Help desk
< August 21	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 23 >

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.

August 22

class assignment using student sandboxes

Hello,

I would like to have my students work in their personal sandboxes on Wikipedia style articles. The content in their sandboxes may not be up to current Wikipedia standards for articles. I would like confirmation that clicking the Publish Changes button in their personal sandbox for a draft Wikipedia-like article will not cause it to be reviewed and deleted by anyone else.

Thank you, Laura Palumbo

--Libpal (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Libpal, that is correct. LittlePuppers (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Libpal, you'll be fine. There was some legal mumbo-jumbo that ended up with what used to be "Save changes" being turned into "Publish changes". It won't be in the article mainspace, so there's no problem. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LittlePuppers: The sandbox space is not beyond review. If it is found to contain unallowed content (copyright or WP:BLP violations as examples), it will be subject to deletion. RudolfRed (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RudolfRed - true, thanks for clarifying. Hopefully students aren't putting copyvio or personal attacks in their schoolwork, however. LittlePuppers (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Libpal: This use of Wikipedia is not allowed under the strictest interpretation of our policies and guidelines: see WP:NOT. However, if the student picks a subject that is even remotely defensible under our notability definition, then the resulting article might eventually be acceptable in Wikipedia, and that makes this an allowable use. So: the student's subject should not be a classmate or his school lacrosse team. See if your students might be interested in one of the subjects in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. Those are all probably notable. In earlier times, if an article's subject was notable, and the article has sufficient citations to demonstrate notability, then the article was allowed to be placed directly into Wikipedia, no matter how poorly written. Today, we prefer that articles be submitted for review (see WP:YFA), but the old policy is still in place. Thus, the only real requirement is to find a few good references. See WP:N for how to do this. See WP:CSMN for how not to do this. -Arch dude (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Libpal: I don't know anything about it, but earlier on this page, someone mentioned The Test Wiki, which may be appropriate if the work is not likely/intended to be suitable as a Wikipedia article. Even sandboxes are subject to some policies and scrutiny. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Libpal: Please read Wikipedia:Student_assignments for further guidance on using Wikipedia as a school project. RudolfRed (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @RudolfRed:@LittlePuppers:@Tenryuu: @AlanM1:@Arch dude: My assignment asks students to write Wikipedia style articles (with references) in their sandboxes about some of the women faculty at my institution, and these may or may not meet the requirements for notability. I ask the students to leave the articles in their sandboxes for this and other reasons, one of my objectives is simply to get them familiar with editing in Wikipedia. At the end of the course they can submit their article for review, if they wish. Last year a student lost her sandbox draft, and I wasn't sure if it was deleted intentionally or it was something she did or didn't do. From your responses, it sounds to me like an article in a sandbox should not be subject to review and deletion for not meeting the notability requirement, is that correct? Thanks again, Libpal (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Libpal. That's nearly right, but if they're left there for six months or more they may get deleted according to criterion G13. The other point I'll make is about "Hopefully students aren't putting copyvio ... in their schoolwork": inexperienced editors sometimes start working on an article by copying chunks of existing work into a sandbox or draft, thinking that because they're going to rewrite it, this is OK. It isn't, and I think that's partly why "Save changes" was renamed "Publish changes". Every page of Wikipedia, including user pages, sandboxes, and drafts, is public, and therefore published, and copyright violations are not permitted anywhere, even if they're intended to be only temporary. --ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @ColinFine: that helps quite a bit! Libpal (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Libpal: Not quite correct. We are deliberately chaotic and not formally organized. Any one of the 100,000 or so active Wikipedia editors could choose to propose deletion based on the strictest and narrowest interpretation of our policies using the MFD process, not the G13 speedy deletion process, and unless your student can make a defensible case for notability, the "sandbox" could be deleted. I think this is unlikely, but it's not impossible. Please consider looking at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red to find notable women who lack Wikipedia articles. Don't get me wrong: I think you goals and your approach are great. But we have a set of policies and guidelines that taken as a whole say that the purpose of editing Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, and it is not to be used for other purposes, so there is basically nothing to stop someone from invoking these policies. -Arch dude (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Libpal: If you know the user whose draft was deleted, it's not too hard to find out why it was deleted. LittlePuppers (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is using Wikipedia to libel me and reveal the location of my home

Courtesy link: Jeff Wadlow

Hi there, my name is Jeff Wadlow and I'm a filmmaker. Someone is trolling me and is adding slanderous comments about me to my bio and the location of my home. Is there anyone to stop her from doing this? Thanks so much. Jeff Wadlow Rugby714 (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question has been blocked and their edits deleted from public viewing. As an additional precautionary measure I've also applied temporary semi-protection on the page so that anonymous and new users can't edit the page. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's stance on essay summaries?

I'm currently copy editing an article, In Praise of Polytheism, where there is a "Summary" section dedicated to summarising the contents of the essay. As it is, it currently seems as if it is written in Wikipedia's voice which doesn't seem okay, but I can't find anything related to the subject over at the pages listed at WP:SUMMARY as to if that is allowed. Input is most appreciated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article might be the closest thing we have to guidance on this. There's also the essay Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary, but that relates specifically to plot summaries of fictional works. You could also look at how Good Articles and Featured Articles on similar topics are written: for example, to pick a couple at random, Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics or Theory of Literature. The summary in In Praise of Polytheism looks entirely fine to me – I'm not sure it seems to be "in Wikipedia's voice". Perhaps you could clarify? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arms & Hearts, without the context that it is a summary, it would not be appropriate for the tone to be in the article as it would be presumptuous or instructional. I'm just double-checking whether it is fine for the text to sound instructional or presumptuous given that it is under a "Summary" heading. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor keep adding wrong content on the article

Hi i am a new editor. I have improved an article Bhirrana and added sources such as published article from sources such as Nature, Archaeological Survey of India. An editor probably a senior/old one, who keep adding a table of phase chronology which is not based on Bhirrana excavation. I raised issue in Talk page but he failed to provide any source or response on last section of Bhirrana Talk page. He added the correct Bhirrana chronology as a note and re-added his non-Bhirrana phase chronology to the wiki page. Which is a chronology which does not belong to the Bhirrana excavation. Please advice how can I resolve this issue as I am new editor.--Havimel (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor seems to have answered. Ruslik_Zero 14:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colouring the code in my user page notes about a non-breaking space

Dear experts,

I would like to colour the visible code for a non-breaking space at the end of the following line (i.e., the characters between the quotation marks) ...

{{nbsp}} is an alias for "& nbsp;"

... in the same orange colour as the code at the beginning of the line.

You may notice that I've inserted the code for a hair space – that's only because, with my limited knowledge, it was the only way I could get the code to display at all here. If it's possible, I would prefer not to have the hair space in there – i.e., I'd prefer just the standard code for a non-breaking space – but I won't be fussed if I have to include it: all that counts is for me to see it in orange.

(Orange is the colour I use for templates, tags and code on my User page, which matches one of a number of colours and shades that I use in my article drafts in Word. I use colour in this way on my user page easier to make code more quickly accessible.)

The solution has eluded me! I'd appreciate your help on how to do this. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 11:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SCHolar44:

{{nbsp}} is an alias for  

—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it so easy when you know how, Alan!!

Thank you very much for adding to my knowledge, especially the use of <code></code>. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 02:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SCHolar44: Glad to help. WP:CHEATSHEET is a quick ref of the basic wiki markup, with more stuff in the collapsed sections and links to more in the See also section. It's worth going through Help:Wikitext, too. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

👍🏻 SCHolar44 (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please suggest Wikiproject templates in Biochemistry/Cancer/Gastroenterology to have this draft revised - Draft:Scott Waldman

Please suggest Wikiproject templates in Biochemistry/Cancer/Gastroenterology to have this draft revised - Draft:Scott Waldman . Thank you. Neuralia (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia consider Alaeddin Pasha 1 or 2 people?

Hello Wikipedia,

Recently I made an edit to the "Alaeddin Pasha" Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaeddin_Pasha), because in the section about his life it talks about him being the first Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire. I removed this section because there is a link to a second Alaeddin Pasha in the beginning, who is clarified as a second person who actually held this title (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaeddin_Pasha_(vizier) ). After I had made what I thought to be a correction, I was contacted by a User name Serols who said they had undone my correction because it was not "constructive". I will put the full text of his comment as the next paragraph.

"Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Alaeddin Pasha—because it 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. Serols (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)"

That is why I am creating this question article now. I assure that I'm not someone of malicious intent trying to mess with an article, but someone who just viewed what they saw as a discrepancy and tried to fix it. I just wanted to know if Wikipedia took the stance that there was in fact only one Alaeddin Pasha, which "Alaeddin Pasha (vizier)" alludes. "Some sources claim that Alaaeddin Pasha was Orhan's brother.[3] Although Orhan had a brother named Alaeddin Pasha, brother Alaeddin and vizier Alaeddin are usually not believed to be the same person.[2]" If Wikipedia does not take this stance, I believe that the references to Alaeddin Pasha (First son of Osman 1) being Grand Vizier should be removed. Probably by someone with more clout, as to make sure the change is permanent. I hope to hear information about this soon. Sincerely, Anonymous

Thanks for trying to help, and please don't get discouraged. Your edit was reverted by a vandal fighter using a semi-automated tool. The message is a stock message generated by the tool. Those folks are badly overworked and sometimes make mistakes. Your edit was a deletion of a large block of text by an anonymous user without an explanation in the edit summary. Those three characteristics taken together are almost always vandalism even though this was not true in this case. Please do the following: Add a section on the talk page explaining your proposed change, then make the change again, but this time add an edit summary like "wrong person. see talk page." You might also consider creating an account. an account makes you even more anonymous, since without one we must use your IP address and that IP address provides some information about you. -Arch dude (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, I'll see if it works!

Report an edit rejection made by someone who doesn't know the facts

Hello, I recently got a message that one of my edits was rejected in an article. It is the talk under the code User talk:190.141.247.136

The edit was in the article 'History of the Jews in Latin America and the Caribbean' in which a user called Serols rejected an edit I made. The Edit was made because under Panama, the text mentions a city called 'Columbus', and said city does not exist. Its name is 'Cólón', and Columbus is a misinformed literal translation of that name. The user who rejected my edit clearly does not know enough of Latin America for this rejection. Please reverse this action as this user is spreading misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.141.247.136 (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP user - the burden of proof in this case is on you - that it is indeed that name, as noted in reliable sources. This, however is a content dispute, so you'd be better to discuss on the talk page of the article in question, rather than just revert the edit. Pinging Serols for courtesy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lee. Have a good Saturday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.141.247.136 (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have wikilinked all the city names in that section of the article, not just Colón. Somebody should do the same throughout the article, IMHO. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref

August 22, 2020. I cannot correct this error. Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref and 2020 in Mali.Calmecac5 (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Maproom (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing an article name

Hi there, there's an article that is called Jubilee station (Calgary), but the station name is actually SAIT/AUArts/Jubilee. There is a redirect if you try to type SAIT/AUArts/Jubilee. I don't know exactly how to fix this, because the station isn't really called Jubilee station, I've never heard anyone call it that. If anything it'd be SAIT station. I tried to move it, but I think the redirect blocks me from doing it? I don't know. --MattBinYYC (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MattBinYYC: If this is uncontroversial , use Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests as you have already done. The talk page history shows the article was moved in 2017 with the edit summary "Looks to be much more commonly called just "Jubilee station" in Google News; more knowledgeable editors can correct if wrong". TSventon (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: I tried that but it didn't work, it said something was blocking it from there. --MattBinYYC (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MattBinYYC: The article has been moved, leaving a redirect. I recommend watchlisting requested moves you are interested in so you can see when they happen. If you received any confusing messages, you could ask User:Anthony Appleyard who processed the move. TSventon (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MattBinYYC and TSventon: What is needed is for someone in Calgary to tell us what the people there call this station in ordinary day-to-day casual talkíng and writing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Anthony Appleyard: Honestly, it got moved to what the best name of the article should be. Calling the article "SAIT station" or "Jubilee" is just too casual. Leaving it as it is now is best. MattBinYYC (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beirut Blast

The article on Beirut blast contains misinformation that had long been rectified. Please alter the part mentioning the cause of the blast being "firework", which was clarified repeatedly as not being the cause because investigation is still pending. Please treat this as a timely manner as a copy of your information will be sent to officials to look closely into this issue. Please be as accurate as possible and only publish information that has been supported with data. Again, investigation is still ongoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C4:4081:F40:A167:B6E4:69D5:D9D6 (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to treat this "a copy of your information will be sent to officials to look closely into this issue" as a threat of legal action. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page is at 2020 Beirut explosion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As to the original complaint, the article does a good job of discussing the possible causes that have been written about in the many cited reliable sources, which is exactly what we do here. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]