Help desk
< May 1	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 2

Redirects to Deleted Articles

I have a question that doesn't have to do with any one page. If a page is deleted, there may be redirects to it, which become orphaned redirects. These can then be deleted as G8, pages dependent on non-existent pages. However, and this question applies both to articles and to drafts, is there a way to facilitate getting rid of the redirects? First, is there a bot that searches the redirects and tags the orphaned redirects for G8, in which case an administrator can verify that the bot is correct? Second, is there a tool that enables either an administrator or any editor to list all of the redirects to a page, in which case the deleting administrator can G8 the pages?

I am in particular asking because, when an editor tags a sandbox draft for AFC, the AFC reviewer normally moves it to its title in draft space, and sometimes I have been known to misspell the title, which results in another move and another redirect (and in that case, it is a plausible misspelling). However, the draft may then be tagged for G11 as spam, or, if it is really stupid or tendentiously resubmitted, it may be nominated for Miscellany for Deletion. Is there a mechanism to get rid of the redirects?

Of course, this also applies to articles, which may acquire redirects in a lot of ways, and then go to Articles for Deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is Special:BrokenRedirects. User:AnomieBOT III#Tasks has a task to delete them. What links here works on deleted and other non-existing pages. A what links here page has options to hide transclusions and links so only redirects are listed. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the deleting admin should check for redirects at the time of deletion, and deal with them then, but this is all too often missed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have this question too. Posting to be tagged in the responses. Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. AnomieBot goes one step further than tagging the orphaned redirects for G8, because AnomieBot runs with admin privileges and deletes the orphaned redirects. Okay. That is good. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Determining eligibility for certain Categories

I have been in discussion with editors who reverted edits linking to Category:Views on homosexuality on the grounds that only notable views should be in the category, which currently has only three entrants, despite the existence of Fred Phelps ("God hates fags"), Robert Mugabe, Anita Bryant and Harvey Milk and hundreds more from the gallery of Wikipedia notables, notable for this. Any explanation for why only Card, Freud and Santorum are currently eligible to sit in this category? The criterion stated on Category:Views on homosexuality, that “This category is for articles dealing with the views on homosexuality expressed by particular individuals,” doesn't appear to necessitate that the title of the article should contain the literal words "views on homosexuality", nor that they "be" the category. Rick Santorum is not "a view", he is a person with a view, no more famously so than the others I mention above, and he is not in any sense an acknowledged authority on the subject, merely someone with a view on it. I would have thought the category a perfect fit for all these notable individuals with notable views on homosexuality. Otherwise, with only three entries, this category appears to have little to no value. Thoughts? Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rick Santorum is not in the category, while Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality is. I am inclined to doubt the utility of this category. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisdevelop: Category:Views on homosexuality only has three pages: Orson Scott Card's views on homosexuality, Sigmund Freud's views on homosexuality, Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality. The first is a redirect and should probably be removed from the category. The other two are whole articles about somebody's views on homosexuality. They also have normal biographies which are not in the category: Sigmund Freud, Rick Santorum. If Fred Phelps' views on homosexuality becomes an article then it can be added to the category but the biography Fred Phelps does not belong there. Thousands of people with a biography have expressed views on homosexuality. This is not a defining characteristic of them. We don't want a category on somebody's biography just because they have talked about something. I haven't examined whether a new "views on homosexuality" article could be justified for the people you mention. A category for two articles isn't much. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Views on homosexuality were very much a defining characteristic of Fred Phelps - it's pretty much all he and his Westboro Baptist Church were known for. I would also anticipate that if someone, as you say, wrote a Fred Phelps' views on homosexuality article, then there'd soon be calls for it to be merged with the parent article on him, or with the Westboro article. Someone like Anita Bryant is likewise not in this Category, despite her views being specifically quoted in her Wikipedia article. Seems to me the definition statement as currently worded actually allows for her views and the those of the others I mentioned to be included, but the reversion actions by various editors are stopping this for some reason. The underlying motivation as I understand it is to avoid ad hominem categorizing of people, hence why the Category 'homophobes' was removed. It is also prone to vandalism. But someone looking for articles like this would surely be incredulous that only three notables on Wikipedia expressed notable views on homosexuality. With all the other living and dead notables expressing a plethora of views on homosexuality, I'm struggling to understand why only three have survived.Chrisdevelop (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the category for deletion, as I doubt that it could ever hold many valid articles, and it will represent a continuing temptation to ad hominem categorizing of people. This can now be discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 2. If the category is kept, the inclusion criteria could be discussed on the category talk page, Category talk:Views on homosexuality. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think this makes sense. Chrisdevelop (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

new articles?

Where can i find some ideas for new articles? Thanks. --Cowspantz (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requesed articles is one place, Cowspantz. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wikipedia

Hello, I am new and I just want to make sure that I am able to help and make sure that I won't be hurting anything. I would like to help where I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aural161 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any edits you make to articles can always be undone if there's a problem (with rare exceptions, all previous versions are available under the history tab), so no worries there. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lupton family

Please help. Should the term Dr - abbreviation for doctor- have a full-stop at the end. E.g., Dr.?? The word Dr appears on this page in top section on Roger Lupton and in Hugh Lupton section.plesse remove dot if it is incorrect. 1.152.109.218 (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC) thanks[reply]

The relevant part of the Manual of Style is WP:Manual of Style#Full stops and spaces. And yet another reminder of something you've been told before, please do not create a new section heading with the same name as an existing section on the same page, see Help:Section. We currently have 4 sections on this page entitled #Lupton family. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I read the Manual of Style and have decided to leave off the "dot". Thanks for your helpSrbernadette (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Suburbain1 reversion of edits

Stop reverting my edits. I'm serious. Leave my edits alone. Suburbain1 (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give a specific example of an edit that has been reverted? Also, please remember that you do not own your contributions, nor is it helpful when working collaboratively (as you do on Wikipedia) to say things like "leave my edits alone". Richard ⁰⁶¹² 15:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT REQUEST: Image Change

Hi there,

I'd like to request a change for Mr. Corchado's Wikipedia page -- his book release is soon, and asked me to update his Wikipedia page. I can edit content, but because I'm a new user, I can't replace the image. Below is the new picture he would like! Let me know if I need to provide any other information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_Corchado

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Qazokmyhb (talk • contribs) 15:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images used at Wikipedia must be lisenced to be compatible with Wikipedia's own license. Wikipedia:Image use policy discusses what kinds of images are allowed to be uploaded, and how to license them correctly. Wikipedia:Images is where you can go to learn more about the technical aspects of uploading an image, once you are sure that the image you intend to upload is correctly licensed. --Jayron 32 15:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that since you are assiciated with the subject, you have a conflict of interest. This is not a value judgement, its just a fact. (In a nutshell, don't edit the article directly, make suggestion on its talk page instead.) Therefore please read our policy at WP:COI. If you are being compensated in any way for your editing, you must make a declaration of this in order to comply with our terms of service: see WP:PAID. -Arch dude (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invert CSD log: HTML help

Is there any HTML code which would allow me to invert my CSD log to make the most recent months appear above the older months, and Twinkle write to it w/o problems? I was thinking something along the lines of :

example outcome

May
- 1
- 2
- 3
April
- etc

But

May
- 3
- 2
- 1

will work as well. I checked in my HTML how-to guide, and couldn't find anything. Thanks. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heterochromia page edit | introduction section

Hello, How do I edit the introduction portion of the Heterochromia page? I see that for other sections and categories on the page there is an option to edit the information, this option does not exist for the introduction portion of the article. I would like to edit these two sentences that are found in the intro: "Heterochromia is a result of the relative excess or lack of melanin (a pigment)." "In humans, usually, an excess of melanin indicates hyperplasia..." These statements are worded in a fashion that will misinform people on the topic of melanin. I feel that they promote a negative connotation of the subject. Yes, hyperpigmentation is due to an increase in melanin production to certain areas of the body, but as you can see the statement that I’ve just made about hyperpigmentation is in context to how melanin colors areas of the body. The statements made in the Heterochromia article are blanket statements that I fear will further propagate the false notion that darker skin is abnormal. That is why I propose these following changes for the introduction of the article: I would like to change the first sentence to this one: "Heterochromia is determined by the production, delivery, and concentration of melanin (a pigment)." I would like to change the second sentence to this one: "In humans, an increase of melanin production in the eyes indicate hyperplasia..."

Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterochromia_iridum

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

Simple: just click on 'Edit this article' which is the third tag from the top of the article. Then scroll down a bit, until you see the intro. Whilst your at it, consider creating an account. We can do with people like you. Aspro (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspro: The IP has already created an account, edited the page and deleted their question here as they wanted their IP address 'removed from the page'. Eagleash (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this wandered badly off topic and led to WP:IDHT block.

Err. You may be one or two steps ahead of me but when I added my two cents worth, <the ip address> was still indicated here as <the Ip address> . Maybe things have changed in the last hour. Anyway. In the the mean time, someone seems to have discovered the third tag from the left and made some edits. Aspro (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If someone indicates in any way that they would like their IP address removed from a page, we do it. Don’t know if you noticed but the thread was actually removed entirely before you “added your two cents” and your edit re-instated it. And then right after I removed the IP you repeated it twice. I’ve fixed all that now and would ask you to please refrain from repeating it again. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aspro, Wikipedia:Oversight says that it is policy to carry out : Removal of non-public personal information, such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. This includes hiding the IP data of editors who accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses as well as the IP data of editors without an account on request. Suppression is a tool of first resort in removing this information. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]