Help desk
< July 15	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 17 >

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.

July 16

List of countries by time devoted to leisure and personal care

I have no idea what to do with List of countries by time devoted to leisure and personal care. It's been sitting there with the copyvios for 4 yrs, create by a blocked sock.

The text is copyvio.

The table figures don't match the source.

The figures at the source make no sense.

Redirect to OECD Better Life Index?

Speedy? Fix? Run screaming?

Convenience link(s):

source (see last column and click the teensy blue question mark.)
source copyright policy
Template:Quality of life country lists
OECD Better Life Index

Many thanks.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this fall under WP:G12 speedy deletion? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, Clarityfiend. But if we can revdel the text and save the figures, then all would be well. It's just that the figures, well, where are they from? Made up? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the figures (and by extension the rankings) the cause of the copyvio? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The figures are permitted. The text is not. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked here to be sure: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Policy regarding use of data sets.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

elisha shapiro page

got a notice that a page about me might be deleted. I went on it and tried to edit and fix things that might be out dated. I did not create the Elisha Shapiro page. but I wanted to make sure there were interesting links there, so I just tried to update them. it is useful for me to have the page about my art career. hope you don't delete it. thanks, elisha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elishashap (talk • contribs) 07:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs WP:Reliable sources if it is to remain on Wikipedia. It would probably be best if you suggested improvements on the talk page of the article (because of your conflict of interest). As I expect you know, Wikipedia is not for promotion of careers, but just reports relevant facts that are found in the sources. Dbfirs 08:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elishashap Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY before you do any additional editing of that article. That's the guidline that Dbfirs alludes to above. -Arch dude (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for the link. Dbfirs 17:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a COI?

I wanted to organise an event where people write a summary for a wikipedia article about a book together and discuss the book, maybe learn to edit wikipedia. I then realised that I am an intern for a charity that has received money from another charity that was founded by the book author. Does that mean that writing that summary would be against WP:COI? I can't see how a book summary could be biased though. --tired time (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tired time Please note that Wikipedia is not for merely writing a book summary; the book must meet notability guidelines as shown in independent reliable sources in order to merit an article here. Not every book does. The notability guidelines are at WP:NBOOKS. The book you want to write about must meet at least one of the guidelines there.

As for COI, I think it would depend on how closely the two charities work together and if the giving of money was just a general donation or was meant to influence the charity in some way. Others may know more. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. The book already has an article about it, it's Doing Good Better. I'm sure it's notable enough. The donation had conditions attached to it. It has nothing to do with the event I wanted to host though. But I guess I'd understand if it was a COI.--tired time (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tired time: Better be safe than sorry and make the WP:COI disclosure. It does not prevent you from editing, and should not be of great importance (the connection seems tenuous). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting active v. inactive WikiProject participants

Some wikiprojects separately list active and inactive members. Are they sorted manually or is there a tool that can do it? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How would it be possible to determine an inactive user? -- GreenC 16:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GreenC An inactive user, for the purposes of this issue, is usually defined as someone who has logged no edits for six months. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text small in latter part of article

in Aladdin (2011 musical), the text from the Track listing section to the end of the article is small, can someone please fix this? Thanks. Javiero Fernandez (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Javiero Fernandez, I've fixed it with this edit. There was a "small" tag that was not closed with a corresponding "/small" tag. †dismas†|^(talk) 12:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to Wikipedia administration pages in the content of articles

Recently, I saw a user (CommanderOzEvolved) had linked to WP:CVU on the entry for CVU, which is a disambiguation page. To my knowledge, we don't link to the admin side of WP from the content of an article. I was bold in reverting and I'm certain that I'm justified in performing the revert but would like to refresh my memory of that guideline. Where can I find the guideline that would support my decision? Thanks, †dismas†|^(talk) 11:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to read WP:D and WP:GOV, but I'm still trying to find other guidelines or policies relating to this. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSDAB doesn't seem to be helping me decide too. Come on... CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am not as sure as you are of your decision. I am pretty sure that cross-namespace redirects from mainspace to backstage should be deleted (WP:R / WP:CNR), but redirecting is a stronger action than linking from a disambiguation page. I have seen numerous hatnotes going backstage - I can find some on Teahouse, Help desk, Ani for instance, and I am sure I have seen other examples before. I can neither find nor think of a guideline saying these should be deleted.

There might be an argument that CVU is not a particularly prominent part of the backstage process and thus the hatnote should not be kept even if others should. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll leave the CVU disambiguation page as-is for now. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dismas: There was also a discussion about that on that page's talk page that seems to support keeping it. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer me to tips about resubmission of biographies of living persons, thank you.

Hi guys, I'd like to be adviced as to what type of restrictions exist for the resubmission of biographic articles from living people whose names have previously been the object of deleted submissions. Are such names penalized in any way? Thank you.Neuralia (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neuralia, there's no penalty.

If an article by a certain name has been deleted many times then it may have been banned from creation. It's called salting an article.

If you want to create an article for a name that has previously been deleted but not salted, then you can simply start the article. Though I suggest starting it in your own draft space and then moving a well referenced and "finished" article to the main article space when it's ready. Any minor placeholder, even if you have the best intentions, is likely to be nominated for deletion again and waste a lot of time.

If you have not started an article before, I suggest Wikipedia:Your first article. -- †dismas†|^(talk) 13:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neuralia To add to the above: you should not try resubmitting an article if nothing changed since the previous submission. The same causes produce the same effects, and it just loses time for everyone. Some things can change (if you have found better sources to show the notability of the subject, or some new sources popped up, or the previous submission was a copyright violation and you wrote an adequate text, etc., then resubmission is warranted) but some others cannot (if the article subject was discussed three times and found not to be notable, it is unlikely a fourth discussion will have a different result if no new sources are presented). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neuralia To reemphasize: Do not attempt to resubmit a BLP unless you can establish notability by the Wikipedia definition of notability, not your definition of notability. Carefully read WP:NOTABLE and the relevant sections of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Make sure the person meets the notability criteria and that you support this by references to reliable sources (WP:RS). Yes, there is a consequence of this being a resubmittal: reviewers are almost certain to check to see that the new article does not have the same problems that were raised during the deletion discussion of the old article. Therefore, you must be sure to correct those problems. Otherwise, you are just going to be frustrated. Good luck! -Arch dude (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Against All Will

Why does Against All Will have an italic title? Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: Because Template:Infobox album automatically italicizes any article it is used in. If you want that effect to not occur the infobox album usages should include italic_title=no .16:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colon Terminology question.

The act of adding a colon at the beginning of a wiki entry to cause it to link to rather than to be used is called what? For example

[[Category:Living People]] to [[:Category:Living People]] or
[[Template:Infobox Fraternity]] to [[:Template:Infobox Fraternity]

Naraht (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht: It's called the colon trick. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping for colonoscopy or colonization, but apparently those terms are already in use. -Arch dude (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter, I was hoping for a less flippant term, for use in edit summaries when I edit userspace pages to remove mainspace categories. Oh well.Naraht (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht: I made {{Draft categories}} as another way to handle that case. It still works by using the colon trick but the user doesn't see the colon. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to Cite a Public Government Record

Can anyone help me to properly cite this government document? It is a business registration record.

Here is the link to the PDF: https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/Document/RetrievePDF?Id=200005410029-260993

Thank you kindly, Cvdclp (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)Cvdclp[reply]

Formatting issue with article tags?

At Star India, the tags at the top of the article are showing up in a strange way, at least for me. There is the {multiple issues} template, but it looks like the {undisclosed paid} template is showing up nested in there in a strange way. Is this just my browser, or can anyone else see what I'm talking about? If so, can this be fixed? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marquardtika: Such message boxes usually use {{ambox}} or similar templates. This hides them in the mobile version. Per Template talk:Undisclosed paid#Visibility on mobile, User:Doc James has coded {{undisclosed paid}} to not use ambox but instead make its own table code. The purpose is to make it display in mobile but the code is not compatible with {{multiple issues}}. Also, nesting {{undisclosed paid}} inside {{multiple issues}} will hide it in mobile due to code in {{multiple issues}}. The code in {{undisclosed paid}} might be tweaked to work better with {{multiple issues}} in desktop but if we want to always show {{undisclosed paid}} in mobile then I guess the solution is to never use it inside {{multiple issues}}, and to add this to the documentation. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Interesting, thanks for the explanation. Marquardtika (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly per User:PrimeHunter. I think the WMF is working to give us more options when it comes to mobile which will hopefully be out in the next few months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added "This tag cannot be used inside {{Multiple issues}}" to the documentation.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marquardtika and PrimeHunter: Appears fixed in this edit by User:Rfl0216, who simply pulled {{undisclosed paid}} outside the {{multiple issues}}. --CiaPan (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging copyvio, but I don't think I did it correctly

I'm trying to tag the first paragraph of Japanese industrial zone, Neemrana as a copyright violation since it was copied and pasted from another website. I followed the instructions at WP:CV101, but the template doesn't look at all right. Can someone help me? Should I just delete the section and move on? Thanks. Mcampany (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the template for you. Deli nk (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Mcampany (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Spaulding Illinois

The mayor of Spaulding Illinois is now Brian Cuffle. Not Mark Urban — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.158.105 (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article with this information. Deli nk (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bot accounts that can be triggered by any user

I like the fact that User:Citation bot can be activated on demand for a specific page by any user (as described at User:Citation_bot/use#Using_via_a_webpage). Are there any other bots that perform routine cleanup functions that can be triggered to edit a specific page by any user? Deli nk (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are archiving bots, for example. Ruslik_Zero 21:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the history tab of any page, there is a link at the top "Fix dead links". This will archive links that are dead. But as with all bots, you are responsible for the edit (double check your edit) -- all bots make mistakes they have an error rate. When you see a mistake report to the bot operator. -- GreenC 16:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why is there no article on this guy?

William Makepeace Thayer

Biographer Author

William Makepeace Thayer was born in Franklin, Massachusetts on February 23, 1820. He graduated from Brown in 1843, studied theology, and was a pastor at the orthodox Congregational church in Ashland, Massachusetts from 1849 to 1857. Due to throat trouble, he left the church in 1858 and decided to focus on literary work. He wrote numerous religious and juvenile books including The Bobbin Boy; The Pioneer Boy; From Log-Cabin to the White House; Tact, Push, and Principle; From Pioneer Home to the White House; and From Tannery to the White House. He died in 1898.

Born: February 23, 1820, Franklin, MA Died: 1898, Franklin, MA

Ramesty (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because you haven't written it? Seriously, though, Ramesty. The answer to "why isn't there an article about X" is always either 1) Because X does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - i.e. there aren't enough reliable published sources talking about the subject - or 2) Because nobody has yet written it. If you want to pursue this further, I suggest that you read the link about notability and look for some sources (remember that nothing that he wrote, said, or published contributes to notability - we need places where people unconnected to him chose to write about him - they don't have to be online), and if you can find enough there are two choices. If you're feeling brave, read your first article and try your hand at writing an article - it's not easy, but there's no rush: you can take your time. Alternatively, post a request, with the references you've found, at requested articles: there's no guarantee that somebody will take up the request, but maybe you'll awaken somebody's interest enough to do so. --ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get that reaction a lot. Ramesty (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above text doesn't qualify to become a part of a new article. It seems copied from the book description, see "Benjamin Franklin: Or from Printing Office to the Court of St. James (1905)" by William Makepeace Thayer on Google Books. --CiaPan (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to upload pictures

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msk mdshoaibkhan (talk • contribs) 20:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can find instructions at Wikipedia:Uploading images. Deli nk (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it advisable to edit/improve an article undergoing AfD discussion?

Hi guys. I am considering edits to an article presently undergoing AfD discussion. Such edits would address objections raised by the pro-delete editors. Is it appropriate/advisable to proceed with such edits and bring them up in the discussion page? Thanks.Neuralia (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Fixing the problem is always a better solution than deleting the article. I like to add something like this to the discussion:

Note to closing administrator On (insert time/day here) I edited the article in an attempt to address some of the above comments.

This often triggers a discussion about whether the problems were actually fixed, and usually results in the AfD being relisted for further discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neuralia, to quote from our AfD information page:

"If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out reliable sources, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our good and featured articles. If you believe the article topic is valid and encyclopedic, and it lacks only references and other minor changes to survive, you may request help in the task by listing the article on the rescue list in accordance with instructions given at WP:RSL, and then adding the {{rescue list}} template to the AfD discussion by posting {{subst:rescue list}} to the discussion thread. Please do not do this for articles which are likely to be eventually deleted on grounds other than simple incompleteness or poor writing (see WP:SNOW).

If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin. If the nominator fails to do it when you think it should have been done (people can be busy, so assume good faith on this point), leave a note on the nominator's talk page to draw their attention."

Hope this helps and clarifies. Warmly, Lourdes 02:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias Lourdes.!Neuralia (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a reference makes a company notable

Where do I request help in judging whether a reference makes a company "notable"? I would link to the talk page where the editor said to come here but I do not know how to link to a label in a talk page. This is about Thorcon.

Extended discussion; please take this up at Talk:Thorcon

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Logically, it seems to me that the notability challenge needs to be addressed first. I have found this to be a difficult standard due to the judgment required for each of the four attributes. Since notability is new to me, I do not know how to judge notability. I have found a number of new references and would prefer your notability judgment before I return to the article. Here is the first new reference:

1. Is the DOE notable worthy?

a. This significant coverage because the DOE had to evaluate both the company and the proposed research prior to granting $400,000. b. No-one at ThorCon works for the DOE. c. This is a reliable source because DOE has a large staff of nuclear experts. d. This is not a secondary source because the grant was awarded based on the DOE analysis. [1]Martinburkle (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Jump up ^ DOE. "GAIN Voucher Recipients 1st Round - 30 Apr 2018" (PDF). Martinburkle, thank you for clearing that up (I'd already come to about the same conclusion by doing a bit of looking around). I think the DOE source is usable as a reference for statements that (roughly) (1) Thorcon is developing a prototype molten salt reactor and (2) that it received funding to develop sensors to be used in that prototype. That's just my opinion; if you want a fuller or more authoritative answer, we have a reliable sources noticeboard where anyone can ask questions like this, and where plenty of people are around to answer them with care and in detail. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

2. Is Power Magazine a notable source?

a. This significant coverage because it includes many paragraphs of description. b. No-one at ThorCon works for the Power Magazine. c. This reliable source reporting on an International agreement between Indonesia and ThorCon. d. This is not a secondary source because the Indonesian side of the agreement had to analyze the ThorCon data.

^[1]

3. Is EIRP notable worthy?

a. This significant coverage it does an apples-to-apples cost comparison of eight advanced nuclear designs. b. No-one at ThorCon works for the EIRP. c. This is a reliable source because EIRP is independent of the nuclear industry. However, EIRP was founded in 2013 and is a small think tank. Are they too small to be reliable? d. This is not a secondary source because EIRP analyzed data provided by the companies.

^[2]

4. Is the International Atomic Energy Agency notable worthy?

a. This significant coverage provides a detailed description of the ThorCon product. b. No-one at ThorCon works for the IAEA. c. This is a reliable source because IAEA has a large staff of nuclear experts. d. This may be a secondary source because the info is based on a survey of the primary source.

^[3]

5. Is the World Nuclear Association

a. This significant coverage because it includes several paragraphs of description. b. No-one at ThorCon works for the WNA. c. This may be an unreliable source because it is a trade organization. d. This may be a secondary source because the info is based on a survey of the primary source.

^[4]Martinburkle (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, you started this discussion on the talk page of an editor, who moved it to Talk:Thorcon, which is where you should be having this discussion. Warmly, Lourdes 02:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sonal Patel. "Indonesia Considers Thorium Molten Salt Reactors".
^ EIRP. "What Will Advanced Nuclear Plants Cost?".
^ IAEA. "International Atomic Energy Agency ARIS Database entry: ThorCon" (PDF). IAEA ARIS Database.
^ World Nuclear Association. "Molten Salt Reactors".

Hello, Martinburkle. No single reference by itself can make a topic notable since more than one reference is required. When evaluating whether or not a given reference helps establish notabilty, we need to look at the reference and whether its coverage is adequate to establish notabilty, and whether it is completely independent of the topic. For the sake of discussion, let's imagine that there is a professionally edited website that sets out to review every single pizzeria in Illinois, paid for by pizza advertising, and that every pizza joint gets a three or four paragraph review there. A review on that website would be run-of-the-mill coverage, analogous to a listing in a phone book. My house (as much as I like it) is not notable, and neither are the vast majority of pizzerias. So, what we require is significant independent coverage of the sort that other similar companies do not receive. If a company receives funding and coverage from the DOE, then that coverage by the DOE is not independent. There is a direct financial relationship between the DOE and that company. Originally written significant reporting about that company in sources like the Wall Street Journal or Forbes would be the type of coverage that we are looking for. Those are just examples. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Sonal Patel. "Indonesia Considers Thorium Molten Salt Reactors".

[2] EIRP. "What Will Advanced Nuclear Plants Cost?".

[3] IAEA. "International Atomic Energy Agency ARIS Database entry: ThorCon" (PDF). IAEA ARIS Database.

[4] World Nuclear Association. "Molten Salt Reactors".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]