Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 February 28

= February 28 =

Rejected article on AFC
Hi. I wrote an article on Ken Block last month (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Block (businessman)) and it was rejected yesterday. I followed the guidelines in the AFC wizard to the letter so I'm not sure what I did wrong. The reviewer left a link but it doesn't work. I'm guessing they meant WP:POLITICIAN but I didn't submit Block as a politician. I was going by Notability (people) ("If a person has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, they are presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.") on the fourth page of the AFC wizard (Article wizard/Biographical notability). I included 54 cited references which all pass RS (Article wizard/Sources). Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. 72.74.204.125 (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be that meant to type WP:N (the main notability page) and changed his mind and intended WP:POLITICIAN. Since Block is a politician, or at least a political figure, deriving most of his notability from his campaign for Governor and his subsequent political stands and advocacy.  So it is appropriate to look at WP:POLITICIAN. He clearly does not pass point 1 of that, as he has never held office. Point 2 could be argued. So we fall back to WP:ANYBIO or the WP:GNG (point 3 of is basically just the WP:GNG restated). I will look this over from that point of view, and respond further. DES (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The draft looks acceptable to me, but as a matter of courtesy, and in case I missed soemthign relevant, i have left a message for the previous reviewer on User talk:Hasteur. DES (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, while I would tend to approve this, there are a number of improvements that I think can and should be made. First, since Block is largely notable as a political figure -- his business career alone would probably not justify an article -- I would name this Ken Block (politician) or perhaps "political activist". Secondly, in the "Master Lever" section especially there is some prose that confuses what is being attributed to Block or others with what is being stated as fact. In particular, the sentence "The master lever also created an unfair advantage for majority political parties at the expense of minority and third-parties." is stated as if it were a fact, but is uncited. It looks to me as if this is the opinion of Block, or perhaps of the Moderate Party or others seeking removal of the "master lever" option. If so, it needs to be clearly attributed. That whole paragraph blurs from attributed opinion to what look like statements of fact, but are probably continued opinion. This needs to be fixed. Also, there is little or no mention of any negative opinions of Block. This makes it look like a promotional article. The reliably sourced negative opinions of Block (and I can't beloved that there are none, after he was in a campaign for Gov, much less his other activities) must be quoted and attributed. DES (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'll keep working on the article. The claim "The master lever also created an unfair advantage for majority political parties at the expense of minority and third-parties." is sourced to Politifact.com, WarwickOnline.com. I included everything I could find online that appeared to be a reliable source. There's not a whole lot of criticism of Block, I think, simply because he's never held political office. That being said there are criticisms of Block included in the article. In the "2010 election" section he's blamed by political insiders, and specifically the RI Republican Party, for his part in the 4-way race that got Chafee elected into office (citations 5 and 8). The fourth paragraph of the "Jump to the Republican Party" deals with his poor rating on PolitiFact.com (citation 51). I know he got some flak for joining the Republican Party though I don't have a specific source for that. 72.74.204.125 (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Er no it isn't do sourced. Neither of those articles mention an effect on mintority parties at all, ewither in the editorial voice or in a quote attributesd to Block or indeed to anyone else. Moreover, neither is cited in the Wikipedia article to support that statement. But this discussion should now move to the article talk page. DES (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Creating a page for a Professional Disc Golf Athlete
I am new to creating pages and want to create a page for the professional disc golf's association Rookie of the year 2013. I have attempted to use a template but it's not coming out correctly. Can anyone assist? It all is very confusing to me. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingDiscSports (talk • contribs)

Holly Finley is currently a professional disc golfer who was named the 2013 P.D.G.A.'s Rookie of the Year. Holly Finley is sponsored by Innova, the largest disc manufacturer in the world. In 2013, Holly Finley was the only female to compete in the sport's most prestigious event, the United States Disc Golf Championship - Performance Edition. She placed 7th and earned an invite back for the 2014 tournament.

Amateur career
Holly started playing disc golf in 2011 before moving to Africa for a modeling contract. While in Africa, she decided that competing in tournaments during 2012 would be her goal. Upon returning from Africa, she entered into her 1st tournament and then went on to compete in 27 P.D.G.A. sanctioned events during the year. She placed 4th at the Amateur Disc Golf World Championships and decided to turn pro the following year. During her amateur career she was awarded Amateur Women's Points leader.

Professional career
Holly competed in 29 sanctioned events during her first season as a professional in 2013. She ranked 7th in the National Tour Elite Points series and played the 2nd most sanctioned events of any pro female disc golfer. Holly was awarded PDGA Rookie of the Year 2013.

some nondescript title about an edit request
request edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_created_via_the_Article_Wizard%20%7B%7Brequest%20edit%7D%7D

Hello, someone made a draft article about me (link above). its saved a draft work and pops up in google search. I have not authorized this and I want my information to be deleted. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:d:9b00:40:d96a:ce89:709f:f191 (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As you have not said who you are or what article this is about, it is going to be difficult for any editor to know how to help you. But in general, articles or parts of articles are not deleted just because their subject wants them to be. Maproom (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Referencing errors on VBTP-MR Guarani
Reference help requested.

I can't get the hang of linking the second quote to the first quote of a reference source (Jane's Defence article).

Thanks, Hotspur23 (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made an edit. View the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VBTP-MR_Guarani&diff=597494899&oldid=597488290 diff] to see exactly what I did, or Help:Referencing for beginners for a simple example. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Switching article and redirect page
Owing to the good faith action of an earlier editor the article on the actress Mabel Terry-Lewis is wrongly titled Mabel Terry–Lewis with an en-dash where the hyphen should be. There is a redirect page with the correct title. The content of the article should be on Mabel Terry-Lewis rather than Mabel Terry–Lewis, and the latter should be either removed altogether or turned into a redirect page. I do not know how to do this without mucking up the edit history of the article. Help gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think a simple move would have been sufficient, but I am not sure if the redir met the qualifications for a non-admin to move over it. As per MOS:HYPHEN, a personal name is joined with a hyphen, not a dash. DES (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Gosh! That was quick. Thank you very much. Tim riley (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback tool
(Article feedback activity log); 11:19. . Loriendrew (talk | contribs) changed visibility of the article feedback tool on "Paedophile Information Exchange" ‎[articlefeedbackv5=aft-reader] (indefinite) ‎
 * I have no idea how/why the above happened or how to undo it.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  11:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The article feedback tool turns on the box at the bottom of the page which asks the reader if they have any feedback on the page, which can be read in an effort to help improve the page. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I know what it is, what I do not know is how I changed the visibility of it. I did not make any edits on that article-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  12:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry. Are you sure you didn't click the Enable feedback button on the left? One click is enough to turn it on. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ok, I see that link now. I must have unintentionally hit it while scrolling, bloody ipad. Is there a way to turn it off, or just leave it?-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  12:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove the link with the below in . PrimeHunter (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) t-articlefeedbackv5-enable {display: none;}
 * Before I do that, it seems that would make me not see the tool but it would not remove the inadvertent tool addition to the article. I dont see how the above addition would change anything but my views.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  15:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It should completely remove the link, clickable place and whole line. Just try it. If it doesn't work then you can always remove the code. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki:User:Gabrielchihonglee/Main Page.css
May I have the right to edit that page?--Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Pages in the MediaWiki namespace can only be edited by administrators. You can import User:Gabrielchihonglee/Main Page.css and ask other users to import it if they want to see the result. See User scripts/Guide. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

moron pioneers is wrong
I just wanted you to go on and look at Danquart Weggeland and it says he did art for Moron Pioneers. I think you mean Mormon Pioneers... it would be really cool if you just fixed it. I think it would make you guys out NOT to be Morons.... he he... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.49.141 (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Obvious vandalism. Fixed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ask another user to nominate Simon Mills (writer) for deletion...
...so, here I am. I came across this article that clearly doesn't belong on WP, and decided to try the AfD process. I got as far as I could, before finding the above message —from someplace that allowed me to 'View source':

I thought I might find a way to do this, but as an IP, it appears I can't. ~Help!  ~$Eric the →$IP:71.20.250.51 (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe the next step is the creation of: Articles for deletion/Simon Mills (writer) — With rationale from: Talk:Simon Mills (writer) ? ~IP=71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Isn't there a bot that goes around fixing malformed AfDs?--ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That won't help here because the AfD page needs to be created first for any bot to know to act and the issue is that IPs can't create non-talk pages so the person cannot create the AfD page itself. The best solution would be for you, 71.20.250.51, to create an account, which should take you less than one minute. I would go do the nomination for you and someone else might, but I am unwilling because from the text of your nomination it does not look like you have done any due diligence (see WP:BEFORE) to see whether this person is actually notable, rather than whether the article demonstrates notability. The former, and not the latter, is a proper basis for a resource intensive AfD.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The only thing that I've found for that Simon Mills is his homepage: (it seems to be him).  There are at least two other  "Simon Mills" who are notable "writers" (authors) ,  ← (the one I was looking for)  ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As another user has nominated the article for deletion (without referring to your proposed nomination), I have placed your text there. Feel free to remove my framing of the issue and rewrite your text as you see fit (if you do remove my framing then please remove me entirely, including my signature, and note in your edit summary that I said it was okay with me, or you're likely to be reverted).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Widths of content on the right-hand side
Take a look at Alois Delug, and specifically the right-hand side. There's an infobox, a picture and a box with a link to Commons. All three are right-aligned but have different widths, and that's making the page look ugly. Is there a non-horrible way to fix that (i.e., no substing in templates onto the page and fiddling with magic numbers there, no hard-coding image widths)? Facing the Sky (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you could move the commons category template to the left by including "|position=left" to the template but I don't know if that will make it any prettier to you. It looks fine the way it is to me.  If more text were added to the article, that would help the whitespace at the bottom of the article.  Dismas |(talk) 15:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried previewing with the commonsbox on the left, but it didn't really look good there either (and I couldn't rationalise it appearing in the 'References' section anyway). That doesn't help the infobox-picture discord, either. I agree it'd look better with more text, but the article as it is needs some more sources dug out before it can be expanded. Facing the Sky (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * How about an 'External links' section at the bottom with  parameter for the Commons link .   You can tinker with the infobox image by adding     Also, the thumbnail painting image can be tinkered with by replacing "thumb" with XXXpx (XXX is size in pixels).  You could also consider moving the image to a  (and add others) -- which displays horizontally. ~ Just a thought,  ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh! See: Template:Commons category-inline ... this would work better for a link in the 'External links' section
 * E.g.:  renders:
 * ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem with hard-coding a pixel size for the picture is that then there's no automatic resizing according to preference/resolution—but the image in the infobox, which partially determines the infobox's width, would get resized. So, that only works if the infobox's image and the picture are given fixed sizes and the infobox's extra padding is also fixed, but I think that that might cause problems across different viewing configurations (e.g., images too large on phone screens, or too small on big monitors).
 * If I can figure out a way to get Template:Authority control to render inline, an 'External links' section would be good for that and the commonsbox. Facing the Sky (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Should list-like "Popular culture" info be moved to an article or to a disambiguation page?
Dear editors: There's an article, Still waters run deep, and a redirect to it Still waters run deep (fable). There is also an old Afc submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Still waters run deep which has a "popular culture" section. Then there's another page Still waters run deep (disambiguation). Should the "popular culture" information be added to the mainspace article as it is in the draft, or would this be unnecessary duplication? If the extra items are added to the disambiguation page instead, does the attribution need to be preserved? (It's just a few words.) &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "In popular culture" sections should have third party sources discussing the how/what/whys the appearance in popular culture is notable/worth encyclopedia coverage. Without that, the DAB is a better home. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * After looking at those, I agree. The "popular culture" section in the AFC article is really a disambiguation list, and should be included only in the disambiguation article and nowhere else. Other articles should have a tag for or otheruses at the top.


 * I see no reason to list any of these popular culture items in the primary topic article, just because they happen to have the same name. The only exception might be for items where the title and its association with the primary topic is discussed in reliable sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's great. Thanks for taking time to check this out.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Referencing errors on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=593892111 Bogmalo Beach]
Reference help requested.

Hello Referencebot, I can't figure out the reference error you've pointed out regarding the article Bogmalo Beach. Can you be more specific about the url. Thanks, (MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC))


 * It was fixed long ago in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bogmalo_Beach&diff=594042597&oldid=593892111]. A pipe '|' is part of template syntax and can normally not be part of a template parameter. If all the pipes in the title parameter had been encoded as  then it would have worked. Did you use a tool which encoded the first pipe in , but not the rest? PrimeHunter (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Need an answer
I need to know how to block this site. I can still remember the first and only time I used it, and it wasn't a good time. I had come across untrue info, and couldn't trust you ever since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.81.246 (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you tried willpower? If that doesn't work, here's a list of content-control software. I can't vouch for any particular software, but I swear by just not visiting certain sites. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I wouldn't trust that list. — Preceding sarcastic comment added by 71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You can block any website by editing your hosts (file).--Shantavira|feed me 09:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)