Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 January 16

= January 16 =

Template:Infobox former country
The Land of Uz article currently transcludes Infobox former country, which automatically displays Life span? near the top if you don't specify when the former country began existing and stopped existing. Is there a way to suppress display without supplying years? I've looked through documentation without finding it.

Second question: is there another infobox more appropriate for this article? Infobox ancient country doesn't exist. "Uz" as the name for a country appears only in passing mentions in the Bible, without enough evidence to connect it conclusively with any state bearing another name. Although the name appears multiple times, no solid information about the land itself is given (no evidence on whether it were a region or a sovereign state, for example), so Infobox former country doesn't appear particularly relevant; literally all the information in the infobox is the name and a map of where it might have been. Nyttend (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like the start and end years are required fields. You could request that they be made optional, or i have placed some dummy text that can be made more specific / tailored . --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see why that article is appropriate for Wikipedia anyway. All its citations are to primary or unreliable sources. It needs citations to substantial writing about the subject, and if those don't exist, it is not notable. --ColinFine (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * there seems to be enough scholarly discussion about what exactly "land of uz" means to merit an article -   but probably the article should be more of a "study of biblical interpretation" than "this is a country that used to exist" --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article's existence may be justified, but it is about a biblical phrase, not a country — and so a "former country" infobox is inappropriate. Maproom (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Maproom. I note that Babylonia manages to be a very nice article with no infobox at all. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mandruss and Maproom, and will add that we do know where Babylonia was, and it still doesn't need an infobox. Infoboxes are never required.  Sometimes infoboxes create controversy because they may require oversimplification of details that can be properly addressed in the text of an article.  (A few editors are stubborn in wanting all articles to have infoboxes.)  Either do not use an existing infobox, or, if you are good at templates, create a new infobox for the purpose.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that the infobox has been replaced with a map of the estimated extent of the country. That solves that problem.  Some articles do not need infoboxes.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error re General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy page.
I am having difficulty moving parts of the lede to the General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy page to a footnote. This is possibly complicated because the footnote has two different references itself. . I want to move calculations of approximately how many systems came under NCL control into a footnote. Each time I've attemped editting, it shows up as having open-ended references. Anmccaff (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This can be done, but it is fiddly. The instructions are at WP:REFNEST. Be careful to follow the formatting example very closely. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Woiked(sic) like a charm, once I got it into my thick head that following the template exactly was required. Many thanks.Anmccaff (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Submission of sandbox draft
How do I move my article from the sandbox to the public page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.160.84.10 (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to User:ADMaharaj01/sandbox? I've added a tag which gives you a button for submisstion to the AFC process, but the draft isn't ready for that yet.  The first thing you need to do is to provide references to published reliable sources independent of the subject.  You also ought to adjust the formatting to comply with the Manual of Style.  It would also be wise for you to read WP:1st, and some other links which I have added to your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Riptide (album)
Reference help requested.

Thanks, Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The word "help" in the error message is in blue, indicating that it is a wikilink to a specific page to help you, in this case Help:CS1 errors, which says "To resolve this error, ... add an appropriate parameter name from the citation template you're using to complete the parameter ...". In these two cases, what needed adding was "url=", which I  for you. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

request edit
when you search for Polk County, Florida underneath the Demographics area someone wrote "The racial makeup of the county was 79.58% White, 13.54% Black or African American, 0.38% Native American, 0.93% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 3.82% from other races, and 1.71% from two or more races. 9.49% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race. In 2000 only 37% of county residents lived in incorporated metropolitan areas"

I asked that you remove the word "Black" and only have 'African American' because it's the same race. I notice that no other race has two description, other than the African American. Examples "White or European", "Indian or Native American".

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.73.1.193 (talk • contribs)


 * Many people insist that "black" is the appropriate term in that context. Many others insist that it's "African American". This is an ongoing battle that may never be resolved. My guess is that someone put both terms there as an attempted compromise. No matter what you do, you will never please everyone, there will always be someone who comes along and finds fault with the existing language. I think it's fine the way it is.


 * The is the Wikipedia Help desk, which is for questions about how to use and edit Wikipedia. I see that you made the same request on the article's talk page. That is all you needed to do. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * AFAIK the terminology is taken directly from official census documents - we follow the sources, we don't interpret them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Using Amazon and iTunes for references of singles and albums
Looking at this edit and I've realized that I don't know what our policy is about using Amazon and iTunes for references of the release of singles and albums. Could someone help me out in this area? What is our policy? And does anyone know any better sources for this type of info if those aren't good enough? Dismas |(talk) 15:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we dont link to commercial sites. Thats refspam. The item itself is valid reference that it exists, which is all that linking to itunes can "verify" anyway.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Verification
Does a subject (person) have to have a Wikipedia page to be included on a list if that subject included a verifiable reference? One of my edits was removed twice due to the subject matter not having a Wikipedia page although the reference matched the verification process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidR1000 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This will depend on the list, and the selection criteria. If you are referring to List of artists who have covered Bob Dylan songs, we clearly aren't going to include everyone who has ever done so - the list would become ridiculously large. Instead, per Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists we limit the list to people who meet our notability criteria. So no, verifying that someone has recorded a Bob Dylan song will not guarantee inclusion in the list. And incidentally, given your username, and the fact that you have been attempting to add a 'David Reo' to the list, I think that it is appropriate to suggest that you might do well to read the Conflict of interest guideline. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

SS Sultana
[Discussion copied to article talk, no more here please] &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The article about the "SS Sultana" is labeled incorrectly. The title should be simply "Sultana" not "SS Sultana." I am the author of the book Disaster on the Mississippi: The Sultana Explosion, April 27, 1865 and the largest collector of Sultana related memorabilia and artifacts. I am the leading contributor and historical consultant to the Sultana Disaster Museum currently under construction in Marion, Arkansas. I have corrected and added to the article but I am unable to change the title from "SS Sultana" to simply "Sultana." The prefix of SS indicates that the vessel is a "steamship." It was not. It was a privately owned steamboat - a boat, not a ship. Please, please can you correct this. I have tried several times but can not find how to edit the title of an article. I would appreciate an help that you can provide. Thank you, Gene Eric Salecker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.229.19 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It would not be appropriate to rename the article to 'Sultana' - I think it is self-evident that their are more common usages for the word than the name for this particular vessel. At the moment, Sultana is a disambiguation page, listing the various meanings, which is probably the most appropriate way to handle the general problem. As for the specifics, if you are right, and 'SS Sultana' is not in fact the correct name for the vessel, we will have to consider an alternative title - possibly 'Sultana (steamboat)'. The way we do this is described in Moving a page - though you won't be able to do this yourself without registering an account. I suggest that you copy your post above to Talk:SS Sultana, where we can discuss this further (I'd like to confirm that 'SS' is in fact invalid), and I'll make the move for you if it seems appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * See the title of this book. Many other hits for "ss sultana". Question is not as black-and-white as claimed. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Btw, is it proper to add massive content citing only your own book? How does that differ from original research? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It isn't original research, as the term is used in Wikipedia - it is however possibly inappropriate, though that will partly depend on the acceptability of the source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems mighty inappropriate to me. Great way to advertise a book (and, as you're fond of saying, Wikipedia is not a platform for free advertising). Maybe I meant COI. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * See Attribution, and Conflict of interest - again it depends on the acceptability of the source. There is no policy expressly forbidding self-citation, and even if there were, we don't expect everyone to immediately understand every facet of Wikipedia policy. I think that per WP:AGF we need to start by looking at the source being cited first, to determine its usability. If Gene Salecker has recognised authority in the subject, and the book is worthy of citation, it isn't 'advertising' to cite it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well I guess we won't know until someone here buys (ka-ching) and reads the book. Clearly, he isn't fairly representing a wide range of sources, as evidenced by the fact that he presents his view of the naming question as undisputed fact. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * While Sultana may be the correct form, the reasoning here is flawed as there is no consistent difference in definition between a ship and a boat. And many privately owned ships were called "SS" - like SS St. Marys Challenger or SS South American. Rmhermen (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Aside from the above mentioned problem, content like "In April 2015, on the 150th anniversary of the disaster, the town of Marion, Arkansas will open an interim Sultana Disaster Museum ..." is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:COI, as Mr. Salecker is, supposedly, a consultant of the mentioned museum (according to this author entry: . Removed that part (more should probably be discussed on the article talkpage, if necessary - not here on help desk) GermanJoe (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think that almost all of this discussion might be better placed on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Copied entire section, &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Creating a bio page
What is the procedure for creating a bio page on Wikpedia. I assume people submit bio's and they are edited. I have tried to figure this out, but have so far failed. Could you enlighten me as to the process. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LCandLC (talk • contribs) 21:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * A biography on who? Wikipedia has notability criteria - in this case Notability (people) - and in order to merit an article, it needs to be demonstrated in third-party published reliable sources that the person meets the criteria. In which case, it is open to anyone to create an article - see Your first article. You should note however that, per Autobiography we strongly discourage people creating articles on themselves, and we frequently delete such articles as failing to demonstrate the required notability. Alternatively, it is possible per Requested articles to ask that someone creates an article - though there is a long backlog, and there are no guarantees that the request will be met. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Documentation on "thank" feature?
I can't seem to find guidelines on using "thank" (that clickable link that appears on any edit in page history when I'm logged in, leading to a popup "Thank user for this edit?") Its text is far too common for a useful Search, and on Help:Page history or other existing help pages about editing, I can't find a mention of this. Perhaps the tool is new: I haven't noticed it until recently.

What happens if I do a Thank? Will I have to write an explanatory note? Will many Thanks add clutter to user pages? Can I undo a Thank? If a user made a long series of edits and I want to thank her for all that work, should I Thank each edit, or try to identify which one is the best, or what? --Egmonster (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The documentation for this feature can be found at Notifications/Thanks. When you thank someone they receive a notification (the red number) saying that you've thanked them for a particular edit. You don't need to write a note, you just click 'thank' and then 'yes' and the thanks is sent. Thanks don't clutter anywhere other than the thanks log. You can't undo a thank as far as I'm aware. Up to you on the last point, but I'd consider it a little annoying if I was thanked 10 times. Once should suffice :) Sam Walton (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * For multiple thanks, you could simply post on their talk page, which allows you to use your own words rather than something canned. Also see WP:WikiLove and WP:Barnstars, other ways to show appreciation. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your links and explanations. I think I like this feature, but wish it were referenced in Help:Page history.  --Egmonster (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good idea! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)