Help desk
< June 23	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 25 >

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.

June 24

Creating a Wikipedia Page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Mansour_(actor) --197.48.98.129 (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a draft for this article at Draft:Ali Mansour (actor). --Orange Mike | Talk 01:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been submitted and declined five times, most recently on 15 June 2020. Each time, the references failed to establish notability of the subject. The only recent edit was to remove all of the declined submittal notices. I have restored them: do not remove them again. Carefully read Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability) to see why the sources do not establish notability. If you cannot find suitable sources, please carefully read and understand WP:AMOUNT. If this draft continues to be resubmitted without addressing the issues, the article title is likely to be placed on the list of articles that cannot be created (See WP:SALT) because continually re-reviewing such articles is a waste of our volunteers' time. To avoid this, if you do find references that you feel certain establish notability by our definition, you should carefully explain why this is true on the article's talk page. -Arch dude (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arch dude, the last time around, on 15 June, it wasn't declined, it was rejected. 197.48.98.129, what this means is: Please stop. -- Hoary (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between declining and rejecting? I'm asking as English isn't my first language. JIP | Talk 13:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least here in Wikipedia, when we "decline" we are merely saying that the material offered does not yet add up to what we need for a valid article. When a reviewer "rejects" what has been put up, they are bluntly saying, "This not only does not yet add up to an article, it clearly never will, and unless things change drastically I don't think there will ever be an article on this topic, so don't even bother! Spend your time and ours on something more useful." --Orange Mike | Talk 14:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution with unregistered editors

Greetings and felicitations. In the last month I've had two of my edits reverted by unregistered (IP address) editors (the articles were Ceiling fan and Chemours). I disagree with these reversions and would like to be a good Wikipedian, but I have no idea where I should start a discussion to resolve the disagreements so that they do not become edit wars. Would someone please be so kind as to point me in the right direction? —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DocWatson42: Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the best place would be the article talk pages: Talk:Ceiling fan and Talk:Chemours. GoingBatty (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best location, but it can sometimes be an issue getting the IP to respond (because pinging doesn't work the same for unregistered users.) However, you can still add a thread on the IPs talk the same way you would for a regular user pointing them in the direction of the discussion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for link to page on why WP articles shouldn't reference other WP articles

I believe that creates a self-referential problem (wikipedia citing wikipedia) which is avoided with a policy on not referencing other WP articles. But I'd like to read up on that issue and haven't been able to find that information. Can you point me to an article on that topic? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BobEnyart:, you can start with WP:USERG: Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include ...most wikis (including Wikipedia), and other collaboratively created websites. The Reliable Sources content guideline has more information. Note that "reliable" here only means "reliable as a source in Wikipedia articles". Reliability of Wikipedia articles in general for other purposes varies from article to article and depends on the verifiability, sourcing, neutrality, etc. The Core Content Polices have more about these factors. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, the policy on citing other Wikipedia articles avoids circularity. Suppose I go to cats and add the statement "cats are very fond of eating lettuce". Then I go to lettuce and add "lettuce is a favorite food of cats", citing the cat article. Now I go back to cat, and support my addition by citing the lettuce article. I have established and referenced a "fact", without any evidence. Maproom (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BobEnyart, see also WP:CIRCULAR and WP:RSPWP (note the 19 previous discussions linked there). Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents is interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read all of those recommendations so thank you Gråbergs, Eggishorn, and Maproom. [Btw, the maproom in NYC's main public library is awesome!] The most helpful of all though was Maproom's cat/lettuce illustration just above. I don't think the main WP circularity-related articles have that particular problem described, or, certainly not described so succinctly. I wonder if someone who has the WP gravitas might consider updating one of those articles with something like his illustration. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on presentation and structure

Hi guys,

I'm not really familiar with the English version of Wikipedia because I used to contribute on the French version and there are differences that's why I have some questions.

First, is it possible to group references by books (or encyclopedias, etc.) (in the French version we often do this when there are an important number of references that come from that book), like in the "Références" section French version of Albert I of Belgium, so with sfn references ? If yes, what should we write in the "references" section, because for example in the French we use a template for books (or encyclopedias, etc.) in the "Bibliographie" (cf. "Bibliographie" section of the French version of Albert I of Belgium with lots of informations like place of publication, publisher, etc. but when we present the book in group in the "Références" section, it is only like this : Author, Name of the book, year of publication.

Also, I'm confused with the sections sources, bibliography, further reading, etc. because in fact I'm trying to translate the French version of Jean-Jacques-Régis de Cambacérès but as it differs in terms of presentation and structure from French to English I'm totally lost.

Thank you for your help,

Schweiz41 (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Schweiz41. It sounds as if you are talking about Shortened footnotes, which can be generated with {{sfn}} or any of several other templates or forms of markup, listed in the help page linked above. In that case the short notes are usually in a section named "Notes" with the full bibliographic details in a section named "References" or "Bibliography" or possibly "Sources". See the detailed examples for what goes in this section, but often it is a list of sources cited formatted with CS1 or CS2 citation templates, such as {{cite web}} {{cite news}}, and {[tl|cite journal}}.

"Further reading" should be a list of sources that were not used to write the article, but that might be helpful to readers, often in alphabetical ,or chronological order. It might also be formatted with citation templates, but need not be.

In some biographical articles "Bibliography" is used for a list of works by the subject, but that is more often called 'Publications" or "Selected publications".

A "See also" section should be a list of links to other Wikipedia articles not linked in the body of the article, but that might be useful for the reader.

Kshatriya koli rajput

Koli is originally kshatriy cast so please add KSHATRIYA koliy rajput — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:C8AC:9327:B20F:DAF8:485:475E (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. If you wish to suggest a change to an article, please make the suggestion on the particular article's talk page, and provide a published source for any information you want to add. --ColinFine (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon Boy Hoax

Hi, I was reading the "Balloon Boy Hoax" article, and it came to my attention that lots of evidence suggesting that it wasn't a hoax has been completely ignored. Also, the fact that the police investigation was heavily biased, at some points slightly illegal (for example, interviewing Falcon Heene without parental consent) and sometimes just telling lies (for example, the answers that were given in interviews or the dimentions of the balloon). The trouble is that the police files are not available for the internet to browse and there are no other viable sources (as youtube is not a credible source), however, the youtuber "The Internet Historian" has found good evidence that it wasn't a hoax at all, and just an accident. Backed up by a video by Richard Heene sharing interview footage and crossreferencing it to the police files, showing how they were not always truthful. He shares the unfair treatment he was given by the police (for example, still doing interviews and tests when Richard was sleep deprived and having 4x the healthy blood sugar level). The Wikipedia article describes none of this. I think until better sources arise, the only thing that can be done is to change the concensus. Is there anything that can be done do rescue this article?

Relevant video

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgj843df (talk • contribs) 12:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until better sources do appear, and then cite them. Until good sources emerge, there's nothing much that you can do. -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again, as always, the place to discuss this is Talk:Balloon boy hoax, not here. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Music to Pages

For the page Lincolnshire Posy, all six movements of the piece have a playable version of the opening lines except number V, Lord Melbourne. Whenever I click the play button, the files don't work. I played them on my phone, so I know that they're properly written, but my computer can't play them.

Furthermore, quite a few of the files (most notably numbers I and VI) sound very "tinny" and not like the music should actually sound.

I need two things: A), how do I add, write, and edit these files to the page, and B), why can't my computer play the files?

Thank you, Aven13 13:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aven13:Those are MIDI files. You can download, analyze, play, and modify those files using MIDI editor software. I am not that familiar with MIDI software, but it's been around forever and there is surely some excellent free software out there. I do not know why your computer did not come pre-configured to use your computer's speakers for MIDI: you will need to do some homework to configure this. It's possible that you will need to install software even for that. Excellent free software exists for "sheet music" notation (Musescore) and general audio (Audacity (audio editor)), and each of them has some MIDI interface capability, but neither is likely to be the best for straight MIDI analysis and composition, so more homework for you. Maybe the folks over at WP:RD can help. -Arch dude (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

~~@Aven13: After further research, I think you should look at LilyPond. It appears to be what we use on Wikipedia. -Arch dude (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

@Aven13:And that was totally incorrect. Sorry. Those playable lines use the Score extension. This extension is driven by the <score> syntax within the wikitext of the page, which incorporates the musical notation used by Lilypond. When the wikimedia software on the wikipedia servers serves that page to your browser, it converts this on the fly into embedded MIDI, and your browser, possibly in conjunction with your computer's operating system, converts the MIDI into audio and sends it to your speakers. To add the missing score, you will need to learn how to encode it using the syntax of Score extension (probably by using the existing scores as worked examples). To figure out why your computer does not play it, you will need to determine what your browser is doing with the embedded MIDI.-Arch dude (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bussiness

I want to open the market — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.182.107.126 (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a market. RudolfRed (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To open the market, just click on this link: [ https://store.wikimedia.org/collections/all-products ] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh fab, thanks for waving the juicy wikipedia carrot in front of my senses :) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook "About this content" links to the wrong Wikipedia page

Hello, I administer a Facebook page for my magazine, and am running into an issue when sharing links from our website to Facebook. When you share a link, there's a small "i" next to it, with the words "About this content". If you click on it, it attempts to associate our facebook page or website with the Wikipedia entry for our magazine, but it's got the wrong magazine! There are more than one "azure magazine". Ours is not the Jewish magazine, but rather "azure (design) magazine. I contacted Facebook and they told me that this issue needs to be corrected from the Wikipedia side. Our Facebook page is: https://www.facebook.com/AzureMagazine/

Wrong Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azure_%28magazine%29

which is being associated with either our facebook account or our website (https://www.azuremagazine.com)

Correct Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azure_(design_magazine)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Velodromo (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no control over Facebook. If Facebook has retrieved the information from the wrong page, the issue should be fixed on Facebook's end. JIP | Talk 16:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Velodromo: Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. We have been using "hatnotes" in situations like this pretty much since Wikipedia started in 2001. Facebook was started after Wikipedia, and has had all this time to try to get it right. We will not be changing our guidelines on this issue in order to accommodate problems at Facebook. Please go back to them and "get their attention" somehow. -Arch dude (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Velodromo, please contact Facebook again and tell them this: "A Wikipedia Editor named Guy Macon asked exactly what needs to be changed on Wikipedia's end. I can put you directly in contact with him if you wish, or you can just tell me what needs to be changed." Try to get a direct phone number (not the general help line at facebook) I can call.

It may turn out that if we here at Wikipedia make some minor change that doesn't hurt the encyclopedia in any way, facebook will have an easier time getting it right. It may turn out that I end up talking to someone at facebook and helping them to do a better job of getting it right. That being said, the smart money is on this being some low-level Facebook support drone in India telling Velodromo whatever it takes to make him shut up and go away. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on Facebook but the feature may be Context Button. Incorrect Page or Wikipedia mapping says "please reach out to your partnerships contact". I don't know whether that means anything to you. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Could it be that the Wikimedia Foundation Partnerships team has been working with Facebook? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Mount Everest Articles

Dear sir/madam Mount Everest is located in Province-1, Solukhumbu district in Nepal but it is shown in china also so please edit the name and keep countries name Nepal only Thank You!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalrana5923 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Everest is actually the boundary between the two countries, with one side of the mountain in each. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The boundary between China and Nepal passes directly over the summit of Mount Everest, and the mountain can be climbed from base camps in both countries. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]