Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 July 28

Help desk
< July 27	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 29 >

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.

July 28

Problem on Spanish Wikipedia

Someone has hacked the code to prompt a reference to a private TV on the heading of the following page in Spanish. Check this page: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribunal_de_Cuentas_(Espa%C3%B1a) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.61.145.191 (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

That page is on the Spanish Wikipedia, but this help page is for the English Wikipedia. The Spanish Wikipedia's help desk is at es:Wikipedia:Café/Archivo/Ayuda/Actual. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Page view stats

Is there a way to find the page analytics of articles like which search terms people use most often (on WP and/or google) to end up there or, if they clicked through from a wikilink on another article, was it a redirect vs direct link? I'm asking because an editor just started a thread on Talk:Analgesic about moving the page to its WP:COMMONNAME (probably "painkiller", but that's up for discussion too, along with "pain reliever", "pain medication", and "pain killer"), so I'm wondering if there's a way to tell how most people have been ending up there. Thanks! —PermStrump(talk) 01:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Permstrump: There is the pageview tool, but I am not sure how redirects are counted there. It may be that hitting a redirect counts twice, one on the redirect and one on the target page. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 06:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Tigraan: "It may be that hitting a redirect counts twice, one on the redirect and one on the target page." That's what I was wondering too. —PermStrump(talk) 07:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Ping MusikAnimal to see if they can help, since all the "documentation" I could find and understand (which means the FAQ page) is lacking. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T141552

We will add this to the FAQ, because it certainly has been asked a lot recently :) The answer is: Currently, the pageviews API counts the redirect and not the target page. The Analytics team is investigating improving this behaviour, see phab:T121912 for more information. In your case you want to compare which redirects are the most popular, so I've created a ticket to add such a feature to Massviews. Massviews is a pageviews application specifically designed to handle more expensive operations (some pages have a lot of redirects!).

In the meantime you can manually type in the redirects into Pageviews Analysis for comparison. In "Settings" check "Autocompletion including redirects". This will allow the redirects to show up when you are searching for a page to add. See this example comparing some redirects to Analgesic. Note you probably will always see more pageviews for the current title of an article because that's what will appear in Google or Bing results, etc. Regarding general referrals (Google, search terms, etc), as far as I know for privacy reasons there are no per-article stats available. There is some global data available here but I'm not sure how helpful that is to you.

For future reference you can report issues about Pageviews Analysis to meta:Talk:Pageviews Analysis. We hope to improve the documentation there as well. Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Lupo (dog)

Why is there a funny accent near ref number 4 on this page? Please help if you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbernadette (talk • contribs) 03:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Srbernadette: I fixed it. I'm pretty sure it was just a typo. —PermStrump(talk) 03:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

As in so many cases the answer was simple. You had again finished a reference with <ref>> instead of <ref>. You were therefore perfectly capable of correcting it yourself. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

How can I get assistance getting rid of these Wikipedia error messages

Hi Wikipedia team,

Is there any easy way to get help getting rid of this message:

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (May 2016) A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (March 2016)"

Gabem274 (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hello Gabem274 and welcome to Wikipedia (WP). The page you refer to is Expert360. Those "error messages" are not automatic, they were left by another editor.

The "orphan" problem can be fixed by linking other pages on Wikipedia to this one, but take care only to make such links if they are justified.

The "conflict of interest" problem cannot really be solved by you, and I strongly suggest you read and understand the message left here on your talk page. You can also try to recruit someone at at relevant Wikiproject, such as this one, to review and correct the article, but of course there is no guarantee that someone will come and help. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 06:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• This is essentially a duplicate of the same question on WP:THQ. -- Gestrid (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The Esha braille page was deleted and our account is blocked

Hello

The eshabraille page was deleted citing "Promotion of a business". Had someone bothered to do a little research, they would have found that we cannot do promotion of a business because we are not a business. We are a non profit trying to create an important national resource.

We do not sell anything, we do not even solicit funds for our non profit work, so there can be no promotion.

Since the page was created by volunteers and deleted under speedy deletion, I have no idea what was actually on the page. I don't know how to go back and read the archived contents. if they are forever deleted, that is fine too.

Our user id is blocked, which means I cannot log in to talk to the administrator who did the speedy deletion.

Please understand that being on Wikipedia is not vital to our survival. Our intention behind making a Wiki entry was just to spread awareness about the fact that such a project exists and if anyone from another country wants to know what is being done to create a more inclusive country (not just a community or society - we are creating resources that can be used nationally), they may become aware of this project and take from it, whatever learning that might help them.

I would like you to unblock this id. We are not interested in creating a Wiki page any more. So we will not be doing that, nor will we seek a review of the deletion. But if there is a relevant article elsewhere, and we have something to say, we can use our ID to suggest a value added change.

May I also take this opportunity to indicate my disappointment. I am sure that some major violations must be behind this unprecendented policing on a forum that was essentially community driven. Sorry to leave, since Wikipedia used to be my favorite knowledge source. But confused because of the completely unfair accusation that no one bothered to check with a simple url search of our work. Good luck to you, and if you choose to not unblock the id, that is fine too. We do not have to spend time contributing to Wikipedia. That's completely optional and coming from a desire to improve community based knowledge work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.128.99 (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

This apparently refers to User:Eshabraille/Esha - People for the Blind. The process for being unblocked is explained on your user talk page at User talk:Eshabraille; you should not be editing under an IP address while blocked. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Eshabraille: no "unprecendented policing" has occurred. Wikipedia is not a "forum", it is an encyclopedia, and has rules. One of these is G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion: the fact that the business or activity promoted is non-profit does not provide an exception. This is why the article was deleted. Another is Promotional names: "Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product" are not permitted. This is why your username was blocked. s were blocked. A third is Using multiple accounts: "it is recommended that contributors not use multiple accounts without good reason": you appear to have controlled an account named "Eshabraille/Esha - People for the Blind" and another named "Eshabraille". If you still want to contribute to Wikipedia, you should create a new account, with a name that does not suggest a connection with any organisation, and write a short note on its user page explaining that the account is controlled by the same person who one controlled the blocked account. those two blocked accounts (and any other accounts you may have used) Maproom (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Maproom : I think you'll find that there is no user named "Eshabraille/Esha - People for the Blind". User:Eshabraille/Esha - People for the Blind was the user subpage which was deleted under G11. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

David Biddulph, you are right, thank you for pointing it out. I have struck the erroneous parts of what I wrote above. Maproom (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Eshabraille, I am the admin who deleted your draft article and blocked your account. I'll post a detailed response to your talk page, but it may be a day or two because I'm busy with family stuff. If you post a message on your talk page, which you can still edit, I will see it if you start it with {{u|Jimfbleak}} and sign it with four tildes ~~~~. Don't post messages elsewhere while you are blocked, as advised above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If any one is interested, I've now replied here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

how can i make a bot for my some hard works?

hello there. im a member of Iran wiki project. i need a wiki bot for some reasons . if its possible i naada make a bot to add some templates or categories for Iran related articles. for example for adding Template:history of Iran, its hard to add article-by article among hundreds of articles which are adding day-by-day. if you could help me it will be nice of you . tnx anyway Amir Muhammad 10:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@AmirMuhammad1: WP:BIDIRECTIONAL says: "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional."

{{History of Iran}} should not be added to an article like Arash. Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser can help with some repetitive tasks. You can use it yourself or ask others at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. If you want to run a bot then you have to code it yourself and get approval to run it. You can request bot runs by others at Wikipedia:Bot requests. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Difficult to use

Wikipedia is enormously difficult to use for a casual reader like me. It seems I must already be an expert on a subject in order to understand all the terminology and use the hyperlinks. For that reason, I don't often rely on your service for an explanation of something I don't understand. Wikipedia is not for the layman. I guess that must be the appeal.

I do wish that articles were not so terribly technical so that I could get something out of them. Sorry, I'm just a humble high school graduate with an intense interest in science especially, but Wikipedia seems to be for professionals and experts only.

I'm not even sure if this was the right place to post my concerns, and I don't see any way to get a reply. Oh, well. I wish your site was easier to navigate. Every other word seems to be a hyperlink. What's a dummy to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:900:FED:AD19:3628:EFB9:3596 (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You could try Simple English Wikipedia if the article content is too technical. Simple English Wikipedia is useful for getting a basic overview of a subject without delving too deep into the nitty-gritty like English Wikipedia articles tend to do. Compare simple:Quantum mechanics and Quantum mechanics. clpo13_(talk) 17:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, some articles have simplified introductions, such as Introduction to quantum mechanics. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly how many words should have hyperlinks is not always obvious. Underlinking and overlinking are both problems. For instance, linking to ordinary commonly used words is distracting to readers who are fluent in English (as we assume that most of our readers are). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If an article uses too many technical terms for an ordinary person to understand, you can edit the article and add {{jargon}} at the top, and/or share your concerns on that article’s Talk page, to make editors aware of the problem. Rest assured that the overuse of confusing language is discouraged on Wikipedia, and those responsible have been sacked. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Is reliability necessary for verifiability?

I’m having a disagreement with a fellow editor, User:Shaddim, over whether reliable sources are necessary to satisfy WP:Verifiability. He claims that for most cases, the reliability of the source (personal blogs, TVTropes, user comments) is irrelevant as long as we provide the source, and the readers can follow the link and judge for themselves. Is he mistaken, or have I been misunderstanding WP:V all this time? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources are required to establish notability. Such sources are required to verify article content.--ukexpat (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

My argumentation is that for establishing notability and the making of strong, controversial statements we need strong, secondary, reliable sources. For many other simpler, non-controversial aspects weaker primary sources can be used when carfully formulated, fullfilling NPOV and giving a balanced point of view. For the here required careful work we have the oversight of the many authors' eyes and the talk pages, so that authors can come up with suitable formulations in consens which fit the WP requirements. The disagreement started when 67.14.236.50 started to pave non-controversial articles with non-reliable source tags for minor aspects and primary source backed aspects after I improved them after long time dormancy. I would have hoped improving the article itself by bringing more content and sources instead of policy tags. I argued than for an differentiated handling, a content creation friendly interpretation of the policies, specifically "verficability", while 67.14.236.50 seem to argue for a content-negative strict and literal interpretation of the policies (especially focussing on the "reliable source" aspect). I consider the "verficability by the reader" the major aspect and the relible source an ideal/optimum guideline only, while 67.14.236.50 focusses on the "reliable sources" aspect (ignoring the verificability aspect). I appeal here to common sense, that in the light of dwindeling WP authors we need encouraging polcies and policy interpretations, or the project to create a repository of human knowledge will continue to stagnate. Shaddim (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK Wikipedia would rather have "stagnant", reliable, information, rather than "dynamic", unreliable, information - Arjayay (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, WP should be reliable itself, while this is a (unreachable) vision. The first line of defense is being verifiable, the second is author cross-check. The policy of using if possible more "reliable" sources is only the cream on the top. In general, we don't have an reliability crisis (beside maybe in political laden topics) or problem, see the quality comparisons WP vs Britannica, we have an content and author crisis. Policies should encourage (new) content authors not the "other ones" Shaddim (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm, no. You are basically suggesting to turn Wikipedia into a giant index of sources on various topics. That would actually be a nice project IMO, but it would not be an encyclopedia. Shaddim, if you want to invoke WP:IAR, do it, but remember the "if it improves the encyclopedia" part - the attrition of active editors is probably never a good reason to WP:IAR.

Since you appeal to common sense, I will apply to yours: when reading an entry in an encyclopedia or a textbook, do you have access to all the source material condensed in that entry, and do you expect to have to check all of it because whoever wrote the entry takes no responsibility whatsoever about what it contains? No. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

First, to refer to just "encyclopedic" (WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC) is by itself empty, we have to refer to what is the vision here for being "encyclopedic". I refer to the original vision of Jimbo of WP as "sum of all human knowledge", anything else are secondary, derived goals. And no, I don't suggest we should become a source repositry (only) I suggest we should interprete WP:V properly which is mainly about "verifiabiltiy" and only secondary about "reliable sources": "have sources! And ideally, use sources who can be assumed to be a little bit more reliable (secondary independent sources), but this is just a hope---". "and do you expect to have to check all of it because whoever wrote the entry takes no responsibility whatsoever about what it contains? No." That is the exactly the opposite to what I referred: I say we should have strong authorship, who do source oversight and do careful formulation backed by sources which can be (and should be) followed by responsible readers. While our quality policies still can't guarantee truth, as there are no real reliable sources, only less or more reliable sources, we can at least guarantee a good starting point by being "verifiability". Over-focussing & getting lost on secondary goals (like wasting too much time in definition what is and what is not a reliable source or an "notability") don't bring us forward in the main goal, creating a repository of the sum of all human knowledge, where it seems we are just at 5% while we still fail to bring in enough new authors to compensate for the lost ones. Shaddim (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Reliability of the sources is secondary? Oh, that must be why WP:5P2 says All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources (emphasis added).

I will not bother answering the rest. Whether you like it or not, your vision does not agree with the current consensus. If you want to change it, go and have a try at WP:VPP, but do not unilaterally violate policy because you don't feel like it or because that is not what (you think) the Founding Fathers envisioned. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, nothing else than easy and comfortable three-letter policy dropping. A serious answering of the raised question seems to burdensome, so indeed better stay out here. And about your emphasiszes, you emphasize the wrong parts I will help you with a properly commented variant: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy [the vision & goal, an ideal], citing reliable, authoritative sources [the preferred recommended method, but just method to achieve the vision, among others, not the goal itself], especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons." [in this cases strongly encouraged, therefore not mandatory in others] Shaddim (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

This may be your opinion, your personal interpretation of the rules—but unless that is the consensus view, it’s meaningless here. If the consensus is that reliable sources are important and necessary for verifiability, then they are. And that seems to be the consensus. If you want to propose that we change longstanding rules in order to appeal to new editors… I doubt anyone would be persuaded by that rationale, but good luck with that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't debate the value of "more reliable sources", I'm very well inside the consensus that they are important as we should strive for them. But as the the five pillar rule indicate "reliable sources" are an ideal, especially recommended for "controversial and living people", but as often with ideals, they are not achievable always in reality. The major disagreement is that "strive for" is interpreted by some overly strict as synonymous with "mandatory", which is not backed by the 5pillar rule and the other policies if carefully read. And also that "reliable" is tried by some to be classified as binary property, but in reality sources are inside a realiability continuum, being a more or less reliable source. Shaddim (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

That is not what is explicitly stated, and that is not the consensus view. Again, if you would endeavor to change that, go ahead—but not through disruption. You should WP:LISTEN to the consensus shared by everyone who has responded here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@67.14.236.50|67.14.236.50: I refer to the five pillar, you refer to your overly strict interpretation. I suggest YOU strive for a change of the 5 pillars to a formulation which includes the word "mandatory" and gives the "reliable sources" the weight you would like to give them. Currently, they are just mentioned as a method (among others) for achieving "verifiable accuracy", specifically for the sensitive cases "controversial" and "persons", not more, not less. Shaddim (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Think on the crumbling edge of quality. We aim for 100% and end up with about 80%, because we know that if we aim for 80% we will get about 65% to 70% on a good day. So, no thanks. Britmax (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Spam e-mail

I received a Spam e-mail stating that you have $15,500,000 for me to obtain. I don't believe it but would like to notify you that someone is using your company name to obtain personal information on individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.198.28.28 (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It is a very common internet scam. Ruslik_Zero 20:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• You had good intentions, but your message is actually worsening the problem. There is not much anyone can do to prevent such impersonation, so your notification just adds another layer of spam. That is the non-automated equivalent of Backscatter (email). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Login without password and email

I created a Wikipedia page to to enter for wiki loves earth(wla) but unfortunately I forgot the password of my account.while creating an account,it is optional to provide an email id, I did not... My username is awesomepeople113. I cannot re upload the images as the dead line is crossed. Just in case I win the competition, how will I be in up formed or told about it? Is there any way to login without a password or email? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.152.208 (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If you can prove that you own the account, the system administrators can return it to you. Ruslik_Zero 20:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ruslik_zero, how to do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.152.208 (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think they very rarely do that in special cases like accounts with thousands of edits or extra user rights. Special:CentralAuth/Awesomepeople113 shows three Commons uploads and no other edits to any Wikimedia site. I'm afraid you just have to forget about the account and competition. commons:Commons:Wiki Loves Earth 2016/Rules says your account must have an email address so I assume you cannot participate and your images will not be considered, at least not on any shortlist of candidates. commons:Category:Images from Wiki Loves Earth 2016 in India has more than 30000 images so it would have been hard to win anyway. You are welcome to create a new account and continue to contribute to Commons or other Wikimedia wikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The Gerry Zaragemca article

The removed the edit feature in the article, Gerry Z, all the other articles still have the edit feature on them.aragemca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.253.122.66 (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia page are you referring to, IP user? Gerry Zaragemca has never been created, although his name is mentioned in List of jazz fusion musicians, which is not a protected page. Joseph2302 20:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

New link colors in my watchlist

Some of the page links in my watchlist have started appearing with a new color, it seems to me approximately DarkSlateBlue instead of the more usual link color like this approximately.

What is the meaning? The Help link on the watch list doesn't mention it. M.boli (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

They are pages your browser remembers you have visited. See Help:Link color. If the links are bold then the different color may be more noticeable. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems you are right. Thank you! I remain confused, it has picked some pages that I think I haven't visited in a long time, and clearing the history didn't help it. But viewing my watchlist in a different browser did clear the problem. So it seems indeed to be what you say. M.boli (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You can also test that the blue links turn dark blue when you click them. The browser setting to forget you have visited the pages may be different from the browser cache which stores the content of the pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The combination visited and bolded links were indeed the ones that caught my eye. In the watchlist the bolded links are ones that have changed since the most recent login (from this browser). I found the visited-links list, cleared out all en.wikipedia.org, and it resolved. They went back half a year to a year, in my estimation. Thanks muchly for the advice! M.boli (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The bold watchlist links are actually those that have changed since you last visited them while logged in. It's controlled by Wikipedia's servers and doesn't depend on your browser. If you didn't see them bolded until a week ago then you are probably affected by the issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#New bolding in watchlist. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Bingo! That's it. And indeed that's right about when I started noticing the weirdness. M.boli (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Request edit

Hi. I did a search for information on the punk rock band Rancid's album called "Indestructible" & on the wiki page for it there is a list of all the tracks on the album. Song #3 on the list is called "Red Hot Moon". Under the writers of the song it states that Armstrong, Rob Aston, Fredricksen & Brett Reed are the writers however I have found on numerous lyric search websites & iHeartRadio that the writers for this song are Vince Neil, Mick Mars & Nikki Sixx(of Motley Crue). I'm not sure what to believe at this point but all of those different lyric search engines can't possibly ALL be wrong. Am hoping that you can clear this up for me, especially considering that Rancid AND Motley Crue are two of my all time favorite bands despite how different their music is from the other. Thank you so much for your time, Lenise Lafleur of New Jersey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.161.21 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I suspect you are confusing the songs "Red Hot" from Shout at the Devil (Mötley Crüe album) and "Red Hot Moon" from Indestructible (Rancid album). Do you have a link saying there is a Mötley Crüe song called "Red Hot Moon"? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)