Help desk
< February 1	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 3 >

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.

February 2

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref

On the Scottish independence referendum (link below) page I added two newspaper references regarding legal opinions on the need for an Article 30. There is now an error message saying that the closing ref tag is missing but it is in fact there. I am baffled as to the problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_second_Scottish_independence_referendum#Details — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.55.34 (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed There was a stray opening ref tag in the middle of the first reference (Daily Record). Also some duplicate parameters and the URL was in a second 'title' parameter. Eagleash (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a Wikipedia editor is also notable enough to have a Wikipedia article

should the article about that person identify their Wikipedia account? Doing so could help:

prevent the person from being blocked as a suspected impersonator (see User talk:ActualSamuelLJackson)
identify possible conflicts of interest (see User talk:ActuallyJLaw)
identify actual impersonators
allow people with the same name to use their own names without being accused/suspected of intent to impersonate

Linking the notable person's article to their account might also pose some risks:

stalking (eg, bombardment with declarations of love from adoring fans or requests to meet up)
harassment (eg, edits constantly reverted or vandalized by people just because they dislike that person, regardless of whether or not those edits improve Wikipedia)

Wanted to mention a few more pros and cons, but they've slipped my mind. 96.244.220.178 (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No editor except the subject should make this connection in the article or anywhere else in Wikipedia. It is a case of WP:OUTING, which is prohibited. The article's subject may choose to make the connection on the user's talk page, the article's talk page, or elsewhere. Whether or not the user should place the info in the article itself is a matter of the user's editorial judgement, but since the user should not be editing the article,the user would have to use an {{edit request}} on the article's talk page, and in fact the user cannot edit the article at all without disclosing this connection: see WP:COI. -Arch dude (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will look at those policy pages next. But the deadline is now, so should i revert my edit to User talk:ActualSamuelLJackson, or are he and J Law outing themselves in their YouTube videos? 96.244.220.178 (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert it quick. Wikipedia Outing policy is a minefield of obfuscation. Better safe than sorry, and you can always go back and suggest your changes again. To answer the original question, No -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 07:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. [Resumes reading policy] 96.244.220.178 (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OUTING — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.220.178 (talk • contribs)

Editors and articles

I have just seen this, and am curious about it also. I wonder if I should provide a link to Curved space somewhere in my userspace, but I think it unlikely I will be confused with the properties of spacetime. What is the policy for editors who have a username that could be confused with articles, assuming it was not done maliciously? I apologize if this should be classed as a new question. I have subbed it as I think it similar enough to the original topic. Curved Space (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. A username being similar to an actual topic is very common. We do have quite a few Wikipedia editors that are notable in their own right, but they themselves are responsible for staying COI. Having a username the same as an article or popular topic isn't in of itself a big deal, unless it was of a business or trying to impersonate a real life person. If there was an article or notable person called Lee Vilenski for example, I would potentially have something on my user page stating that I have no connection to them. This would happen in user/talk space, not article space. You are of course quite obliged to put whatever you want in your userpage. I don't think there is any policy other than usernames that suggest more than one person is using the account, an impersonation, or that of a business. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edit to 'Stokenchurch'

You recently criticised my edit to the 'Stokenchurch' page and threatened to bar my contributions. The content I provided was entirely correct and relevant. Before completion of the M40 motorway Stokenchurch was the rest point for Black & White coaches between Cheltenham and London. They were a major passenger carrier which became a significant part of National Express, with Cheltenham as their main hub. 31.125.32.84 (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We require statements made to be verifiable. With no source, we can't verify the content is actually true, so it is removed.

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability for why, and User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners for how. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 08:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Alex Noble has stated above, you need verified, reliable, secondary, sources for any information you may wish to add to the Stokenchurch page. In any case the inclusion of old Black & White stopping place is hardly notable and does not seem to be in the correct place. Also you appear to be starting as edit war, which is not acceptable. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback?

As far as I know I do not have rollback rights, I certainly haven't requested it, but I just reverted an edit ([1]) and noticed I was given the option to rollback on it. I didn't, as I didn't consider it outright vandalism and used regular undo. I've subsequently checked a few other pages and they all seem to offer rollback as well. So the obvious answer is that I do have it -- but where did it come from?

If I'm allowed to use it, I'll use it, but equally I have no desire to be accused of gaining unauthorised access to tools.

Thanks. Curved Space (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Curved Space: You don't have the user right called rollback but you have probably enabled Twinkle at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. This gives a slower rollback link you are allowed to use. See more at Wikipedia:Rollback. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is true. Thank you for the clarification. Curved Space (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references missing group

Hey There Is Some Error While editing some information please help me to solve this issue Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Parimal (talk • contribs) 11:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.Parimal: Seems to have been fixed with this edit. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Please provide a link to pages you need help with. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading image

I want to upload an image of an upcoming movie, it is a First Look poster of the movie. I tried to do it once but it got taken down, can someone else do it for me please? The wiki page of the movie is called "Devi (2020 film)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kajolqueen (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may not upload it because it is protected by copyright and not released under a free licence. Ruslik_Zero 20:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lost All Edits

I spent hours editing the page for Andy Pilgrim, Racing Driver. Today I received a message saying some of my contributions may have been removed. I just checked and the old page, with many, many mistakes was back.

I work for Andy Pilgrim. The information I posted was from Andy Pilgrim directly.

The page Wikipedia reverted to contains wrong and inaccurate information. How could this be considered verified as accurate?

Please help, as I may lose my job over this.

Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrochstein (talk • contribs) 21:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dbrochstein - If you work for Andy Pilgrim, you should not edit any article about him directly. See our policy on Conflict of interest and Paid editing. You will need to state this on your userpage. Your edits were reverted for many reasons, mostly due to stylistic and promotional rationales. The article currently does need improving, so if you have suggestions, you must post these on the talk page with a {{Request edit}} template. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dbrochstein. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. The article Andy Pilgrim is Wikipedia's article about Pilgrim: it is not "his page" in any way. Wikipedia has little interest in what he and his associates have said, and no interest at all in what they wish the article to say: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with Pilgrim have chosen to say about him, and been published in reliable places. Once you have make the mandatory declarations mentioned by Lee Vilenski, you are welcome to request edits to the article: they are much more likely to be actioned if you cite reliable published sources for any information you suggest adding. --ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to Remove a Page

This is a follow up. Based on the editing rules of content that the subject of the page created himself (I pasted it in), and the fact that what's up know is mostly inaccurate, what is the process for the subject of the page, in this case Andy Pilgrim, to have his page removed? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrochstein (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbrochstein: It's not his page, it's our article about him.

That said, there are no sources whatsoever in the article, so I've tagged it to be deleted if no one adds any sources within a week. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to cite a GoFundMe funding level

So, in re organisational funding I've a line "The group has raised £2000 in the ten months since it began." The funding source is GoFundMe, it's the group's only documented funding source, but how do I cite the number without using a blacklisted link to GoFundMe? Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yappy2bhere, If no other source than GoFundMe mentions the funding, don't. We say what reliable secondary sources say about our subjects. If such a source has not noted GoFundMe funds, then it is presumed to not be relevant or noteworthy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i'd say the information is so trivial as to have no place in an encyclopedia article. --Orange Mike | Talk 09:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

efn template does not display group names

With {{refn}}, which is an equivalent of <ref>, using the group parameter will display the group name with the footnote number in the main text. Example: If the first footnote is {{refn|group=cat|Text of footnote}}, it will display in the main text as ^{[cat 1]}. {{efn}}, which is the same as refn except it uses letters instead of numbers, won't do this; it displays just the letter without the group name. I want {{efn|group=dog|The text of footnote}} to display ^{[[dog a]]} instead of ^[a]. According to the efn template's /doc using the group works the same as in <ref> or {{refn}}, but that's clearly wrong, why? How do I get the different group names to display? All the efn footnote letters are duplicated because of multiple groups and have no differentiation in the display. LisztianEndeavors (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ Text of footnote

^ The text of footnote

LisztianEndeavors, referencing and footnotes in Wikipedia is wonderfully confusing. {{efn}} is for creating explanatory note footnotes rather than reference footnotes. The group name doesn't affect how the notes are lettered. You have a choice of multiple ways of numbering or lettering the notes, so if there is more that one group, choose different numbering or lettering styles. There is a corresponding {{notelist}} to use with each style. For example if you want to number with lower case Roman numerals, use {{efn-lr}} for the notes and {{notelist-lr}} for the section they will appear in. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't address my problem. The problem is getting the group name to display using the efn template. LisztianEndeavors (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may not be explaining well enough. Efn does not display group names because the code is not written to display group names in that way. refn and efn do things very differently. refn (like the usual <ref>) adds the group name to the number so the the reader can tell the numbers apart for the different groups as in [note 1] if the group name is note. efn lets you pick the kind of labels to use ([a], [i], etc) to use so the user can tell them apart. It does not add the group name to the displayed footnote number. Are you trying to use something like [note a]? If so, I don't think we have a way of doing that other than writing the hypertext backlinks yourself. StarryGrandma (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is efn allows the use of the group parameter, but why?, it doesn't display it. I have footnotes labelled [a] [b] [c] etc. in one group, and different [a] [b] [c] etc. in another group, and so the user CAN'T tell them apart. That's why I need the group name; that's what the group name should do. I can't use <ref> or {{refn}} with groups (which DOES display) because I can only get numbered refs and not letters. I already have [cat 1] [cat 2] etc. using {{refn}}, as well as standard [1] [2] etc. I also need [cat a] [cat b] etc. but I don't know how to get that. (I also have [A] [B] etc. using {{efn}}).

I looked at {{ref}} and its associated templates, but THAT is beyond confusing. Also popup tooltips don't work with {{ref}} and if you have that gadget turned on, clicking on a reference link will not take you to the reference list; it'll do nothing, making the reference useless. If I could figure out the html code to get that gadget to work, I suppose I could hard code html. But it would be tons easier if {{efn}} should and could display the group name, especially since I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't and the documentation actually (falsely) says it does! It almost seems like a bug to me.

I'd also like to order the reference list in a specific order (alpha or chronologically), and not in the numbered order the references appear first in the main text (so the numbering would be out of sequence in the main text, but that's okay). But that's a different problem, yet it looks like I might solve that with directly writing html code too. I guess that would be better for both problems than using {{ref}} and {{note}} (I can see why those are deprecated: they're way too difficult to understand how to use!) LisztianEndeavors (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reference templates evolved over time, with easier to use versions coming later. Yes, for efn the documentation says "group" should act as in refn, but when efn's functionality was being expanded back in 2013/2014 that behavior was not added. The documentation was changed in 2015 to use the common documentation without pointing out the efn difference. If you would like this functionality added, you can ask at Template talk:Efn. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I start a project

How do I start one? New3400 (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:WikiProject#Creating and maintaining a project? --David Biddulph (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Text of footnote

[2] The text of footnote

[cat 1]

[a]