Help desk
< August 6	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 8 >

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 7

Nick Robertson's mother (ice hockey)

Hi, just letting you know that Nick Robertson's mother was not born in Manila. She was born in the Visayas. kindly update Nick's Wikipedia page. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.203.224 (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. If you have a reliable, independent source that provides that information, please discuss it over at Talk:Nick Robertson (ice hockey). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Draft talk:Nick Robertson (ice hockey). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 04:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that it could be Nicholas Robertson (ice hockey)? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the draft is older than the mainspace article. Pinging relevant editors HickoryOughtShirt?4, Nolanisntfunny, and Robert McClenon. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk on Nicholas Robertson (ice hockey). The other one I made a few months ago but got denied since Robertson had yet to play a game. He now has played 3 games, and someone beat me to making an article. About Robertson's mother, I'm not entirely sure. Nolanisntfunny (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Nolanisntfunny[reply]

Can I link to Wikipedia page with table sorted on a particular column

For example, suppose I email someone the following URL:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vice_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age#Vice_presidential_age-related_data_points

This links to the start of the section containing the table I am referring to, sorted by its leftmost column. But what I really want to reference in my email is the vice-presidents who were oldest at the start of their vice-presidency. I could explain in my email how to sort-descending on that field, but is there some way to encapsulate that in the URL itself, so that when someone clicks on my link, the table will be displayed not in its default sort order but sorted as I would prefer? And as a follow-up, is there a way to wikilink that? Mathew5000 (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK that is not possible because not implemented, and I think nobody will implement it, because it is extraordenary slow, as each time you render a table, you must check if the table should be sorted differently, and then you must check if this sort is actually possible (sorting a table by row 5 if the table has only 4 rows doesn't work obviviously). Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question regaring page deletion

I have created a page on wikipedia abut an institution, my intention is not publicity but to provide authentic information to the public domain. I got the notice my page can not be published because it is showing as it is created for publicity. H ow can I resolve this problem and publish my page successfully? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhumi Shivhare (talk • contribs) 05:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhumi Shivhare: Normally, there are about 7 steps to create a new article successfully. Now you have already created a version, and I'm pretty sure it can be discouraging if I tell you now that this will probbably need to be rewritten entirely. If you want to make a new version, I will include the steps below.

First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How much time dose it take for Wikipedia to Review and Publish a Article if its written by a New Creator

Hi Sir

I had written a article about a well known person in mangalore the link to the article is given bellow. As i am a new Creator in Wikipedia i wanted to know how much time dose it take for the article to be reviewed and published ? because i am getting different different answers on the internet.

Link to the article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edmond_Fernandes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chdefforts (talk • contribs) 07:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chdefforts You have not submitted your draft for a review, I will shortly add the appropriate information to allow you to do so. However, if you were to submit it at this time, I think that it would be rejected, as the sources you have offered do not seem to be appropriate. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. The sources you have offered seem to be press release-type stories or routine coverage, which does not establish notability. Please read Your First Article for more information. When you do submit it(again, I would not do so yet), there is no set timeframe, as drafts are reviewed in no particular order, but as there are usually thousands of drafts awaiting review, it usually takes several weeks.

If you have a connection to the person you wrote about, you must read the conflict of interest and paid editing policies and make the required declarations. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Domain Blocked By Wikipedia

HI, is share some usefull and helpful links with wikipedia but someone remove and blocked my domain please tell me about the edits which creats spaming and please review it again and unblock my domain pcbeducation.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamsi98 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamsi98 Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Your addition seems to serve no purpose other than telling the world about what I presume is your website; that's considered spamming. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: OP was a sock of Hamsi97. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vapepal e liquid brand

Hi!

I hope you can help me.

How do I get my e liquid brand 'Vapepal' listed on the following Wikipedia page 'List of electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid brands'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electronic_cigarette_and_e-cigarette_liquid_brands

Thank you,

MeganMegandavidson001 (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Megandavidson001 List articles like that are not for listing every possible member of the list in existence, only those that have Wikipedia articles. Your brand would only merit a Wikipedia article if it receives significant, in depth coverage by independent reliable sources showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Not every e cigarette brand does.

Since you are here to contribute about your brand, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing and make the required declarations. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refering Ayodhay Ram janbhumo as Disputed Land - as on date

Referring to the content on Wikipedia, as in below In India, construction of the Ram Temple on disputed land officially begins, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi laying the foundation stone (ceremony pictured).

Pl. note that India is a Democratic country and the land dispute has gone through all the possible processes before addressing it, lastly by Judicially, which has on the basis of numerous records archeological and history, before giving the verdict. It's unacceptable and unjustifiable to even mention the word 'Dispute " now while addressing this Subject. I am saying this discreetly, irrespective of what cast or religion I come from. had it been declared a MUSLIM MOSQUE site I would have accepted, as it has taken 70 years to conclude this matter More so it was exploited for vote ban politics and with the conclusion, this will helo o bring both communities of India at peace and brotherhood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.240.170.226 (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If those sources state that use or ownership of the land is no longer in dispute, then the article can say that, but if those sources state that the dispute still exists(even if legal processes in India have been resolved), then the article needs to say that too. If you have sources to support your position, please offer them on the talk page of the article in question, the proper place to discuss this. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise with the OP. There certainly was a dispute, as detailed at Ayodhya dispute. But the use of the phrase "disputed land", in the top item of "In the news" on the main page, implies that the dispute is ongoing. I have seen no evidence to justify that implication. Maproom (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, all or almost all parties to a dispute must agree that it is resolved for there to no longer be a dispute. That said, I don't claim to know what sources are saying. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nationality, ethnicity, origin, identity

Olivia de Haviland is identified in the lede to her article that she was British-American. I know she was born British (in Japan), but she became a U.S. citizen (I haven't seen anything about her having had dual citizenship). On what Wikipedian basis, is she called British-American rather than American? Is it standard to give original nationality/citizenship as the first part of a hyphenated label when the subject has changed citizenship? What about people who are ethnically, say, Italian, but who were born in, say, the U.S.? Are they to be labeled Italian-Americans (as is commonly done "on the street"), the same as some-one born in Italy but having later become an American? How do I find guide-lines on this, or is it done ad hoc? Kdammers (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kdammers, as far as I know there's not a completely set rule on describing the nationality of people with dual citizenship. I think the usual way of doing it would be to follow how a person is usually described by reliable sources, as this will vary on a person by person basis. I believe Olivia remained a British citizen throughout her life (basing this on the fact that she received a DBE a couple of years ago). The best place to discuss this with other editors would probably be on Talk:Olivia de Haviland, and it looks like a previous discussion on that topic took place there a couple of years back. Pi (Talk to me!) 02:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Talk:Olivia de Havilland#Correct nationality?. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a link

I have tried to add a couple of links from pages about piers to my web site dedicated to piers from around the world. The vast majority of my site comprises of paintings, postcards and copy from vintage newspapers about the piers. None of these are for sale. There is one page where you can but posters of the piers, but as only one has been bought in the last year, this is clearl not a selling site. Therfore the site is for those interested in piers, this is not a shop, however, the two posts that I have attempted to add have both been rejected.

Paul Tracey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Thomas Tracey Artist (talk • contribs) 10:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Thomas Tracey Artist. Well, as it is your website, you shouldn't be adding links to it - per WP:COI. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Helo, Paul Thomas Tracey Artist. Wikipedia is quite restrictive about external links: WP:EL explains when they can and can't be linked from within articles. One of the no-nos is "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article should not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services". I hear that you have only sold one poster in the last year, but https://paintingsofpiers.com/portfolio-item/herne-bay-pier/ is clearly a selling site. --ColinFine (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

kkk

why does it say the KKK is right wing when they in fact were started by Democrats to kill Republicans because the Republican party was srmtart we d by black people. They killed black and white republicans.

They are a far left extremist group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B10C:3ADC:5030:1103:A487:C1D4 (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The correct place for this discussion would be over at Talk:Ku Klux Klan. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hello, please raise your concerns on the talk page of the article concerned. You may find that this has been discussed before... but you are welcome to start a new thread if you so wish. You would need to provide reliable sources to corroborate your statements. (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.) Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Please don't encourage people with a weak grasp of reality to clutter up talk pages with Looney Tunes conspiracy theories. Okkkay? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then point them to the previous discussions on there. This still isn't the appropriate venue. If the arguments don't hold water it'll be shut down quickly. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Locked up pages vs editable pages

I have noticed that many actors and presidents pages are locked up and not editable, (no edit links) whereas other people (even some other actors) are fully editable. Why?

Can I have my page made not editable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.251.33.178 (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, pages are 'locked' or as Wikipedia more typically says 'protected' usually because they have been subject to disruption of one sort or another – typically vandalism but sometimes as a result of content disputes – over a considerable period of time. A page would not be protected unless there was a good reason to do so; it will not happen because someone requests it without one. When you refer to 'my page' please clarify what you mean. A Wikipedia page you have written or one that is about you? No page 'belongs' to any particular editor (see WP:OWN) and if you mean a page about you or one where you have a connection, please see the guide to managing a conflict of interest. (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.) Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding company details

Hello

I need to add biography for my company details.

How can I do this?

Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianmniko (talk • contribs) 17:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianmniko: Hello, unfortunately the short answer is you cannot or at least you should not be attempting this sort of thing, which is not suited to an encyclopedia. If your company is notable in the Wikipedia sense (see that page for more information together with WP:NORG) then editors without a connection to the organisation will create an article in the course of time, based upon what has been written about the company in multiple independent, reliable sources such as mainstream newspapers etc. Wikipedia has little if any, interest in what a company has to say about itself. Wikipedia should not be used for promotion or as any form of directory. Sorry, we cannot assist. Eagleash (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brianmniko. I'm afraid that, like many people, you are confusing Wikipedia with a social media site or business directory. If your company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - roughly, that several people who have no connection with the company have chosen to write about it in reliably published places such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers - then we could have an article about your company. It will not belong to the company, it will not necessarily say what the company would want to say, it will contain very little material from the company (as opposed to from those independent commentators), and you will be strongly discouraged from editing it directly.

I will also mention that creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks for a new Wikipedia editor, and most editors who try it before they have spent a few weeks or months improving existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works, have a frustrating and disappointing time.

If after these warnings, you still would like to go ahead, first you must read about editing with a conflict of interest, and make the mandatory declaration explained in paid editing. Then you should read your first article, and, having found the three or four independent reliably published sources that are absolutely essential to establish notability, you should create a draft using the articles for creation process. --ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox spacing

See my diff here. This happens a lot - where the spacing in the infobox parameters change drastically - I assume this is due to the visual editor. My question: is this an issue or is it harmless? And if it's not harmless, how do I stop it from happening? Thanks! ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is mw:Topic:Vmfgal6x2okt5f4v. In short, opinions vary about whether this is harmless or not, there's no way to disable it for one specific visual edit, and the automatic formatting can be adjusted (or removed entirely) by an edit to the TemplateData of the template whose formatting is being changed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery (talk · contribs) - thank you for the response! That answers my question, though it ultimately seems the specifics are above my pay-grade haha. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting incorrect submission

Hello! I am a new editor. I inadvertently edited a page incorrectly. Is there a way to cancel my edit, or will the reviewers automatically do so for me? Also, I received a message when I tried to make another edit that I was blocked for being a vandal, not really sure what this means. This was my first time submitting a correction, so not sure why that message would appear? Any help is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barefootjimmy (talk • contribs) 20:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I undid it for you. There's nothing to stop you from undoing your own edit. Meters (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And there's nothing in your filter log about any blocked edits. Meters (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disable Unnecessary Link Pop-ups?

When I place my pointer on a link, a pop-up appears containing the exact same word(s) visible in the link. For example, if the link is attached to the word "village", when I place my pointer on that link a pop-up appears with the word "village" inside it. Such pop-ups are unnecessary and serve absolutely no purpose. Is there a way to disable such pop-ups?

Thibeinn (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thibeinn: It sounds like you have having a problem with the navigation popup. Go to preferences and gadgets and unselect navigation popups. That might help. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: I do not have that option selected.

Thibeinn (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thibeinn: You probably see the page name which is often different from the link text. For example, [[Village (album)|Village]] produces Village where you may see "Village (album)" in the pop-up to show which page the link actually goes to. If you see "Enable previews" at the bottom right of pages then try clicking it, or enable "Page previews" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. This gives a preview of an article when you hover over an article link. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter:

Yes. I am seeing the article name ("page name", as you called it) in a little pop-up.

I do not see "Enable previews" at the bottom right of any page here on the Wikipedia website.

"Page previews" is disabled in my preferences.

I do not want to see the little pop-ups at all. It is annoying to have a pop-up appear every time my pointer happens onto a link.

Thibeinn (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thibeinn: Try saving the below in your common JavaScript. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

$(document).ready(function() {
    $("a").removeAttr("title");
});

@PrimeHunter:

It works. Thank you very much.

Thibeinn (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]