Help desk
< September 2	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 4 >

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 3

Chapeltown, Leeds

I have added a file in the "Development" section of this page. But It failed. Here is the file: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupton_family#/media/File:Potternewton_Hall_Estate;_home_of_Olive_Middleton_(nee_Lupton)_and_her_cousin_Baroness_von_Schunck_(nee_Kate_Lupton).jpg

Please change the caption below on this file to the following: Potternewton Hall Estate, off Chapeltown Road - home of Leeds Mayor Darnton Lupton in the 1830s

Done. (might write out a more detailed reason why the error occurred later) OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 02:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced search bug?

I have noticed this every time I've tried using it, but never got around to asking about or reporting it. Has anyone else noticed that in the Advanced Search, when you enter something in the "Exactly this text" box, it doesn't actually search on just that string? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please always include an example when you report an issue. Are you using quotation marks as apparently required? There is help on an icon with "i" in a circle. This displays MediaWiki:Advancedsearch-help-phrase which says "(only valid when using quotation marks, see example below)". It's reported in phab:T210611. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response and apologies for the delay, PrimeHunter. Yes, I had read that help, but it's misleading, e.g. saying that it "Searches for a specific sequence of characters"and "(only valid when using quotation marks..." implies that there's a choice of using them or not, surely? The thing is, you can use quotation marks in the ordinary search and it will have the same effect. Also, it's not made clear on the Advanced Search drop-down how what you put in there relates to the top field. It's only by trial and error that I find it looks for both if you enter something in the top line, but it doesn't matter if you don't. Perhaps it's the help screen that needs a bit more explanation? Anyway - now that I've worked it out, it's no longer a problem for me, but I still don't think it's very clear to a newbie! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lacksley Castell

how do you get you guys to change bad article about my brother Lacksley castell death he died from a stomach illness which he had for a very long time why spread rumors about TB and so on you guys never interview me but you guys have pieces of info about my brother date of birth full name year of death and so on please stop now and correct article ok Trevor Castell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.4.110 (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there are errors, you can point them out at Talk:Lacksley Castell, supporting your assertions with references to published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not interview anyone because that would be a WP:Primary source. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia reports only what it finds in WP:Reliable sources. I can find no mention of TB in the sources, so I'll remove that. Can you conform that he was born in 1959? One source seems to have got the year wrong, though it does put a question mark. If you can point us to better published articles about your brother, then we can improve the Wikipedia article. Dbfirs 13:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference/Citation Errors

I noticed all incoming wikipedia page changes have errors displayed in References section. Not caused by edit. They normally are not errors. Possible template change that is causing this Massive errors. See sample update such as Emily Blunt or Toby Chu. SWP13 (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some bright spark changed a module without having run a bot to sort things out beforehand. See Help talk:Citation Style 1#update to the cs1|2 module suite after 2 September 2019. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

>>@David Biddulph:, Problem seemed solved now. Thanks, glad you responded so quickly.SWP13 (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC) @SWP13:[reply]

2009 census figures

According to the Kenya national bureau of statistics, Luo is the fourth largest community-at 4.044 million.The previous article in Wikipedia wrongfully indicated that Luo is the third largest tribe,at 5.044 million.I effected the first corrections and someone changed the figures again.I have changed the figures to the correct values once more.Please ensure that nobody inserts the wrong figures again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professsor Llunberg (talk • contribs) 14:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Llunberg If there are habitual and repeated efforts to put incorrect information, and those doing it do not respond to your efforts to discuss it with them(either directly or on the article talk page) you can request temporary page protection at WP:RFPP; but other than that, it is up to editors following the article to ensure that the information presented is accurate and properly cited. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be considered an original research?

Hello everyone:

I was recently claimed to have referenced a page with an original research but, after had carefully reading Wikipedia:No original research page, I think that my contribute did not violated this principle. Very quickly: in an airport page, I added the end of a service by pointing to the company website. Company do not expressly stated that the route will end on that given date (they almost never announce dismissal of routes), but it was enough to set origin and destination to make calendar appears. Calendar, consequentally, shows availability of the route up to the indicated date. By selecting last available dates, another page appears (of course to give the user info on times, prices, etc. of the selected flights) and that was the page I used for reference. Is it an original research? Can it be considered a valid reference? Which alternative reference can be used in order not to deny this information?

Of course, I remain available for more info. TY in advance Riktetta (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's probably WP:OR because you inferred the inavailability of the service on those dates was indicative that the service was being terminated. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223: would it be acceptable, instead, to use as reference just the company home page? in this case the assertion would not come from my side, but will be verifiable by any third party... Riktetta (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Because the website doesn't contain the claim so it would immediately fail WP:V. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Riktetta: I had a look through your recent contributions; was it your edit at Milan Malpensa Airport regarding the Liverpool–Milan Ryanair route? Two possible sources might be anna.aero, which on a quick look appears to be reliable (you might need to check at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard), and the website of the Liverpool Echo, the local/regional newspaper serving Liverpool. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hassocks5489: thanks, i will check immediately. Best regards Riktetta (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

cite web require?

for some reason several articles are now showing 'cite web require' such as 2018-19 Kivu Ebola epidemic, they didnt show this a few days ago?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new controversial requirement discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Is there a semi-automated tool that could fix these annoying "Cite Web" errors? and elsewhere. It affects a huge number of articles and may be reverted or handled by a bot so I wouldn't spend time on it now. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thank you(I read the link to the discussion [1] OMG!!!!)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the cite web errors which require "website" or "newspaper" - I've added a citation onto an article just now which appears to contain the error as well as global citations. I think almost every page from Aardvark to Zebra has some sort of error affecting almost every citation using the specific template.

In terms of bots, I've noticed that a certain bot, called "NihlusBOT" has previously fixed the cite web issues regarding translated text from the source language to English by changing minor errors like this example. Like all other tasks, this takes time and since this will affect almost every page, we will wait for a long time before everything has been cleared of errors. I will certainly not fix them myself as that will take much longer. Iggy (Swan) 20:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Convert template for old uk money pre-decimilasation

Hi Folks, I have this article: Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom. At the moment the article has several details regarding costs for telegrams and working in telegram offices. For example in the Profitability section it has one shilling, 1s which is a shilling, 1/6d which I think is 1.5 shillings or 1 and sixpence. Is there anyway to normalise then in a manner that reader would be able to understand. I don't think the average UK reader never mind anybody else would know what 1/6d means. I know in certain articles you have the convert template, which enables you standard reading for a specific value. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 17:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: There's {{Pounds, shillings, and pence}}, though no articles are currently using it. £{{£sd|s=1|d=6|round=3}} --> £0.075 -- John of Reading (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are some of us who still understand £sd, but will the template convert to 7.5 new pence which is maybe more understandable than £0.075? Dbfirs 18:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbfirs: No it won't. And 1/6 was roughly my weekly pocket money in 1971. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember getting that amount in pocket money, and saving some of it!

The amounts in the article already have links to the corresponding coins and units, so I don't think there is much advantage in converting to a currency that would not exist for another hundred years. Perhaps some indication of today's value would be more useful for readers? Dbfirs 19:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this style £0.525? Deor (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University of Maryland University College article

Hello,

I would like to get a clarification about the "University of Maryland University College" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Maryland_University_College) article. As of July 1, 2019, the University of Maryland University changed its name to University of Maryland Global Campus (Source: https://globalmedia.umuc.edu/2019/07/01/umuc-is-now-university-of-maryland-global-campus/). My question is: Should a new article with the new name be created or can the current article title be changed to the new name of the university?

Bob Ludwig --Rtludwig (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the name has officially changed, we normally would move the article to the new title (effectively a name change), leaving the old title as a redirect for anyone who might search under the old name. I recommend starting a discussion at Talk:University of Maryland University College. Crow^Caw 22:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Rtludwig posted on the talk page and I have moved the article as requested today. TSventon (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]