Help desk
< June 24	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 26 >

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 25[edit]

How do I cite repeated references in talk pages?[edit]

There are duplicate references in a discussion in Noah's Ark talk page, in the section, "Myth vs account or story controversy". How are they supposed to be cited? In articles the ref is given a name but I think that doesn't work in talk pages unless, most likely, I did something wrong. Thinker78 (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refs on talk pages should ordinarily be forced into the section of the page the has the ref. This is done by adding {{reflist talk}} to the end of a section if that section has refs. Within a section, then, you consolidate refs using names, just as you would within an article. -Arch dude (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you show me with the repeated ref of Pewforum? I tried to refname last time and I wasn't able to in the talk page. Thinker78 (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I edited the section for you. -Arch dude (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arch dude Is this procedure followed also when the ref is basically the same except on the pages seen (see the Historia de Villena refs at Marquisate of Villena)? If so, how? Thinker78 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the technique to be used on talk pages is any different than in articles. There are multiple approaches. If a technique is already in use in the article, the editor should use it. Otherwise, the first editor is free to pick one. Presumably, one important reason to use references on a talk page is to make that reference available to incorporate into the article, so I think it's prudent to use the same technique on the talk page that is used in the article. See WP:REFPAGE. I like to use {{rp}}. -Arch dude (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help:please cite the work for me / God's Creation Equilibrium of Easter Celebration[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonia Ezemonye (talk • contribs) 25 June 2018 10:03 (UTC)

@Anthonia Ezemonye: Please provide a link to a page where you are encountering difficulty. I cannot see an edit in your edit history to a related page. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect link[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_John%27s_School,_Leatherhead#Notable_Old_Johnians

The link to the Old Johnians on here is incorrect (it links to the notable former pupils of a different school). The category link is correct. How do I remove the incorrect link without removing the whole section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SJS1851 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SJS1851: Can you clarify please? The link to Old Johnians goes to List of people educated at St John's School, Leatherhead. Is there a problem with an individual entry (or multiple entries)? Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The names on that page are actually the former pupils of Hurstpierpoint College (the confusion seems to be because former pupils of both schools are called 'Old Johnians'). The sane list and information is correctly presented on their page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Johnians_(Hurstpierpoint_College)

The page has been incorrectly linked and attributed to St John's School, Leatherhead.

SJS1851 (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed I changed the link in the Leatherhead one to point directly to the correct article. Also created a disambiguation page at Old Johnians to cater for both using the same term but being different places. No doubt there will be other places that have Old Johnians too in the future. - X201 (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There still seems to remain, the problem of List of people educated at St John's School, Leatherhead which contains the apparently duplicated information. Shpuld this go to WP:AfD with a suitable explanation? Eagleash (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about autopatrolled[edit]

Hello. I was thinking of applying for autoparolled once I reach 25 articles, (Currently at 16.) However I have a question. Does it matter what the article is rated as? Like does it needed to be 25 good articles, or is 25 articles with zero problems but are rated Start-Class enough? Your help will be appreciated. Thank you. In Memoriam A.H.H.^{What, you egg?}.

@In Memoriam A.H.H.: It doesn't have to be WP:GA "good," just "no serious problems in the initial posting." Copyvios, BLP violations, and insufficient sourcing to prove notability would be serious problems. A few typos or non-page-breaking formatting issues that WP:GNOMEs will take care of don't/shouldn't count as "serious problems." It only makes sense for it to apply to initial postings instead of later revisions, otherwise autopatrolled would be identical to autoconfirmed.

Looking over the past several articles you cranked out in the past month, your initial postings mostly look like what would result from my usual advice on how to write articles (though my advice is overly strict on primary sources links to counter new users' tendency to cite only those if anything, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for you). I'm almost inclined to throw the autopatrolled right at you based on those. However:

I am a little concerned about the Youtube links. I totally get their relevance and I'm assuming that 90 year old cartoons from collapsed animation studios are public domain but something at least on the talk page (if not a sourced line in the article) proving that there's no longer any copyright would prevent any potential disputes.
While you have learned a lot since you first started, some of your earliest articles (such as LA Law: The Computer Game) were abandoned in an unsatisfactory state. Some of them (like Loadstar: The Legend of Tully Bodine) were improved to a "good enough" point -- but mostly thanks to other editors saving the article. You don't need to go back and fix those, I wouldn't count them against you, but I just wouldn't count them toward the number of satisfactory articles you've made (0 points rather than -1). Your drafts are generally in a similar state.

I'll leave your contributions page open in another tab (did anyone else just hear my browser scream?) and check in when I can. If I keep seeing improvement continued improvement in your initial postings, I don't see why we'd have to wait for the full 25. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What knowledge is important?[edit]

Fenchol

In the fenchol page, is reported that some Aster species and Basil as plant containing the terpene in question.

I added the Cannabis plant, because in some selected sub-species, the scent of Basil is dominant and you can clearly recognize the "basil smell and taste". In the reference i added it was reported a sample were the quantity of the terpene was not dominant (enough to PROVE it is one of the many terpenes the plant produces), but simply one of the many compounds produced.

So is WRONG to add all the know plants that contains the terpene in the page itself? Should be limited to main components? How to act with human selected sub-species were some terpenes are indeed making up for the main "bouquet" and the terpene profile is very different from the mother specie?

My editing was ideologically wrong or what is the meter of measure here?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jekomac (talk • contribs) 16:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jekomac: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia just summarizes and cites professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.

Now please assume good faith from other users. That's one of the foundational site policies. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An element not having enough space?[edit]

I was going through articles in attempts to fix Lint errors. I came across Beautiful Mess (Kristian Kostov song) in the list, and it had the same problem I had seen with numerous other articles using "Infobox: single" - it had curly braces in the wrong position, causing the Eurovision entry to be inside it, resulting in a nested table (a high priority Lint error).

While I fixed this issue, it resulted in a side effect I don't know how to approach. The article contains an image in the Eurovision Song Content section of Kristian Kostov performing the song... however, ever since my change, this image hasn't been appearing the right location. The way it displays for me, this also results in one of the tables on the track listing being shoved behind the infoboxes.

My confusion only gets worse if I decide to look at the page via the migration tool - if I do so, the image is in yet another position (that's also incorrect).

Is there anything I can do to make space for the image, or force the image to remain in its assigned section? Wsan2 (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wsan2: The left-floating image can stay in place by using {{stack begin}} and {{stack end}} around consecutive right-floating elements.[1] But you are not using the best method to fix the lint error in this case. I used Template:Infobox song contest entry#Embedding instead.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PHOTO POSTED ON REGINALD LeBORG WEB PAGE[edit]

The photo currently posted is not LeBorg, it is Forrest Ackerman. This photo should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regihom (talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Regihom: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Orangemike took care of it, removing the photo (and even deleting it from the servers altogether, since it was a hoax). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]