Help desk
< April 20	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 22 >

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.

April 21

Categories for navigation boxes

I seem to remember that there is a policy stating that the only categories that a navbox should have are categories for templates. Where can I find such a policy. Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be it Jax 0677? Wikipedia:Categorization#Template categorization: Templates should be categorized according to kind of template, but not by template content...: Bhunacat10 (talk), 19:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Bhunacat10:, yes. Thank you very much. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about arbitration enforcement logs

Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2019#Pseudoscience says:

[username] is indefinitely topic-banned from from Flood geology and related pages from 20 February 2019. 04:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
[username] is indefinitely blocked for violation of the above topic ban immediately after an unsuccessful appeal and sundry attendant disruption. 22:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

(Username redacted because this question isn't about the specific user or his ban/block. It is about what gets logged and what doesn't get logged.)

However, the block log of the user in question shows that the block was lifted on 28 March 2019. Should this be reflected in the AE log? It is easy enough to check a user's block log and discover that they had the block lifted, but how do I know that the topic ban has not been lifted as well?

Or is this just a clerical error, meaning that lifting a block or ban should be logged but somehow this wasn't done in this case? If so, where do I go to ask that the log be updated? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that arbitration enforcement blocks cannot last more than one year but concurrent blocks that aren't done as "arbitration enforcement blocks" can last as long as the blocking policy allows. Sometimes these concurrent blocks-which-are-not-arbitration-enforcement are logged in the same log, often with a provision that the first year of the block operates as AE block and the remaining as regular blocks. According to the block appeal tha topic ban was explicitly not lifted, only the block was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But should the log reflect that? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, we are discussing User:Sotuman who was unblocked on 28 March but remains under a topic ban from flood geology and related pages. Why not contact the *unblocking* admin, User:GoldenRing, and see if they want to update the WP:DSLOG? Since User:JzG, the blocking admin, entered his action into DSLOG he must have intended it as an arbitration enforcement. Both the AE block and the unblock would normally be logged. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support proper logging at WP:DSLOG.
"...such need to be appropriately logged." - Dlohcierekim Sotuman (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: Apologies, this was my oversight. I've now logged the unblock at DSLOG. GoldenRing (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But confusing to use, any tools to help me understand the site

I look Around Wikipedia, but find out confusing. I would love a sitemap or other tools like a comprehensive listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 506 independent (talk • contribs) 16:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be confusing. There is a sitemap at Wikipedia:sitemap. There are many, many lists of topics, mostly by subject. Please ask again if you have a more specific question.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has proposed an article I have created for deletion but the article doesn't seem to fulfil the criteria for nomination

In WP:DEL-REASON, Of the 14 listed reasons in WP:DEL-REASON, the article doesn't fulfill any of the 14.

WP:BEFORE (in WP:AFD) links to WP:DEL-REASON via the link anchor "valid grounds for deletion" ie, AFD describes deletion-reason (the list of 14 reasons) as being the "valid grounds"

Sederecarinae (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Human cause death in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries MB 17:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL-REASON says reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following, so all that matters is whether or not the community decides to delete the article. Wikipedia does not have firm rules so reasons for deletion can be anything reasonable. Also, the article appears to be a fairly indiscriminate collection of statistics. --Danski454 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone who hasn't !voted in the AfD please explain the process to the creator? S/he is wikilawyering & bludgeoning the discussion to the point of complete illegibility. StarM 00:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to add a photograph

Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boredbeyondmeasure (talk • contribs) 17:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boredbeyondmeasure: See Help:Files – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boredbeyondmeasure: If you are the photographer, then you own the copyright and you can upload the photo to Commons. If you are not the photographer, then come back here for a deeper analysis if the copyright. To upload to commons, go to c:Wikimedia Commons and click on the button near the top right and follow the tedious instructions. After the file is available on Commons, you can use it in an article here as described above. -Arch dude (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits not showing up on user talk page

Very odd. I added a thread at User talk:Lithopsian, and it doesn't show up. It's there in the code if I go to edit again, but my signature is still four tildes. It was never converted to name and date. The same is true of the preceding thread by another user - it doesn't display, and their signature is still four tildes as well. Anyone have any idea what's going on? — kwami (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: An HTML comment had been damaged, so that the software thought that the rest of the page was all part of the comment. I've fixed the comment and have done by best to fix the missing signatures. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pertinent addition to the "Dick Van Dyke Show" article

This is what I received: Information icon Hello, I'm Stellarnebula. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Dick Van Dyke Show have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Stellarnebula (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

This is my answer: My addition "did not appear to be constructive?" The addition I made is directly from the book "The Dick Van Dyke Show" to include the production company that made the show, and the unique way the show producers' names were incorporated into the name of said production company. My addition is as pertinent to the dialogue as the rest of the information in the article, hence the placing of it at the top. I realize that you Wikipedia editors do not like to let people contribute (keeping that privilege for your doctorate-level contributors), but when someone contributes interesting items to articles that can be verified, they should be allowed to do so.

Calvin Sneed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:4790:3D70:D965:FF27:86E7:970 (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Stellarnebula for comments.

As for 2600:1702:4790:3D70:D965:FF27:86E7:970: I'll wait for Stellarnebula before saying anything further, but in the meantime: Cite your sources. While it's certainly not done as often as it should be, it gives you far more credibility and is helpful to everyone. If you're not sure how, let me know. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2600:1702:4790:3D70:D965:FF27:86E7:970, Hi! Thank you for bringing it up! It looks like I did revert your edits in error, and a citation needed tag would have been more appropriate. I was doing a quick recent changes patrol for vandalism, and, in the diff, I saw the first letters of words being capitalized, leading me to believe it was vandalism of the article. I will say, in the future, please cite your sources, as it does lend you some credibility. Sorry about that! Also, thank you LittlePuppers for the ping! Stellarnebula (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've restored the edits and struck through the warning on your talk page. Happy editing! Stellarnebula (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the right question to a copyright venue

I had a past concern at this archive. Which concerns to an episode listing, with the same user. But on Joshi Kausei the "plot" section was copied from a link / url. By this edit. And is that under the same rule/ guideline umbrella? (If I sound slow, I'm re-reading the rules from the various MoS.) Tainted-wingsz (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tainted-wingsz, your removal of it was the right course of action. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. But since this is a second time they added copied info. In the last two months. Do I refer to else where. Or wait around, if some info was added a third time? And request the {{copyvio-revdel}} or other similar help? Tainted-wingsz (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tainted-wingsz As the editor is aware and has posted on your talk page, I've replied there to put them in the picture and hope you don't mind: Bhunacat10 (talk), 10:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]