Help desk
< August 10	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 12 >

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.

August 11

References not working

In Dr. Shamsheer Vayalil's article references 26 & 28 are not working. They need to be repaired. I had posted the request related to this problem on the Talk page also but no one gave any response. May be it is difficult to repair. So, anyone who knows how to fix this problem then please do it. Thank you. (223.230.131.132 (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

As you were asked at the talk page, do you have alternative references available? Eagleash (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find alternative references but I think they can be saved with the help of way back machine. Few days before reference 2 was also showing error and many editors tried to repair but they couldn't. One of the veteran editor (Eman235) worked hard and restored the reference 2.

Same like that can references 26 and 28 be saved with the help of way back machine? Thank you. (223.230.131.132 (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

His current profile at Bloomberg does not contain information about an honorary doctorate: it is possible the earlier missing page did not do so either. With regard to the Arab Health award, there are 2 other references supporting the statement, 3 is unnecessary so I have removed the dead link. A search for his 'doctorate' (by you) should hopefully reveal a source.

It is not easy to 'archive' (Wayback Machine) something which editors can't find. Eagleash (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For honorary 'doctorate': I have found out the link in which information about his doctorate is clearly indicated. The link is [[1]].Remove reference 26 and in place of that add the reference which I provided above.The reference which I provided is perfect.

Thank you. (223.230.131.132 (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Note: also asked and answered at my TP. (Not independent). Eagleash (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done OP has now supplied a replacement ref. Eagleash (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with my peer review closure Wikipedia:Peer_review/Digital_media_use_and_mental_health

Hi I'm sorry I made a mistake when listing this review initially in January, and I tried to rename it from Wikipedia:Peer_review/Digital dependencies and global mental health (previous name of the article). I thought I fixed it but it has definitely caused errors in closing because it still shows up in active peer reviews that I have just noticed. Many apologies.

The current pages as far as I can tell are: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Digital_media_use_and_mental_health Wikipedia:Peer_review/Digital_media_use_and_mental_health/archive1 Wikipedia:Peer_review/Digital_media_use_and_mental_health/archive2

Archive2 is linked from the articles talk page. Can someone help me with deleting this appropriately?

Thanks --[E.3][chat2][me] 07:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justifying table to the right of multiple sections

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask this, but I'm trying to place a table to the right of multiple sections, and I'm not sure how to do it. When I try to use float:right (as in here), the table just stays in the first section. Would appreciate some help, because I'm stumped here. :) Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SpicyMilkBoy, the {{-}} causes the sections to clear, preventing overlap. You can see how it turns out here, the table does float, but then your neat small images don't look as good. I don't think it's possible to both float and clear, but I do think your table looks good where it is. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! I figured out that I can get the effect I wanted by removing {{-}} from the first few sections but leaving it in the others. :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic question

Hi Folks, How would you differentiate those two locations.

Port a' Mhadaidh Argyll and Bute 55°38′44″N 5°28′46″W
Port a' Mhadaidh Argyll and Bute 55°52′09″N 5°18′47″W

They are both locations in Scotland, both in Argyll and Bute. How would you differentiate them so that articles can be created. I must have look at this five times. The first one is exceedingly remote, middle of nowhere. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 13:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is near Grogport on the east coast of Kintyre; the second one is shown as Portavadie and is on the west coast of Cowal. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Assuming that you have enough references to establish notability for both locations, and assuming that neither of then has a different common name, then you will need to get creative. I think David's research suggests that Port a' Mhadaidh (Kintyre) and Port a' Mhadaidh (Cowal) might work, with Port a' Mhadaidh itself being a dab page. The dab page would describe each article in the terms David used. -Arch dude (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There might be an argument that one is the primary topic, in which case there wouldn't be a dab page. If Port a' Mhadaidh (Cowal) were produced, it would presumably redirect to the existing Portavadie. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long-running argument. I really don't like the concept of "primary topic" in this context because it makes life harder for folks who are looking for the alternates, so I prefer a dab. But you are absolutely correct: we do not need Port a' Mhadaidh (Cowal) as a redirect: just point to Cowal from the dab. The goal is to help readers who look for "Port a' Mhadaidh", however they do it. -Arch dude (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it were decided that one were the primary topic, there would be a hatnote from there to the alternative, hence people searching would get to the primary topic in one step, or the secondary in two. If there were a dab page, it would be two steps to either. I agree that the goal is to help readers who look for "Port a' Mhadaidh", however they do it. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is thorough explanation and its good work. Yip at the moment I'm putting them all in the list and when I go to create to create them, if they are non-notable the entry will be pulled. I'll keep this all in mind. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 17:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude: I now know that means. I will keep it in mind. scope_creep^Talk 23:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why cant i get wish shopping page in english i get it in russin im in nj i speak enghlish

please can some body help me i cant get the wish shopping page in english i can only get it in a forgin language i only speak enghlish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandit020 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you don't speak English, this isn't the place for your question. Even if it were in English, it isn't obviously a question regarding editing Wikipedia, so again not appropriate for the Help desk. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Making my own page/ article

How do I make my own page on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jude Cardozo (talk • contribs) 16:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jude Cardozo: Successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest task on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice. New users who dive right in to creating articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as something they worked hours on (likely without a good understanding of the process) is mercilessly edited and deleted by others. I don't want to see that happen to you. New users are much more successful at creating articles when they first spend time(weeks or even months) editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for using Wikipedia, the editing process, and what goes into creating articles. Usually such users start with small edits like spelling fixes, move up to more substantive edits and lastly work their way into creating articles. I would suggest that you pursue such a path.

However, if you still want to attempt to create an article, you should first read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial. Then, you can use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for a review before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way, you get feedback on it beforehand, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jude, if you're this Cardozo, don't make it (Wikipedia) bad. You don't satisfy the WP:BIO requirements. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]