who knew him in life and cared about him Ive been shown ABSOLUTELY no care or sympathy of what we are going through. Ya you removed it...AFTER I DID. How long did you have that fake criminal activity up there? I supplied many links...ones you could have easily been found; by saying actual vocal interviews from Tom’s actual voice by Dave Meltzer, the leading wrestling journalist in the world, is not credable is DISGUSTING! Power over people like this has gone to your head. Maybe it wouldn’t have come to this if you IncredibleHulk had answered when I messaged you in private in the beginning...to rebuttals now just shows your true character. Now I’m done and I hope you feel big knowing how you have completely destroyed people in their time of grief because you couldn’t spend five minutes to find the truth or to see the human being! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrestling Angel (talk • contribs) 17:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit about his family, from the obituary you suggested. Do you have a problem with the way it's worded? If you mean the reported steroid and battery bust by "fake criminal activity", it was there for eight days. I removed the steroid speculation regarding his death in February. If you were around before then, I had no way of knowing. A few minutes ago, I said Meltzer was credible and you are welcome to use those interviews for factual claims, so your disgust is a bit perplexing. And again, I've never received a shred of indication of a message from you, so you'll understand how I may have ignored it. Maybe the ME told his family he inherited his heart condition, but all it seems to have told the rest of the world (including Wikipedia's writers and readers) is that it killed him. I don't know if your continued insistence on calling me IncredibleHulk is an oversight or a snipe at my integrity, but I assure you I'm Inedible. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have the patience of Job.Smallchief (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I try. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. Please take this discussion to the article's talk page. Thinker78 (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a task force

I need some help in cleaning up a move to Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Los Angeles area task force. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the least, you'd need to move each of the subpages. If you're not sure what to do you probably ought to revert your move. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't revert your move, don't forget to deal with the archiving of the talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunteck Realty

Not an issue for Help desk/Archives. Referred elsewhere.

Hi, Can you please check the article Sunteck Realty, which has been nominated for deletion because the nominator thinks, the article fails notability. The article is about a publicly listed company which clearly passes for notability as per WP:LISTED, WP:NCORP. It has significant media coverage in mainstream publication of India and also covered by Forbes, NYTimes, Fortune (magazine), and WSJ. It clearly makes the article meets notability criteria. Also, I tried to add more reliable sources, after its nomination for deletion. --Eramritasharma (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eramritasharma. I'm sorry, but posting here is not an appropriate action in the deletion process. The discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunteck Realty (2nd nomination) and nowhere else - what you are doing by posting here, is WP:canvassing, which is not allowed. I see you have posted there, but you are a lone voice for keep. What you need to do, I suggest, is to present the specific references which in your view establish notability - it is not enough to assert that it meets the criteria, when five different editors say that it does not. If the deletion discussion goes against you (and it looks as if it is going to) then any further steps you take need to be according to deletion policy. --ColinFine (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eramritasharma is a single-purpose account, whose editing pattern and canvassing suggest that he/she has a COI and is probably an undeclared paid editor Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contributor undoing my revisions.

In the first one [1] he motivates his action with a question “what is archdaily?". My answer to him was that "ArchDaily is the most visited architecture website worldwide". Second [2] he's saying "we do not usually add rankings from blogs with Alexa ranking below 3000 to the lead sections of articles". Is that TRUE?! Were is that "law"?! Many articles have rankings in the "lead section" with links from specialized sites who do not make "top 3000".--81.101.159.55 (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. I have no idea why Openlydialectic is talking about Alexa ratings. I believe the relevant policy is in WP:BLOGS: "self-published media, such as ... blogs ... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". --ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer, the site is not a "blog" but a "architecture website" with millions of "followers", one that has articles about "communist architecture", "me think" he does not like their "conclusions".--81.101.159.55 (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take this content dispute to Talk:Palace of the Parliament

Can you provide sources for your claims about influence and millions of followers? According to this website's wikipedia page it's a blog ranked 3267th on Alexa rankings. So a pretty much unknown blog. Which made some ranking and ranked that palace 2nd in some category. And you think that info is worth putting in the lead of the article? As a standalone paragraph in the lead? A paragraph that doesn't list multiple rankings in which the building is featured but just this ranking by an unknown blog?
I know we have to assume good faith, but my gut feeling suggests someone's trying to self-promote here Openlydialectic (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should go to "Palace of the Parliament" talk page, the site in question is not a blog and does have "big numbers"(millions) of "followers" on social media Facebook/Twitter, they are already "famous". I want the "essence" of that statement, a structure build at the whim of a dictator (with great human cost) that cannot be used (economically) by normal people in any activity. If there is a way of not having that website name i m OK with that. --81.101.159.55 (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP has taken the discussion to the talk page, however I have warned them for edit warring as well for undoing Openlydialectic revert twice. NZFC^(talk) 22:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]