Help desk
< May 30	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	June 1 >

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.

May 31

Create a page

Would like to create a page and upload some useful historical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:C389:301:B161:B37F:C211:5982 (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any notable subject can and should have a Wikipedia article. We define notability: see WP:RS. An article about a non-notable subject is not allowed and will be deleted. we delete about 200 article every day, mostly due to non-notability. If you are sure that your subject is notable and that most objective reviewerd will agree, then proceed. Read WP:YFA for what to do next. Good Luck! -Arch dude (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

200 deleted per day!! I had no idea. Seriously, I was quite hurt when an article of mine was marked for deletion for non-notability. Happily, another editor stepped in and found some good sources, which rescued it. This should be a lesson to new editors, and even to old ones like me: 1) Don't take it personally if an article (or an update) is deleted 2) If you think your article or change is good, persist (short of edit wars); get reliable sources to cite. These days in WP it's all about all about reliable sources (i.e. references or citations) --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

updating the date= in Template:Use mdy dates, etc

I sometimes see editors update the "date=" field in templates like {{Use mdy dates}} or {{Use American English}}, changing them from listing whatever date they had listed (such as the date they were first added to the article) to the current date. (Usually these edits are not accompanied by any major rewriting of the article.) Is this useful/desirable, or harmful, or pointless, or what? -sche (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The template documentation says:

Use the parameter |date= for the month and year that an editor or bot last checked the article for inconsistent date formatting and fixed any found.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies - when to use full name?

I thought I was getting a grip of the rules, but apparently not ... I hope somebody here can explain for me. I thought that in biographies "the subject's full name, if known, should be given in the lead sentence" (per MOS:FULLNAME), and that "after the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only" (per MOS:SURNAME). But yesterday's Featured Article, Scarlett Johansson, has her full name in the lede, then the full name again at the start of "Early life". I have seen this pattern many times in articles, and I thought I was doing the right thing by changing the second occurrence to use just the surname. But if it is in a FA then perhaps I was wrong; perhaps this is an acceptable practice. Can somebody clarify for me please?--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gronk Oz WP:FAs are not perfect. I'd be WP:BOLD and make the change, MOS:SURNAME is pretty descriptive of what should be said. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gronk Oz: the "early life" section, in this article and in many others, refers to other members of the subject's family, who have the same surname as her. So using her full name helps make the text clearer. Maproom (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Lee Vilenski and Maproom. I appreciate the need to distinguish between family members, but I don't think that is the case here. The "early life" section starts with "Scarlett Ingrid Johansson was born in..." so the author seems to be making a deliberate effort to use her full name again, not just calling her "Scarlett" for clarity.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I protected my sandbox and I cant undo it

I protected my sandbox and I cant undo it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8DD8DD8 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

8DD8DD8 Only administrators can protect a page; you cannot do so, so there is nothing to undo. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC) ok thx[reply]

You can remove the pointless template yourself. I've done this for you in your sandbox. Dbfirs 07:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019-20 Minnesota Timberwolves and 2019–20 Dallas Mavericks seasons

Hey Wikipedia A Few Days Ago I Created the 2019-20 Minnesota Timberwolves season article and yesterday I Created the 2019–20 Dallas Mavericks season article can you put in the 2019-20 NBA season by team article please. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have created drafts, not articles, as IP users cannot create articles. You can submit your drafts for review using WP:AFC. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template include size is too large

I'm working on an article in my sandbox and when previewing an edit before saving I noticed an warning message "Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included." In addition the last two templates on the page {{reflist}} and {{Big Brother in the United States}} aren't showing up which I'm assuming has something to do warning message. This is just a bit too technical for my taste, any advice? TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That draft does contain a lot of templates and according to Wikipedia:Template_limits#When_do_problems_arise?, repeated use of templates can cause this issue - it suggests that a few dozen shouldn't be a problem, depending on how much data they contain. It appears that those last two templates may have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, but I'm no expert. Mikenorton (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikenorton: Thanks. I think I'll split half of it into a separate list to keep the template size from being too large. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should I care that whoever attempted to write facts about my investigation on the Wikipedia Connecticut River Valley Killer page got the facts all wrong?

Shortly after consulting with Ashley's mother in 2001, Carty was easily able to obtain Nicholaou's contact information with some cursory Internet research. Nicholaou, who was living in Georgia, denied knowing anything about the family's whereabouts. Eventually, he stated that Ashley was a "slut" who had been doing drugs and ran off, abandoning the children. He stated that the children were fine. Carty confirmed this by reaching Nick the following day, who tearfully described life with his combat-traumatized father, who had since remarried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynn-Marie Carty (talk • contribs) 22:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not believe editors. Wikipedia believes WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lynn-Marie Carty: If you have issues with an article, please raise them on the article's talk page. If an article contains assertions that are not supported by a cited reliable source (see WP:RS), you may remove them. If teh article will benefit from additional information you fine in reliable sources, you may add the information and the sources. If supported assertions are contradicted by other reliable sources, you may add the contradiction and your sources to the article. Whether or not you should care is a personal decision on your part. -Arch dude (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the allegations about Nicolaou in Connecticut River Valley Killer were supported by reliable sources and so I have removed the entire section. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]