Help desk
< September 6	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 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.

September 7[edit]

ford gt history[edit]

Just a quick one the article about Australian ford GT,s history states the ford xt gt having 239 hp is incorrect it was 230hp. Just a reader wanting to keep it accurate.

cheers Alan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.22.250.208 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source (absolutely essential), you can edit the article yourself. See WP:REFB for a guide to citing sources. Please sign your posts on talk-pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Posting[edit]

I am trying to post a bio page for my boss but once I posted it, it got deleted. How can I post it without it being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamShaniJohnson (talk • contribs) 01:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TeamShaniJohnson:

Please see Why was my page deleted? The most common reasons are:

To find the specific reason a particular page was deleted:

Go to the Deletion Log
Type the page title in the case-sensitive search field
The date, time and reason for deletion will be displayed

Also, please sign your post by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button above the edit box which looks like this:

. Do not sign in articles. Ppp ery 01:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the deletion log can be found at Shani Johnson. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, you don't, TeamShaniJohnson. Of all the people in the world who might edit Wikipedia, the person who above all should not edit an article on Shani Johnson is Shani Johnson. Closely behind are the friends, relative, employees, and associates of Shani Johnson. Wikipedia is not here for anybody to advertise themselves. It also has essentially no interest in what anybody (or their friends relatives, associates, or employees) say about them. If we have an article on anybody, it should be based almost 100% on what people who have no connection with the person have published about them. So an article on Shani Johnson should summarise (without just copying) the contents of several substantial pieces about Johnson, written by people who have no connection (and excluding any articles based on interviews or press releases) and published in reliable places such as major newspapers. The article should itself be written by people who have no connection with Johnson - see COI for why - and summarise neutrally what these independent sources say. Johnson and Johnson's employees will have no control over the contents of Wikipedia's article, though they may make suggestion on its talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change title of Barry Andrews (politician) to Barry Andrews (humanitarian)[edit]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello,

I am looking at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Andrews_(politician)

I would like to submit a request to change the title of the page to Barry Andrews (humanitarian).

He hasn't been in politics since 2011 and is head of a NGO charity organization in Ireland for several years now.

^[1]

Goal2016 (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But he is primarily notable to history as a politician, not as a NGO head (and "humanitarian" is damned egotistical). --Orange Mike | Talk 11:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of that term in brackets is solely to distinguish him from any other Barry Andrews, not to make a statement about him, Goal2016. As Orangemike says, a neutral description matching how he is covered in the sources is most appropriate. Having said that, you are welcome to make the case for changing the title at Requested moves. --ColinFine (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.goalglobal.org/about-us/team/filter/senior-management

Referencing errors on Laxminarayan College, Jharsuguda[edit]

Reference help requested. Thanks, Susant purohit (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A number of subsequent corrections have been made. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allowable number of requested moves?[edit]

Hi! Is there an official or rule-of-thumb allowable number of requested move nominations? Let's say that a requested move did not generate much discussion and simply ended with "No consensus". Can the nominator against request that same move? Is there a certain amount of time the nominator should let elapse before doing this? Is there some other action that can/should be taken? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule of thumb is "don't be disruptive". I would think immediately relisting a No-Consensus request that had little discussion would generally not fall into that category, as the requestor could just be wanting a definite yes/no. Every situation is unique of course, so the specific circumstances would be more of a consideration than this hypothetical. Crow^Caw 17:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say to wait a month before re-requesting. If a request ended up with no-consensus and generated little discussion the first time round it's not likely to generate significantly more 24 hours later. Additionally any comments that were made to the previous request will still be valid to a new one, so will just be duplicating opinion and be pointless. I'm reminded of Cheryl (entertainer) who has had at least 7 officially requested moves, and four within the space of three months. That became so annoying that a 3 month moratorium was placed on move requests as they were deemed disruptive. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What links here - hide transclusions[edit]

So, I'm looking at an article that is listed in two navboxes that are used on hundreds of articles. I want to know what, if any, articles link directly to the article in question. However, when I click the link in Special:WhatLinksHere that is supposed to hide transclusions I still get a bunch of articles that only link there in the context of transcluding one or both of the navboxes.

Reading Help:What links here indicates that clicking hide transclusions should eliminate those. Is it broken? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Hide transclusions" for page A will hide pages which transclude page A itself (mostly useful when A is a template), but not hide pages that transclude a template with a link to A. The latter is a frequently requested feature. Here are some of the requests:

PrimeHunter (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.goalglobal.org/about-us/team/filter/senior-management

[1]