Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 September 16

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 16

Which WP:page addresses formatting titles of sources?

I’m positive I’ve seen a project-space page somehwere saying to avoid reproducing all-caps or all-lowercase in source titles and instead consistently use title case or sentence case. But I have no idea what that page was—it’s not MOS:CONFORM, which would have been my first guess. Does this ring a bell for anyone else? —67.14.236.193 (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Article titles. -Arch dude (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Help:Citation Style 1#Titles and chapters says it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: That was it, thanks! —67.14.236.193 (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

How do you cite social media as a source?

Ignoring WP:UGC, how would you cite a social media post? We have {{cite tweet}} for Twitter, but not a more general social-media-post template, and e.g. Facebook posts don’t have titles (the page title is always “Facebook”). {{cite web|title=Facebook|website=Facebook|author=…}} seems less than ideal. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi! According to WP:NOYT, Facebook is generally not acceptable as a reliable source, as anyone may create a page and add comments, and there is no stringent checking of a user's real name and age. On occasion, Facebook pages that are clearly marked as official pages for notable subjects, with direct link to those pages from official websites, in which case they may be used as primary sources The method of citing a reliable social media page is same as when you site a web source. You can read more about that at WP:REFB. As for the tiltle, you can go for the page name instead, again if it is the official page of that subject. Thanks,Knightrises10 (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Knightrises10: Web sources typically have titles on articles or posts. Social media posts and comments typically don’t, not even in the <title> (see my example code above). Or do you mean we should use the author’s name as the title? In my case, I opted to write out the citation with no title, giving the author’s name and linking to it as Facebook post. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I mean we should use the author name. For example, we can give the title, "BBC on Facebook" when citing the Facebook source from official BBC page. But what you did is also correct. It is actually my view, manu editors may differ. Can you please provide the link where you used Facebook as a source? Thanks, Knightrises10 (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Knightrises10: The citation was already present; I just rewrote it as above (though somehow I accidentally replaced the URL with a completely different one). I do think it needs a better source, though. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

What to do about a non-neutral RFC?

I'm trying to decide what would be the proper way to handle an RFC which is not a neutral statement of the issue? (Per WP:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief Should I move to close it, and reopen a neutrally worded RFC in a new section? Is there some other way to handle this problem? Any suggestions? Thank you. -Obsidi (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I ended up trying a new section, but any additional suggestions would be appreciated. -Obsidi (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I would strike (<del>...</del>) the original request and replace it with a more neutral one, or even close it and open a fresh one if the statement is way off. But these solutions may be controversial, and I’m also very eager to see what other editors recommend. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The lack of response here has prompted me to ask a generalized question at WT:RFC#Statements that aren’t neutral and brief, because, again, I’d really like to know. I’ve seen it happen before, and it was usually a mess. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

how to remove biased article

Hello There is an article called the Israeli Burqa Sect.

It brings a lot of false information about the group of women who dress according to the Jewish history, based on one woman who abused her children. It is entirely streotyping the whole group. I want to edit it with pure facts as I myself dress this way and certainly have no connection to child abusers but my editing was deleted by an editor. Please help me whoever can. The article causes people to hate us and judge us just for the way we dress. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.142.118 (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia, and keep in mind that everything in any article must be verifiable by a reliable source.

It looks like the article you’re referring to is Haredi burqa sect. where you appeared to delete chunks of information that was cited to reliable sources, and altered other information without regard to what the sources said. If you disagree with something on Wikipedia, it’s best to first find a source (a book, a newspaper, prominent website, etc.) that states your view, then add the alternate viewpoint while citing your source. I recommend against simply removing or replacing anything unless it is not supported by a source. You may think it’s incorrect, but—usually, and if you see a citation next to it—we’re only repeating what we’ve found in books and news sites. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You may discuss article content on the article's talk page (talk:Haredi burqa sect). We will not remove statements that are cited to reliable sources, but you may argue that they are given undue weight (see WP:UNDUE). If so, you may add additional material cited to reliable sources to show this. You are more likely to succeed if you discuss it on the talk page first. -Arch dude (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize what Reliable Sources publish on a topic. Do not removed well sourced content merely because you dislike or disagree with it. Do not add unsourced content that you "know" or "believe", as that violates our policy No Original Research. Most importantly do not add unsourced claims regarding named individuals. That falls under our BLP policy, which we take particularly seriously. If you would like to improve the article you can add information on the topic which has been published by reliable sources, and you can remove or correct content which does not accurately reflect what has been published on the topic by reliable sources. The article is currently cited with fifteen references which can be checked to verify the article content. Alsee (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Recording Copy-Paste Move

I am puzzled by the instructions about what to do if there has been a copy-paste move. They say to put the {{copied}} template on the talk page of the origin page to document that it was copied to the destination page, but I can't figure out what I am supposed to put in the template. What happened is that there has been a draft at Draft:David Baev, and it was copy-pasted to David Baev. I have questions about whether it should be in article space, because I am not sure that he satisfies sports notability, but that isn't the question. Can someone explain to me exactly what I am supposed to do to make this copy-paste correct? Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The parameters of the template are shown, with examples, at Template:Copied. What is your specific question about the use of that template? --David Biddulph (talk) 07:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The correct procedure here was a history-merge which can only be performed by administrators. I have done it. It can be requested with {{Histmerge}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom

Ref number 15 is in red - sorry. please help Thanks 175.33.45.21 (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The title= parameter was missing - fixed it. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Pippa Middleton

ref number 3 is incorrect with the PUBLISHER - I think. Please see this ref. yourself and alter if necessary. Thanks175.33.45.21 (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Done - date and publisher parameters were mixed together (see article history for the exact change). Also, formatting with italics and bold in citation templates is usually not needed (it's done automatically by the template where appropriate). GermanJoe (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Henry Trefethern, Monhegan Island

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Influence_(Monhegan,_Maine)

I am trying to create a page called Henry Trefethern. My wiki cite source is another link The Influence that I want to link to that page, but now I have lost the Henry Trefethern page I thought I created. I am a new user and I can't seem to get that page back. I added Henry Trefethern on the Monhegan Island wiki page as an island visitor and it created an automatic link or template for which I was going to create a page--then I had to create an account...one rabbit hole after another I lost my way. Now I can't find Henry. It keeps referencing my user name Bellaladysykes. Help! I just want to create a page for Henry Trefethern who founded the Monhegan Island colony in 1777. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellaladysykes (talk • contribs) 12:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Bellaladysykes There are no other edits under your account's edit history. Did you perhaps attempt to create it while logged out? I could not find the page when searching for it, you may have not saved your edit once you created it.

You state "My wiki cite source is another link The Influence that I want to link to that page"; you cannot use one Wikipedia article to source another Wikipedia article as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata property for enwiki

Does Wikidata have a property number or similar for Wikipedia pages, in the same way that Property:P1417 gives me the relevant Encyclopædia Britannica page or Property:P3984 shows me the subreddit? Wikidata's user interface presents Wikipedia pages separately at the bottom, but I'm trying to get the title of a Wikipedia page in a SPARQL query where a property id is required. This query throws up nothing, and it seems odd that Wikipedia is the only major encyclopedia not represented. (I'm aware that this is really a question for Wikidata, but I can't find anywhere there to ask it.) Thanks, Certes (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: I'm no expert, but Wikidata apparently uses a completely separate construct for this called a sitelink. See d:Help:Sitelinks. Their help desk is apparently (and confusingly) called d:Wikidata:Project chat. -Arch dude (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! That help page gives me some hints, and I've asked at Project chat about the missing pieces of the jigsaw. Certes (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Fraudulent editor

Some time ago there was an editor who claimed to be an expert in canon law. He was found out and disciplined, very severely as I recall. There is an article about him and the controversy surrounding him. Unfortunately, I can't remember his username or the name of the article. Who can help me remember? Lou Sander (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You may be thinking of the Essjay controversy. Certes (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I definitely am! Thanks for your rapid and accurate response. Lou Sander (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Additional info on a topic

I was reading about Sir William Whitmore (4 November 1572 – December 1648) and seek more information about his family than is posted. Is it possible to contact the submitter with a request to add more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.193.171 (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Our articles are developed collaboratively by volunteer editors. there are currently more than 100,000 active editors. The article William Whitmore (died 1648) has been edited by more than 10 different people since it was created in 2012. You can see the list of edits if you hit the "view history" tab at the top of the article. It is unlikely that any of them has much more information than you see in the article. You may read the references, which in this case are all online. If you do find more information please feel free to add it, together with your references, to the article. -Arch dude (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

A quick google search found an extensive article at "History of Parliament". I added a "further reading" link to our article. -Arch dude (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Help me to publishe EDU (university)

Hello, I am a teacher in Berlin, Germany and I am trying how to publish an article on the english wikipedia page so that I can use it with my pupils in the future. I am not an english teacher, but with the colleagues I am planning to do a mini-wiki-project in the IT class. I have no connection with EDU (university). So I hope with this explanation I can publish the artile under the entry of EDU (university). Could someone please tell me how to change the title "EDU" to "EDU (university)" ... because "Edu" is a 12 years old entry ... or is it done when I changed the redirect (before "EDU", after "EDU (university)"? Or do I have to write a new entry with that title? --Eleonorexoxo (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Eleonorexoxo: On the English Wikipedia, EDU is a disambiduation page, and there is no article named EDU (university). If "EDU" is an initialism for some university, the article title should be the full name, not the initialism, (e.g., East Delta University). You should probably start your new article as a draft and ask for help to improve it. See "Your first article" (WP:YFA) for how to proceed. -Arch dude (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Eleonorexoxo. I am not sure quite what you mean by "use it with my pupils in the future"; but if you are planning to use Wikipedia in any way in your teaching (other than simply referring to articles for your students to read), I strongly advise you to study WP:Education program before you start. --ColinFine (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Eleonorexoxo, if you plan to involve students in a wiki project please see Wikipedia:Education program which has Information for educators and an Education noticeboard where you can explain your project and receive special assistance. Wikipedia invites new contributors and educators, however if you are not yet familiar with Wikipedia policies and processes you should be cautious about involving students. There have been instances where a class project has run into conflicts with Wikipedia editing policies. In the worst case a teacher or students could be blocked from editing, which can leave students in an impossible position if the project was integral to the class. I don't want to make it sound like a common problem, but it is a teacher's responsibility not to give students an assignment that is impossible to complete or which disrupts the work of other volunteer editors. We don't expect new contributors to know all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when they arrive, but we do expect people to reasonably respect those policies and guidelines when another editor explains them.

As noted above, Wikipedia:Your first article provides valuable information for starting on a new Wikipedia article. The most important thing is that any new article must be supported by:

1. multiple
2. independant
3. Reliable sources; which provide
4. significant coverage of the topic.

This generally means things like newspaper articles, books, magazines, or similarly reliable sources unrelated to EDU itself. Once you have multiple independent sources to establish a valid article, you can cite EDU itself for basic and non-promotional information about it. Alsee (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Archiving talk pages

The talk page for List of suicides has never been archived, it goes back to 2005. At least ten years, perhaps more could be reasonably whacked off and archived but I am not sure if there is an accepted way to do this. Anyone here like to do the honors? How about the honours? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I've added an archive bot call. If you want to tweak the parameters you can do so. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, anything will be better than once a decade. Carptrash (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Bot

Hello everyone, I'm from ckbwiki. What should i do to creating a bot? I want some information about that. Please only summary (not too long). Thanks. ئارام بکر (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You can look at Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot. Ruslik_Zero 19:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi ئارام بکر. You can find all bot-related information at Wikipedia:Bots. Bots require approval at Bot Approvals Group, and you can find more more information at Bot Approvals Group/Guide. Alsee (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both! ئارام بکر (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Editing question

why is this wiki editable if changes are just going to be reverted by commie pinkos?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 19:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

When you post your own opinions into an article, your edits will always be reverted by ordinary volunteer editors, none of whom are "commie pinkos" as far as I know. The reason is that Wikipedia does not contain the opinions of its editors, it reports what is written in WP:Reliable sources. Dbfirs 19:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's a few things you might want to consider before continuing to edit here. First of all, calling other users commies or the like will not get you very far. Secondly your edits were getting reverted because they appear to be nonconstructive/vandalism. You might want to review some of our basic pages such as our policy on neutrality, original research, and sourcing before you continue. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 19:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Atarmiga, Wikipedia is edited by people from across the planet and from all ideological backgrounds. Everyone is expected to collaborate in a reasonably civil manner. Your editing privileges will quickly be revoked if you make personal attacks against other editors.

Wikipedia invites and allows almost anyone to edit. If we allow you to expand, alter, or delete the work of other people then you need to accept that other people can equally expand, alter, or delete your edits. We do not expect new contributors to know all of Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines, but we do expect people to respect community rules and social norms when they are pointed out. We have policies on what kinds of edits are appropriate and which are not. We have mechanisms for Dispute resolution when disagreements arise. It takes time to learn what kinds of edits are accepted and why. When a more experienced editor reverts your edit there is probably a good reason.

The main thing to understand is that articles should summarize what Reliable Sources say about a topic, and content should generally have a reference to a reliable source to verify that content. In this edit to the Left Behind article you wrote "These books are full of lies". You cannot add things that you "know" or "believe" to be true. We call that Original Research. It is appropriate for any other editor to remove Original Research. Do not attempt to write "truth" into articles, and do not attempt to argue "truth" on talk pages. Wikipedia deals with every controversial topic on the planet. As we all know, people can endlessly argue opposite sides of "truth" on the internet. We don't allow that. It would be endlessly disruptive to our work. Wikipedia articles do not contain "truth", articles should accurately summarize what Reliable Sources say about a topic. When reliable sources present conflicting viewpoints, we cover each significant viewpoint roughly in proportion to the presence of those viewpoints in those Reliable Sources. Fringe viewpoints receive little or no coverage, unless the article is specifically dedicated covering that noteworthy view. Alsee (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Speech recognition

Hello everyone, I want to know whether wikipedia or any other wiki project support speech recognition input, and if not, will it be ever available in the near future, thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto Sheva2 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Otto, Wikipedia has no restriction on editors using speech recognition software at their end to input material into articles. Was this what you wished to get clarifications upon? If not, please feel free to ask again. Thanks, Lourdes 11:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Lourdes, thanks for your reply. You seem to have misunderstood me. What I meant was whether Wikipedia offers a speech recognition feature such as the one we find in Google (Voice Search without having to type for example). I hope that's cleared it up for you. Thanks again.

Hello Otto, none that I know of. Lourdes 10:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

notations or corrections needed on Cajun Navy

the news media often mentions the Cajun Navy as one group and various interviews have been occuring on many cable and broadcast news channels including .com sites where the reporters do NOT understand that there are several Cajun Navy groups and they are NOT related. 1) Cajun Navy Relief 2) Louisiana Cajun Navy 3) America's Cajun Navy

You can search facebook for these and also google searches. Cajun Navy is primarily an "idea" or a call to action. all the groups coordinate boat traffic using a combination of facebook page interaction with the public and Zello the phone app but one that stands out using a data base and flow of dispatcher info including a vetting process of dispatchers is Cajun Navy Relief. They use the same system as American Red Cross.

Cajun Navy Relief has not attempted to charge volunteers any fees but one or the others have done this ( to charge dues etc) to charge fees.

i have volunteered with at least two of these. 99% good people all volunteering but there is an element of fund-raising connected with one or more of these.

Thank you for providing such a wonderful resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C40:9880:3D5E:432F:6295:A0A8 (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. Please take this to the article's talks page at talk:Cajun Navy. If you have the time and wish to help, go ahead and edit the article directly. We do require that you cite what we call "reliable sources" such as mainstream web sites or newspapers. We are all volunteers here, so your help would be appreciated. If you do not have the time to learn our weird ways, just dump you info into the talk page any old way and someone else might edit the article with it, but we do need sources. -Arch dude (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

George Washington Bridge

Just to let you know Cass Gilbert was the Architect for the GWB (George Washington Bridge) He was NOT engineer of design. Cass Gilbert was architect for the the never added stone work for the GWB. Engineer of design was Allston Dana. Chief engineer was Othmar Ammann. PLEASE correct you information on this! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grillage 2 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Grillage 2 What is your source for this information? We can't just take your word for it. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

​ https://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/10/nyregion/a-50-year-view-of-the-george-washington-bridge.html seems to support the editor's claim. I've not reviewed the article to check whether this information is already included within or not... Lourdes 05:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we can consider Cass Gilbert as the architect of the bridge itself. He was only commissioned to do cosmetic additions, particularly the masonry to the giant towers, which was never implemented due to lack of funds. The industrial-looking towers, which we see today, were designed by Ammann, who was initially unhappy because he did not intend them to be seen (sources: 1. New York's Golden Age of Bridges (ISBN: 9780813543758); 2) The George Washington Bridge: Poetry in Steel (ISBN: 9780813543758)). The New York Times source cited above also supports this as it indicated that Gilbert was the architect who proposed to face the towers with sculptured stone, which was discarded and he himself was dismissed. - Darwin Naz (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Darwin Naz: @Grillage 2: Please continue this on the article's talk page. The help desk is for questions about using or editing Wikipedia, and discussions here are deleted after a fairly short time. Thanks. -Arch dude (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Arch dude: Noted. Thanks. Darwin Naz (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)