Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
1leftarrow.png Help:Contents
Editor Assistance: Requests
  • The description of the issue with which you need help should be concise and neutral.
  • If you are asking about an article that was deleted, please provide the exact title so that we can check the deletion log.
  • Please avoid copying large quantities of article text to this page.
  • Remember to sign your posts.
  • Please click here to post your request. As always, please do not include an e-mail address or other private details.
  • Discussions related to content disputes might better be addressed at the dispute resolution noticeboard.
  • If you would like quick access to some advice for the most common questions and issues, this can be found in the Editor Assistance FAQ.
  • Resolved, stale and other old discussions are archived, but if you need to return to an archived discussion, you can start a new section and note the old discussion. You may search old discussions using the search box in the Previous requests & responses section adjacent to this pages contents index.
  • Assistants: Please tag old requests using the appropriate templates, e.g. resolved, answered, unclear, unresolved, stale, moved or stuck, after approximately five to seven days of inactivity. These templates and notes on their usage may be found at Template:Ear/doc. A thread can be archived after being tagged for two days.

Archives

Question about "Personal life" sections in BLP and other biographical articles[edit]

Because of some current disagreement about this issue on the Kate Fischer BLP article, I am wanting to ask the views of other Wikipedia editors on what kinds of information ought to be included (and what ought not be) in "personal life" sections of biographical articles instead of the broader "life and career" sections. In particular, is it appropriate to include such "controversy" things as a person's arrests and charges for driving offences in a "personal life" section? In my current view this is not appropriate but there does not seem to be any clarity about such matters in the MOS or elsewhere as far as I'm aware. I hope this is the correct place to ask this question. If not please advise me on where it would be. Thanks, Yahboo (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion on this between the above editor and others has subsequently been discussed on the article's talk page. — Maile (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Unresponsive, Accusatory User[edit]

Hello - how does one resolve a potential edit war with a user that refuses to discuss? I was reviewing older versions of an article and noticed that proper grammar and acronyms were removed a while back. I also noticed text that was properly sourced and seemed appropriate to restore. I did so and the user quickly reverted all changes, accusing me of being a sockpuppet.

I left a comment attempting to suggest compromises at the talkpage as these were WP:GF edits. Nothing. User reverted and accused again.

I then left the user a message on this Talk page, explained why I restored the missing text and then proceeded to restore just the proper grammar and acronyms. The user again did the same and deleted my conversation on his Talk page. [1]

I made a final reversion (fearing WP:3RR after that). Again, no discussion. Simple revert and accusing on sockpuppeting (a term I was unfamiliar with until now, which I find quite offensive).

Details are here: [2]. 104.172.8.126 (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If you are still getting no response, you should post about this at WP:ANEW. — Maile (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Cannot edit the article Bodacious which is protected from IP and anon users, but I am registered user[edit]

Bodacious (bull) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Please see this conversation with the admin I just had who referred me to post at "ANI." When I came to the noticeboard area, I wasn't really sure which noticeboard to post it at. [3] The issue is explained clearly at the admin's talk page. But the theme is that I cannot edit an article that was protected to keep IP users from editing it temporarily. I have a login and should be able to edit it. Thank you! dawnleelynn(talk) 05:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dawnleelynn: It's WP:ANI a.k.a. WP:Dramaboard. You should be able to edit semi-protected articles. Abelmoschus Esculentus 05:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Gwendolyn D. Phillips (Lady de Ashborough[edit]

Gwendolyn D. Phillips (1960 - ) (AKA: Gwendolyn. Lady De Ashborough) European Aristocracy. Socialite. Patron & Professional Polo Player. Philathropist

Education: Bachelor Arts Broadcast Journalism Texas Southern University Executive Masters Public Administration Texas Southern University

Children Austin Rutherford Colby DOB: March 28, 1994 24 yrs

Parents: Mother: Lucille Evans Phillips Kelley (83) Father: Tom Westly Phillips ll (Deceased)


Know For: First Women to Own a non heritage non corporate owned professional polo team Alegria Para Siempre. First Women to Represent England as Captain in the Cartier World Cup Championships on Snow in St. Moritz, Switzerland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LGA11266p (talkcontribs) 00:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you looking for help in creating an article for this person? You might be interested in WT:WIR, a project that exists to create articles about accomplished women. — Maile (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
She's not a peeress. See [4]. She probably doesn't merit an article until she's actually convicted of something. - Nunh-huh 03:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Tried to move a page but it was flagged as vandalism[edit]

Hey there!

I'm from Australia and just noticed a lot of the naming conventions for the TAFE Institutes above are outdated as they don't exist anymore. I've put in the new names as they're known out here in Australia. Wasn't able to rename them since it was getting flagged as vandalism.

Could someone please help move these pages?

Current Links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illawarra_Institute_of_TAFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Coast_Institute_of_TAFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Sydney_Institute_of_TAFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverina_Institute_of_TAFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Western_Sydney_Institute_of_TAFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Institute_of_TAFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Institute_of_TAFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sydney_Institute_of_TAFE

New names:

TAFE NSW Illawarra

TAFE NSW North Coast

TAFE NSW Northern Sydney

TAFE NSW Riverina

TAFE NSW South Western Sydney

TAFE NSW Sydney Metro

TAFE NSW Western NSW

TAFE NSW Western Sydney

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananasareyummy12 (talkcontribs) 01:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC) 
Hi Bananasareyummy12, I will take a look at these. Get back to me before the end of the week, to make sure I've done it. I might be worth getting a couple of reference, in terms of name change to make sure it is verifiable information. scope_creep (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Prevention of abuse-of-priviledges and concealment[edit]

Request unclear

I noticed that guidelines are not always locked and may be ignored, specifically an "author" or "reporting editor" of a new project having elevated the project status without following the guidelines (neutrality, point-of-view, etc.). In the specific case, the guidelines should have either been locked or ignored all the time. The author had previously composed a list of IP`s and labeled the list as "spam IP edits", although mostly the contributions were made to talkpages as material for future improvements and as such were not "edits" at all. After changing the terminology from "spam" to "vandalism" and again to "disruption", the author then came to the position that a project page should be started.

It is not correct to suggest that the contributions (of all the IP`s on the list) were counter to the raison d'être of Wikipedia, and the level of proper scrutiny was never afforded, resulting in the list of IP`s then having been labeled (wrongly) as abusive, vandalistic, and currently wrongly being labeled as puppet-mastery; the progression of the listings should have been done in a less underhand manner, in that the author elevated the status despite the guideline specifically warning the author NOT to elevate. The author purported that IAR (Ignore All Rules) may be applied to semi-administrative functions, and then progressed the project which has subsequently grown wings, due to other like-minded authors or editors with experience and priviledges. They had a meet, puppetry having been alleged, although without having followed the proper procedures to have arrived at the current status.

Most recently,

requests were deleted, and as such valid information pertinent to the project is being obscured (or concealed in the sense that you would have to check the historical differentials of the project page itself and other Wikipedia Category {expert} Help to see it).

So simply put, in the so-called "Long Term Abuse", a case exists in which the author (and authors mentors/meats) of the project page has (/have) abused priviledge themself(/ves). That shouldn`t have been allowed to happen in that way. It has spiraled or snowballed way out of proportion. The contributor has not evaded anything, and is not breaking the law or policy, despite the lists suggesting otherwise.

Objectively, if the author and associated wikipedians have a "good" case, the procedures certainly exist for the appropriate procedures to progress, without having to ignore the appropriate procedure (IAR). The project may be abandoned and re-started, if the author and associates wish to do it the proper way; openly, accountably, and in good faith. Alternatively, sanctions may be in order.

An objective read-through of the listed IP content is hereby requested, and apologies for the snowball having to be examined are proferred. Any request respondents or curious wikipedians may find the case as it has been authored "Long Term Abuse" and given the identifier "Hydro Dot Net". ```Cheers```182.158.82.171 (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll confess that my attention span has been degraded by Twitter and other social media, so perhaps it's me, but I've been through this several times now and can't figure out what it's trying to say. JohnInDC (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The request seems to be clear in the last bit; noting the progression after the changes of "Vandal-s" to "Vandal-m", (summarized as if to prevent an "error") it is clear from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Hydro_dot_net&diff=848998420&oldid=848340260 that the project author crossed the line, prior to the "snowballing" and `actions taken by admins`(WP:NOCON) outside of the project (puppet investigation), and that as such both the alleged sockpuppetry and alleged LTA investigations were not only imprudent, but inappropriate. The request did indicate a level of good-faith in (WP:ENEMY) not demanding sanctions, rather by suggesting alternatives. Although there may have been merits to some actions taken, it seems that the projectmentorship may have staged a sort of coup`d`wiki here, as there are glaring omissions and overzealous deletions partly by automizations such as rollback and huggle, amongst other tags/bots, etc.

If an increase in checks-and-balances are required, that is simply done. We cannot have users involved in co-"conspiracies" to subvert the rules-based system of wikipedia, and feigning ignorance. False-flagging doesn`t do anyone any good: "if your email wasn`t received, spam likely got `em.", they say~ pinging @Patrick Earley (WMF): on this matter for good measure. If the request is any clearer, these (

and

) may be of assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.101.236.86 (talk)


I think it's continuing some previous discussion. It refers to "the specific case" without any case having been specified, and to "the list of IP`s" when no IPs have been listed. I can't make any sense of it either, despite never using Twitter. Maproom (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Third concur. Marking unclear, removing template transclusion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The request is for someone to address the problems cited, and rollback the project(s) if required.219.101.236.86 (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I created the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hydro dot net page as OP noted, lately I've been indiscriminately reverting the recent edits by these IPs. It's true, there are many edits that are harmless chaff (some are a slight improvement, some are a slight detriment) that wouldn't ordinarily warrant reverting. But there are some that are actively damaging -- misrepresenting sources, repeated posting of the same unsourced conspiracies, etc. At this point I just can't be bothered with reviewing the edits in detail any more and I think keeping them would send a message that such behavior is tolerated.
This abuse has been going on for 4 years now, with over 90 IPs we know of (and probably more we haven't found). Many IPs have been blocked, so there's no question that this constitutes block evasion. However, if anyone wants to go over the edits and restore those that are helpful, I won't stop you. :)
-- intgr [talk] 22:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
It seems the request indicates that "many IP`s have been blocked" inappropriately. However, that doesn`t say there was no question of excessive zeal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.101.236.86 (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Good job, intgr, in decoding this request and responding to it. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

moving from sandbox[edit]

Answered

Hello, I created an article in my sandbox and moved to article status, but the 'my sandbox' graphic still appears in the upper left corner of the article. How do I remove this or did I do something wrong in the move? Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felipe_Pantone

Thank you, Shawna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnasafari (talkcontribs) 23:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed - TransporterMan (TALK) 02:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Jason Crookes[edit]

Hi my Wikipedia page needs editing it’s missubg the 16 games I play for Featherstone Rovers in 2013 Signed Jason Crookes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.191 (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I tagged for updating valereee (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Feeling not free to express my POV[edit]

Hello! New old user here (been away for many years). On the MH17 -article/talk https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17&action=history I found the article not accurate according to the information and evidence (and lack of) it's based on, and instead of editing the article, I expressed how I view it on the talk-page, and asked relevant questions to the editorial team. However, my contribution on the talk-page was deleted. ?? Now, is that according to common policy here -that matters aren't even allowed to be discussed? Please, help me understand how the Wikipedia works in this regard. Best Geirsole (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Geirsole, personally, I don't think your post should have been removed considering WP:TPO, but it doesn't really matter if you think it's obvious that MH17 was a false flag. Your point of view, same as any other, would need to be represented fairly, but fairly is relative to how it's represented in reliable sources, so the easiest way to go about this is to find some reliable sources that back up what you're saying without synthesis, and then either doing the talk page thing or adding it to the article yourself. Your viewpoint sounds like it's held by a relative minority, so the WP:DUE guideline may help determine how to cover it appropriately here. Alpha3031 (tc) 16:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! Yes, I expect my POV to be held by a relative minority. But, if I looked through the edit-history of page/talk I expect to find hundreds of other page- and talk-edits from other user in line with my POV, and with all the relevant links and summary. So, that's why I judged it as a waste of time to do the same. And, I just wanted to ask some relevant meta-questions for the editorial team. Then seeing the deletion of a respectfully worded talk-edit, made me wander if this is common practice on Wikipedia. After all, the article itself, is all worded as a support for the official story, and in all ways tries to ridicule and argue against any other POV. Geirsole (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I kind of hate to see a talk page post that isn't clearly disruptive deleted. Can we just semi-hide it? valereee (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! May I ask, why hide or delete relevant comments and questions on a talk page any way? Geirsole (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Geirsole Because you didn't come in with anything helpful, just an opinion you have on the issue. The article talk page is not the place for that, but I believe such things should be semi-hidden, not deleted. valereee (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
In this case I ask myself: How much worth would an article that supported the wanted agenda of one or more of the involved countries be worth to that country/ies? I believe that's would be quite a sum. Geirsole (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
There appears to be significant coverage of theories advanced by Russian media, and I'm not sure what exactly you think is missing here. Unless you can find some sources, as you claim to have done so in the history (copying and pasting is fine as long as proper attribution is done), I doubt anything could be done, since it's not clear what you are disputing. Alpha3031 (tc) 07:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, to be clear, what I ask for here is to determine if the deletion of my comment is according to Wikipedia standards and policy. And if so, help me understand what this policy is and how it applies here. And if not, as a relative new user, what should I do about it? The context is for me to understand how Wikipedia works in areas of ongoing conflicts. How/if a minority POV are fairly represented. Or if it's a sort a majority dictatorship and information suppression. I would contribute according to all standards collecting information and references, editing the article itself, if I judged it a meaningful use of my time. But, with some preknowledge of Wikipedia, I would just assume it would be deleted/reverted and meaningless. And the deletion of a rather respectfully worded comment on the talk-page confirms this. At the moment, I rather not go into the details of what exactly I feel missing in the article, but keep it on a meta-level. Geirsole (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Talkpages are for discussion of article improvement, not for speculation or invitations to discuss personal opinions. Such discussions are liable to be removed or hatted per WP:NOTFORUM. Such discussions tend to swamp talkpages to no good outcome for the article, and they often end up as arguments, particularly on articles where there are nationalist/ethnic disputes, or which are the focus of conspiracy theorists. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for your views - there are lots of other places on the Internet where you can do that. Talkpages serve the process of building the encyclopedia. If you have specific, sourced suggestions in accordance with Wikipedia policies for the article, use the talkpage. You aren't free to post your personal point of view. Acroterion (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I worded myself wrong then. This was of course not just my personal opinions, as a lot of users share this view. But frankly, it felt like censorship, much like the church would clamp down on questions in th 17th century, or Pravda would not allow wrong-thinkers express their views in Sovjet 1975. So, I'll leave the topic for now, getting to know Wikipedia a little better. What it is, and what it's not. Thanks for your help in this. Best Gsoler (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Multiple multi-AfDs[edit]

I've discovered a category, Category:Lists of political office-holders by age, in which it seems impossible for most of the articles to meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, as they are lists which

  1. Require constant (or, at least very frequent) maintenance
  2. Are (IMO) trivia
  3. Almost certainly require WP:SYNTHESIS (combining information from multiple sources to produce the list).

Even those few where each entry is sourced to a single source (as opposed to birth date and death date from different sources), putting them in a sortable table seems to violate WP:SYNTHESIS, as the sort order requires synthesis.

So, I have two questions:

  1. Where should I bring the matter up for discussion? The talk page of the category seems inappropriate, and WT:WikiProject Longevity seems likely to be predisposed toward keeping even those articles which clearly violate Wikipedia policies.
  2. If I choose to submit multiple multi-AfDs, how can I generate the AfDs. There are at least 3 categories:
    1. Lists of heads of state of Foo by age.
    2. Lists of heads of state of Foo by longevity
    3. List of current ... (members of national legislatures, governors of states) by age
    • Some of the other articles do not violate point 3, as the tables are not sortable or sorted. "List of Fooian monarchs by age at succession to the throne" falls in the category of things that I think inappropriate for Wikipedia, but do not violate any of the current criteria for inclusion.

Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin I think you would probably have trouble deleting this category, and I would suggest leaving it be, as it would be uphill struggle. It is a list of list article, a kind of meta category, which is common on Wikipedia. Only the last entry in the list is being maintained, by the editor who is maintaining the list article, so its not a huge amount of work to maintain each list article, indeed the work is update the end date, and add the new person in with dob and start of term. Each list entry has an article, which is independently source, so they are not just random data, they all heavily referenced. Some of them are likely to be FA/GA articles. The information in each of the end articles are clearly encyclopaedic, as is each list itself. All in all, I suspect it would difficult to delete. I would certainly vote keep, as ultimately they need a category. Its not complete either, most African, South American, probably around 120 countries on it still. So a long way to go before it is fully populated. Hope that helps.scope_creep (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that your dad died. You have my condolences. scope_creep (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

A query about the page of Petr Čech[edit]

Answered

Sir, i want to ask a question to you about the page of forementioned person. I had added a content on the mentioned page referring petr cech to be " one of the greatest goalkeepers of all time" and i also cited not one but two very reliable sources claiming the exact same thing proving the righteous authenticity of it. I know this is a subjective content to add on wikipedia but you should also consider the fact that every other page on wikipedia has got some sort of subjective content in any way. For example- the beatles, Buffon, Pele, Maradona, Lev yashin, manuel neuer so denying one will make it really biased. If you ask your football expert about the matter he will also tell you that iy is no way a high praise but a well deserved statement as Petr cech is one of the most legendary footballer ever. So i just want your permission to do my edit because an editor is not letting me do that. Afterwards for others convenience i will also add a consensus but firstly i want to do my edit. Thanks for your time,Sir. 117.234.145.137 (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit: that includes you. Permissions are both unneeded and, since there is no one with the authority to give them, unavailable. Remember that the kind of source that you need for this is not a reliable source saying "X is the greatest of all times" but a reliable source that says something like "it is widely accepted that X is the greatest of all time". The difference is that the first is an opinion, while the second is a assertion of fact. We do not repeat opinion here as fact, nor do we accumulate multiple opinions from different reliable sources and analyze them (such analysis is prohibited SYNTHESIS), to conclude that "it's accepted that X is the greatest of all time." Individual opinions can sometimes be included in the form "Commentator Y asserts that X is the greatest of all time," but in most cases that's giving prohibited undue weight to the opinion of a nobody unless Y is regarded as a super-expert on the subject in question. Because these rules and their application is very subtle, it's generally not a good idea to generalize from what's been done in another article to the one you're concerned with. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Correcting obvious errors in an article about a music album with reference to the sound of the album[edit]

Answered

Hi, I try to source my edits to the best of my ability. However, I came across a particular kind of problem. The article in question is on Stuart Hamm's Radio Free Albemuth (album). The article listed Allan Holdsworth as featured on guitar, and this is also what the AllMusic reference in the article, as well as secondary references such as discogs.com say. However, if you listen to the actual recording, it is apparent that the performance in question was not done on a guitar, but performed with a synthesizer controller called the SynthAxe, using the performer's undisclosed synthesizer module for the actual sound output. So the source listed is in fact wrong. I made an edit, and made a footnote. The editors should of course take whatever appropriate action.

Now, my question is: How do you correct what is an obvious error in the article itself that results from an obvious error that can be found when investigating the source material? The only source that actually seems to be correct here, is the sound file itself. This is really a minor problem in terms of the article in question, but more of a philosophical general Wikipedia problem - What can be argued to be a credible source? Kind regards, KaldeFakta68 (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows, in general, secondary sources. The sounds on an album are a primary source. Primary sources can, in many instances, be used for article information but the primary source policy, which I just linked, says

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. ... Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

For that reason, your analysis of the kind of instrument that was used should not be used in a Wikipedia article; a reliable secondary source for it must be found if it is to be used. Until such a source is found, the information which is currently reported in reliable secondary sources is what can be in the article. It would be good to report your observation on the article talk page, however, so that individuals interested in that article can keep an eye out for a secondary source. Yes, the combination of these policies can result in incorrect information being included in Wikipedia indefinitely, but bear in mind that Wikipedia is intended to only be a compendium of information which is verified in reliable sources, nothing more. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
@KaldeFakta68: The SynthAxe is a type of guitar. You need to know how to play a guitar to play a SynthAxe. Therefore I would say the sources are correct by saying Holdsworth plays guitar. You could probably change the credit to "SynthAxe guitar" and nobody would object.
As to the philosophical question, TransporterMan answered adequately above. Here's my take on it: Generally if it can be demonstrated that a source is wrong, it can be removed, but would need to be discussed on the article talk page. Substituting it with Wikipedia:Original research, however, wouldn't be acceptable. In the case where a reliable source conflicts with original research, the best approach would be to omit mentioning it altogether until a reliable source can be found. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! Very useful information there for a newbie editor. A comment in the reply below.

@Anachronist: I would argue that the SynthAxe was NOT a guitar, based on the evidence available. This is also why I brought up the question to begin with. This is also an example of both a specific and a general case. The specific case is that the SynthAxe was indeed constructed in such a way that guitarists could play it. However, if you read the SynthAxe article, it pretty clearly lays out that the SynthAxe was NOT a guitar: The sound was not created by the string vibrations themselves, the instrument was divided into separate strings for the right and left hand, and there were multiple non-guitaristic ways of playing it, i.e. the touchpads. I also do not think that you need to be able to play a guitar to play the SynthAxe, drummer Future Man of Bela Fleck and the Flecktones is a case in point, although he does play a heavily customized version. The more general issue is of course how dissimilar something has to be to be excluded from a category and constitute its own. I'll have a look at the article again and try to make appropriate edits in line with the feedback given here. Thanks again for your insightful reply.KaldeFakta68 (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

addition to persistent carbene entry[edit]

The persistent carbene entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_carbene) has a Perioidic Table of the Elements that shows which elements are such carbene complexes. Bismuth is shown as not having any, but this is now incorrect: please see: [1] Highly Reactive Cyclic(alkyl)(amino) Carbene- and N-Heterocyclic Carbene-Bismuth(III) Complexes: Synthesis, Structure, and Computations Guocang Wang, Lucas A. Freeman, Diane A. Dickie, Réka Mokrai, Zoltán Benkő, and Robert J. Gilliard, Jr. Inorg. Chem., 2018, 57 (18), pp 11687–11695

I do not know how to edit the Periodic Table, but it should be changed and this reference added. Jtelser (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

References

@Jtesler: The article is about persistent carbenes, not just any carbines. Do the bismuth compounds qualify as "persistent"?
The periodic table isn't actually editable from the article because it's transcluded from Template:Periodic table (persistent carbene), which is easy to edit. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

General discussion about certain topic[edit]

Hello. Is there a place where I can make a discussion and a request about a proposal I got for articles about mobile phones? It isn't just one particular article I'm referring to but rather I mean the topic as a whole. I tried looking at Portal:Mobile phones without luck. --KaukoHaapavesi3 (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi KaukoHaapavesi3, here is as good as any. What are you looking to do? scope_creep (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Really? Well I hope Wikipedians with good knowledge about this topic are here to read this then, anyway here goes.
I would like to talk about the article names of certain mobile phones (particularly older models). Phones made by Nokia, e.g. Nokia N85, only have the 'N85' part in the name, and rightly so because that is the name the device is marketed as and known as by the general public - obviously better to use rather than its actual internal name which are "RM-333", "RM-334", "RM-335". However many phones made by Samsung and LG (where applicable) don't have the general "public" name in the article but rather the internal manufacturer's name - for example Samsung i8510 which is marketed as "Samsung Innov8" or Samsung S8000 which is marketed as "Samsung Jet". Yesterday I changed these articles' names (and a few others) to the current form which has both the internal and "public" name, i.e. it's changed to Samsung i8510 Innov8. (this is also the exact format in which models are written on the GSMArena.com website, [1], [2]) Likewise, LG phones' articles have this issue too: yesterday I renamed LG KM900 to LG Arena (KM900), "Arena" being the marketed name it is known as.
Changing names so that it has the general name in it makes it a **lot** more recognisable. I honestly had a difficult time to for instance tell LG Chocolate models apart when they all had their long internal letter/numbers in their article names, until I changed them to their more better known marketed names ("LG Chocolate", "LG Chocolate Spin", "LG Chocolate 3" etc.). In fact, this is also bad for users to not only identify the models but actually finding them on the internet - I did a Google search yesterday for one of the phones (I think it was "Samsung Jet"?) and the Wikipedia article didn't even appear on the first page! (the article was called "Samsung S8000" yesterday until I renamed it to "Samsung S8000 Jet"). It's difficult for the average person knowing this phone as "Samsung Jet" to know that "Samsung S8000" is actually the Jet model. I've noticed that modern phones such as Samsung Galaxy S8 use this common public naming format on Wikipedia - the S8's internal names are "SM-G950" and "SM-G955", but the article is just "Galaxy S8", the way it's supposed to be. The older phones' article names I mentioned here should also be like this.
Also don't forget that there could be several internal names for one general model (that could be variants or for different release regions) - for example the Samsung SGH-F480 (which is marketed as "Samsung Tocco") is internally called "SGH-488" in the Hong Kong market. This is yet another reason of the importance of the public marketed names in article names. This article should be called "Samsung SGH-F480 Tocco" or better yet a simpler form of "Samsung F480 Tocco". -- It also needs to be consistent, for instance in the Samsung models it's in the format "Samsung i8510 Innov8" but the LG models are in the format "LG Arena (LM900)". The latter should probably be changed to "LG LM900 Arena" so it's the same standard - this is also how it's known as on the GSMArena.com website.[3]
I want to make this a general standard on Wikipedia for articles of this topic (mobile phones), so would like to have a discussion with others to see what their views are on this. --KaukoHaapavesi3 (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

References

@KaukoHaapavesi3: The standard guidance is WP:COMMONNAME. That is, we name articles according to how the subject is most commonly known. That's why we have an article on Bill Clinton, for example, instead of his official name "William Jefferson Clinton". If a phone is more widely known as "Samsung Tocco" instead of "SGH-F480", then the more common name should be the title of the article.
Be prepared to back that up with sources. Raw Google hits on one name versus another can help although Google hits aren't a reliable indicator unless the difference in results is significant, like 25% or more (my opinion). Google's Ngram viewer is an excellent resource for finding trends of commonality in certain phrases (but only in books). ~Anachronist (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous Policies[edit]

I was the producer of the Computer Game Heaven and Earth. I was visiting your posting regarding that game and noticed some errors and a lack of relevant data, I made a few corrections and additions which are easily verified and you tossed them out because I was involved in the game. I not only produced it, I own the copyright. Who better to fix the problems, your policy that won't allow that under any circumstances is just plain ridiculous. I support you financially every year, but I'm beginning to think that I need to reconsider that. And, don't tell me to write to an editorial board, I tried numerous times over the years and have gotten nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradfregger (talkcontribs) 16:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that he's talking about edits that were made under his other account, The Brad Fregger. Addressing this and other issues on his talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
...Or is he talking about his edits under the account Smith on Wiki...? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I think WP:SPI would be appropriate to determine for sure. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Or maybe Bradfregger is talking about edits by 69.18.20.167 to Heaven & Earth (video game). None of those edits have been reverted but some were ignored in the rendered page because they used parameters not supported by Template:Infobox video game. A template call can only use parameter names which are known to the template. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The Voice Season 15: Emojis[edit]

I've been trying to edit this page about The Voice Season 15. There is a check mark symbol to show that a person's performance got into iTunes Top 10, and I tried putting one, but after clicking 'Publish changes' it showed me an error sign saying no 'emojis'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.245.95 (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe the checkmark symbol you tried to use was not a Unicode symbol, but an emoji of some kind. The Unicode for a check mark is U+2713 ✓ and for a heavy check mark is U+2714 ✔. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Handling of FDA-unapproved medical treatments within a disease article[edit]

I would like to get help from experienced editors in handling the following RfC on Handling of FDA-unapproved medical treatments within a disease article. The point of the RFC is how the article on MRSA can present treatments that are not officially admitted in the US, that do not necessarily meet WP:MDRS but are widely used and officially approved in many other developped countries.

Most editors on MRSA article are obviously medical doctors, and they don't see the point, referring systematically to WP:MDRS, and thus censoring any attempt to mention the bare existence of these treatments. It seems experienced editors from non medical fields will better understand the issue.

Thank you.Riffstilde (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Need help sourcing[edit]

On the Megan McKenna article, I am unsure how to source one of the details. The reference is down as [10], on the section about her book. The link is there, but the reference does not work correctly. If this could be fixed, it’d be a great help! Experienced editors will be able to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesimnett (talkcontribs) 18:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Megan McKenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The reference was just a web address, sitting inside the wrong kind of brackets. I've converted it into a {{cite web}}. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Where and on what basis to take a request to reconsider a closed Template for Discussion re merge of Geobox river into Infobox river[edit]

Answered

Template:Infobox river(edit talk links history)

I believe a closed Template for discussion (link: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 19#Template:Infobox river) though conducted in good faith, was conducted and closed incorrectly; and that after closure it was discovered that a core group of interested template users would have been unaware of the Tfd discussion. I would like to know the proper forum to have the closure re-examined, and on what basis it would be acceptable for such a request to be considered. I have looked at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy but regret it is not clear to me how to proceed. I submit some discussion I attempted to have on the matter at Template talk:Infobox river#Disappointed at handling of Geobox river to Infobox river merge proposal. Many thanks, --papageno (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You're looking for Deletion Review. I don't get much involved in deletion matters, but since the proper notice was given and there was good participation at the deletion discussion, I'd be surprised if "some people missed it" will be enough to obtain a reversal. But, heck, I've been surprised before. Read and follow the instructions at Deletion Review carefully. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for your swift reply, @TransporterMan. Daunting, and disappointing Face-smile.svg, but thanks. I know how to proceed. --papageno (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Paul Deussen[edit]

Paul Deussen, Carl von Gersdorff or someone else entirely?

Talk:Paul Deussen

c:File talk:Paul Deussen.jpg

An IP just removed the image again. Dispute has apparently existed since 2006. Can someone who actually knows about these things establish who is depicted? - Alexis Jazz 06:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Paul Deussen (1914).jpg

c:File talk:Paul Deussen (1914).jpg

Rather than fight over that image (which now having been disputed ought to be required to have a reliable source to be reinserted, per BURDEN), why not use the other image of Deussen at Commons, perhaps trimming it down so it's just a head shot? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 07:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@TransporterMan: works for me. But as on Commons we don't typically have the knowledge about this sort of thing, it would be helpful if someone could tell us if the disputed image is indeed Carl von Gersdorff. Some IP users said that, but I'm not taking their word for it and they didn't provide any proof. - Alexis Jazz 08:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Alexis Jazz TransporterMan I was passing. Can you not do an image search, using each image and see what names comes up. Or look for a portrait and if it exists, do a comparison. scope_creep (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Look at this:[5] The top man is Carl von Gersdorff. It should be easy to confirm him as he is an German aristocrat and should have many images, including portraits of him. That is turn will confirm Deussen.
@Scope creep: no. Wikipedia used that image for 6 years and likely longer on the Paul Deussen article. So obviously image search says it's Paul Deussen and some "reliable" sources may well have copied that "fact". Your link to weltbild only confirms the bottom image, but that already had a reliable source. The top image is from Photobucket, which means nothing. - Alexis Jazz 13:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I hate to be picky about this, but unless we can find a reliable source which clearly identifies the top picture as von Gersdorff, we may never be able to say in Wikipedia's voice that it's him. I've compared it with some other fairly well documented photos of vG (do a Google image search on his name and you'll find some) and, for myself, am pretty sure that it's vG, but such comparisons are not sufficient for Wikipedia because the visual comparison violates the no original research policy. We have to find a reliable source that says that the top picture is vG in order to say that in Wikipedia's voice. But, as I noted above, the mere fact that the image is disputed is, by itself, enough under the Verifiability policy to exclude it from the article until someone comes up with a reliable source which says that it is Deussen. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding a ‘promotional singles’ tab[edit]

I’m unsure how to add a ‘Promotional singles’ tab to the Megan McKenna article as I’m still fairly new to editing and contributing to Wikipedia articles. If this could be added under Discography, this would be a great help. Experienced editors will be able to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesimnett (talkcontribs) 14:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Messy page[edit]

The ‘Singles’ section on Burna Boy is very messy, due to inexperienced editors damaging the page. I’m not quite sure how to fix this issue, I would try but I don’t want to mess it up even more! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesimnett (talkcontribs) 00:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I just pulled an old copy of that section from before the newbie broke it, and pasted it into the current version of the article. That's all you have to do, really. If someone completely screws up the formatting of an article or section while trying to do... whatever it was he was trying to do, even if it's adding new content, you don't have to try and salvage anything. You can just restore the affected section to what it used to be, or the entire article if need be. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)