Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 May 13

= May 13 =

AfD !votes not showing up in my AfD log.
Neither of my votes in Articles for deletion/Feras Bugnah and Articles for deletion/Lisa Batey (2nd nomination) are showing up in my deletion log. Is this a bug? d.g. L3X1 (distant write)  01:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * hi. Basically, I guess 's signature is messing up the Afd script. While I've shifted his signature to a place where it doesn't mess the script up anymore (and therefore, your !votes are showing in your Afd stats now), I don't know whether it is appropriate to ask the cap to do anything about the sig. Thanks. Lourdes  03:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

How to add pictures
I have a problem with adding images both in the Infobox and in theBiography section here in the Sandbox. After searching Help, I see several issues:
 * Setting image size
 * Storing the files for access to the article in the Sandobx
 * Defining the path to the image files

Thank you in advance for your time. JRCBaker (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * where are the pictures you want to add, and where is the sandbox you want to add them to?
 * Incidentally, I see that you have used your user page (which is intended for you to write information about yourself, as relevant to your activities on Wikipedia) to write about the musician Gregory Short. Wikipedia already has an article Gregory Short. I suggest that you contribute to the existing article, rather than creating a rival version. Maproom (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

User talk page problems
Hello. I'm having problems with my user talk page, as I'm unable to edit it, probably because its grown too large. I've tried to split it, but am unable even to edit the first section. I have created an archive page to move the earlier posts to at User:Berek/Archive. Would you be able to help me move some of the articles on the talk page to the archive page? Many thanks Berek (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Greetings. I did make a small edit (fixed a header) and it did save. It doesn't seem too large to me at all although I'd recommend to set up bot archiving. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Talk archives should be talk sub pages. I have archived to User talk:Berek/Archive 1, but if the size was a problem for your browser then there are many articles you cannot edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

User talk pages (continued)
Thanks for setting up the archive which is working well. Still unable to edit the talk page article I wanted to or indeed the previous posts on this page. I'm using Chrome with Windows 10 - I wonder if they are having problems of their own? I did manage to edit my main user page successfully Berek (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, we're in! I had been using the beta tools, and once I disabled them I'm back to normal, admittedly old-style editing - thanks for all your help! Berek (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Log in/Edit
I thought I had created a new account. I cannot find a way back to my draft to continue working on it. My new article is entitled:"Turner Station." — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-Countryskier (talk • contribs) 12:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you check Draft:Turner Station? Ian.thomson (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-Countryskier (talk • contribs) 12:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought I set up an account. I can't get back to my draft article: "Turner Station." — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-Countryskier (talk • contribs) 12:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You do have an account, your user page is User:X-Countryskier and your talk page is User talk:X-Countryskier. And, as Ian.thomson has pointed out, the draft you created is at Draft:Turner Station. Maproom (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Monksville reservoir
The capacity is 7 Billion gallons

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/21/nyregion/push-is-on-to-finish-jersey-reservoir.html


 * Monksville Reservoir has been updated. MB 14:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * MB I was about to make that same edit, but judging by the content of the linked article describing how the reservoir is still under construction, and how the Monksville Reservoir article states it has been there since 1987, I'm thinking these are two different reservoirs. Possibly something to bring up on the talk page. I'll leave it to you to decide to revert or not. :) RegistryKey(RegEdit) 14:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , the linked article is from 1986. MB 14:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hah! Color me stupid. Read too many headlines today. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 14:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

love
whai is love ''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:910A:5AF4:5503:5490:C07B:5A5F (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello While our article on "Love" can give you significant insights on this complicated topic, you might also consider posting such questions at our reference desk, which is more adept at handling such queries. Write back here at the Help Desk if you need help in understanding any issue with editing Wikipedia articles. Thanks. Lourdes  16:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ref desk troller! :)  d.g. L3X1  (distant write)  19:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Longterm username plan
I've been curious to know how the reuse of usernames is going to be addressed over the course of (what we hope will be) a many-generation process. It doesn't make sense to me that user:JamesLucas should be retired forever when I'm gone, but all I've ever seen on this matter is the limited and rigid usurpation process. Is there any mechanism for moving usernames back into the pool of availability after, say, a 20-year idleness? Or even a discussion of this issue somewhere? A search through WP:PUMP archives hasn't turned up much, but maybe I should be looking at meta:Help or someplace like that? Thanks —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  16:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There a discussion of the problem, along with one solution here User naming convention proposal. Unfortunately, my arguments haven't yet been persuasive.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I find your arguments thoroughly convincing. Namespace is a limited and valuable resource, and we shouldn't be squandering it on users who have only come here to edit one article. It should be earned – and preferably by something more than "after some period of time". Maproom (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words. My concern about my proposal is that it is a bit on the awkward side, but I see it as achieving several goals, and I totally agree, it is silly that we are burning up the inventory of simple names on people who are making a tiny number of edits.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for sharing, . Where (if anywhere), did you raise this issue formally? I presume that the unified login means that an issue such as this would need to gain a very broad consensus, not just here on the English Wikipedia. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  04:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The unified login makes the problem worse. If someone registers a username in Waray-language Wikipedia and never uses it, it's still gone from the namespace over all Wikipedias forever. Maproom (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I am fairly sure I raised it at the VP Idea lab some time ago, and it did not get traction. Perhaps I should try again. (Good point Maproom, that Unified login both makes it a more serious problem and harder to get consensus.)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Proper/How to refer to a book, but not as a citation source? (Tag mention of a book with metadata?)
I would like to improve the article about author Clay S. Jenkinson. Specifically, the #Books section simply lists his works as plain, static text. Following the same reasoning as microformats, I would like to make this more useful or "smart." For example, adding ISBN information would enable search via Special:BookSources.

I know that Wikipedia has a variety of methods for referring to books, including. However, these methods all seem intended for use in citations to support article text. In the Jenkinson article, however, the books are not supporting material, but rather part of the content.

Questions:
 * 1) Is it correct Wikipedia practice to include metadata as I am describing? -- Or, is a plain text list actually more appropriate?
 * 2) If enriching the mentions of the books is appropriate, what is good practice for doing so?  I have been unable to find this issue discussed in the editing guides.
 * 3) * If I use ..., the output is visually cluttered.  Furthermore, this usage somewhat implies that the mention is a citation.
 * 4) * Using normal  tags, I could move this visual clutter to a footnotes section, but that would be verbose and repetitive.
 * 5) * If the book were listed in Wikidata, maybe I could somehow make a reference to that object. Unfortunately, it is not.

Thank you,

Christopher Ursich (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * yes
 * 1) – produces metadata
 * 2) If by visually cluttered, you mean the inclusion of the authors parameters, visual presentation can be minimized or eliminated:
 * 3) does not have the ability to fetch publication data from WikiData
 * It is quite common to see such book, journal, magazine, etc publications listed in this way. If you choose to use the cs1|2 templates, always include all of the authors and editors (there are editor-mask, and display-editors parameters) because these metadata producing templates will be read by external software so completeness is important.  Also, it is possible that other Wikipedia editors will copy your work for use as a citation somewhere.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) does not have the ability to fetch publication data from WikiData
 * It is quite common to see such book, journal, magazine, etc publications listed in this way. If you choose to use the cs1|2 templates, always include all of the authors and editors (there are editor-mask, and display-editors parameters) because these metadata producing templates will be read by external software so completeness is important.  Also, it is possible that other Wikipedia editors will copy your work for use as a citation somewhere.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is quite common to see such book, journal, magazine, etc publications listed in this way. If you choose to use the cs1|2 templates, always include all of the authors and editors (there are editor-mask, and display-editors parameters) because these metadata producing templates will be read by external software so completeness is important.  Also, it is possible that other Wikipedia editors will copy your work for use as a citation somewhere.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Trappist the monk, thank you for this advice. I see that you have done a lot of work with citation templates. I  the article, using a combination of, and. I think it is nice and readable.
 * —Christopher Ursich (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Referencing error
Can sonmeone shed some light on the error message for ref 48 in job interview ? Thx.--Penbat (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Reference names must be unique. The name "Chapman" is defined three different ways.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (e.c.) It looks as if the tag  is used to define two different references in the article. It appears twice, in the Technology in interviews section, then again in the Applicant reactions section. On its second appearance, the ref name should be changed to something else. ("Chapman2" is already used for a third ref, so it'll have to be something else.)  Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   19:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I found a third, but the third one had yet another problem. In any event, that should be enough information for the editor to figure out how to proceed.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys.--Penbat (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Strikethroughs use in articles
Been reading around Wikipedia's help pages about, use of Strikethroughs use in articles. I have not been able to fined a solid yes or no answers about this, other than there use on Talk pages. Show can they be used within articles or should they be discouraged? Cheers - Kyle1278 (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * At least to my knowledge, they are discouraged. For what would you use them? RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  19:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strikethrough is used in the article on Strikethrough. Apart from using at as an example like that, I can't think why else it could be appropriate. Maproom (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed them from this article The Game Awards 2016, it was changed back with User:Rhain edit. As well I don't edit Wikipedia as much as I did in the past, I wanted to get the clearest possible answer about this, since I can't actively watch or discus this. Cheers - Kyle1278 (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, things that are in the past should be removed. The problem could be solved by putting a note next to the title of the game saying "So and so was formerly a nomination, but withdrew". RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  19:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll imagine it could be used in a direct quote of a written passage that uses them, if it was properly explained. E.g. "In Lermontov's original dedication, Lopukhina's name was struck out and replaced with Bykhovets's: 'To my darling Barbara dear Catherine'" or something. Can't think of another legitimate use. Herostratus (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That has been done, ill remove the strikes and leave the footnotes. Thanks for you help! Cheers - Kyle1278 (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I think strikethrough has a few legitimate uses like marking cancelled events in a scheduled series (FIS Alpine World Ski Championships 2017), or non-counting competition results (Sailing at the 2016 Summer Olympics – 49er), or mimicking how something is presented in a source (W E RD at the end of Recurring segments on The Colbert Report). The use in The Game Awards 2016 looks sensible to me. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Irony, undone recent edit until more clear consensus in discussion. Cheers - Kyle1278 (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * since editor mentioned. Cheers - Kyle1278 (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the strikethrough makes sense; the games were originally nominated in the category, but had their nominations revoked, so it's a simple way to demonstrate this. It's a similar situation to the Academy Award for Best Sound Mixing at the 89th Academy Awards. – Rhain  ☔ 22:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

In-universe template for religious content
Some articles concerning religious topics present the information from a religious perspective, without clearly distinguishing between objective facts and religious teachings, beliefs, dogmas, etc. This is basically the problem that Template:In-universe addresses, but it seems uncivil to label religious beliefs as "fiction". Is there a cleanup template for this issue? 2601:644:0:DBD0:E458:9F6C:48D6:AFD4 (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The closest equivalent we have is . Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's perfect for my use case (Consecration of Russia). 2601:644:0:DBD0:709E:46A5:A9F8:CD4F (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)