Help desk
< December 22	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 24 >

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 23

Inclusion in subcategory negating inclusion in parent category?

Hi. I admit that after more than 11 years here categories still confound me. My excuse is that I typically avoid them like the plague, since a lot of the time they are unsourced (inline citations are not strictly speaking possible, right?) and as a result I am not experienced. What I do know is that someone off-wiki complained about how "American women writers" were not being included in "American writers" because inclusion in the former implied inclusion in the latter.

Our Bai Juyi article is currently included in Category:Three Hundred Tang Poems poets and also in Category:Tang dynasty poets. Is this an error that I should correct?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUPCAT has exceptions and it often seems like a judgment call. incategory:"Three Hundred Tang Poems poets" incategory:"Tang dynasty poets" shows seven articles in both categories. I don't know whether this is random or based on some evaluation. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the former is a closed list that was defined by inclusion in a specific 18th-century collection, while the latter is poets who were active and/or lived during a particular dynastic period. I'm an inclusionist when it comes to categorizing poets who wrote almost all their notable work in the Five Dynasties period after the fall of the Tang, but who were technically alive during the Tang Dynasty, but I guess in theory if the compiler of the Three Hundred Tang Poems held a similar view to me (I don't know) then we would have articles in the "Three Hundred" category that in some Wikipedians' view would not belong in the "Tang poets" category, but for all intents and purposes the one is entirely a subcategory of the other. But actually, of the seven article you mention, four of them are my fault, because I copied the Bai Juyi categories into several other articles I wrote before realizing that there was some unnecessary overlap between them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The basic principle is that you shouldn't put an article in a parent and a child category (or a child and a farther-back ancestor), as illustrated in the image I've just placed in this section; otherwise you could put massive amounts of content into basic categories (imagine how full Category:Earth would be, for example!), which defeats the whole purpose of having subcategories. If you want additional information, go to Commons and read Commons:COM:OCAT for a much better explanation of the same principle — I've never seen a writeup here of similar quality. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the whole "American women writers" vs "American writers" debacle occurred because someone came along in the middle of "American writers" being split into separate categories for women and men, such that "American writers" temporarily contained only men. We now have Category:American women writers and Category:American male writers, both subcats of Category:American writers. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secret's talk page

What happened to the user talk page for the account formerly known as "Secret (renamed)" or "Jaranda"? User talk:RenamedUser jaskldjslak901 properly has the history of its former name, User talk:Secret, Jaranda redirects to User talk:RenamedUser jaskldjslak904 (where the earlier history of Jaranda is), and Secret (renamed) redirects to User talk:RenamedUser jaskldjslak903 (where almost no history is). I checked User talk:RenamedUser jaskldjslak902 (non-extant) and User talk:RenamedUser jaskldjslak905 (unrelated editor), as well as checking the deleted edits in the histories of all pages concerned, but if Secret (renamed)'s talk page ever had more than nine edits, I can't find them. Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, perhaps arbcom might have a clarification on this. Lourdes 12:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

page for Christine Chubbuck

Hi - I have been trying to include the following line in the 'Popular Culture' section: In 2014, a song was written to honor the life of Chubbuck, titled "Christine (I Wish I Could Have)" with a reference to its YouTube page, however another editor keeps removing this line and has told me that I can't include it - is there any reason why it can't be included? Thanks 1.129.97.1 (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like most "in popular culture" content, it's not integrally related to the subject of the article: you need to have solid sourcing (not YouTube) mentioning it and tying it to the subject of the article. We can produce lots of miscellaneous facts about lots of people, but without a secondary source specifically addressing the fact as a significant part of the person's legacy, it's basically not appropriate to decide for ourselves that the fact is a significant part of the person's legacy. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. YouTube videos WP:YOUTUBE in general are not considered "reliable sources" WP:RS for WP. You would need to find a notable source stating and supporting the claim you're inserting within the article: " ... a song was written to honor the life of Chubbuck, titled "Christine (I Wish I Could Have)". You may link the YouTube in the External links if you choose; but definitive statements of fact need more substantial citations to be included within an article body. FYI aside from the inclusion on WP, I am not finding this claim anywhere except those that revert back to this WP article. Could you please provide an original source? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to get I my personal profile on Wikepedia? Thanks.

How to get my personal profile on Wikipedia?

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.22.55.70 (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Practice. Herostratus (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That typically doesn't help. Instead my advice would be, become famous. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am not exactly sure what Herostratus meant with their cryptic response, but you might profitably read the link WP:YOURSELF if you were thinking about a Wikipedia page about yourself, or WP:USERPAGE if you were thinking about something that is closer to a "personal page" (but please note that Wikipedia is not a social network). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... and, of course, you need to know that Wikipedia doesn't allow "personal profiles" in article space, as implied above. Dbfirs 16:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: Herostratus was referring to the old joke about the musician hurrying along the street on their way to [Carnegie Hall]] but having never been there before, and not quite knowing the way. They stopped a local and asked, "How do you get to Carnegie Hall?" And the answer was "practice" --S Philbrick (Talk) 18:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carnegie_Hall#Carnegie_Hall_joke (looks like I butchered it a bit, but I got the essence.)--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rules regarding other editor's contribs?

Is there a rule about checking other editor's contributions and perhaps going in after them and editing other things? Not touching their edits but using their contrib as a means to getting more exposure to pages you otherwise might not find? Even if I'm doing constructive edits? --Jennica✿ / ^talk 15:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOUND is probably as close as you'll get. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The one time in days I look at your edits, and you're asking for official word if you can still follow me around. Jennica, I have told you I don't like you following my edits. I didn't say you were attacking me, but I've made it clear I don't like it and that you should find other topics to edit yourself. You don't have free reign to make people feel uncomfortable on a "public domain", even if that isn't your intention, and I've said it makes me uncomfortable because you persistently do it for no real reason other than you want to make more edits. Say I'm overreacting all you like; I don't think I'm being unreasonable. Ss 112 15:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: I just don't feel like I'm doing anything wrong. I am not reverting you edits. Like someone else said, he thought we were working in tandem. You yourself said my edits were "pretty helpful". And I'm pretty sure the other day, you went behind my edits and actually changed them [Chart positions -> Charts], even though I got word from the person who wrote the MOSALBUM that it should be "Charts". I do gnome-ish fixes. You do primarily charts stuff. If I go to a page you went on and the reflist is 50 long, in one single line, why does it bother you that I change it? Like, have you even looked at what kind of edits I'm doing? Next time I edit a page, should I make sure SS112 hasn't touched it because he will get offended if I do? It's not harassment. Wikipedia is a public domain. I'm doing nothing to "harm" you. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 15:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you were reverting my edits. I know what you're doing on the pages I've edited. I didn't say you couldn't edit pages I've ever edited, jeez. That would be unreasonable. I asked you to stop looking at my contributions for ideas on what to edit. Someone's edits aren't a catalogue for you to look at and go, "what's that? That's interesting. I need to broaden my palate." Yes, I know what this site is. I didn't say nobody could ever look at my edits. I know it's publicly available to look at. But Wikipedia is a public domain that is privately owned, and there are rules, and I feel you're hounding me (which is quite in line with what that page says), which is against the rules, so please stop. If someone asks you to stop following them, isn't the decent thing to respect that request? Ss 112 15:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem obviously a WP:HOUND issue, since both sides seem to agree that the edits are not meant to be disruptive or distressing. This does however squarely fall under the principle of meta:Don't be a jerk. If someone asks you cordially to stop something that isn't really a big deal, refusing to is...kindof a jerk move. If everyone is here to build an encyclopedia, then everyone should be willing to take relatively minor steps to help others continue to do the same. TimothyJosephWood 15:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Offer

Jennica, you may want to change around who you follow on a weekly(?) basis. If you'd like to follow my edits for a week or so (till the end of the year), I'm good with that. Anyone else want to volunteer for the week after that?Naraht (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Naraht I never thought of what I was doing was "harassment" in anyway. Other people who's contribs I check have thanked me. I'll look at yours lol --Jennica✿ / ^talk 16:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Naraht. Jennica, if you choose to follow me around, improving artilces that I have been editing, I certainly shan't complain. Maproom (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is only for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. Take it to your talk pages, and failing a peaceful resolution, to WP:ANI or whatever place that will entertain such disputes. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a question about a policy. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 16:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to answer on your talk page. I didn't want to even post here, because I don't see why you did. It is a silly dispute because as Timothyjosephwood said above, the sensible thing is to respect reasonable requests to stop following someone when you have no need to. Ss 112 16:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tigraan: Now that's a bit harsh don't you think? Just because were forbidden from biting the new comers, doesn't mean we're given free reign to bite the old timers when they ask a question.

Jennica, if you're ever really in need of something to do, you can always check out one of our several dozen backlogs at Wikipedia:Backlog. TimothyJosephWood 16:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed a bit harsh, apologies to everyone involved. The bottom of it still stands: the policy question has been answered by zzuuzz (or at least, none complained that the answer was inadequate), and the rest of the discussion should go elsewhere. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitting - starting over or recovering from years ago

A few years ago I submitted a topic that was rejected because of the lack of external documentation. I would like to resubmit, but thinking it would be easier just to start over. Suggerstions? Tmk45112 (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tmk45112. I assume you are referring to KEEL Technology, which looks like it was deleted as an abandoned draft after six months of inactivity. It seems like the first thing you should figure out, is whether there are enough sources now in order to demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability standards.

If you think there is, and you think it would be helpful to start with your old draft instead of starting again, you can request that the deleted draft be restored by an administrator. However, it may take some time for an administrator to answer your request, so if the draft was quite short, it may be quicker just to start from scratch. TimothyJosephWood 15:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: The request for undeletion was made nearly 3 days ago, but that is one of the pages where there is a backlog waiting for admin attention. There is no hurry, of course. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. No hurry in anything other than the fact that somebody needs to recruit about 50 more people who can pass an RfA. TimothyJosephWood 16:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done For what it's worth, I used to spend some time at WP:REFUND. I stopped, largely because it seemed mostly cut up and occasionally I ran into crosspost when trying to restore so I moved to other areas with more significant backlogs. I notice that the page is not listed in {{Admin dashboard}} nor even in Template:Admin_dashboard#Administrative_backlog. Any good reason for the omission?--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After looking closer, just about everything has a timely response and it was only Keel that seem to slip through the cracks.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template for references suspect of WP:citogenesis?

Is there a template to tag a reference to mean it could have been copied from the Wikipedia article from before it was added?

I am having a bit of fun with the Citation Hunt tool and it happens a lot to come across instances where a WP:RS uses language suspiciously close to WP's. Sometimes, the reference popped up before the exact wording was introduced, so one can assume it was a case of editing without adding sources, but when the WP wording predate the source's you are supposed to assume the source double-checked. The more bizarre the WP language at the time and the more closely copied it was, the more likely a citogenesis seems. Is there a way to tag this? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tigraan. It looks like the closest thing currently available is {{Verify credibility}}, and then insert an explanation for your citogenesis concern in the reason= parameter. TimothyJosephWood 17:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

Could someone take a look at the talk page section Claim of "This article has multiple issues" for Tallahassee bus boycott article. I am not understanding the page curator. Not sure if I'm overlooking something or the curator is having a bad day. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may just be a bit of confusion. Robert McClenon mentions using Wikipedia as a link, but it doesn't look like the article does, or ever did. Maybe there were some crossed wires on which article was being discussed? TimothyJosephWood 19:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Result of a complicated but acceptable form of reference. Please ignore. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Could you please remove the tag at the top of the article then? Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done No special requirements for removing cleanup tags, other than a good faith effort to see that the issues were resolved. TimothyJosephWood 20:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]