Help desk
< August 25	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 27 >

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.

August 26

Endnote references

I was making cleanup edits on the entry for Jedediah Smith, and the references for the notes changed to lower case letters. In the text, the refs are still numbers. How do I change them back to numbers? Furfortman (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Furfortman. That article uses an unusual but legitimate referencing style, combining references indicated by numbers with notes indicated by letters. Personally, I do not like this style because I consider it confusing and overly complicated. But this style is permitted by policy and so we have to live with it. Template:Notelist provides more information. Cullen328 (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furfortman Cullen328 Not quite sure what the problem is... I have not checked that article in detail, but on ones that I have edited (example Shirburn Castle) the auto-assignment of numbers for references, and letters for notes, makes the differentiation clear to me. Unless I am missing something here, which I probably am :) Tony 1212 (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that article is not the best example, because one of the footnotes includes a long set of hard coded, numbered points... for a simpler example (also by me), try Andrew Geils instead :) Tony 1212 (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but this is my mistake. I mistook notes for references. Furfortman (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said and this discussion confirms, Furfortman, this is a style of referencing that often confuses experienced editors. Even after 14 years for me, I am hesitant to try to edit articles with this particular style of references. Maybe someone will come along to explain how easy it is. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually the easiest referencing system to use both for the writer and more importantly for the reader. The key thing is to differentiate in your mind between a reference which refers to a note elsewhere and a citation which gives bibliographic information about a work. Citing in line leads to a random mishmash of duplicated entries all out of order and impossible to use. Using a simple alphabetic list of citations allows the reader (and conscientious editor) to find a particular citation quickly. Because many references will specify a page or pages within the citation, it is simplest, and standard, to attach the page number to the reference. Considering Jedediah Smith (BTW, please link pages when discussing them). Why is hiding Ashley, Smith, Rogers & Harrison (1918) in the middle of a wall of text instead of under "A" in a simple list? Why is there a second citation for the same work that only differs in the URL? It's much clearer to (for instance) see Barbour 2011, p. 143. which links to the only citation for Barbour (2011). Turning now to the letters that the OP asked about. It's much clearer to a reader that [a] will be in a different list to [1]. Trying to force footnotes to use numbers simply confuses readers. Consider the reference list "[4][2][8]" – which is a foot note and which a reference to a citation? In passing, the article under discussion here uses a mixture of both styles and the citation list "Works cited" needs sorting into alphabetical order. What is really needed is for there to be consensus that one style is used (see MOS:CITEVAR). Back in 2017 the article was already a mess so there's no clear "first style". @Cullen328: would it help if I wrote up a guide for you on your talk page? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin of Sheffield, no, but thank you very much. You say that it is the "easiest" and after reading all that you wrote, it is still confusing and intimidating to many editors, myself included. To be perfectly frank, I do not want to learn about this confusing style. Most articles use a very straightforward and easy to learn style of referencing, and that is what I will always prefer. Simply, a bunch of inline references presented in reflist formatting, verifying the various assertions in the article. I do not like confusing "notes" instructing the reader what to think in a hortatory style. I prefer to think for myself. Cullen328 (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you find it confusing and intimidating, I'll try to do better. Let's start with the simple case: I'm using a book relevant to an article. I add the book's citation to the list of sources in alphabetical order typically using {{citation}} or {{cite book}}. That's the invariant part. Then as I edit the article I simply add a reference to the citation, commonly adding the page number/s. WP collects identical page ranges together for me, not need to go hunting for a cryptic named reference. For example:

Enter the book in the sources list as * {{cite book|last=Barbour|first=Barton H.|title=Jedediah Smith: No Ordinary Mountain Man |url =https://books.google.com/books?id=O89PceOzUAoC |publisher=University of Oklahoma Press|location=Norman |year=2011|isbn=978-0-8061-4196-1}} which yields Barbour, Barton H. (2011). Jedediah Smith: No Ordinary Mountain Man. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 978-0-8061-4196-1. as you would expect. I'll never have to repeat this information in the text anywhere.
As I work I discover a relevant fact in Barbour and record it at the end of the sentence as normal, but now instead of hunting for a named reference or repeating the citation I simply put {{sfn|Barbour|2011|p=113}}. Just the minimal information.
Later on I use another fact from Barbour, and again I can use {{sfn|Barbour|2011|p=115}}.

If the article needs footnotes, and those on Jedediah Smith do seem rather extensive, then there is a similar mechanism to record the notes: {{efn|Barbour agrees with this point.}}, and this is where the OP's letters come from. If necessary {{sfn}} can be added within {{efn}}, but that is getting more complicated. If you want to see a clean example with no mixing of style, have a look at Frindsbury.

I hope this clarifies things a little for you, if not please do get back back to me on any points you don't follow and I'll try to clarify things for you. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Martin of Sheffield In my articles/edits I have tended to use just <ref>xxx</ref> for references and {{efn|yyy.}} for notes. The latter are not references (sources), although they may contain them as needed, just "asides"/additional amplification considered useful to the reader that would otherwise interrupt the main text flow; in the examples I have created in the past, I try not to use too many but certainly feel they have a place. As mentioned above, Jedediah Smith does seem a bit florid / over noted in that respect (just some previous editor's personal style I am guessing). I have not gone down the {{sfn|zzz.}} road as further discussed by Martin although I can see where that would be useful as well. Just my 2 cents of course, probably should shut up now... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely prefer the use of explanatory footnotes to extended parentheticals. Cullen, thanks for your input that this style seems confusing. I am sure that different people find different citation / notation styles more or less confusing. I've written articles in a number of different styles and I highly doubt there's appetite in the community to standardise this, since people's preferences and what they find clear / confusing and what they find elegant / ugly vary so dramatically across editors. Folly Mox (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates and blank hover preview

I vaguely recall seeing a discussion on how to fix the blank hover preview for an article with Template:Coord (ex. Toronto International Film Festival), but I can't find it. Would appreciate it if someone could let me know how to fix it or let me know if there's directions somewhere. Cheers, 綾かなあ? (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayakanaa: Apparently the hover-preview problem occurs only when the {{coord}} template is inserted at the top of the article (in the edit window). The way to fix it is to move that template to the end of the article (above the categories) or into the infobox. Deor (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I've done this to Toronto International Film Festival with this edit. Does the preview work correctly for you now? Deor (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it does. Thanks

綾かなあ? (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fix top to bottom of Romanian People's Republic and Socialist Republic of Romania

I need help to fix from top to bottom of the coat of arms of the Romanian People's Republic and Socialist Republic of Romania https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Republic_of_Romania. I want it to be just like the Hungarian People's Republic. 108.21.67.83 (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, IP user, but I'm not clear what you're asking. I don't know if you are using "from top to bottom" literally, meaning that you think something should be moved from the top of somewhere to the bottom of it, or whether you are using it figuratively to mean "thoroughly, the whole thing".

In any case you need to be much more specific about what you think needs fixing.

In any case, the talk page Talk:Socialist Republic of Romania, or one of the WikiProjects WP:WikiProject Former countries or WP:WikiProject Socialism might be better places to ask than here. ColinFine (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine I interpreted it to mean that for the coat of arms, Socialist Republic of Romania has a caption that says "Top: [...] Bottom: [...]" while for the Hungarian People's Republic, the captions are under their respective coat of arms, and IP user wants Socialist Republic of Romania to have that format as well. (I have no idea how to fix it though.) 綾かなあ? (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. It's just the way the editors have used the various fields in {{infobox former country}}. It should be easy enough to fix for anybody who can be bothered to wade through the template call and make them use the same fields in the same way. ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Moved from WP:AN

– ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why most users are registering in wikipedia just the purpose of spam and advertising while Wikipedia is not an advertising place? 41.225.87.249 (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because of its popularity and anti-spam policies. See my essay WP:SPAMFALLACY about this irony. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also because so much of the web is now commercial (including many sites that didn't start that way, such as Facebook, that it doesn't occur to many people that there may be a part of it that refuses to be commercial. ColinFine (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do I delete my account?

How do I delete my account? AntSurgeon (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For legal reasons, it is not possible to delete an account, as all edits must be attributable to someone. You are free to stop using and abandon your account(especially where it has no edits). 331dot (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AntSurgeon, You may also vanish your account; this will rename your account to a random username and delete your user pages. Note that user talk pages are usually kept, and your old username will still be logged. ~~2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 17:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLove extension

Hi, how can I enable the WikiLove extension? Regards --WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi --WikiUser1234945--, don't you see a heart icon at the top of the page when visiting another user's talk page?

If you don't, you may have disabled it and can re-enable it the same way. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree I see a heart, it works! Have a nice weekend. --WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! You too.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Banner shell with only 1 Wikiproject banner?

Should I use the banner shell if there's only 1 Wikiproject banner? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you can now use the banner shell to add a project-independent quality assessment, even with only 1 Wikiproject banner. If you are not adding a project-independent quality assessment, the shell is probably not needed. TSventon (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism only account criteria

If an account performed vandalism only minutes after account creation, would that account be a vandalism-only account, even if the user only has one edit? Procrastinator acc (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many admins will decline to block an account that made a single vandalism and never edited again, unless their one edit was especially egregious. Folly Mox (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DAX Shepard

I WAnt to know about that personKo 41.116.177.168 (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Dax Shepard, which you can read. If there is information about him that you can't find in the article, it is possible you'll find it in one of the sources referenced in the article. Otherwise, you could ask at the Entertainment section of the Wikipedia Reference Desk - it is possible that somebody there dcould find the information you are looking for. But if it's his address, that may not be publicly available. ColinFine (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will Smith

Where does he live right now 41.116.177.168 (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question about editing or using Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't Ander stand anything 41.116.177.168 (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

help me crate a Wikipedia account 41.116.177.168 (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is more information about creating an account here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will Smith is a very common name. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

changes reverted

Hello -- On August 15, 2023, I added to the subject "Year 6000." The post was removed soon after. As far as I can see, the post was relevant and correct. I inquired of the editor who removed it -- 51.198.10.170 -- on August 17, 2023. I submitted my explanation, and inquiry, to his talk page, asking whether it would be ok for me to again add the contribution made on August 15. I have not seen any response or comment. Today I visited his talk page, and see that my inquiry was removed -- without any notice or comment or reply. What would be the proper way to proceed on this inquiry?DavRice (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph you added to Year 6000 was completely unreferenced. That is not acceptable. You must cite your sources. Please read WP:42. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Shantavira. Here is a revise of my proposed post, with a reference added for the Edwin Thiele date for the foundation of Solomon's Temple, and another respecting Ussher's Chronology. Is this suitable to resubmit? -- David Rice

Year 6000 -- Edwin Thiele established that the founding of Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 6:1) was in the year 966 BC.{1} Among those who credit the testimony of Kings and Chronicles, his conclusion is widely accepted today. As Edwin Thiele demonstrates, this accords with the testimony of two independent witnesses -- the Assyrian King List, and the Assyrian Eponym List. If to the date 966 BC we count backward the years of the Hebrew Old Testament, from Adam to 1 Kings 6:1, we have 2992 years -- as long held by the chronology of James Ussher, of the early 1600s.{2} This yields a date for Adam's creation of 3958 BC (966 BC plus 2992 years backward). Counting 6000 years forward from 3958 BC yields the date 2043 AD for the close of 6000 years. (6000 - 3958 + 1 = 2043 AD -- the plus one to account for the absence of a year "zero" between the BC era and the AD era.)

(1) "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings," Revised edition, October 1965, page 54, gives year 40 of Rehoboam running from Tishri 931 BC, to Tishri 930 BC. Year four of his reign would thus run from Tishri 967 BC to Tishri 966 BC. In the spring of that year, the foundation of the temple was laid (1 Kings 6:1), thus in the year 966 BC.

(2) See John McClintock and James Strong, "Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature," Reprinted 1968, Volume 2, page 316, "Chronology," for Ussher's dates 4004 BC for Adam, and 1012 BC for Solomon's Temple, thus 2992 years between.

DavRice (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Popping in to say that Wikipedia can't be used as a source per WP:CIRCULAR. Cheers, ayakanaa ( t · c ) 03:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a place for you to promote your religious beliefs. ltbdl (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shantavira -- I have added references, as directed.

Hello, Ayakanaa -- Thank you, I was not aware. I have updated the second reference to a widely respected published source.

Hello, ltbdl -- The Wikipedia page this pertains to, "Year 6000," is about Jewish and Christian views respecting the close of 6000 years. In the 1800s, there was a widespread Adventist view that 6000 years would close in the year 1843. This was later changed by a year, and then again by 30 years, and these conclusions still engage the minds of many. In light of this, it seemed relevant to mention that today the widely respected work of Edwin Thiele, published in the 1960s and much reviewed by historians since that time, modifies former conclusions, which should thus be set aside. It seems that notice of this, in this article, would be a helpful addition for those interested in the "Year 6000" subject.

To all three -- is it agreeable that we endeavor to repost this edition, as modified above, per your corrections? -- David Rice

(talk) 18:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lowercase naming preferences

Hi, looking for clarification on the guidelines for name capitalization in biographies of living people. Quite a few artists and writers prefer, or demand, that their names not be capitalized - bell hooks is the most famous example, with the title of her article being in lower case, along with references to her pen name within the article. But I can't seem to find any guidelines on how to establish the necessity of using lowercase, or details in the Manual of Style about when it is appropriate or how long a public figure must have been using lowercase for it to be use in articles about them. I ask because the contemporary artist Vanessa German also asks others to use lower case when writing her name, but I couldn't find guidelines on whether it's appropriate to modify the article title and references to her name. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With consistent RS:

MOS:LCITEMS use lower-case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources

Or even self-pub is enough:

WP:SPNC For minor spelling variations (capitalization...): when a consistent and unambiguous self-published version exists, it is usually followed

Hyphenation Expert (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Barker wife

The age of Bob Barker's wife death doesn't add up on Wiki, Under Bob Barker, I think she was 37, no 57 50.115.244.110 (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about her age in the article Bob Barker. But the article is being heavily edited at present, so it may be that what you're talking about has already been changed. ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page)

I added two citations to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Forestry_Initiative and then received the cite error above. I deleted the two new citiations and I still receive the cite error. I scrolled through all the text looking for a missing </ref> and can't find one. How do I find the error? Thanks Ecwwoodworth (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've moved the opening line: <ref><ref><ref><ref><ref>https://forests.org/wp-content/uploads/2022_SFI_Standards.pdf</ref></ref></ref></ref></ref> to an external link. That cleared the error you mention. I also corrected the formatting of Berg & Scott (1999). Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burmese or Myanma?

Heya folks, I'm editing Thinzar Shunlei Yi and am unsure whether to use Myanma ot Burmese as a demonym. The Names of Myanmar and Myanmar pages, due to neutrality, don't advocate for any one side.

Is there any consensus or rule of thumb for me to go by? Thanks! Bremps... 22:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bremps: "Burmese" is the typical demonym in use on Wikipedia right now, it seems. The name agreed on for the country in Wiki-voice is Myanmar, as decided here. casualdejekyll 01:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there any sort of consensus or discussion for the demonym (not the country's name, but the peoples')? @Casualdejekyll Bremps... 03:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]