Help desk
< January 23	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 24[edit]

Blocked accound = lost editted pages?[edit]

Hello, guys! I created a profile and made some editing to a page. Then my account was blocked because of my username. I've changed it but the editing I've made with the previous username was lost. Is is true? Or I should wait for the admin to approve my name and then to unblock the edited content?

Thank you.

Best Regards, Nikqt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikqt (talk • contribs)

@Nikqt: You appear confused. Ordinary users cannot change their username. They can only request that others with a certain user right do it. I suspect you just created a new account with another name and abandoned the old account but it's hard to say when you don't reveal the username or the page it edited. The edits of the old account will still be attributed to it. If you have already created the new username you want then the old account cannot be renamed to it, unless the new account is first renamed to something else. Somebody at User talk:Nikqt thinks you have two other acounts User:Bulgarian Memory Foundation and User:SimeonVeliki. Is that true, and which name do you actually want? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nikqt. Edits can't get lost: they will still be there in the history (except in the rare occasions where an admin decides to expunge them for legal reasons, such as libel or copyright infringement). What's probably happened is that somebody reverted your edits, because they thought they were not an improvement. Look in the History of whatever page you edited, and you can see which User reverted your edit. If you are lucky, they will have left an edit summary saying why they did so. If they didn't or if you disagree, you can start a discussion with them on the article's talk page. See BRD for how this works. --ColinFine (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting all pages in a category and subcategory[edit]

how to do so? Artix Kreiger (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you want Wikipedia:PetScan. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject assessments[edit]

Hello, I recently created an artice and added it to some wikiprojects. I was wondering if I had to request an assessment on the wikiproject page(s) or if it would be assesed if I didn't, and if so, if I had to request a review from each wikiproject or just one. Thanks! LittlePuppers (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LittlePuppers, every WikiProject has its own characteristics and you'll have to visit each project page to understand how they initiate assessment. For example, the Bible project has an automatic updating system of articles that require assessment. So while you don't have to do anything and hope that someone will assess, it always helps to request someone to assess the article. The Christianity project has no automatic updation of any list that I could find. The Lutheranism project has a manual request page for assessments. All of these are information I collated from the respective project page – which you should also do in the future. In my view, the material that you have collated on your article Evangelical Heritage Version seems good for a WP:DYK and later a WP:Good article. Why don't you work on those asap rather than just on the project assessments? Thanks, Lourdes 03:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for all the help! I'll probably work on that tonight - it's getting a little late for a WP:DYK, so if I want to do that I should get working on it right away. LittlePuppers (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and WikiTribune in conflict[edit]

This is an ongoing situation arising out of the Wikipedia article on Certificate of Life

The position is as follows: In 2016 following the incident with my local council (as I reported it in WikiTribune three days ago) I documented in Wikipedia the correct approach, the procedure and the legal reasons why and how a Certificate of Life could be obtained from a UK local authority. I wrote this from personal knowledge and through my understanding of the rules and laws surrounding the matter - I am a barrister who was in private practice for many decades with considerable experience and knowledge of the law and the practice of law. I wrote this up as information to help anyone else who ran into the problem and so that council official could approach the problem in the correct manner. I wrote this up as a neutral point of view.

In 2018, as a pilot contribution to the new WikiTribune I wrote an essay explaining how Wikipedia could be used to improve bureaucracy basing it upon this incident. This was submitted to the professional editors at WikiTribune who decided to publish it. As a result of it being published a editor on Wikipedia decided to remove my explanations to the Certificate of Life article on the grounds that the source of the information was not from a legal publication or other similar source. This has nulified what was a useful resource for the public, for pensioners who wish to obtain certificates of life and for local councils. There is no other source of valid information which can be cited.

But up until my article appeared in WikiTribune the "unsubstantied addition" had been up there and had been a useful resource for everyone for well over a year ! Its removal might well be considered an example of rule based myopia which can get in the way of the true aims and objectives of a trusted public encyclopedia contributed to by civil minded citizens.

As a result of the back and forth Peter Bale, the Launch Editor of WikiTribune has taken down the article "pending a further look at how it came to be and the interaction with Wikipedia." I support this action with the caveat that if WikiTribune is to counter “fake news” then we need some way of working co-operatively with Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors so that Wikipedia accepts content from WikiTribune as reliable and true. My take on this is that Wikipedia should treat an article on WikiTribune which has gone through its editorial processes in the same way as it treats an article from a mainstream broadsheet or magazine such as the Telegraph or the Spectator. To do that WikiTribune probably needs a hierarchy of contributors who are themselves rated for honesty, truth and reliability – a bit like an eBay rating system but operated by the WT professional editors. I edit and write under my own name. I maintain a public presence (www.alikelman.com). I am accountable for my actions and inactions. Just like professional journalists – except that they can write better than I can.AlistairKelman (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: OP believes, with some justification, that WikiTribune should be considered a reliable source.
- Please take this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Those guys can prpbably help you. Let the other party know you are doing this, and I suspect you can resolve it amicably. -Arch dude (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Related Discussion: User talk:AlistairKelman --Guy Macon (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal knowledge and background has no relevence to Wikipedia.

Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date[edit]

I've noticed that a lot of references don't work any more or are out of date. What are we supposed to do? Find new references and get rid of the old ones? Ramesty (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ramesty, what you need to do with deadlinks is see if there is a way to save them. A lot can be updated using the internet archives. You can also read more about how to prevent linkrot here. NZFC^(talk) 02:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to correct the edit summary of an edit of mine while leaving the edit itself alone?[edit]

I've just made an edit to Bhagwan Dada but I wanted to add "in 1956" to my edit summary. Since I didn't know how to do that I undid my edit and then undid my undo while correcting the edit summary. I guess that's a clumsy way to go about it but I noticed you can't force a new edit with a null edit and so you can't correct you edit summary that way. (And that wasn't ideal either since the edit summary of the original edit indicated the section of the page I made an edit to while the corrected version doesn't.) So my question is: Is there a way to just correct the edit summary? And if not, why not? Thanks. Basemetal 04:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Basemetal, editors are not allowed to re-edit an edit summary after they have published it – there are many reasons for that, including retaining history logs. Of course, egregious edit summaries can be revision deleted. You'll find helpful advise at Help:Edit summary#Fixing. Thanks, Lourdes 04:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BaD lUcK wiTH LInkS?[edit]

So I'm following someone around fixing links they've broken and... they include links broken only due to capitalization weirdness?

News Radio and News radio are different?

Public affairs and Public affairs are different? Note however, if you type each of those links verbatim into the search box they resolve to the same page.

Others links that editor incorrectly capitalized are protected by existing redirects, such as Religious Broadcasting and Religious broadcasting.

Is it that a redirect is needed for every case of "Public Affairs (broadcasting)" vs. "Public affairs (broadcasting)"?

Is there no bright spark here that can find the obvious "New Radio" vs. "News radio" mismatches and work toward resolving those? (though encouraging the bot people brings shudders) Shenme (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The note you left on the user's talk page ought to suffice, since the fault is with them. If it falls on deaf ears things can be escalated. I'm not sure that a multitude of redirects for every article is the solution. As for the search box, I'm not sure if that's entirely case-sensitive. nagualdesign 08:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page names and wikilinks are case sensitive except the first character and the namespace. News Radio and News radio are different pages with different content. Your "Public affairs and Public affairs" are piped links to Public Affairs (broadcasting) and Public affairs (broadcasting). These are different. The search box is not case sensitive. If two exact matches exist apart from capitalization then it will pick one of them with an algorithm I don't know. For example, "NEWS Radio" will go to News radio although News Radio is closer in capitalization. There is no feature which will see "New Radio" without "s" and go to "News radio". PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, your last sentence only makes sense if you missed that there was a typo, where I dropped an 's', after having typed it correctly above. This is perhaps more a policy question, then, as having News Radio and News radio 'different' is clearly confusing, distracting, and not to anyone's benefit. Should these resolve to an intervening disambiguation page? Combined? Shenme (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article posting problem[edit]

Hello,

I posted an article on my User page regarding Desmoplastic infantile astrocytoma/ganglioglioma. However, I am not sure if it was the right place to post and if it is under review now. Could you please help me to post my article? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KubraAkkaya (talk • contribs) 13:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: I think the best way forward is to make that a live article. Can you please move it? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not in its current state. The OP has been given advice on the user talk page, so can sort out those problems which haven't been sorted out by other editors. There is no hurry. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, I just hope it doesn't disappear forever by timing-out. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template substitution[edit]

I'd like to know how if statements are supposed to be handled when a template is substituted (as opposed to transcluded). If I write {{subst:Example|var=Some content}} and Template:Example contains the following if statement: {{#if:{{{var|}}}|{{{var}}}}} I would expect to see, after substitution, Some content but instead I get {{#if:Some content}}. Either mark-up produces the same result, but it's odd to see the if showing in the mark-up after substitution. Am I doing something wrong? nagualdesign 13:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagualdesign: Templates can be written to substitute neatly, but it takes effort: each parser function has to be separately marked as "to be substituted". There's an example in {{uw-vandalism1}}, and documentation at Help:Substitution#Technical implementation. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading Help:Substitution#Technical implementation earlier but found it a little opaque. Your example is much more helpful. So am I right in thinking that this would work: {{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{var|}}}|{{{var}}}}} ? nagualdesign 15:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A little opaque" is an understatement. Yes, that looks right. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Worked like a charm. Thanks, John. nagualdesign 15:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John of Reading: Any idea how to substitute or transclude a newline? I don't mean by adding <br /> or similar, I mean I want to optionally produce a linebreak within the substituted/transcluded mark-up. By having the if statement on one line it works nicely, but if there's nothing to transclude (no var) it passes a blank line. It's driving me nuts! nagualdesign 16:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagualdesign: I'm not sure what you are asking here, but remember that you have a newline just before the {{#if. That will be copied to the output whether of not there is a var. If that's not what you want, you could remove it. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've sussed it, finally. Newlines within an if statement are preserved unless they're at the start or end. So this:

First line of text

{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{var|}}}|{{{var}}} and other text}}

Last line of text

When substituted becomes:

First line of text

Some content and other text

Last line of text

But if var isn't specified:

First line of text

← this line is left blank, which I wanted to avoid

Last line of text

The only solution was to split the if in the middle:

First line of {{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{var|}}}|text

{{{var}}} and other}} text

Last line of text

Which when substituted becomes:

First line of text

Some content and other text

Last line of text

And if var isn't specified:

First line of text

Last line of text

The genericized examples shown here are much less elegant than the actual solution but you get the idea. Phew! That took me over an hour and a half to fathom. nagualdesign 17:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a wikipedia Page[edit]

Hi, Our company does not have a wikipedia page. We have one written and sources as well. How do I go about starting one? Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwagner58 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Kwagner58. I'm afraid that, like many people, you are misunderstanding what Wikipedia is: it is an encyclopaedia, not a directory or advertising medium. Not one company in the world has a Wikipedia page: Wikipedia has articles about many companies, provided there is sufficient information about the company published by people unconnected with the company to ground such an article (the Wikipedia jargon for this is that the company is notable). An article about a company should contain very little material from the company itself, and the company and its associates have no control whatever over its contents (they are welcome to make suggestions on the article's talk page).

Added to that creating an acceptable article is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia.

My suggestion would be that if all you want to do is get something up about yourselves, you give up: if your company meets the criteria for notability, then eventually somebody will create an article about it. You could post a request at [[WP:Requested articles|], but in all honesty, it is rather hit and miss whether a volunteer chooses to pick up a request.

If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest you take The Wikipedia Adventure to learn about editing it, and when you feel you have enough experience to try creating an article, read your first article.

If you are determined to go ahead and try to create an article about your own company, you must read about conflict of interest, and make the declaration required for paid editors. Then find some independent sources about your company, forget every single thing you know about the company, and write a neutral draft based solely on what the independent sources say.

I'm sorry that this may come over as negative; but what you are wanting to do is discouraged. --ColinFine (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter answer: Don't do it. Thanks. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a template for "citations don't exist"?[edit]

Hello,

I'm working on the article Sonic Eraser. The game is very unknown and no trustworthy sources cover the game (only wikis). There is a +R template on the page right now but I don't think that fits the situation, as the situation is more "references don't exist at the moment". Does this kind of template exist, and if so, what is it? ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 16:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a lack of reliable sources is generally a sign that something is not notable. As far as I know there are no templates as you describe, and I believe such a template would violate WP:notability. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I initially thought that too, but I think anything that has a giant mascot like Sonic the Hedgehog in it is notable enough. The problem isn't that no sources cover it, it's just no reviews or explanations exist that aren't either a wiki or fan-made, and that's partially due to both how obscure and how old the game is. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 16:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...I think anything that has a giant mascot like Sonic the Hedgehog in it is notable enough... - I would say that line of reasoning goes against WP:INHERITED, P*h3i. If there are no reviews or explanations [except] wiki or fan-made, it pretty much disproves any presumption of notability that the presence of a "big name" would bring, and in any case WP:V overrules notability. I do not have enough familiarity with the topic and subject to make an informed assessment of that particular case, but I would not be suprised if the article was nominated for deletion. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... WP:VGRS custom search don't look hopeful. But no. There is no such template, because in a case where reliable sources simply don't exist, the correct option is to delete the article. Maybe there's something out there in the old Nintendo Power type print video game magazines. If not, then we simply shouldn't have an article on it. GMG ^talk 17:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog (where it is already mentioned) seems like a sensible option. No need for AfD for that. Dorsetonian (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@P*h3i: This is real simple.

Show me 3 newspapers/books that talk about it in detail, or GTFO.

WP:VRS, it's not rocket science. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@86.20.193.222: Being civil is not optional. nagualdesign 20:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for responding to my comment. Please could you elaborate on why you apparently believe that my comment was lacking civility. Many sugar-coated thanks. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GTFO is not civil. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I have many points as to why it is occasionally appropriate to use such an abbreviation within the context of a 'spam' user, but all such discussion is not appropriate to the helpdesk. Feel free to raise the issue on another venue (such as ANI or wherever you feel is appropriate). Best, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@86.20.193.222: Uh, how exactly am I a spam user? I created the article Sonic Eraser not taking into account that there was a lack of media coverage in English on it. I don't understand how that constitutes as spam. Also, we already were having a conversation where we were getting somewhere, all you did was repeat a point but rather forcefully. Please remember WP:GOODFAITH. I really don't appreciate getting an aggressive reply when all I meant was a donation of information. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 23:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to reply further to the IP, they've been blocked for unrelated reasons. They can be safely ignored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of satirical news websites[edit]

Hi there.

Is anyone interested in helping out somebody who doesn't want to become a wiki editor?

I think I've managed to update the page that lists satire websites to include my site 'Unconfirmed Reports' but can't figure out how to create the page it should link to? Plus, there's already a page called Unconfirmed Reports, so that's an extra complication.

Would anybody like to help out, pretty please??

Best wishes, Mick Collier.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickcollier (talk • contribs) 24 January 2018 22:44 (UTC)

@Mickcollier: Hello Mick, I'm sorry to say that your edit to the page has had to be removed. The list referred to is only for sites that are considered notable in the Wikipedia sense and thus the encyclopedia has a page about them. You state that the site is 'yours' and you therefore need to read WP:COI and make the necessary disclosures. You can request that an article be written at Wikipedia:Requested articles but it would not be 'your' page and you would not have control over what it contained. Wikipedia has little, if any, interest in what a subject has to say about itself but rather reports on what has been written about the topic in independent reliable sources. If your site is successful it will attract attention and in due course an editor will create a page about it. Good luck. In the meantime some helpful links have been left at your talk page. Eagleash (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short Summary and Line Color error[edit]

For some reason, when I try to create my episode lists, the line color and the short summary part don't show up. It keeps doing this and I've been doing everything I can and it still won't render. HELP! SyndicaterUI78 (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SyndicaterUI78: I couldn't find any relevant edits in your recent contributions. Please link to a page with the problem. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Here's an article: Draft:List of Sid the Science Kid episodes. Thank you. SyndicaterUI78 (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SyndicaterUI78: The unnamed parameter of {{Episode list/sublist}} must be the page name (without any namespace) where you want the summary to be displayed. The summary will not be displayed on other pages (such as pages transcluding the code). I guess you have prepared the parameter for a later move to mainspace with code like {{Episode list/sublist|Sid the Science Kid (season 1)|...}}. But that means the summary is not displayed on Draft:List of Sid the Science Kid episodes. You can write this instead: {{Episode list/sublist|List of Sid the Science Kid episodes|...}}. But then you must remember to update the code after moving it to Sid the Science Kid (season 1). You can check that the current version displays the summary when previewed there.

You could also write {{Episode list/sublist|{{PAGENAME}}|...}}. That displays the summary on all pages. After moving the code to Sid the Science Kid (season 1) or anywhere else, replace {{PAGENAME}} with {{subst:PAGENAME}}. This will make MediaWiki save the actual page name instead of the code {{subst:PAGENAME}}, to prevent the summary from displaying in a page like List of Sid the Science Kid episodes if it transcludes Sid the Science Kid (season 1). Does that make sense? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Yes, that makes sense. Thanks for the assistance! SyndicaterUI78 (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]