Help desk
< September 11	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 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.

September 12

IP mass changing a certain common phrase

I apologise in advance if this isn't the right place to ask this, but I really wasn't sure where else to take it. Anyway, User:70.66.184.251 has been going around dozens of different articles, changing the phrase "committed suicide" to various other phrases which mean the same thing. On their very first edit, they gave the edit summary "changed “committed suicide” to “died by suicide”, as is the preferred terminology in the mental health community", but I have no idea if that's true (even if it is, it doesn't explain their usage of other alternate phrases). Very rarely do their changes seem to be an improvement, and usually just make the sentence sound slightly worse. They have been reverted around half a dozen times so far, but they remain completely unfazed. Does this count as disruptive editing? Thegreatluigi (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a discussion about this a month or so ago on the language reference desk. If they've been reverted that many times it sounds like it might be time for them to be brought to the edit warring noticeboard to resolve the situation? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does that count as edit warring? I mean, they've edited around a hundred different pages, and only been reverted on about six of them. And I can only find one instance where they went back to a page they'd been reverted on and re-edited it. Thegreatluigi (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this I think has been discussed elsewhere, but "death by suicide" is the better phrase; we no longer regard it as a crime. DGG ( talk ) 15:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I commit to do something for someone, I commit to a course of action, I commit a database transaction. None of those statements imply a crime. It's grammatically accurate and unambiguous and has nothing to do with moral judgement. Making it passive doesn't change that or soften the blow, much like "passed away" v. "died". Others (APA, AP) may have different motives to try to better explain the nature of such tragedies, but I believe we have a different mandate – to be direct and NPOV. The war has been going on for years at places like Robin Williams. Is there a change in consensus that's been formalized (so I don't have to read the whole thing, admittedly)? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Search was for Polynesian Islands and there's a picture for the big island of Hawaii

When I looked at the image of the big island it was right in my face. Did the editors mean to use a picture that looks exactly like a side image of a Homo sapien? It's similar to the badlands image. If you haven't check it out.Lennond63 (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check what out, Lennond63? (Something within the article Polynesia?) -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lennond63: The best place to discuss an image that appears in an article is on that article's talk page – that's where editors interested in the article are likely to see it. In the case of Polynesia, that would be Talk:Polynesia. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 lead article on 9/11/19

To highlight an article on the direction on Mecca on an anniversary of the 9/11/'01 atrocity is unacceptable. Wikipedia needs to apologize to its readers immediately. Without the apology I will make no future financial gifts to Wikipedia and will switch use to a commercial encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BD50:9F90:952:2AF4:FFAE:8A65 (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually for 9/12/20. (Wondering how it arrived there -- who put it there, and after what discussion, if any -- I burrowed as far as "{{TFA archive/day|date=12 {{#time:F Y|{{{date|}}}}}}}", but thereupon was defeated by template syntax.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We editors do not collect the donations, the Foundation does, and they are not involved in day to day operations. If editors changed content because donations were made or withheld, this would no longer be a neutral encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is of course true, 331dot; but somebody or -bodies (probably not you, certainly not me) decide(s) which "featured article" should be featured on which day. Putting aside the matter of donations, the dating of the appearance of this article does seem odd to me. Or anyway I presume that it's conscious rather than automated. Am I wrong? -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary WP:TFA seems to be the central location for those interested in working on Today's Featured Article selection and crafting the blurbs. It notes that they are scheduled by the 4 @TFA coordinators , but community input is welcomed. Perhaps one of the coordinators would be willing to provide input on how the article that ran on September 12 came to be run on that particular day. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ONUnicorn. I've brought it up at WP talk:TFA; feel free to comment there. -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia runs on UTC time (not any American time), so the qibla article ran all day on 12 September UTC (which in US Eastern Time would be 20:00 11 September until 20:00 12 September). Also failing to see how running the qibla article on 9/11 would be offensive anyway, as it's not in the slightest bit related to 9/11. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, Joseph2302. Sensible people may at times forget how easily the less sensible may be deluded. And their delusions trigger actions (and not just in the US). But feel free to disagree with me, at WP talk:TFA. -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jude Bolton's Wikipedia Page - Original Teams

Hi there,

How can l edit a friend of mine in Jude Bolton's Wikipedia page? On the 3rd line of his Personal Information Page is "Original Team(s)" It states Calder Cannons(TAC Cup). This is factually correct. However, it does not take into account the previous club he played at for 6 years prior. This club is St.Bernards OCFC. l would like to have this on his Wikipedia page before Calder Cannons. l have Jude's permission for this to happen.

The newly edited version would read like this.

Original team(s): St.Bernards OCFC, Calder Cannons (TAC Cup)

Look forward to your reponse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogi12 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hogi12, do you have a reliable, independent source to back this claim? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hogi12 As an encyclopedia, we do not want or need anyone's permission to add reliable published information to an article, and since we are crowdsourced by hundreds of thousands of anonymous editors, we require that all information must be sourced in a reliable published source. -Arch dude (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://amp.theage.com.au/sport/afl/bloodlines-run-deep-bolton-set-for-his-300th-game-20120920-269l2...

Here is a Newspaper article to support my claims. The 2nd last paragraph clearly states Past Clubs as St.Bernards OCFC and Calder Cannons.

Can someone please help me and get this edited on Jude's Wikipedia Page - Personal Information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogi12 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hogi12. Thank you for being open about your connection with Bolton: in Wikipedia terms, you have a conflict of interest. So asking here was a good start; but the recommended action is to post an edit request on Talk:Jude Bolton, with the link to your source, so that an uninvolved editor can decide what action is appropriate. if you add the template {{edit request}} (with the double curly brackets) to your suggestion, it will put it on a list of edit requests awaiting consideration,. --ColinFine (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need help with the training course.

I would like to know how to complete 'exercise:copyedit an article' on the training course.

are you referring to Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure? If, go to that page and then click on the "start the adventure" button, the follow the directions. This will probably work best on a desktop or laptop rather than a mobile device. If you have specific questions, come back here. -Arch dude (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help: revision of article Draft:Scott Waldman did not reach accept/decline decision, should I resubmit ?

Dear people, On Aug 20 I submitted article Draft:Scott Waldman for revision using template {AFC submission}. Since then the article was revised and the template removed but no decision was announced as to whether the submission is accepted or declined. Your help with this will be appreciated. Should I repeat the {AFC submission} request, or could you guys move the article to mainspace if it has been accepted. Thank you.Neuralia (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neuralia: Hello, it seems the draft was marked as 'under review' but subsequently, instead of restoring the submission tag, it was removed altogether. I have replaced it. Pinging DGG in case I've missed something! Eagleash (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on it, but slowly. so I took off the tag--it's not supposed to stay on for a long period. Yesterday I removed some hype, and there's more to go. What it really needs, instead of the vague statement about total publication and citation, is a list of the 5 most cited articles. If someone gets to it first, I'll fix it in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 15:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes true; but I'd have thought it would not have been removed from the review 'queue' once the creator had submitted it unless it had actually been accepted or declined. Eagleash (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Hi, the most cited articles are listed in reference 8 (SCOPUS https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=7102179927) and also in reference 9 (Scholar, https://scholar.google.es/citations?user=F9Bl38EAAAAJ&hl=es&oi=ao). Does that help? Thank you.Neuralia (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Hi again, I would really appreciate if you would kindly reply to the previous comment, do you have what you need now, is there anything else I can do to help you with your needs in this revision? Thank you.Neuralia (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to add them. from Scholar with the citation count it would help--full bibliographic format, plus citation count, top 5 articles, judged carefully to avoid ones that may not be primarily their own work. (I prefer to use scholar because its the only one everyone has access to). I did this part just now. I also did the hard part, which is the reorganization, to put his career in chronological order. What's next is to fil in the details properly. ;

1. Fill in all the 'citation needed' with references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, if possible not just his CV. 2. Clarify which of his committees were from his college only, oand omit them. Keep the ones that are national, and give a reference. 3. Dont refer paper to his CV. Cite the original papers. 4. Add the necessary links to his research part. 5. Replace Spanish references with English ones. Though any language will do if needed, , he's a US scholar, and his work was publsihed in English. I know ee have articles that are not as complete as this, but to be honest, the career sequence was so vague, that that it really eeed this degree of cleanup.

Otherwise I will get to it, tho thinks I cant immediate cite I will probasbly remove.  I do so many things --far too many, perhaps--and I do not like to be rushed. I feel guilty at not getting to things, and when I feel guilty, I go away.  You may have noticed I  have been    doing unusually little the last few days,& that's  because there's too much important that I ought to do.  DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Sir, I appreciate all your work and efforts, as well as the advice you are now providing. I will be following your points within the next 24-48 hours and let you know when I think I am done with them. Thank you once again.Neuralia (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Sir, I believe I have taken care of all your indications above, please check. Please let me know if you need anything else. Thank you.Neuralia (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc

Greetings, An Editor told me to solve my problem on Rfc. I don't understand what is this Rfc. Can anyone tell me what is this Rfc and how to use it. Thanks LearnIndology (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An WP:RFC is a request for comments. It is where you invite a wider community to gain a consensus. Which article is this referring to? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. It's about Ladakh article. LearnIndology (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a template to a large amount of pages

Hi, I wanted to add a template to every page within the article namespace, is there a way to do this automatically without having to edit each individual page? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IBBishops2 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every article?!? Something like this would be done through WP:BOTREQ but I very much doubt this would be something we would do. If it is a subsection' or a series of articles that could be done with WP:AWB, but you'd better make sure there is consensus for the change before doing so. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't explain myself. I was importing a few thousand WP articles to another Wiki and wanted to add a CC attribution template, so it wouldn't be every article on Wikipedia.--IBBishops2 (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This will depend on the capabilities of the target Wiki's software and configuration, and/or on the capabilities of the software you are using to perform the import. In either case, we at the English Wikipedia help desk are not the folks who can help you. If you were importing into English Wikipedia, we would need to run a bot of some sort here. -Arch dude (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LA Clippers Are The NBA's Cincinnati Bengals

The Clippers are The NBA's Version Of The Cincinnati Bengals 68.102.42.216 (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are they? What is your question about using or editing Wikipedia. Eagleash (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YES They Are 68.102.42.216 (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a forum for questions and discussion about how to edit or use Wikipedia, not a place for general comments about sports. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 13:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Questions about fictional character lists

Could anyone please tell me if, when listing the characters in a work of fiction, the following short description of them can begin with a decapitalized word, even if its sentence ends in a period? Could anyone also please tell me if it's okay to have a decapitalized sentence if it doesn't end in a period?--Thylacine24 (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thylacine24: You didn't provide an exact example, which would be helpful, as I think you're conflating two independent ideas. Complete sentences should end with punctuation. There are several reasons to capitalize a phrase, whether it is a sentence or not. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 13:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlanM1: This is the section of the page I'm talking about. Sorry not to have done that earlier, but I like to keep the specific pages (or sections thereof) that raise questions private, if possible, when I'm asking here. I do so because when I don't, I get messages to the effect of "ask about it on the talk page", and since talk pages tend to get relatively less traffic and I want to make the edit in question as soon as possible, it helps to ask such questions as pertaining to no particular instance here. Also, in this case, I could potentially encounter another instance, and have my question already answered here. Sorry to rant.--Thylacine24 (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlanM1: Also sorry about my impatience when it comes to getting responses, but when the option of "asking about it non-specifically on the help desk" is available, I prefer to take it.--Thylacine24 (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure if a user is making unconstructive edits, or if the edits are actually constructive

Been browsing through recent changes, when I came across... this. The user User:188.141.3.145. I am not actually sure whether or not I should even revert their edits, or if they are actually making productive changes, as I am not actually well versed in the topics they are making edits to. It seems like vandalism, but I am not actually sure. I am also not even sure if the help desk is the right place to be putting something like this, so if it's not, could you please point me in the right direction? Thanks in advance, MWYAHzephyriteMWYAH (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MWYAHzephyriteMWYAH: I spot checked a couple and they looked OK. Is there specific edits you are concerned about? RudolfRed (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is more-so, feeling like it's conflict of interest. I don't mean to be rude or anything, but their edits make them seem like... a Chinese shill. MWYAHzephyriteMWYAH (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]