Help desk
< December 11	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 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.

December 12

List of Works in a biographical article - complete or selected items?

I hope this is a quick question: I'm sure I have seen it documented somewhere but I just can't find it now. In an article about a scientist, it is common to include a list of their works (books, etc.). In some cases this can get quite large, leading to the question - should we aim to make that list as complete as possible, or just selected works so the list is a more manageable (and readable) size? Pointers to a guideline would be appreciated.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be a part of any guideline, so it's just up to you. Since scientists tend to be rather prolific, their articles more often include "Selected papers". – Thjarkur (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found it! "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship are encouraged..." Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works Gronk Oz (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gronk Oz: This would seem to cross over into the ideas behind WP:RAWDATA at some point, though. A recent example, Julia Chan, comes to mind. Her publications page at UT lists almost 200 papers, which would be ridiculous to duplicate accurately, let alone maintain. I'll note that there's apparently also been some movement towards reducing filmographies of actors to just selections as well, which I think is a great idea, again for maintainability. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, AlanM1. If it is cut down to a selected list, are there guidelines for what the selection criteria should be? Without that, it risks becoming biased personal opinion, or original research. Gronk Oz (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the Raymond Green to Draymond Green on the 2019 FIBA roster

Hello, I changed the Raymond Green to Draymond Green on the 2019 FIBA roster page and it got changed back. You guys are wrong. I am right. Don't change it back. I am trying to help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4480:28F0:44A4:31DE:6D2F:5B7A (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, anonymous editor, and thanks for your contribution. It helps other editors to know which edits are genuine if you provide a reliable source that supports your proposed change. As it was, you did not provide an edit summary describing what you changed or why, so it seems that Creffett perhaps thought it was an error.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gronk Oz is correct - with no explanation for the name change, it looked like vandalism and so I reverted it. creffett (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the WP Wishlist?

How do I submit a wishlist item for WP editing functionality? I thought I had seen a Wishlist link on this page a while back but now I can't find it--NB I'm using a really primitive mobile browser (Kindle).

Is this page actually the place?? In case it is, here is my wishlist suggestion:

Add a button to edit just the "lede" of an article. Mature articles often need just a minor change to the lead; editing the whole article can be laborious,especially on a mobile, there's danger of accidental change while scrolling, & it makes the history appear ponderous.

Case in point: I had a minor edit to make to the third para of article Melanoma. It would have been so convenient to just edit the "lede" (I hate that neologism but I do see the nede for it). Instead , I had to edit the whole article, which meant scrolling down through a quite lengthy article to get to the para I was editing--twice, since I always preview my changes [well almost always--ed.]. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a setting which you can change to give you an "edit" link for the lede of every article. I can't find it under "Preferences" – "Editing", but it exists somewhere. Maproom (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's at Preferences > Gadgets > Appearance. I've no idea whether that would work on a Kindle, though. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It's meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2019, the next one will be next October. Alternatively, many problems can be solved by asking the people over at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests to create a script for you. You can go to Preferences → Gadgets → Appearance → Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page which will do what you want. Relevant discussion about "ledes" – Thjarkur (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dagobert Runes

Article text

About this Item: Verlag Darmstädter Blätter :, 1981. 8 Octav, Broschiert. erste Auflage :. 332 Seiten : Dagobert David Runes (January 6, 1902 September 24, 1982) was a philosopher and author. Born in Zastavna, Bukovina, Austro-Hungary (now in Ukraine), he emigrated to the United States in 1926. He had received a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Vienna in 1924. In the U.S. he became editor of The Modern Thinker and later Current Digest. From 1931 to 1934 he was Director of the Institute for Advanced Education in New York City. He had an encyclopedic level fluency in Latin and Biblical Hebrew; he fluently spoke and wrote in Austrian German, German, Yiddish, French, Hebrew, Russian, Polish, Czechoslovakian, and English. In 1941 he founded the Philosophical Library, a spiritual organization and publishing house. Runes was a colleague and friend to Albert Einstein. Runes published an English translation of Marx's On the Jewish Question under the title A World without Jews. Though this has often been considered the first translation of the work, a Soviet anti-zionist, propaganda version had existed a few years earlier, which was likely unknown to Runes. As the title of Rune's book sounded antisemitic, it had extremely limited circulation in the English-speaking world. Runes wrote an introduction to the translation that was clearly antagonistic to extreme Marxism, and 'its materialism,' as he would later often put it, yet he did not entirely negate Marxism. He also edited several works presenting the ideas and history of philosophy to a general audience, especially his Dictionary of Philosophy. He spoke and wrote unpublished letters about his extensive research into the censorship by the Vatican and other Christian organizations of Jewish history, which as he studied he realized was far more prolific than almost anyone realized.Early versions of the Nicene Creed, for example, instituted laws such as "You shall apply all negative to that pernicious race [Jews], and all positive will be applied to the poor of the Roman Christians"; and Justinian I banned any Jewish language, which is rarely noted. The extensive antisemitism in the Theodosian Code was later censored in some works. Jews were barred from many fields which did not fit into the stereotypes portrayed in annual Good Friday passion plays, such as being tax collectors or money traders. (Another minor example was that in medieval Sweden, Jews were only allowed to trade used clothes, so that their social status would remain beneath the Christians). He also listed holidays where young energetic parishioners were directed to strike the first elderly Jews they saw upon leaving the Church, specifically in the nose, where blood would be readily observed. Runes' love for the Latin language greatly facilitated this research. Dagobert Runes moved to the United States with his wife Mary Gronich-Runes. They remarried in NYC in 1929 and remained married until Mary's death. They had two children, Regeen and Richard. His mother was murdered in an anti-Semitic riot following the Holocaust; almost his entire family and their circle of friends were killed in the Holocaust (quelle:wikipedia) : gerne senden wir Ihnen weitere Fotos und Informationen : der Gesamteindruck dieses Buches ist GEBRAUCHT : SEHR GUT - 387139064x Bitte beachten Sie, dass es sich um gebrauchte Bücher handelt. Bei den Preisen haben wir den Zustand des Buches berücksichtigt. Sprache: Deutsch Gewicht in Gramm: 400. Seller Inventory # 6859 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:ED0:6DFA:300:8130:EB83:D99A:70B7 (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP, you can go to Articles for creation and submit this as a draft, but it needs citations to reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

British or English?

I'm sure this is discussed somewhere in the MOS, but I haven't been able to track it down. Is there a particular year/era where descriptions in Wikipedia should switch from 'English' to 'British' ('British politician' instead of 'English politician')? Queen Anne appears to be the first monarch to be title 'of Great Britain', but other descriptions seem to be all over the place. Any guidance would be appreciated (I'm trying not to ruffle feathers due to ignorance). Leschnei (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom is loosely-related (summary: in BLPs, follow the subject's self-characterization of British/Scottish/whatever if expressed clearly). Absent a clear guideline, I would think the best would be to follow contemporary sources in describing events, governments etc. as "British" or "English". I would also guess you are less likely to ruffle feathers in substituting English for British (or the other way round) than Scottish for British... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: that link is very helpful, thanks. In general, I go with whatever designation is in the article, Charles Dickens is English and Benjamin Disraeli is British, but I have seen editors make changes from one to the other and it made me wonder. Leschnei (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

guideline commentary

It's a shame but not that surpising that the descriptions are "all over the place". A lot of people are just confused over this. Actually, James VI and I was the first monarch "of Great Britain" even though the two kingdoms were still separate then. But it is not really a matter of dates -- there isn't a time when you should switch from English to British. England has had a fairly constant meaning for (roughly) a thousand years, and over a similar time period Great Britain has always had the same geographical meaning of the whole island containing England, Scotland and Wales.

I agree that self-identification is best for BLPs, the question is mainly how to treat historical personages and topics. Sometimes the context will help, for example if they were an office holder did their remit cover Britain (or the UK), or just England or another constituent nation? The other thing to say is that there may be no single answer. Being English usually implies being British as well. But not vice versa. Just the way a Texan is an American but not always vice versa. If there was to be a style guideline on this question, where would be the right place on wikipedia to start a discussion about developing such a policy?

By the way, I speak as someone who is British but not English! FrankP (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FrankP:Worthwhile discussions of guidlines, like this one, belong on the talk pages of the guideline, not on the help desk where the go away after a few days. -Arch dude (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has always frustrated, due to many resisting using British in post-1707 British bio articles (in GB), 1801-1922 Ireland bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ok, understood. I actually asked in my comment where is the correct place to have such a discussion. Is it at Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom? FrankP (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia guidance on this says "In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." That sounds great, and would normally solve most of these disputes except for the United Kingdom, which is a country made up of countries. Which is to say that the country of the United Kingdom is made up of the countries of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, which then begs the question "Which country do we use". The answer is it depends, and there is no universal way to handle it; generally it is a good idea to try to use concepts like self-identification where disputes arise (that is, does the person think of themselves as "Scottish" or "British"), except that many people may consider themselves both; I mean Gordon Brown is described as "British" and Peter Capaldi is described as "Scottish" and I have to say neither of those is wrong, and yet it feels like if we swapped both of those, it would feel less right. It's the kind of messy thing that we just kind of work out, and try not to fight about, and defer to not changing just to be arbitrary. --Jayron 32 18:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

donation

I would like to donate, however I prefer not to have my personal info shared.

please provide proof my personal info will NOT be shared — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.186.125 (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't handle donations or the process; please read this page for information on the various ways you can donate, which include in cryptocurrency. I don't know what the exact policy is, but I doubt the Foundation would share your personal information. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends what "personal information" is. In the strictest sense of the term, the WMF just published OP's IP address for anyone to see (because that's how page histories work for non-registered users). On the other hand, I doubt the WMF would partner with advertizers to sell names and mail addresses. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We at the help desk are good, but we cannot prove a negative. Sorry. We also have nothing to do with the WMF's donations or data outside of Wikipedia. If you wish to ensure your privacy, donate anonymously via cryptocurrency or a postal money order. -Arch dude (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See foundation:Donor privacy policy. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IP editor: And thank you for your support! —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User page

How to get one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dq209 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dq209 You already have one simply by registering an account. If you click your username at the end of your post, or at the top right corner of the screen(if using a computer), it will take you there for you to create. Please see WP:USERPAGE for information on acceptable user page content. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What notability criteria does Network-Attached Secure Disks fall under?

Per title. Does it only fall under WP:GNG, or is there a criteria i'm missing? --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonythedwarf: There's no sourcing, and all three external links are just to the paper written by the researchers. There's no independent sourcing for the term, so I'd say it fails WP:GNG. After a quick reading of the paper, I'd merge and redirect to Network-attached storage. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timtempleton, That's what I was thinking, I came here because I wanted to be absolutely certain. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac kappy

Can someone please explain why isaac kappys wiki page was deleted 3 days after he died? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellahan (talk • contribs) 20:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellahan: The reason for Isaac Kappy deletion was it did not demonstrate that the person was notable. See WP:N. RudolfRed (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to only have consisted of "Isaac Kappy was an American actor" and nothing more (as far as I can see with my non-admin eyes), that is to say, it did not explain what he was notable for. It appears he has gotten sufficient coverage for an article, so you could start one using the Articles for creation process. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a New Page

I have tried posting a new page about a prominent person. The person is deceased, his business is no longer in operation, and there is no advertising interest in posting the page. It's simply a matter of updating the encyclopedia to include someone who died before online resource took over the world. He is included in numerable publications and should be available to current and future scholars. I keep getting rude messages telling me the page is some sort of marketing scheme. My legal assistant and I have tried several iterations, which are structured exactly like other wiki pages. This morning a very rude person messaged my legal assistant and made her cry he was so mean. The poor young lady simply asked for advice on how to make the page suitable. Here is my question: A) How do I report an abusive reviewer? b) How do I speak with someone about what edits we can make so wiki will accept our page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3008:202:8400:3ADE:ADFF:FE94:B0E2 (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you post a link to the page in question? Note that most of the messages you get sent are just templates that contain a prewritten text about what needs to occur for the article to be accepted. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

articles that need attention

Hello. When I first signed up for wikipedia it had a bunch of pages that were recommended for fixing spelling/grammar and other errors. After logging on another day I cannot find where those are on the site. Basically wikipedia would show me an article that might need editing and if I could not find anything to edit on that article I could click "next article" to see what else might need editing. How do I get back to that? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki497 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in SuggestBot; see also: User:SuggestBot/Requests. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki497: See Wikipedia:GettingStarted for the feature you used, or try it on Random article. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki497: You could also use Special:RandomInCategory/All pages needing cleanup. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki497:, Let me also suggest that you visit Wikipedia:Community portal and scroll down to the "Help Out" section. It has nine groups of links to articles that need improvement. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]