Help desk
< February 13	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 15 >

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.

February 14

Lupton family

Ref number 167 should have the 3 page numbers in the correct format in the page section. The quote should be separate. I cannot do this. please fix and thanks so much. 110.145.38.110 (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done: created separate pages parameter. Eagleash (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhian Sugden - page deleted - how do I restore this page?

Hello,

For some reason, Rhian Sugden's page on Wikipedia has been deleted, despite the majority of page 3 models being on the site.

Rhian is probably one of the most notable page three models - she appeared on Celebrity Big Brother and has had a very extensive career.

What do we need to do in order to have Rhian's page added back on wikipedia again? No idea why it was deemed suitable for deletion but she is still very much an active model. If you search her name on the news page of google there are almost daily articles written about her.

Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeirdPR (talk • contribs) 12:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page was not deleted. It was redirected as a result of this discussion three and a half years ago. Also, your assertion that "majority of page 3 models being on the site" is hyperbolic and false. I am disinclined to be helpful if you're going to be intellectually dishonest in your requests for help. --Jayron 32 13:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, WeirdPR. The discussion which led to the article being changed to a redirect was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhian Sugden: you can see that the clear consensus was that she did not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and so a separate article was not appropriate.

Please note the following:

It was not "Rhian Sugden's page", it was Wikipedia's article about Rhian Sugden. It in no sense belonged to her or to her associates
This is an encyclopaedia, not social media or a publicity site. promotion of any kind is forbidden.
By your name, I guess that you are from an agency representing Sugden. If so, you have a conflict of interest regarding here: this does not debar you from contributing, but you should read that link to understand what it does mean. If you are intending to edit Wikipedia in connection with her or any other of your clients, you will definitely be a paid editor, and declaring that appropriately is mandatory.
You need to change your user name (or abandon that one and create a new one). User accounts are for individuals only - they may not be shared - and the may not have a name which suggests that they are editing on behalf of an organisation.

If, after reading all the links above (in particular "notability") you decide that there are enough independent, reliably published sources about Sugden to ground an article, you may (once you have made the requisite declaration) try recreating the article. Creating an article is one of the hardest tasks in editing Wikipedia, and doing so with a COI is even harder. Read your first article, and use the Article wizard to create a draft. The previous content of the article is available at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhian_Sugden&oldid=802752623 for reference, but I advise starting again based on what the independent sources say about her. --ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFC review

I am reviewing Draft:Cyanography and I am checking the sources. In my opinion, I think it is close to (if not ready) to be accepted into mainspace. However, I can't see to access some of the sources because they are printed. Should I request the sources via WP:RX or should I just ignore them? Interstellarity (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellarity, tbh, if the rest of the sourcing is acceptable, I'd just leave them, unless they're being used to support something really outlandish. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Noble: I accepted the draft. Interstellarity (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

did I add this right

(This sounds late of me, on my part.) On here, I added the request about removing copyright. Then the last time I read it, was a while ago, where I may forgot another step to take. After adding the concern. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be OK. It is listed at Category:Requested RD1 redactions, so hopefully an admin will deal with it in due course. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tainted-wingsz, also, you might be interested in User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel, which adds a visual interface for filling out the template. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(In replying to the above.) Ah, alright.

(In replying about the visual interface.) I would try soon. But when there's something new I attend to read first and add what the rule/ guideline is and do what it told from there. (So when I do things like those.) This took me around an hour to report a concern. Then when I get busy with my job shift, I may gone back to where I can forget easily about it and read everything again. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When the TOC is as long as the article

This question concerns Wiktionary, but, given that it and Wikipedia run on the same software, I thought I might ask here. I encountered this entry, which consists of an ungainly-looking, long and narrow TOC followed by dictionary-type material, and found its initial appearance on my monitor confusing, due to the huge area of white space. (I realize that infoboxes and images make this less of a problem on Wikipedia.) I thought that if the dictionary-type material could be brought up the page and lie to the right of the TOC, it might be a better format (I use a computer, not a phone). Is there some simple way to achieve this result? If the result were to look worse than the original, I would not apply it.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Quisqualis. As a technical matter, you can use Template:TOC limit to shorten the TOC. But I don't know how that interacts with Wiktionary's standards for formatting. GMG ^talk 16:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Quisqualis: Wiktionary has the templates wikt:Template:tocright and wikt:Template:tocright2, but currently no dictionary pages use them; and only two dictionary entries use wikt:Template:TOC limit. I suggest you find somewhere at Wiktionary to ask about this style issue before starting to use them. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that familiar with Wikitionary, but here on Wikipedia not having a heading before lead helps with that situation. I doubt on that particular entry that you'd want to eliminate the "English" header; as it distinguishes what follows from the French and other languages further down the page. Actually; having just looked at several Wikitionary entries, such as the one for "Horse" and having clicked random page several times, it seems pretty standard over there to not have anything before the first heading and for the table of contents to be like that. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weird spacing between paras

At Mères of France in the Lyon section between the 5th (Brazier) and 6th (Bourgeois) paras, I'm having a weird problem. I can't seem to get the normal amount of space between the paras. I can get double the space, half the space, or no space (one long paragraph) but I can't seem to get the normal amount of space between them. Can anyone figure out what I'm doing wrong? Thanks for any help! --valereee (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is the pictures are messing with the text. I would recommend taking all the pictures out and playing around a bit with picture placement to see if that works for you. --Jayron 32 18:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, thanks, someone else came along and fixed it so easily I'm embarrassed lol...--valereee (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spell check not working in article body

Hi,

When I edit Wikipedia, spellcheck is no longer available in the body of an article (it is available in the edit summary). Is there an option in my Preferences that I have to change to enable it in the article body? Thank you. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed the same thing. I believe that your browser is doing the spell checking. I use Firefox, and it finds my typos in the edit box. I seems to be disabled in published WP articles, and for good reason, as "typo" means any word not in a spellchecker's dictionary, and there are many such words in most WP articles. Hope that answers your question, David O. Johnson.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply.David O. Johnson (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krafla Power Station

Language problem(French instead of English ), References required .

Winghovercraft (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Winghovercraft[reply]

@Winghovercraft: An incorrect edit to Krafla Power Station removed the refs and replaced the English paragraph with French. The edit was reverted less than an hour before you posted here. -Arch dude (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance#Units

It has a bias of 24 hours per day but in reality from 4 to 22 h/day averaged 10 to 16 h/day. Also it has a bias of full year sun shine ignoring : cloud , longitude and latitude , altitude , season especially winter .

--Winghovercraft (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Winghovercraft[reply]

@Winghovercraft: Welcome to Wikipedia. If you have suggestions for improving an article, you can start a discussion on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):@Winghovercraft: it's best to discuss content issues on the relevant article's talk page. When you are fairly sure that you know how to improve the content, you can be bold and just fix it, knowing that another editor may disagree and revert your edit to start the discussion. -Arch dude (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where to find a list of people, without dedicated pages in Wikipedia, who are cited in Wikipedia.

I would like to see a list of people who are mentioned in references to Wikipedia articles but who do not have their own page entries. My question is who are the people with the most such references.

An example of such a person would be the reporter, and author, Mark Arax. A search on Wikipedia for Mark Arax responds that "The page "Mark Arax" does not exist" yet gives over 50 references which cite Mark Arax.

Where or how could I find a list of such page-less people along with the number of times they are cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.57.146 (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you would find such a list; but I'm pretty sure any such list would be extremely lengthy. Most small-town reporters are not notable, yet their articles are routinely cited in articles about the areas they cover. There are many authors and scholars who have written one or two non-fiction books or scholarly articles that have been cited in Wikipedia but who are not themselves notable. Many of Wikipedia's best articles have hundreds of references, and I would say at least 60% of the authors of those references are not notable or, if they are, no one has yet written their bio. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has strict rules on what it calls author notability, 75.101.57.146. Even though a person has made a difference in the world, they may not get into Wikipedia. You might be able to add a brief section to Arax's employer's Wikipedia article, if Arax is considered a star reporter or has won awards. Be sure to make brief mention of other fellow reporters at the outlet who are his equals, as well, and remember to cite sources independent of all these people.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've often thought we need a separate namespace for cited authors. The pages would be standardized and minimal, not full biographies. The namespace distinction means that these are infrastructure pages, not Encyclopedia articles. Among other things, this would simplify things like fixing up the citations when a URL changes, because an editor could go to the author page and then hit "what links here". It would also help in identifying "walled gardens". Wikidata could almost, but not quite, be used for this. -Arch dude (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contact with users

How to send or reply to messages ?!

Winghovercraft (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Winghovercraft[reply]

@Winghovercraft: initiate a new discussion in a new section on the user's talk page. In general, reply as part of an ongoing discussion by editing within the section of the page where the discussion is occuring (e.g., on this help desk.) If not on the user's talks page, it's a good idea to {{ping}} the other user. -Arch dude (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude: Your information is appreciated .

@Winghovercraft: You appear to have mistakenly tried to intiate a discussion within an article rather that on that article's talk page. That does not work. (Well, it technically works, but it will be immediately reverted because it belongs on the talk page.) Try again, no harm done. -Arch dude (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]