Help desk
< August 25	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 27 >

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 26

Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

Ref number 122 should have a publisher but I could not get it correct. Please put in the publisher in the correct place -I could not work it out. Leave in the quote please. Thanks and sorry 175.33.139.143 (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no errors in the citation. The publisher is optional and in this case would repeat information already in the title, so it's not needed or useful. MB 03:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

East Sea, the South Korean name of the Sea of Japan->[incorrect]

It's just Sea of Korea=Donghae=East sea

To whom it may concern, I found this info which is provided on your website is incorrect. As you know, the exact name of Donghae is East Sea[Sea of Korea]. It's not true we call Sea of Japan as Donghae. Donghae is Korean area, belong us.

I understand your company wants to stay neutral in the international society. Kindly hope your company will be the truly one who recognizes the historical fact. I'm waiting to hear from you. Thank you in advance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.22.74.183 (talk)

Please see Sea of Japan naming dispute. Wikipedia is not a company. It is crowdsourced encyclopedia that incorporates verifiable information from reliable sources. We do not attempt to assert TRUTH. please see WP:V. See also WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. -Arch dude (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that undoubtedly Japan think that their preferred name is the "truth". This is precisely why we don't assert truth, as Arch dude states. We present the sources and allow the readers to decide for themselves what they feel is true. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scots Wikipedia

Courtesy link: meta:Requests for comment/Disruptive editing on sco.wikipedia on an unparalleled scale

All of "Scots" Wikipedia was written by someone with absolutely no idea what Scots is and has just written as if they've got a Scottish accent, completely wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.190.96 (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Help Desk for the English Wikipedia; you will need to address any issues with other versions of Wikipedia(which are all separate projects) on that version. I think from looking at it though that what you describe is the point of that version. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the point of Scots Wikipedia is to be in English with a Scottish accent. Not to be confused with Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia ([1]), which is actually in Gaelic. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph2302, that's rather like saying that the point of Dutch-language Wikipedia is to be in German with a Dutch accent. Behold the Scots language. -- Hoary (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary Scots language even syas "Scots is often regarded as one of the ancient varieties of English, but it has its own distinct dialects", so calling it a possible dialect of English isn't wrong. Although either way, their help desk is here. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there seems to be a discussion on it on Meta Wikipedia, see meta:Requests for comment/Disruptive editing on sco.wikipedia on an unparalleled scale. This is probably what the IP was looking for. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the problem here that someone has confused Scots with Scottish Gaelic and is complaining that the Scots Wikipedia is not written in Gaelic? JIP | Talk 15:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nae, the problem is that some fuckwit bampot has gotten awa' wi' it frae tae lang, an' his wee ass is ganna be heaved oot the windie. What aboot the thoosands an' thoosands an' thoosands of Iranian villages, pop. approx. 317, who literally NO-ONE cares about, and I mean NO-ONE;^{[citation needed]} or bronze medal winners of table tennis in the 1924 Olympics who have absolutely NO OTHER claim to fame, BOTH of which type of articles spectacularly fail WP:NOTABLE: yet they tried oh-so-hard but failed — unless coming third, or having a population of 406 in the middle of nowhere is wildly notable: but is this a valid question? And what about 3rd-divsion Ukranian footballers, for that matter?MinorProphet (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death names

Why are death names typed in red or Blue? Is there a specific reason why this is done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenda costilo (talk • contribs) 08:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brenda costilo: I don't know which article you are referring to, so can't comment on why there are redlinks, but that means that we do not currently have an article on that subject (person). For the most part, unless they are notable for Wikipedia purposes and likely to have an article about them, they should not be linked at all, and should be rendered like normal text (in black). Please advise which article you are talking about. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for assistance in creating a draft

Hi, I've created an entry as a draft and I would be happy if someone can review it and suggest how to improve it before moving it to the main space. I looked at the volunteers list but couldn't find anyone that has "tech" or "business" as their field of interest. Is there any other way of asking someone to review the draft?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalife103 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legalife103 I have added the submission information to allow you to submit it for a review by another editor. Unless you are very experienced in successfully creating articles, that is the preferred path. If you were to submit it now however, it would be rejected quickly, as it is sourced to nothing but press releases. Press releases are not independent reliable sources. Every Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject(a company in this case), showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself through press releases or otherwise(like its own website or staff interviews); only in what people completely unconnected with the company have chosen to say about it in depth. Please read Your First Article for more information.

If you work for or are otherwise associated with this company, please read the conflict of interest and paid editing policies and make the required declarations(the latter is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory if you are paid in any way by the subject). 331dot (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Thanks for your help! I added some non PR sources and submitted to review. I appreciate the help! Legalife103 (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Legalife103: I reviewed the sourcing and there doesn't appear to be enough media coverage for a standalone article. I recommend instead you merge some of your content into an expanded Perion Network#Products section, and create a redirect. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:ThisIsaTest

On User talk:ThisIsaTest the tiny print (too tiny, actually. We should accommodate the visually impaired) "reset" link isn't working correctly.[2][3] --Guy Macon (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the link and made the text larger, although don't look at my contribs because I'm kind of embarrassed how many attempts it took. I kept getting confused about what page I was on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at User talk:Guy Macon#Wikipedia:Help_desk#User_talk:ThisIsaTest --Guy Macon (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collapsible large category TOC

Note: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Template:Collapsible_large_category_TOC. (In case of interest, please post there.)--Hildeoc (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NBA season 2019/20

Hi. Would it be possible to show the divisional and conference tables distinguishing those teams who did not qualify for the bubble possibly by shading them or denoting them? That way it wouldn’t appear odd that Washington is above Charlotte even though their PCT is lower. Also is it also possible to include a ‘play-in’ in the Notes and denote next to Memphis? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D18D:DE01:853C:F667:B964:6828 (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you're referring to 2019–20 NBA season#Playoffs? I'd simply put in footnotes. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... or discuss it at Talk:2019–20 NBA season to find editors who work on that article. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 13:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Five pillars

Who should I turn to when I understand that a proposal is against the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, even if it is for consultation by the foundation? ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell us what proposal you're talking about? Seagull123 Φ 16:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A.WagnerC:, for cross-wiki or above-project-level issues, the Wikimedia forum is often a good place to start. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: Thank you so much. I sent the message to Wikimedia Forum. Best regards. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seagull123: I sent to Wikimedia Forum. It's a consultation. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Korean War Was a Stalemate

According to this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars it stated that combatant 2 (South Korea) won the war. This is false, the war is still continuing today. This is why we have the DMZ at the North & South Korean border. If one side one Korea would be united today. Stalemate or present would be a more appropriate statement about this war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.255.206 (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently says 'Stalemate.' I'm not sure what you're looking at. But, in the future, make comments about improving articles on the respective talk page, in this case: Talk:List of proxy wars ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongfully deleted entry

You recently deleted the page for Chicks on the Right based on one person's opinion that they are not notable. They are very famous, they have a radio show, a podcast, several popular social media sites, they have appeared on many Talk Shows (because of their fame) and they have millions of fans. The fact that their entry was located and marked for deletion by someone that doesn't agree with their opinions is more than enough proof of their "notablility".

The only reason I can figure, that you would delete this entry, is because you are biased, there appears to be no other reason for this deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junglecrus (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Junglecrus: It was not just one person's opinion. There was a discussion with several editors here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chicks_on_the_Right and the consensus was determined to be delete. There is a link there to Deletion Review if you think that it was not deleted appropriately. RudolfRed (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Junglecrus: I didn't see the discussion, but for what it's worth, I just did a sourcing search and could only find three items that suggested notability: a 2014 appearance on Don Lemon's show to promote a book [[4]], a piece written for USA today from a reporter from the Indianapolis Star[[5]], and a brief criticism of their viewpoint by Bust Magazine.[[6]]. I couldn't find any reviews of their 2014 book Right for a Reason. Some of their columns turn up, and there are some blogs, but no other independent sources. I'd have also weighed in with a delete vote, as a WP:GNG fail. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Junglecrus: "Notability" has a specific meaning here (click that link for details). It's all about reliable, independent sources that have written about the subject in depth, not how many viewers, readers, or "likes" they have. Tim's search for such sources did not turn up enough to be notable by our criteria. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 13:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to make the mobile interface the default for all users?

Hello, I am a bit unsure what would be the way to propose this change for the English Wikipedia. As a reader, I always use the mobile interface without signing in. I hate the old interface, and I find it annoying to click each time to switch to the reader mode (mobile view). I want to propose a change to the default presentation of the English Wikipedia to the interface currently called "mobile view" on behalf of all readers like me that prefer it. It is incredibly useful and comfortable to read, and if you click edit it takes you to the "ugly" interface anyway. Which steps do I need to follow to enact this change?--DataAthlete (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DataAthlete: You can float your idea at WP:VPI but I doubt you will get agreement to make this the default setting. If you prefer it, then use it, don't force it on the rest of us. RudolfRed (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chicks on Right

Shame on you for taking down the Chicks on Right page. STOP CENSORING CONSERVATIVES! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:546:8103:32D0:2147:46E2:66DD:25E4 (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has never had an article Chicks on Right. Anyway, if whatever Chicks on Right is, is not notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia, it won't get one, regardless of whether it is conservative or not. By the way, have any of you noticed how it's always the conservative far-right who complain about Wkipedia's political bias, never the liberal left? JIP | Talk 22:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No one is being censored. There was a discussion that led to the deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicks on the Right. In any event, as a private entity Wikipedia can determine what content appears on its computers, based on its criteria. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one, whether conservative or liberal, is entitled to an article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors decide for themselves whether they wanto to write an article about something. As said above, Wikipedia is a private entity and thus not bound by the same rules as the governments of countries. JIP | Talk 22:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was addressed two questions up. I looked at a remnant [[7]] saved in an editor's sandbox, and searched and found this 2016 clip [[8]] from Fox News, but it's still not enough. We should expect to see more indepth profiles in third party media, rather than things that the subjects wrote themselves, or support coming from fans of the program who do not have much experience editing. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a deletion discussion on this. No need to redo it. WP:DRV is available for anyone who wants to contest it. RudolfRed (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding edit notes explaining/apologizing for strikethroughs

Could anyone please tell me if I should add an edit note whenever I edit in a strikethrough on one of the talk pages or on this page? I usually don't, but I'm not sure if it's considered polite to do so on this website.--Thylacine24 (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thylacine24: The guidelines are here. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments Basically, you can edit your comment normally without a strike if nobody has responded yet. If someone has responded, and your change changes the meaning, use a strikethrough. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: Thanks. I'd already looked at that page, but I wanted to be sure about it by asking here.--Thylacine24 (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: Here's why I asked – the link you gave me doesn't answer the question of whether to include an edit note or not. If it doesn't directly address that, then I feel guilty about not including one. Sorry not to bring this up in my previous response to you.--Thylacine24 (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thylacine24: I try to leave an edit summary for everything, even if it's just a simple response like this, for which I simply type "response". Among other things, it helps vandalism hunters identify editors who are experienced and those who are not, when looking at contribution histories. When I edit articles I'm usually very specific about including everything I did. They increased the size of the edit summary field a few years back to allow for pedants like me. If I do strike something, then if I add a new comment, included in that is that I struck something earlier in the thread, for people who aren't reading the edit summaries. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: Thanks for responding, but I'm talking about leaving parenthetical notes appended to the original response so that those reading will know what was edited without having to look at the page history. Thanks for telling me what you did about writing "response", though. Also, sorry to not write "no offense" when I was talking about the link you provided not answering my question, and sorry additionally for not apologizing about it earlier. (I tried to tell you a few minutes earlier, but there was an edit conflict with you responding. Entirely my own fault, not yours, since, as I said, I should have apologized for it earlier.)--Thylacine24 (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Higgins -- correction of resting place

I would appreciate help in correcting facts on the COLIN HIGGINS page. The resting place is wrong in 2 places. I tried to correct without success and got a reply that my attempts to edit were unconstructive and appear to constitute vandalism. How can incorrect facts be corrected/edited. Mr. Higgins was not buried in Valhalla Cemetery but was cremated per his wishes and ashes scattered among two small islands near Oahu Hawaii, where he maintained a vacation home.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.1.143 (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You asked this at the Teahouse- please only use one method of seeking assistance to avoid duplication of effort. 331dot (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]