Help desk
< May 27	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 29 >

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.

May 28

Help with categories and assessment

Can anyone suggest other categories for my article? William Bolton (post-captain) I have added a few since it first went up, and skim-read many pages on categories, but not sure what else to add to this one. And at what point does that template at the top of the article get removed?

When some random editor decides the categories look good. I just removed it. -Arch dude (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according to the criteria listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_assessment, I think that this article must be at least C-Class by now? It might not be perfect, but I've assembled and summarised pretty much all info about this man that's available online. I could go into yet more detail about his earlier career, what was written about him in the long obit., etc. but then surely that would be heading towards "too much information for a minor historical figure"? At what point do articles get reassessed? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I think you can ask for an assessment at the project pages of each of the projects listed at the top of the Bolton article's talk page. -Arch dude (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Arch dude. I was also wondering whether I should create a small article about the other Captain William Bolton, active around the same time and often confused (see disambiguation page William Bolton) - or do you think the disambiguation page is enough? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tough call. If you can find enough sources, I think you should, even if he would not otherwise deserve an article. This applies the rule of reason (WP:IAR) instead of rigid adherence to policy. You might wish to justify this on the article's talk page, and if other editors disagree, ask them for a better way to handle the disambiguation. -Arch dude (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - thanks once again, Arch dude. I'll have a go at it when I have time. (I don't know how you ever get on top of all of these rules and the various templates that lead to them!) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undid an edit

Someone named Melcous undid an edit in error: My edits updated entries to Albert Podell's bio info on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_by_number_of_countries_visited

Podell just wrote to me: "albert podell <alpodell@email address To: David Smith May 27 at 9:01 PM (EDT) D I have no idea how Wikipedia works, although I do know they like sources so they can verify claims.

If you can reply to him or her, the reply should be that my book cites 196 because those are all the recognized countries in the world.and that is what the book was about.  I have also visited eleven de facto (but unrecognized) countries, same as the other people near the top of the  list, and can document this with photos, passport entries, and/or affidavits from people who accompanied me to  those entities."

I wish to cancel the undo and to revert to what I entered originally, all, of course, according to your rules and protocol. Please advise.

I am a first time editor.

Thank you, David Smith U/N Sippewissett 01:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sippewissett (talk • contribs)

Sorry Sippewissett, we are not a court of law and we don't accept personal statements or private documents in support of article content. The only "evidence" we recognize is what's been published in "reliable sources". Debates about what counts as a "country" for the purpose of that article should take place on the article's talk page : Noyster (talk), 10:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Mundey

Jack Mundey is currently the Patron of The Historic Houses Association of Australia. www.hha.net.au — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.95.103 (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information added to our article on Jack Mundey, thank you: Noyster (talk), 11:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help with article

ZYN! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Could someone please help in moving an article to the section 'Article for Deletion'? It is way too long ago since I wrote on Wiki (and have probs with all these lots of changes and no time for looking up each single editing-command). Request for deletion concerns the article /ZYN! that was an translated text from the German Wiki. The page is irrelevant, not well written and should be deleted. Thanks for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoever99 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Whoever99:, I should first link yo to the Deletion policy. Within the deletion policy there is a provision for removing pages only edited by one editor after they make a request (called a Speedy Deletion), but 21 editors have contributed to that article, so your request would not be accepted. You can still nominate the page for a deletion discussion. If you want to proceed with that, consider these points and then follow the instructions given here. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn:,Thank you for the instructions and effort. I will try out the steps you have described the next days.

AT command ............

iam working on a project.. that related to AT command .

Iam stuck in recording, i have used many of the At command for recording

Example : AT+QAUDRD and many of them i am getting an error — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.118.248.89 (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about the modem AT command, you might find something useful at Hayes command set, or failing that you could ask at the Computing section of the Reference Desk. If it is not, I have no idea what you are talking about. Either way, this question does not belong on this page, which is about editing Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to have an existing page properly edited - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Holding

Hello Wikipedia

I am a Zimbabwean novelist who writes under the name Ian Holding. A Wikipedia page on me exists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Holding) but there is a message on it which says "This biographical article is written like a résumé. Please help improve it by revising it to be neutral and encyclopedic. (January 2012)"

Is there any way someone could correct this page so that it is more in keeping with the standards and expectations of other official Wikipedia pages? I would obviously like the page to be as correct and as objective as possible.

With thanks, Ian Holding — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2C0F:F8F0:F252:0:9C86:2A41:8428:2807 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for asking your question. I should first point you to the Conflict of Interest Policy, which applies here. While I have no reason to doubt you are who you say you are, anyone on the Internet can claim to be one of the subjects of a Wikipedia article and we would have few ways of knowing if that's correct. My best advice is to create an account to facilitate communication and then use the Talk:Ian Holding talk page to propose any changes you feel are necessary. This prevents many issues that can cause difficulty for real-life subjects of one of our articles. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add a photo?

I created the page "fractional currency shield" and would like to add a photo of a shield to the page. I would take the photo myself, and so there will be no copyright (and I waive such restrictions). How do I proceed? Lee Davis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lelandbclimber (talk • contribs) 14:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lelandbclimber: You can upload your own work image from Common Upload Wizard. But make sure that your image must not be copyrighted. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 15:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are already three pictures of fractional currency shields at Wikimedia Commons, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=fractional+currency+shield . You could use any of those. Maproom (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

list of countries visited

claimants to most countries visited begin with the 193 UN member states and then are permitted to add dubious entities such as Antarctica, Wales, Palestine, Western Sahara, etc. What are the criteria, where is the cutoff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sippewissett (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming we’re talking about the article List of people by number of countries visited, it speaks at some length about the difficulties in determining such statistics. I would suggest that the talk page would be a good place to further discuss this with those who have an interest in this topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A "bot" that is not working correctly.

This question refers to the following Wikipedia article: Murder of Pam Basu. You can see the "View History of Edits" page (which I do not know how to link to). I have listed that article with the Category "murdered doctors". There is a "bot" that keeps changing it to "murdered physicians". I keep reverting the change. But, it keeps getting changed back. I assume that this is a "bot" and that these actions are being done automatically by the computer, without a real person doing them. (But I am not sure, since I don't really know how "bots" work.) In any event, the person in the article (Pam Basu) was a doctor, but not a physician. She was the "PhD" type of doctor, not the "medical/MD" type of doctor. So, the category "murdered doctors" is appropriate for that article, but the category "murdered physicians" is not. How does this problem get fixed? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murdered doctors is a redirect to Category:Murdered physicians, so the bot is correct and the article does not belong in either category. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Thanks. But, I have two questions. First: why does this article belong in neither category? I don't follow. Second: For the reasons I stated above, the word "doctor" and the word "physician" are not interchangeable. As I explained in my above example, a person can be a "doctor", yet not a "physician". So, the redirect is inappropriate and inaccurate, Thus, the "bot" is not working correctly. It may be working correctly from a computer/technical stand point. But, what I am saying is that the category "murdered doctors" should not be redirected to the category "murdered physicians" (for the reasons stated above). They are not one and the same. So, how does this problem get fixed? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree on a category-level, WP:CFD is the place to discuss this. The bot is correct to change a category as long as the category is only a redirect and you should never manually undo such edits because it bloats the edit history without adding anything useful. Iff the category redirect is found to be faulty, the redirect can be removed and the category populated. Not before. Regards So Why 16:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Don't category redirects go to RFD not CFD? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. RFD makes sense if retargeting or deleting is the point. If one wants to turn a redirect into a category, imho it falls into the scope of WP:CFD. Either is fine probably. Regards So Why 16:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It belongs in neither category because (a) Articles shouldn't be categorized in redirects and (b) The subject is not a murdered physician. Consider RFDing Category:Murdered doctors if you think that redirect shouldn't exist. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Addendum: In this case, though, Pppery is correct. We usually do not sort people by degree but by occupation (hence PhD = doctor is not the right characteristic to sort by). Since she was a chemist, Category:Murdered scientists is the right fit. I changed the article accordingly. Regards So Why 16:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! But she indeed (and in fact) was a doctor. That's the whole point here. Not a medical doctor. But, still, she was a doctor. And the category is called "murdered doctors" ... it is not called "murdered medical doctors". In any event, this issue needs to be fixed, somehow. So, I brought it here. I have no idea how to do an "RFD" or a "CFD" or such. I have no idea what those even mean. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CFD stands for categories for discussion, the noticeboard to discuss changes to categories. She had a doctorate (PhD), yes, but per MOS:HON we don't include those in articles. As you might have noticed, there is no Category:People with PhD degrees or similar. That's because degrees are not a useful way to categorize people. If a reader is looking for chemists, they usually don't care whether the subject had/has a PhD or not since the defining characteristic is not the degree but the profession. See Wikipedia:Categorization of people for more details. Regards So Why 16:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Empire

Dear Sir ... We have noticed that the employees in your Arabic section have no neutrality at all in the articles they publish, as they move away from the scientific method and the truth by subtracting the subjects. For example, one of the articles about the Ottoman Empire, which clearly showed the writer's desire to defend one of the worst countries Throughout history, the radical Islamic ideas of the editor of the article have also emerged, in which he distanced himself from the most basic principles of Wikipedia, namely, the commitment to complete neutrality, not to attempt to put the writer's personal opinion or to promote any extremist political ideas. When we tried to draw their attention, They delated our comments with all bravery ... Please re-evaluate the performance of the staff in your Arab section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.47.3.124 (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome, Ip user, but I'm afraid you seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding this site. Wikipedia has no "employees in the Arabic section". The owner of this site, the Wikimedia Foundation, has a small staff of about 300 people but none of them are responsible for creating the content on the Ottoman Empire or any other such article. The creators of content are volunteer editors and you can be one yourself. The project on the Arab world is also run by volunteers and you can join them. I suggest reading the Getting Started page if you want to contribute further. Unfortunately, I don't see any recent edits to the main Ottoman empire article or any other edits from this IP address that can tell me what problem you are having so I can't offer specific recommendations. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read it that the IP user is talking about the Arabic Wikipedia, and specifically the article ar:الدولة العثمانية, which has indeed had recent edits. I'm afraid that different language Wikipedias are entirely separate projects, with no kind of influence or control over each other. You need to take your concerns to ar:نقاش:الدولة العثمانية, and if you can't get satisfaction there, to ar:ويكيبيديا:بوابة المشاركة. --ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine:, I'm impressed you were able to find that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn:, I just went to Ottoman Empire and picked Arabic from the sidebar. --ColinFine (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

page formatting error

I have been editing/updating the episode descriptions on the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Affair_episodes#Episodes

Something has gone wrong in the formatting of this page and I cannot figure out what. The Season 1 episodes are now showing in Season 2 and episode 10 for Season 1 is not visible at all - but all information is there when you go into EDIT mode. I need help with fixing it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kihill33 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.Naraht (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The scientist Coldplay

Yes Martinevans123 I have a question why did you delete the genre this song was Alternative rock, soft rock and country rock because in the song the guitar riff was similar by Johnny Cash and George Harrison and give me a chance for you to put it back and I won’t changing things bad again thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ser-rod-7 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ser-rod-7. You have edited The Scientist (song) at least six times to add a genre, and two different editors (Bowling is life and Martinevans123 have repeatedly removed it, and explained to you in edit summaries, in a comment in the source, and on your user talk page, that you need a published source for the information. All of you are edit warring, and need to stop and discuss it on the article's talk page. (I am making no statement about whether you are right or wrong, just about your behaviour).

However, as a matter of Wikipedia policy, Bowling and Martinevans are correct. Please understand that Wikipedia has no interest at all in what you, or I, or any random person on the Internet, knows or thinks or believes. Whatever it is it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article unless somebody has said it in a reliable published source. Please see verifiability. Your arguments why the particular genre applies are an example of WP:original research, which is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia.

If you can find a published reference that classifies that song into a genre, then it can go into the article. Otherwise it should not. --ColinFine (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Martinevans123 I’m not wrong I’m right I’m not in the mood of being wrong I wasn’t behaving wrong or bad I was trying to fix everything back the way it was but you won’t understand and listen the way I explain it’s the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ser-rod-7 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you're talking about this? As was stated in the article source, and in the edit summaries of the reversions, you need reliable sources to back up the addition of genres. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? )

<ec>@Ser-rod-7:, first, ColinFine replied to you here, not Martinevans123. Second, do not start a new section to reply to an ongoing discussion. Third, sign your posts, which you can do just by typing a row of four tilde characters (~~~~) at the end of your posts. Fourth, you should know that no-one cares if you think you're right, read the No Original Research policy for the reasons why. Fifth, others editors will find it hard take you seriously in discussions if everything you type is a garbled mass as if you are texting or tweeting to us. I hope this helps explain some things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following merged from later thread
Well sir with all due respect you think I was the one who violated the edit I was not violating bad I was fixing it my perfect song of Coldplay the scientist I was putting the genre Alternative rock, soft rock and country rock because it had a same guitar riff as Johnny Cash and George Harrison.

But I’m not doing things bad or wrong I’m doing things good not violated or something else just doing things good I see everyone else just edit theirs except me.

Give me a chance so if you have any questions about my band of Coldplay and my song the scientist just go to Wikipedia help desk if you had any questions

Thank you for your time I’ll be waiting to put it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ser-rod-7 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser-rod-7: Again, do not start a new section to post a reply and please sign your posts. Due to problems with editors disagreeing over genres, all such things have to be referenced to a reliable source. What you think about a song is of no import to Wikipedia. Any additions without a source or which are an opinion are very likely to be removed. What do you mean by "my band" and "my song"? Eagleash (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The scientist Coldplay

You know what how about I can just answer to the ceo of Wikipedia to tell him that you won’t believe me about what I said it right about fixing the genre of Coldplay the scientist their song and now I’m just gonna answer it right now because this was my first day first time signing this Wikipedia website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ser-rod-7 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your talk page, which is at User talk:Ser-rod-7. -Arch dude (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prevent edit source auto launch

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T195914

I posted this on Village pump's technical page, but never received any assistance. During the Twinkle rollback bug issue I reset all my settings. Now when I rollback and go to warn the User, the User TalkPage automatically launches in edit source mode and not the static (read) mode I am used to. This also happens when I click on non-existant pages/redlinks. Any way to prevent this? Thanks in advance for any help. Please ping me as I don't watch pages. Best, Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 19:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Classicwiki, I'm not sure but it sounds like a bug. Have you tried Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests? Thinker78 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thinker78, I thought about it but it doesn't seem like anyone else is having this problem so I thought it might be unique to my settings? Like I accidentally checked a preference after resetting. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 21:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Classicwiki It doesn't matter if no one else has the problem. In Phabricator you are even supposed to check if someone else has reported the same problem before posting it. So if you think it's a bug report it there. Thinker78 (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Classicwiki, I haven't had that exact problem, but recently I've frequently had the annoyance that when I return to a tab with Wikipedia open in my browser, and hit F5, it reloads the page in edit mode. It hasn't been quite annoying enough for me to investigate it or even go to VPT, but it sounds as if it might be related to your problem. --ColinFine (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine and Thinker78, I have posted the issue to Phabricator. I couldn't find anyone reporting the same problem, although my keywords could have been off target. I'll update if I hear anything. Thanks again. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 20:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful Changes Are Being Reverted

Hello there. So a few minutes ago I was trying to update the draft for Descendants 3. Their was an announcement made a week ago about the final additions to the cast. So I was trying to add that information to the article and even cite a reference to the announcement. But people keep telling me my additions are disruptive and vandalism. What do I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoeeTalksALot (talk • contribs) 20:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this on the article's talk page and try to reach consensus. Please assume that the other editors are trying as hard as your are to improve the article and be civil and colaborative there (WP:AGF). If you cannot reach consensus, proceed to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -Arch dude (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]