Help desk
< December 9	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 11 >

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.

December 10

Lupton family

In the "Alan Lupton" section, there is a publication/link called the Graphic - the link is currently wrong (it takes the reader to Graphics - as in the world of art) and should be linked to the actual publication: "The Graphic" - which does have a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Graphic

I cannot do add the correct link at this point in time. Thank you in advance. 175.38.42.62 (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Australia! Somebody has fixed it. The fix was extraordinarily simple. What could have prevented you from doing it yourself mystifies me. -- Hoary (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, If you knew who this user was, you wouldn't be so mystified. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.215.44 (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict] :

Done. I (or you) could have wikilinked "[The Graphic]" rather than "the [Graphic]", but that wouldn't have fit the sentence style as well, so instead I used a "pipe" symbol "|" in the wikilink code thus: [The Graphic|Graphic] which displays "Graphic" but links to [The Graphic]. (Single instead of double brackets used for illustrative purposes.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.215.44 (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Four numbers in a row, if you knew who this user was, perhaps you wouldn't bother to explain how to do anything. The user rarely if ever expresses any interest in acquiring even the most trivial and humdrum skill. -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed links another 11 articles to The Graphic and one to Daily Graphic (Ghana). I removed the Graphic link from the Paperback article, and am not sure which wikilink would be more appropriate. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PIZZA

I intend to improve the "pizza" article. I noticed that many US and Canadian styles are indicated, but just as many styles of Italian pizza are missing (since the pizza is Italian, more importance should be given to the Italian styles); I can't add images, because it's a delicate thing, so that's the only thing blocking me, but I would like to add all the missing styles. Paragraph: Pizza#Varieties and styles. JackkBrown (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, I had a pizza just last week. It wasn't Italian (or American); it was Japanese. But maybe you meant that pizza is Italian in origin. Let's say that's true. If it's true, that's no reason why more attention shouldn't be paid to US pizza than to Italian pizza. Neither is there any reason I can think of why you shouldn't add material, of course properly referenced, about Italian pizza, so that as a result the article will be more informative about Italian than about US pizza. As has previously been pointed out in response to some of your many questions here, one reason why such-and-such is written in this or that article is that some user thought at the time that adding it would be a good idea, and that nobody subsequently disagreed (or anyway that nobody subsequently disagreed effectively). Since your question is specific to one article, then the place to ask (if it's worth asking at all, and I suspect that it isn't) is at the foot of the talk page (Talk:Pizza) of that article. -- Hoary (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, to more directly answer your question, per WP:BALANCE, you should give weight to article content based on the prominence of each topic in reliable sources. So, for most the encyclopedic (at least on Wikipedia) article, you would need to check out all sources that talk about pizza and see how much attention is paid to each style. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 04:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sungodtemple, WP:BALANCE is about the relative prominence given to viewpoints. I think you're thinking of the section that follows it, WP:ASPECTS. It is, of course, impossible to check all the sources for pizza; but if somebody checked a representative sample thereof, I wouldn't be surprised if those on US pizzas outweighed those on Italian pizze. -- Hoary (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: some important varieties and styles of Italian pizza are missing. JackkBrown (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, then you are most welcome to add well referenced material about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoary (talk • contribs) 05:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: I have added some dates of birth for some Italian pizzas (US sources are not many on this, so I'm at a better advantage). I would like to ask you if I wrote correctly in English "Its origins are not clearly documented, but it is thought that this pizza has roots in Italy in the 20th century.". Page: Pizza. JackkBrown (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no published and cited source for that assertion, it shouldn't be in a WP article. Otherwise the reader is likely to think "thought by whom?". The whole of that table lacks citations to the dates but maybe they are in the linked articles? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Tag-teaming Hoary) That sentence is perfectly good English, but is it correct? The linked article suggests an 18th-century origin, with a reference.

In passing, I note that the last sentence of that article , "Its less obvious and more recent versions, like the quattro lati pizza, can be on the opposite tracked in the history of gastronomy." [my italics] ends in gibberish – perhaps you could visit the linked, Italian-language source and re-render the text into intelligible English? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.215.44 (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ip, I edited the description, as you rightly pointed out to me; please check if I wrote it perfectly in English. JackkBrown (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edited "First attested" description is grammatically correct English. For a table entry, I personally would have omitted "Its origins are" and "it is", but this is a matter of stylistic choice. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.30.195} 90.199.215.44 (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about block reason?

I've been scouting out a new username, and I found one I liked. However, it has been indefinitely blocked for the reason "username" (surrounded by double curly brackets). What does that mean? I've tried looking it up but I couldn't find anything. Angel (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how we are supposed to answer this question if we are not told what the username is. Remsense留 09:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does it violate our Wikipedia:Username policy? Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A reason like that sounds like a template, and you'd look up the history of the template for the version at the time. Assuming it was done some time ago, {{username}} would translate to something like Template:Uw-ublock today. The username policy has the current policy, which may (or may not) clarify the reason for the block, as well as guide your search for a new name. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Brangwyn

This is the correct URL for reference number 15 (which is in red) : https://www.messums.com/artists/view/782/George_Graham Ref number 34 is also in red. Please fix if you can, thank you. 175.38.42.62 (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Australia! Each of the two purports to cite a journal; neither of them cites a journal. -- Hoary (talk) 0y6:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The source is the website of Messum's, a London art gallery. Template:Cite journal is the wrong template to use. I changed it to Template: Cite web and that solved the error message. Cullen328 (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vampirefreaks

I would like to just make a correction about the Vampirefreaks page on your website. It was said on there that the physical clothing store closed in 2003, but I clearly remember going to that store back in 2010. I don 74.67.121.49 (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you were got that the Vampirefreaks physical store closed in 2003, but it's wrong. 74.67.121.49 (talk) 07:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the website of Vampirefreaks, it said that the physical store closed in 2012 74.67.121.49 (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Vampirefreaks.com and the section in question is Vampirefreaks.com#Physical clothing store. Please note that this section is unreferenced which is an indication that it should not be trusted. I found a company Facebook post that said the physical store closed in after the 2011 Christmas season. Remember that Wikipedia articles are written by volunteers. Some do a good job. Others not so much. The article is unprotected and you are welcome to correct the article, citing the company website. Cullen328 (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was some vandalism to the dates in August 2023, which I have reverted. GoingBatty (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia page, how to improve it?

Hi, I would like to improve a wikipedia page and rimove the issues. Can you please help me? I do not understand how to improve it considering that I already added much more information and and references. Thank you for your help. 2A02:1808:204:68DE:7D60:EA81:EB70:D7EF (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other pages listed in your contribution history, I assume you have edited across multiple different IP addresses. What is the page in question? Remsense留 10:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense Probably Young European Research Universities Network, judging by their second edit which removed YERUN from their post here and the recent addition here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can also search for unregistered contributions by CIDR range (assuming you have the appropriate gadget enabled), but in this case you have to go up to the /40 to find the contribution at Young European Research Universities Network. For this case Mike Turnbull's method is clearly superior, but just an FYI. Folly Mox (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:(

How do I get sand box Mode :/ :3 •_• — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooperturton (talk • contribs) 10:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Cooperturton and welcome to Wikipedia! you may create your sandbox by going to User:Cooperturton/sandbox. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 13:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cooperturton: If you ever want to easily access your sandbox, you can click on the

dropdown menu in the top-right corner of the page then choose Sandbox. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to publish first short article

I have found it ridiculously impossible to publish my first article contribution about a former nightclub, after trying to follow your very confusing Help pages.

Instead of just stating A-Z or step by step on how to easily accomplish this - you provide pages of unrelateable fluff including syntax, instead of user-friendly information, and I'm left shaking my head. Real help requested, please. Cugrad16 (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cugrad16 Creating a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia. We usually recommend that new users first gain experience and knowledge by first editing existing articles in areas that interest them, as well as using the new user tutorial.

You have created a draft in your sandbox, but have not yet submitted it for a review- you need to click the "submit your draft for review!" button displayed on the screen at the top of your draft. If you were to submit it now, though, it would be declined, as you have no sources to support its content. All information must be sourced to independent reliable sources. Please see Referencing for Beginners for more information on writing references. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cugrad16, you might find helpful the guidance at User:Houseblaster/YFA draft, which is a bit more streamlined while touching on the main points. (COI note: I edited that page on several occasions). Folly Mox (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cugrad16 welcome to Wikipedia! I left you some links in your talk page that you may find useful. In addition, a more direct response to your inquiry is this link that explains how to create an article, step by step. Best regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cugrad16 The "A" is "Does the subject I have chosen have the required sources so my attempt at a WP-article will be accepted?" More at WP:BACKWARD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not logged in.To be notified when someone replies and receive attribution with your name instead of your IP address you can log in or create an account 41.114.220.246 (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cugrad16, the most important thing for you to understand is that an acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable, published independent sources say about the topic, and that coverage must be significant. See Verifiability. Your personal opinions and recollections have no place in a Wikipedia article. See No original research. The article must be written from the Neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chiara Gamberale

Chiara Gamberale#Bibliography: here it said "References", but this is clearly the "Bibliography" section (I don't know why it was called "References", maybe there is something I'm missing) JackkBrown (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: Don't remove the {{reflist}} template, that is what generates the list of references used in the article. RudolfRed (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed: there are no references in the article. JackkBrown (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: Everything inside {{Cite book}} or ref tags is a references. I see several there. RudolfRed (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, I don't know why you say that: there are clearly 8 numbered citations, all within the "List of works" (which is what should (or at least could) be called "Bibliography") which link to the Reference section that you have incorrectly re-titled.

That said, the article's main text is indeed unreferenced. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.215.44 (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, have you considered searching the Manual of Style for these questions before asking here? Like I have said numerous times before, you can find pretty direct answers to many of your questions there.
In this case, MOS:WORKS says that the specific name or structure of this section does not matter, what matters is that it is present in some form, containing some combination of inline citations and the works that have been cited. These may be found in sections called "Notes", "References", "Bibliography", "Further reading", "Works cited", "Citations"—the precision simply does not matter that much, because the function of the works as they relate to the inline citations is adequately clear and may differ to suit the needs of the particular article. Remsense留 23:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]