Help desk
< September 28	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 30 >

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 29[edit]

Villa Mapelli Mozzi[edit]

My added references have emerged under the category "External references" - BUT - they should be ordinary refs. please leave quotes in and fix up if you can Thanks 2001:8003:D864:E102:6159:B979:E779:51F9 (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by Dismas Eagleash (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref number 4 - the page number (ref) is not clear - is it in the right place? Thanks 175.33.248.139 (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done The template 'cite journal' (which is for academic publications) does not display the small 'p' before the page No. Eagleash (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting an expression[edit]

In the statement

"We are only 993186937 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article..."

 "We are only {{#expr:999999999-{{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}}}} articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article{{Purge|...}}"

how do I add commas to the first number? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try {{formatnum:{{#expr:yourexpression}}}}. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"We are only 993,186,937 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article..." -- Works great! Thanks. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Benfleet Railway Station[edit]

I have just been informed that my edit to Benfleet Railway Station, where I corrected the article because the Ticket Machines don't work, isn't correct. However, Benfleet is my local train station and I was correct, the ticket machines don't work.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.219.123 (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources about the ticket machines not working, it would not merit inclusion in the article. 331dot (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.246.80 (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New information[edit]

i want to add a new information abut my startup, so how could i do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.217.107.40 (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of policy, Wikipedia does not include "new information". Facts must have been reported in independent WP:Reliable sources to be included here. It is probably WP:Too soon for an article on a startup, but once it has been written about elsewhere, someone might write an article. Because you have a WP:Conflict of interest, it shouldn't be you who writes it, but you can try WP:Requested articles. Dbfirs 10:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I stop someone deleting my contributions?[edit]

I'm trying to move Talk:Freedom_(2019_film) but my edits are immediately removed. 2A02:C7F:4637:9200:D099:1D88:9E91:9CB8 (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The addition of a move request to the article talk page has twice been removed as being in violation of a ban. Eagleash (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any ban. Any advice on this please? 2A02:C7F:4637:9200:E815:BA9D:BCEC:DEBC (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Any ideas? 2A02:C7F:4637:9200:E815:BA9D:BCEC:DEBC (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This anon. user is a sock of User:Film Fan, who has been indef'd. Here are a small example of his many IP block evasions since. This has the same MO - IP based in the NE of England who starts move discussions on foreign-language film articles such as this and this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have me confused. 2A02:C7F:4637:9200:E815:BA9D:BCEC:DEBC (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SOS[edit]

just landed here yesterday NO possibility to do anything! Discouraging! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edouard Dubois (talk • contribs) 10:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an autobiography is not what Wikipedia is for. Sorry you were discouraged. You might like to try WP:The Wikipedia Adventure to get some practice in editing, then try small edits to topics that interest you, remembering that Wikipedia is based on what has already been written in WP:Reliable sources. You could also read WP:Referencing for beginners, so that you know how to cite sources for any additions you make. Wikipedia welcomes new editors. Dbfirs 11:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might find the website https://en.everybodywiki.com more suitable for your purpose.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Up-load of article[edit]

Dear Madam, dear Sir,

I have an excellent if not outstanding colleague within my field. I have written a short introduction to him & his work and happened to tell him. He was flattered etc. and as matter of fact would be delighted to see it published soon. Now, I am a new member, and have only been editing three articles.... a long way to ten; well at least a week or two. There must be some way of short cut, as the biography is with references etc. and only ten lines long.

All the best,

... Sorry, I think we are not supposed to use names and e-mails? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSH2019 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JSH2019: Hello, some useful links have been left at your talk page. Please study them carefully, particularly the first article link. The subject must be notable in the Wikipedia sense... that is, there must be significant coverage of them in independent reliable sources. These are what the encyclopedia relies upon to create articles. Your own knowledge of the subject will not help very much at all; see WP:OR. As you have stated you have a connection to the subject, you also need to read WP:COI and make any necessary declarations. This is not a reflection upon you but just one of the ways in which Wikipedia tries to ensure neutrality. Statements in an article need to be sourced for verifiability...please see WP:REFB for a guide to adding references. If you feel you have enough to create a page please go via WP:WIZ to create a draft which you can submit for review. Thank you for wanting to help expand Wikipedia. Eagleash (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have mentioned your desire for some kind of "shortcut" to seeing your proposed article appear in Wikipedia. There currently is a months-long wait for new article review, as there are thousands of new articles in the queue. The fastest way to getting your article "live" is to write it according to all the rules of Wikipedia, with high-quality sources to demonstrate notability, thereby only having to wait in the queue one time. Good luck.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help Needed - I am colorblind AND this involves Spanish[edit]

Summary: It is probably best if you recommend a high-activity page relating to Mexico or colorblindness. The Talk Page of the article I want to fix (in English) is extremely low-activity, and this is not part of a Project where I know how to ask for help (those are mostly science-related projects).

WikiProject Mexico is possibly a good place to ask, but I haven't found a high-traffic discussion or requests page for that Project. I can ask in English or Spanish.

I'm a native English speaker and I am colorblind. I'm fairly fluent in Spanish, but I want to fix the English version of the article for colorblind users:

Mexico City Metro lines

Currently, 10 of the 12 lines say the name of the color that represents the line, and one of those 10 even mentions that it is two colors, and why. All 12 depict the color, which is relatively less helpful for colorblind users. The colors are also not in a list, and I cannot possibly construct such a list myself. The colors are spread throughout the article, and some are in a standardized format (the little tables), but some are in the body of the text.

It should have a list near the top, in my opinion. If someone helps me make it in English, then I can translate it into Spanish, and I know the people who can fix my Spanish errors (which I make less and less often, cada vez menos errores).

Knowing the names of the colors is actually rather important for asking questions, even if the person asking (e.g. me) is colorblind and is planning to convert the color into a number. This gets much worse when they hear an English accent (o sea, un acento gringo, como lo mío) and think it is a Spanish problem and not a colorblindness problem, especially because I can see the different between red and green on a map of the CDMX Metro (those are 6 and 3, respectively), but I have what is called "red-green colorblindness". I can't see the difference between yellow and orange, or gray and at least two other colors. I don't remember the English nor Spanish names of the two colors that also look like gray, in my opinion.

Thank you. Fluoborate (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the table below, with colors and lines:

Line	Color
1	Pink
2	Blue
3	Olive green
4	Aqua
5	Yellow
6	Red
7	Orange
8	Green
9	Brown
A	Purple
B	Green and silver
12	Gold

Danski454 (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arabs is 346.000.000 in the world 29 September 2019[edit]

Total population

346.000.000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Britain (talk • contribs) 16:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello El Britain,

I assume you wish to update the figure at Arabs, which is currently circa 450 million.

To change this you would require a reliable source that supports your new figure, so other editors can verify it is correct.

If you have one, you are advised to ask at Talk:Arabs, the article's talk page, so that consensus can be reached about changing this figure. This is especially important if the numbers are calculated in different ways.

Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because OxonAlex the number Arabs is 450.000.000 who included this number Egyptians who with page List of contemporary ethnic groups mention as ethnic group and so if removed the number Arabs - Egyptians => 450.000.000 - 104.000.000 = 346.000.000 ethnic Arabs Please thank you !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Britain (talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to raise this with editors at the talk page - the people there are going to be much more knowledgeable than us. However, this may classify as original research. This is not permitted here, as there is no way for use to verify your original research is correct. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics for active editors[edit]

As discussed here, the WMF changed in 2017/2018 to a new process for generating statistics related to Wikipedia and other WMF projects. That page says "First goal is to match the numbers of the current system". But I'm not seeing that at all for active editors (I've not checked other statistics). The old system - version 1 shows there were 30,143 active editors for the English Wikipedia in December 2017. Version 2 shows that there were 63,925 for that month.

I'm not necessarily looking for an explanation of why the numbers are so different (though I would certainly like that); I'd settle for an email address or a WMF page where I can ask the question of someone who is familiar with the changeover. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The help desk is mainly for questions about contributing to Wikipedia so it's unlikely anyone here will be able to answer any of this. Category:Wikimedia Foundation staff appears to be the closest thing to a staff directory hosted here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John Broughton: I just took a look at that stats system for the first time. At the bottom of the page, there is a "contributing" section, which takes you to the github site for the project. You can ask questions and make comments over there to interact with the developers. -Arch dude (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WHO WERE THE ORIGINAL BABY BOOMERS[edit]

long description of a possible early usage of the term

... and why is the term used to abuse the older generations of today by the poorly educated younger generations?

The ORIGINAL BABY BOOMERS were those children born to the British women who had survived the First World War. The Brittish Government coined the term 'Baby Boomer' to describe THAT GENERATION ONLY as being a part of the POST WAR EFFORT to repopulate England and make up for all of the lives lost during WORLD WAR ONE.

Since Australia is also a part of the BRITISH COLONIES AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN then the term BABY BOOMER applies to ONE GENERATION... and that generation was after the FIRST WORLD WAR ONLY!

But... true to form... Wikipedia and Google, and any other links in this Computer Information Era... have now AMERICANISED the term 'Baby Boomer' and insist that it was for all of the generations born from 1946 through to 1964.

I AM NOT AMERICAN... I was born just prior to 1960 in one of the counties that made up the original British Empire... and I am sick to death of everything American being repurposed to suit their own agendas. Just because they cannot invent their own descriptive terms doesn't give them license to repurpose those terms being used in a positive way to denigrate their own population.

Added to my chagrin... is the way the Media Spin Doctors of Division and Hatred use the term 'Baby Boomer' in a derogative and insulting manner to describe today's Grey Haired Generation of RETIREES.

Their... 'Anti-anything-old-and on pensions-is-at-fault-for-all-the-ills-of-the-word' IDEOLOGY is creating a level of hatred and targeted abuse towards the generations that make up today's grandparents... while making the younger, and entitled, generations feel that the older generations are to blame for them not being able to buy homes and have all the so-called luxuries their grandparents and parents HAVE EARNED THE RIGHT TO ENJOY IN THEIR OLD AGE!

Here in Australia, a more correct term... for the older generations now enjoying their retirement years after slogging their guts out and going without even the basics while raising their children... is THE GREY NOMADS! This is because they have sold or rented out their homes and hooked up the caravan and are traveling around this great country.. while they are still young and physically sound enough to do so!

My mother is the last of the ORIGINAL BABY BOOMERS... she is in her mid-80s as she was born AFTER THE FIRST WORLD WAR ENDED... and long before the SECOND WORLD WAR HAD BEGUN. HER GENERATION ARE THe ONLY TRUE BABY BOOMERS ON THIS PLANET! ... and they are not at fault or to be blamed for any following generations inability to create a life for themselves and BE HAPPY!

Be Blessed! __/\__ <3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:411E:2400:680C:76E7:64A0:141E (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly free to both invent your own terms and to use existing terms with different meanings to those that everybody else recognises (including Brits like me as well as Americans), but you can't expect anyone else to take any notice, you will have difficulty communicating clearly with others, and you certainly won't persuade an encyclopedia that only uses terms or facts that have previously been published in reputable Reliable sources to afford them recognition. There is a difference between using 'baby boomer' (note lower case) as a general term applicable to various historical circumstances, and using 'Baby Boomer' (note upper case) as part of a recognised classification within the discipline of Social science pertaining to a particular generational cohort. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.161.82 (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The help desk is not the place for a discussion of article content. If you have reliable sources for an earlier usage of the term, then please take your discussion to the talk page of the article Baby boomers. Editors might reach a consensus to add the earlier usage to the article. -Arch dude (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]