Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 January 6

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.

January 6

The Centron Wiki Page

Jonathan Dixie Powers was a screen writer, producer, founder of CEF, developed the film catalog that was eventually sold to Coronet films and he ran the entire company for a number of years. He has not been mentioned. His leadership was as pivotal as any one who ever worked at the Lawrence, KS-based film company.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.38.124 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately obituaries themselves are not considered reliable sources since they are edited by primary sources. Perhaps you can find another reference to help support this fact? Tiggerjay (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Europe topic

Hi guys, I need some help fixing Template:Europe topic. Specifically around the UK_only option and displaying only some of the four constituent countries of the UK.

Let me explain, the code:

{{Europe topic|state=expanded|countries_only=yes|UK_only=no}}

returns:

which displays all four constituent countries.

Now, say we only wanted only three of the four countries, the code:

{{Europe topic|state=expanded|countries_only=yes|UK_only=no|SCT=}}

returns:

OK, great. This displays England, Northern Ireland and Wales.

The problem arises when we want to omit either England or Wales listed first and last respectively.

The code:

{{Europe topic|state=expanded|countries_only=yes|UK_only=no|ENG=}}

returns:

which as you can see displays Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales but the left parenthesis and the dot is missing.

While

{{Europe topic|state=expanded|countries_only=yes|UK_only=no|WLS=}}

returns:

displays England, Northern Ireland and Scotland but the right parenthesis is missing and an extra dot appears.

Can anyone proficient in navbox code help fix this problem. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed by [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Champion! Thanks PrimeHunter. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 08:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Case-sensitive search?

Wanting to use the List of RHPs in KY shortcut, but having only one hand available, I went to list of rhps in ky and clicked "Search", assuming that it would immediately notice the alternate capitalisation and send me to that page's target. To my surprise, [2] doesn't work properly — its first result is the target of the properly capitalised redirect, and its second is a subset of the main list, but after that, it's a bunch of Major League Baseball draft articles (apparently because of right-handed pitchers), and the page doesn't appear to know that a capitalisation variant exists. Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Nyttend. It works now. I created a redirect for the all downcased version. Just for you I also make a shorter one: rhps ky. Hope this helps. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but the issue is that the search is supposed to find versions identical except for identical capitalisation, and it failed; can anyone explain that happened that way? Nyttend (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What is your skin and where did you click "Search"? The box at the top right on every page in the default Vector skin should go to an exact match except capitalisation. That works for me. Your url [3] has fulltext=Search. That asks to not go to an exact match, so it gives a page of search results. Some search links work like that. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As I already said, I went to the redlink and clicked search, for which there's only one possibility: I clicked the Search for "List of rhps in ky" in existing articles link displayed by MediaWiki:Noarticletext when I went to the redlink. I use Monobook, but I don't see how that's at all relevant to an oddity with the search results. Since Checkingfax created the title as a redirect, I can't repeat the error again, but when I follow the same process with other titles, it doesn't happen. Just now, I went to list of rhps in oh (again, doesn't exist, but a different capitalisation does), was given MediaWiki:Noarticletext, clicked the link, and was taken to National Register of Historic Places listings in Ohio with the correct notice of (Redirected from List of RHPs in OH), as I should have had with the Kentucky page. Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

PS, I go to pages by typing the name in the URL. Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_rhps_in_oh to experience the same effect. Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you only type in the url sometimes and that caused your confusion. Url typing gives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_rhps_in_oh which displays MediaWiki:Noarticletext and has an upper case "Search" link in a message consistent with your quote. The link doesn't use the fulltext parameter so it discovers the matching List of RHPs in OH and goes directly there. Clicking the red link list of rhps in oh in your post goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_rhps_in_oh&action=edit&redlink=1. It displays MediaWiki:Newarticletext which is namespace dependent. In mainspace it makes a lower case "search" link in "You can also search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title." The link uses fulltext so it gives a search results page. The skin would have been important if you had clicked the "Search" button at the search box to the left in the MonoBook interface which, unlike Vector, has both a "Go" and "Search" button. "Go" will go directly to a matching page name. "Search" will always give a search results page. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I opened my browser and it went to my home page as normal, and desiring to see the target, I edited the URL to go to list of rhps in ky, from which place I clicked the search link. There was no clickable redlink, so I had no way of being taken to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_rhps_in_ky&action=edit&redlink=1 or even https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_rhps_in_ky&action=edit. I don't remember the last time I used the search box in any skin, whether by clicking Go or Search or hitting enter, so unless you've been watching over my shoulder, please don't decide that I don't know what I'm talking about. Nyttend (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Relax, I said "Maybe". You said "I went to list of rhps in ky" which would usually mean clicking a link like you posted, but you didn't. Later you said "I went to the redlink" which would nearly always mean clicking a red link, but you didn't. It's called a red link or redlink because it's a link with red text. Typing in the url doesn't use a link but only an address. One of the times you said you clicked search but it was upper case "Search". The link I thought you maybe clicked says "search". If you cannot reproduce the issue with the link saying Search for "..." in existing articles then just write it off as a glitch. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What constitutes notability for a church?

What constitutes notability for a church? I would like to write an article about a church. Do we have any Wikipedia guidelines about this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: I found this which may help - how old is the Church building? -- samtar ^whisper 08:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I am confused. For churches (specifically), your link then links here: Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations). But that page says that it is a failed proposal. That means that it was suggested as a Wikipedia policy, but failed to be accepted as one. Correct? And, as such, is null and void. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Correct - though looking over that there are definitely some pointers you could take away to ponder on -- samtar ^whisper 18:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I can offer some advice in a few hours time (I'm at work now!), although only from the point of view of British churches. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 09:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I write a lot of church/chapel articles. These are my personal criteria for deciding what is notable based on British churches: for the US or other countries, hopefully there are equivalent resources such as local architectural guides and the National Register of Historic Places.

• Is it a listed building? If so, it is almost certainly notable.
• If not, has it been covered (and not just a passing mention) in the Pevsner Architectural Guides? (For British churches this is more likely to apply to Anglican churches and older chapels).
• If not, is there a comprehensive guidebook, gazetteer etc. to e.g. "The Churches of X County"? Does it feature in there? I would want in-depth coverage in such a book if it's not a listed building.
• If not, is there a comprehensive, preferably non-self-published, and preferably not too ancient book covering the history of the church?

In my view (and I would welcome other editors' thoughts), a listed building report by Historic England plus a mention in Pevsner easily meets the notability criterion, even if only a stub can be produced from this info. To write a church article using only the listed building report would be marginal, but it would be unusual to find no other sources. To use only a "history of the church"-type book would also be iffy; to use only a history page from the church's website, more so.

I must stress I am not familiar with other countries' equivalent sources, so please consider these suggestions only in respect of Britain. Also I have approached the question mainly from the architecture/history angle. In relation to the US, I think NHRP listings are quite comprehensive, so an article just using that as a source might be OK (there might be guidance at WP:ARCH?).

The guidance in the proposal linked above by Samtar (thanks for finding this; I hadn't discovered it before) also looks useful, although some of the criteria strike me as being too inclusive. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries! Only just found it today When I wrote about this local Church I went on a similar basis of notability to yourself - namely the fact it was a listed building and quite heavily mentioned by Historic England -- samtar ^whisper 12:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's in the US, you could ask at WT:NRHP; we project members tend to be familiar with sources aside from NR-listing documentation, so we might be able to help with evaluating the stuff in front of you even if the church isn't listed on the NR. Nyttend (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Very helpful. But I am a bit confused. Basically, we can't create an article for just "any local church" (that really has no notability beyond the local town). Correct? If that's the case, why do we have articles for basically every high school in the USA? Surely, very few of those are "notable". I am a little confused. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there might be confusion about what you mean by "a church". When you ask about notability for "a church" do you mean a church building or structrue, or do you mean "a church" as a congregation, an organization? Or are you talking about some combination of the two? At any rate, if you are talking about a building, you would use the notability critera for buildings, and if you are talking about the church as an organization, you would use the notability critera for organizations. Either way, whenever you can't figure out specific notability criteria, the general critera applies. Basically, if there are sufficient reliable published independent sources, it's probably notable. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hadn't thought about it like that ONUnicorn - I'd agree that would be the best method of judging notability -- samtar ^whisper 18:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

A big issue is the documentation and accreditation aspect. US high schools being accredited by the state, they invariably get plenty of government documentation (even private schools, as the state wants to ensure that they be of comparable quality to public schools, lest every child get left behind who attends there), as well as coverage in non-government media, while anyone can start a group and call it a church without any sort of documentation being involved. See Pleasant Valley High School (Pennsylvania) for an example of the extensive documentation that can be found for most high schools nationwide if you know where to look for solid sources. Finally, if the church has been around for a century or more, it may well have gotten covered in one of the numerous US county histories that were published in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; at least west of the Appalachians, they typically give a lot of coverage to churches that were extant when the book was written, and in many cases, churches that had already folded by that time. Leave me a note mentioning the church's location and I'll find you the correct history (most are online for free), because A Bibliography of American County Histories lists histories for all eight Connecticut counties and for a large majority of counties throughout the rest of the country. Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

PS, if you're in Connecticut, you might check into documentation from the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation if the building itself is older, even if it's not designated as a historic site. Nyttend (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Thanks. Holy Rosary (Roman Catholic) Church, Ansonia, Connecticut. Anything on that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Rep. DeLauro inserted a nice 100th anniversary piece about it in the Congressional Record in 2008. Edison (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

History of Telenet

I was reviewing this article, because I worked for Telenet and its successors from 1982 - 1999. At the end of the article, there is a reference to the bus interface, and a link to the patent office. However, the link takes you to a patent for dental pliers. The correct link is: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,802,161.PN.&OS=PN/4,802,161&RS=PN/4,802,161

 Done Thank you for pointing this out. I've fixed the incorrect URL. Just a note though, you could have fixed this yourself by clicking on the "Edit" link of the article on Telenet. Wikipedia is editable by anyone. Thanks again, Dismas|^(talk) 13:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Literally I Can’t

I added the Redfoo template to the bottom of this page after I added the song article to the template. So I expected the song title to be bolded and un wikilinked in the template on the page about the song, but this is not the case, and I would appreciate some help in fixing this. Everymorning (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is likely caused by different apostrophes. Editing {{Redfoo}} to use a typewriter apostrophe (') and moving Literally I Can’t to Literally I Can't over the redirect (also with a typewriter apostrophe) should resolve the problem.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Everymorning (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Images are not displaying

Hi,

I tried the solution for Firefox at the following link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Troubleshooting#Firefox_doesn.27t_display_images) but no images are displaying on wikipedia. When I click on the small grey line where the image should be, it displays (e.g. when I access this link the image does display https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#/media/File:Wikipedia_Administrator.svg but when I access this link the image does not display https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators ) Images are displayed on other websites. Any ideas on how to fix this?

Cheers, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.76.251 (talk • contribs)

Hi IP, to better assist us, could you provide the following:

• Browser and browser version
• Operating system and version

Thanks -- samtar ^whisper 16:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Draft:D. Scott Martinez

Reference help requested.

I added a number of citations – both referenced in-line and in the reference section at the bottom – but have forgotten how to properly add these so they will not be rejected. Where can this best and most easily be achieved on the site?

Thanks, Gsukin (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gsukin: I think I fixed it with this edit. If you use ref templates the way you did in the body, they automatically appear at the bottom. The big red error was caused by invoking the reference after the reflist. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref

I am having difficulties in making changes so that this page is more accurate. However, a few changes that I have made have caused permanent changes that can't seem to be undone. These changes are causing the page to appear disorganized. Can it go back to the original before I made changes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonatha_Brooke Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secularus (talk • contribs) 23:47, 6 January 2016‎ (UTC)

I have corrected a couple of problems with this edit. If you do want to go back to the version before all your edits, go to the "View history" tab, select the range of changes with the appropriate before and after buttons in the list, view the difference, then if you want to undo it, use the "undo" link and add an appropriate edit summary to explain what you are doing. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)