Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 October 24

= October 24 =

IP address change
When does your IP address on Wikipedia change? --74.130.133.1 (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Thank you! --74.130.133.1 (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That depends on how your Internet service is set up. Some IPs are static and rarely, if ever, change.  While some are dynamic and change every time the computer connects.  For more information see IP address. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is one of the reasons that we recommend you create an account, as it keeps all your contributions together. Looking at your IP here it is dynamic address from Time Warner, based in Lexington, Kentucky - which is another reason to create an account - you may not want everyone to know that. - Arjayay (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

So if I stop editing under the IP I have it will change? --74.130.133.1 (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That depends on your setup and your ISP. For many people, the IP address changes every time they reboot their computers. And of course if you edit from a different computer it the IP address will normally be different. Whereas if you create and use an account, no IP address change will affect all of your edits being listed under that account. And there are other benefits. DES (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Like if I do updates on my computer for example? --74.130.133.1 (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Could anyone please reply to my question. Do your ip changes if you like do updates on computers. Please answer. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP address is a property of your Internet connection determined by your ISP (Internet service provider) and not your computer or Wikipedia. If Special:Contributions/74.130.133.1 shows all your edits and you have rebooted the computer between them then doing updates on the computer would probably not change the IP address. However, we don't know how your ISP behaves and they could change your IP address at an unpredictable time. The oldest edits by this IP address are from 30 September 2015. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have edits on the IP but I want to change it soon like after October 31 as it will be my last day I will ever edit under that IP address. That is why I want it changed! --74.130.133.1 (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP is a number assigned by your internet service provider who decides how and when it will change. The edits you have made to Wikipedia pages from this IP address will always remain attributed to this IP address and will not change. Your future edits may or may not be attributed to this IP address depending upon whether and when your internet service provider decides to change the address assigned to you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I know ways you can change your IP address. Also, I hope the ISP lets me use this until October 31st. After October 31st, I am done using this IP. I left a note on my talk page about it. Feel free to message me on my talk page. Thank you and GO PACK GO! --74.130.133.1 (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You may wish to ask for help at the reference desk reference desk for how to get your ISP to change your IP address, but Wikipedia does not control anything about your IP address (other than whether or not people are allowed to edit anonymously from it). And if your Internet Service Provider does change your IP address, it will not change how the previous contributions will be attributed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Under which section of that area? --74.130.133.1 (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops that was terribly wrong! Reference desk/Computing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you create an account and always edit while logged in, you can change from an IP at any point you wish. However, once you create an account you should always edit only from that account, see WP:SOCK -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I am closing this. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Landscapes
Italic text How many landscapes do we have in Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.58.198.32 (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol move vote.svg This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try  for an article related to the topic you want to know more about.  I hope this helps. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Problem with #switch
When editing templates how do I get the case to encompass cases with prefix, for example, "text" (regexp: ), OR to encompass a range of months, years, or numbers? For example, in regular expression  will match "text000", "text001", "text003", ... "text999". Would this sort of computation be too expensive? And this is why one can't do this sort of thing? —User 000 name 05:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Months:
 * Years:
 * the #Switch parser function doesn't work that way. It compares a parameter against an explicitly specified set of values, and returns a result based on the first match (if any) found. It doesn't evaluate regexs. I'm not sure if any of the parser functions does. The months case could be handled since fall-through is supported, and there is a limited and fixed set of options. #switch is obviously modeled on the Switch statement which in most high-level programming languages does not support regexs for the values tested. Wheht3er this implementation decision is due to evaluation cost or conceptual complexity I couldn't say, very few use cases would benefit from the regex option, in my view. DES (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You may able to do what you want using other features like Module:String (use ), find, and other functions at mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability of PR/coverage of 'design concepts' and those that generate them
Can a purely hypothetical and blatantly implausible 'design concept', obviously produced purely to generate media coverage by an otherwise non-notable entity, be notable?

Could the actual media coverage of such things somehow be notable?

For example: Acabion - notable for:
 * a single exceptionally crude and barely functional 'prototype' vehicle comprising half of a Schleicher ASK 21 glider fuselage and a salvaged motorcycle engine and running gear
 * an exceptionally successful PR campaign making comically incredible and completely unsubstantiated claims resulting in extensive coverage of those completely unsubstantiated claims (and for somehow surviving WP:Articles for deletion/Acabion in 2006 apparently on the basis of the sheer volume of that coverage)
 * an exceptionally lame non-refundable-donation-soliciting/scam website - http://acabion.com (don't forget to check out the "Funding" and "Terms" sections)

Another example: Migaloo (yacht) - "World's first 115 m submarine-superyacht hybrid" - a 'design study' from a 'design studio' that produces lots of design studies (that get lots of coverage) but apparently nothing else. Sailed(!) through AFC as submitted without comment, again apparently due to volume of coverage.

In both cases, the PR/coverage itself (as opposed to the pseudo-company or the pseudo-product) seems kind of perversely notable because it's so prodigious, but am I right to think the PR/coverage is not wiki-notable unless reliable sources comment on the actual PR/coverage, as opposed to the subject of the PR/coverage?

Plus a separate question - what is the correct category for (non-medical) design concepts? 223.205.243.205 (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We only care that other reliable sources not related to the subject have found the topic worthy of discussing in detail. If all that exists are regurgitations of the PR releases, then no. But if several reliable sources have independently discussed the topic, even if all the reliable sources have gone on to debunk the initial claims/proposals, it is likely to merit an article. although WP:NOTNEWS / WP:CORP and others do come into play.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The Acabion article is over nine years old but has never ever had a single independent citation, not even when it survived AFD. It had a couple of external links (gizmag.com & caradvice.com.au) up until a month ago, but both are unadulterated PR regurgitation.
 * The Migaloo (yacht) article cites four sources (bornrich.com, dailymail.co.uk, businessinsider.com, luxpresso.com), all are pure PR regurgitation.
 * I haven't found any debunking, or anything other than PR regurgitation, anywhere. I think both are just too ridiculous for any reputable sources to take them seriously enough to bother. 223.205.243.205 (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nominate them both for deletion and see what the community thinks. --Guy Macon (talk)
 * Specifically see WP:PROD for how do to that yourself. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, Migaloo (yacht) is now PRODed.
 * I think PROD is not an option for Acabion as it was AFD'd in 2006/7? If anyone who is already familiar with that process thinks it should revisit AFD, please go right ahead. 223.205.243.205 (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Acabion (2nd nomination). -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  20:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Jaguars London 2016
When will the 2016 Jacksonville Jaguars opponent for London be revealed? --74.130.133.1 (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the Help Desk for asking questions about how to edit or use Wikipedia. You may wish to try the reference desk for guidance on where such information might be located. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Ill try that. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Deceased Wikipedian
Sir,

I am aware of a deceased Wikipedia but I can not add him to the Deceased Wikipedians page. How do I add him? --BollyBœuf (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see this page for more info WP:DWG Tiggerjay (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have seen that but the main page is blocked from editing. --BollyBœuf (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It would help if you say whom this editor was and his talk page and any evidences that he is now deceased. One does not have to dot every i' nor cross every t. Just the gist will do. --Aspro (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean the main page is blocked from editing? Are you referring to the users page? As Aspro mentioned, please let us know which user you are referring to, and provide a reliable source (if available). Tiggerjay (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * He meant that main page of deceased wikipedians is semi-protected. He was referring to a user who was blocked. Supdiop ( T 🔹 C ) 20:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And BollyBœuf is now blocked as well, for disruptive editing/assumed Technoquat sockpuppet - Arjayay (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Paul T T Easter
Hi i have been researching the work of this filmmaker his name and some of his film titles, seem to be blocked here on Wikipedia. Having ran a few checks i have found that Easter directed a HBO episode for the series Strike Back S304 a major US show Link attached.

Dav477y (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Rarely is a page blocked from being created. Often pages are deleted for failing to meet the criteria for inclusion into wikipedia. Could you provide some examples of the articles you think are blocked? Thanks. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the original topic, I will comment that a page is occasionally blocked from creation, known as salted, but this is typically done if the page has been created and deleted more than once (that is, tendentiously re-created after deletion). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, the page Stagger (film) is an example of a salted page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes Paul T T Easter, and Black Shuck, film title plus the film title Stagger, are all blocked thanks for the reply Tiggerjay. Dav477y (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please clarify why you think they are "blocked". You could "technically" create a page called Paul T. T. Easter, Black Shuck (film), or Stagger (film). Although the latter two have previously been deleted for violation of policy. Deleted pages are different than banned. Don't confused the two. For an experienced editor it can be VERY difficult to have a page added to Wikipedia, and if the page was previously deleted, and you have any involvement with the film/company/etc (see WP:COI, then it would be virtually impossible . Not because it is designed to be difficult, but because biased editors who are new don't understand the polices required for a page to be included, and what is required of that page. I wouldn't recommend that you create these unless you have experience doing so. I would refer to you Your First Article first. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Paul T T Easter (no periods) is salted, as is Stagger (film). Black Shuck (film) is not.  Rwessel (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rwessel so does this mean that a experienced editor could write an article on Black Shuck film. Dav477y (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Articles about any of those topics, including the salted ones can be created, but they will have to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, and not have the other problems (being created by socks of a blocked user), that lead to the AfD and original salting. The salted articles would need the help of an administrator to create, but the usual approach is to create the article in your draft or user space, then ask for it to be reviewed, and then an admin will move it over the blocked article if it all looks good.  Creating the article in your draft space is a good idea anyway.  Now Black Shuck is not salted, so any autoconfirmed user (four days and ten edits - you're not there yet) can create the page directly, but from reviewing the deletion discussion, I believe the intention was to salt that as well, but it appears not to have happened (I've sent a note to, who closed the AfD).  But given the prior AfD, and subsequent deletion of the Black Shuck articles, I suggest treading very lightly if you have a conflict of interest with the subject(s).  Rwessel (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help and advise from everyone here much appreciated. Dav477y (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the advise Tiggerjay i have not met this filmmaker or ever worked with him,but i have seen many of his films. Having no experience on creating articles i cant add this article but would like to see if a experienced editor could write the article. The past issues seemed to be reliable references having googled him, there are reliable references available including the BFI. Dav477y (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Neither of those seem to be reliable, third party coverage for what we need here. I'm not an expert on films & movies, as such I wouldn't be comfortable in getting these very contested articles created. However I would suggest you try reaching out to someone over at WP:FILMS. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Tiggerjay, Rwessel, the reason that so many of the articles are salted is because there has been a rampant amount of Easter-related sockpuppets that have tried to re-add him to Wikipedia. It actually got so bad that I think that his name is now on the blacklist. There's more on this at the SPI. Long story short, Easter wasn't happy that his articles were deleted and has since devoted time to creating sockpuppets in order to re-add them. At this point many think that it's possibly just trolling. If anyone has been enlisted to edit the page and isn't Easter, I feel sort of bad for them since most have no idea what they've stepped into. Since Easter socks has been such a long running problem, I'm going to have to open a new SPI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Carey Spear
Can any editors familiar with American sports and the AfD process please take a look at Carey Spear. Per WP:ATHLETE, including WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH, it appears he's not notable; he was an undrafted free agent in the NFL and never played in a regular season or post-season game. In college, he was not a prominent player (no NCAA awards/records). I can't find any other condition that would qualify him for notability either. I asked for input a week ago at BLP/N but received zero replies. The article deletion process is not my thing, so I would appreciate it if anyone experienced in creating AfDs can handle this, assuming you agree this article belongs there. Czoal (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

✅. I am generally an inclusionist, but when there are specific notability guidelines, I use them rather than WP:IAR. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Moving
How can you move a page that you cannot normally move, such as MaxSem's move from Gadget:Invention, Travel, & Adventure to Gadget Invention, Travel, & Adventure and the user .css and .js pages that are moved when renaming a user? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Gadget:Invention, Travel, & Adventure was a special case moved with shell access after you pointed out the page at Village pump (technical)/Archive 139. Administrators have the user rights  and   at Special:ListGroupRights. This means they can both edit and move the pages of others. Users are renamed by bureaucrats but all bureaucrats on the English Wikipedia are also administrators. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The manually updated User access levels lists  as a single right but Special:ListGroupRights is probably more accurate. The same users have the right(s) so it doesn't matter in practice. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Snow Bowl (2008)
Someone please review my article. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments made at draft article. Neither declined nor accepted at this time.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The requester has asked that I reply further. I have taken the discussion to the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)