Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 November 28

= November 28 =

Draft Publishing
Is the page Draft: Valley Water Mill Lake published yet and if so why does it still say draft? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Valley_Water_Mill_Lake ThanksSWMO Fishin (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The page is not 'published'. If you consider it is ready for mainspace, you can place  at the top of the page which will submit it for review. (I have done some minor tidying). Eagleash (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Creating bio for individual
I need to create a bio for Sean Connolly, candidate for CT gubernatorial election. There is already a Sean Connolly in Wikipedia, but it is not the same individual. Is it still possible to create this page? CTDem2018 (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:YFA on how to create an article, and then use the article wizard there to create a draft for review. The person you seek to create an article for must be Notable.  If you have any connection to the candidate, or are being paid for this work, you will need to disclose that.   RudolfRed (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * . The fact that you think that you 'need' to create a bio makes me think that you are here for purposes which are not Wikipedia's purposes. Please be aware that promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia (and that doesn't just relate to commercial subjects) and that if we do have an article about the candidate it will not be his article, he will not have any control over the contents, and he and his associates will be strongly discouraged from editing the article. Judging by your user name (which I think may be unacceptable according to ROLE, but I'm not certain) you almost certainly have a conflict of interest and may possibly be a paid contributor. Note that candidates for office are not automatically notable for Wikipdia's purposes. You need to read all the link that RudolfRed and I have given before you go any further. --ColinFine (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether running for the CT gubernatorial election is notable, the question is whether being a Department head at the state level is notable, and I don't think it is. Running for Office doesn't add to notability.Naraht (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * - For better or worse, Wikipedia tends to take a very harsh view of biographies of so-called "unelected politicians," since so many of them are flagrantly promotional and related to an upcoming election. I would encourage you to not create this article. Carrite (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - What I don't have a good feeling for is whether it would be appropriate to create the article should he receive the Democratic Nomination for Governor.Naraht (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Christopher Hussey (died 1686)
I have added a file  (photo of Hampton, New Hampshire  beach)  and it has failed. Please help. Sorry 203.132.68.1 (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks as if you copied that from an infobox somewhere (including the parameter name and formatting) which is why it didn't work. If you did, please read WP:CWW and check whether you need to make an appropriate edit summary. It is not OK to copy from other Wiki pages without attribution. Eagleash (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation problem! Please add a warning at the top of  both of these pages that there is ANOTHER  Wikipedia page titled Christopher Hussey. Maybe the page titled Christopher Hussey (died 1686) should be re-titled  and called  Captain Christopher Hussey. Thanks 203.132.68.1 (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a rather more serious problem than disambiguation. You've modified the article to suggest that Meghan Markle has a great-great-great granddaughter, which I must say seems somewhat unlikely. When you've fixed that, please see WP:DLINKS for disambiguation templates. Try them first in the sandbox. If they're giving you fits, feel free to come back to the help desk. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   04:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Dates of death (or more usually, birth) are commonly used as disambiguation. You could add a hatnote to each if desired. Please see WP:HN for how to do this. Eagleash (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am struggling with hat note. I will try to understand hatnote. I have fixed up the genealogical mistake.  Please help with hatnote if you have time. I  will go to bed now. Thanks 203.132.68.1 (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Feel free to modify the wording of the hatnotes if you think it needs improvement. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   17:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I have a question on a edit I did on a voice actress' page
Her name is Cristina_Vee. It talks about her ancestry in her personal life section. I added categories for instance American actresses of Mexican descent to her page. Why was it deleted? I also added a reference for actor Ray_Santiago saying her is of Latin American descent in his personal section. Could someone add the date of the article in the reference please? I'm not very good computer savy. Thank you. 2001:569:7671:F100:707F:2D10:916:B2CC (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Your edit on Cristina Vee was reverted by . I notice that you have already engaged with the editor at Talk:Cristina Vee and have been provided the necessary clarifications. The talk page of the article is the relevant place to continue discussions with respect to the subject; however, feel free to come back here if you need any additional assistance. Thanks,  Lourdes  08:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:User lawyer
Question about a userbox, please. Is there any policy or practice concerning users falsely claiming statuses or qualifications on their user pages where this would be contrary to real world law? The specific example I have in mind is the lawyer userbox - in many countries it is a fairly serious crime to falsely claim to be a lawyer. The rationale for this law applies with some strength to Wikipedia, too. Rightly or wrongly users who are lawyers are given some deference when it comes to discussions about legal topics, for example. Of course, Wikipedia user identities are often anonymous, so maybe it's not a problem that user xyz is falsely claiming to be a lawyer, because you don't know who xyz is in real life. Any guidance, positive or negative, would be helpful. The same applies to other statuses / qualifications that are legally protected.

I have an actual editor in mind, but wanted to know whether what they are doing is acceptable before taking this further. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, if the editor has chosen to remain anonymous, then Wikipedia's privacy policy trumps everything else (almost); in other words, there's no need to investigate whether the editor is really a lawyer or not. He/she can choose to claim their qualifications as they desire; and you should choose to comment on their contributions rather than on anything else. Do feel free to write back for more clarification. Thanks,  Lourdes  08:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just to be clear, is the position that Wikipedia takes no steps to stop, prevent or investigate things said or done on a user page that would be a crime? WP:PRIVACY isn't clear on that. Not questioning that position, just asking so I know where to take this next. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again . Your query on crime is too broad. But if the example is still about you suspecting someone to be falsely portraying his/her credentials as a lawyer on Wikipedia, and wishing Wikipedia to investigate, then in my opinion you should stop immediately. We broadly assume good faith, and as I said, our privacy policy supersedes most other policies. If the editor has chosen to remain anonymous, then on Wikipedia, attempts by anyone to investigate the editor's real-life background will amount to attempts to out, even harassment; egregious attempts to further such investigation may lead to escalating warnings, and in some cases a block. Please don't read this wrongly; I'm not saying you'll be blocked. I'm saying that anyone who does this is liable to be strongly warned. As I said earlier, simply focus on the contributions of the editor; leave the rest.  Lourdes  02:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Bury and Bircle keeps being placed incorrectly
The definitive correct address is NOT Greater Manchester. It IS Lancashire; see the definitive UK address locator by The Royal Mail. Whomsoever keeps altering this has it wrong! I can assure you of this because I have lived here all my life. Ref: https://www.royalmail.com/branch-finder?page=1

Kind Regards

Timothy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reefermaker (talk • contribs) 12:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I'm afraid that you have stumbled into a big and complicated beast (editing Wikipedia) without quite understanding how we do things. Irrespective of the merits of your edit, reapplying an edit that somebody else has reverted, without discussion, is called edit warring, and is regarded as disruptive behaviour. When reverted your edit, your proper course (if you were not willing to accept their action) was to begin a discussion with them, either on their user talk page, or normally on the article's talk page Talk:Bircle. The aim would be to reach consensus, between the two of you and anybody else who chose to contribute; and if you could not agree, then there is a procedure to follow for dispute resolution.
 * There are far more significant shortcomings in the article Bircle than a pedantic detail in the infobox: most of the material currently in the article is unsourced, and so in a sense worthless; it contains original research, which is not permitted; and it is neither neutral nor encyclopaedic in tone. I will tag it accordingly, and see if I can remove some of the most egregious problems. One of the guiding principles is that Wikipedia is not interested in what you, or I, or any random person on the internet, know, believe, or think: it is only interested in what has been published in a reliable source, so that a reader can in principle go and check it. --ColinFine (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, geographic locations, postal regions and local government regions are very different things. You're using Royal Mail postal info, to make a claim that the local government region is wrong. - X201 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

What does a credible claim of importance mean?
Recently, I've been lurking the new pages log, and I've been noticing people placing A7 CSD tags on pages. I was wondering what a credible claim of significant importance means. I tried reading this essay, but it didn't make any sense. If you can also provide examples, they are welcome. EMachine03 (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It basically means something that would likely qualify it for notability (if it is real) under a specific notability guideline. So for songs, for example, you would have a credible claim of significance if it was number 5 on the Billboard Top 200 or something. That is at least how I understand it. But, the thing you really need to understand for A7 is that it doesn't really qualify on something where you can find at least one article in a reliable source about it, and that it does qualify if it is only mentioned in passing in two or three, at the most, reliable sources. RileyBugz 会話投稿記録 12:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , to add to what Riley is saying, a credible claim of significance can be assessed in a new article in broadly two ways.
 * One, search for a statement within the article that attributes noteworthiness to the subject; for example, as Riley says, "John Doe debuted at #5 on Billboard charts", or "John Doe is the State President of the Democratic Party in Tasmania" or "John Doe was the first cricketer to bat left-handed". The existence of such a statement of noteworthiness/importance/significance within the article would generally ensure that the A7 tag cannot be applied. Such a claim of noteworthiness need not be supported by any reference; the fact that such a claim exists, deems that the A7 cannot be applied (you can of course still choose to PROD the article or take it to AFD if you believe that the article, despite its claim, is not broadly notable and should still be deleted). At the same time, if the claim is evidently false (For example, if your research confirms that it is Jane Doe and not John Doe who is State President of the Democratic Party in Tasmania), you can tag the article for speedy deletion as a hoax, or prod it if you feel the author might have made a good faith error.
 * Two, if there is no evident claim of significance in the article, check the references provided within the article; if there are multiple, reliable sources provided within the article that discuss the subject significantly, then too the A7 tag should not be applied. For example, if the new article contains just one line: "John Doe is a fitness trainer", the initial view might be that there is no claim of significance. But if the statement is supported by multiple reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of John Doe's life as a fitness trainer, then the A7 should not be applied.
 * While the responsibility to provide such a claim of significance (either in words or in references) rests with the person adding the article/material, good form dictates that any new page patroller conducts at least some rudimentary search on their own before tagging any new article on any speedy criteria. Hope this provides some clarification for you. Warmly,  Lourdes  08:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * to add on the excellent above previous replies: the gray area is really on the "credible" part in my view. A claim of significance is something that, if true, would with a reasonable probability have produced WP:GNG-worthy sources. Fortunately, that is often the point of contention - "John Doe is a teacher at school Foo" is an often-used new article template, and is not a claim of significance. But sometimes the article is making stuff up or embellishing things (e.g. "John Doe received the Nobel prize", or "John Doe made groundbreaking advances in physics") and then it is not always clear what is credible - I tend to use the "if I need to Google to check it, it is credible even if false" standard, but evidently this is too strict (cf. Lourdes' above Tasmania example; also, I don't know by heart the list of all Nobel prize recipients, but I am pretty sure any BLP that comes my way at page patrol claiming that is either a hoax or a WP:A10). Tigraan Click here to contact me 18:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7. It may answer several of your questions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

2018 Pac-12 Football standings
Can you move the Pac-12 football standings from the talk to the draft page please. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, but please stop creating content in talk pages. It is not what they are for. Please can you use either WP:WIZ or WP:DRAFTS to create drafts in future. You have been asked previously to do this. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I need help with 2 articles please answer as soon as possible
I did an edit I did on a voice actress' page Her name is Cristina_Vee. It talks about her ancestry in her personal life section. I added categories for instance American actresses of Mexican descent to her page. Why was it deleted? I also added a reference for actor Ray_Santiago saying her is of Latin American descent in his personal section. Could someone add the date of the article in the reference please? I'm not very good computer savy. Thank you. 2001:569:7671:F100:911B:61F8:EF5A:792 (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edits were reverted per WP:CATDEF because the categories that you added were not considered non-defining for her. Ruslik_ Zero 19:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Bug on a template used in Dinosaurs page
If you head on over to Dinosaurs while not logged in, a picture (File:Paul_Stanley_looking_sober.jpg) is shown in a template that is used on the page. I'm not really sure why and the template in question doesn't show it when it's viewed directly (Template:Life_timeline). I'm on Chrome 62 on OSX. Just a note again, please be logged out when viewing Dinosaurs. Logged in for me doesn't have the issue. --WhereAmI (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * IMGUR link of the problem: https://imgur.com/a/pYfrF --WhereAmI (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Page needed a WP:PURGE - template problem should now be "fixed" - if interested in details, please see => "Village pump (technical)" and "Template talk:Human timeline" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Celine Dion
Hi I’m just letting you know that you have still got Celine Dion Record sales at 200 million but she has sold over 250 million albums worldwide now so can you please change that please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:403A:5A00:3585:CADF:1F94:2A98 (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any source for this claim? Ruslik_ Zero 19:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I use google search and found out this web source, does the record sales at the set has sold 10.2 million?  S A 1 3 B r o  (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

How do you resolve the question whether the Daily Mail (British newspaper) is a reliable source as far as WP is concerned?
An editor reverted a contribution of mine sourced to the Daily Mail because, according to her, the Daily Mail was not a reliable source. I say it is. Where in WP do I go to resolve this argument? Thanks. Basemetal 21:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Basemetal, unfortunately the other user is correct. It has been decided that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. If you can, I would see if your information is sourced somewhere else.  NZFC  (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for your help. There are some other sources. But is the Jerusalem Post a reliable source according to WP? How about Fox News? More generally how do I find out if it has been decided at WP that a given news organization was not a reliable source? Basemetal  22:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That I'm not sure as there is no definite list of what is reliable, however I'd incline to be bold with those sources and add the information in. The only reason I know that Daily Mail was rejected as I saw it here. NZFC  (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean "here at the helpdesk"? Basemetal  22:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry yes, I only learnt Daily Mail wasn't been used as a source any more here at the help desk. NZFC  (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . There is not a list of reliable or unreliable sources, partly because reliability is not a single yes/no: a source can be reliable for some purposes, but not for others. The place to go is the reliable sources noticeboard. If you search its archives, you will find that the Mail has been discussed many times. If you don't find your question asked in the archives, you are welcome to raise a new one there. --ColinFine (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, being that other user who reverted Basemetal, I can also say that the article in question was Rula Jebreal, that is, a WP:BLP. The Daily Mail was used as a source about the breakup of her marriage: totally inappropriate, IMO. I don't know if it can be sourced elsewhere, but if none of the parties have discussed the reasons for the divorce openly, then I would say it is all speculations, which should not go into Wikipedia, Huldra (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Even speculations can go into Wikipedia, even in a case where WP:BLP applies, as long as we're talking public figures, the source of the allegation is considered reliable from the point of view of WP, and the statement is clearly qualified as an allegation (of the reliable source) and not as a fact. See: WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I'll see what I can find other than the Mail. Basemetal  00:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , here's the Daily Mail Rfc. You're right in the assessment that any noteworthy news about the subject covered by multiple reliable sources belongs to the article. The objective of Wikipedia is not to sensationalize and destroy the lives of (even well-known) individuals; therefore, use good judgement and judicious discretion to insert negative news; and use the talk page of the article liberally when in doubt, as even reliable sources many a time have tabloid articles that contain irresponsible reporting. Thanks,  Lourdes  03:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Notice also that the case of the Daily Mail is unique and recent. No other specific source is on either a blacklist or a whitelist for general purposes. The specific RfC ended up that way because (1) the DM is a source that many people want to cite (being a highly-circulated newspaper), so it makes sense to investigate it in particular, and (2) it has a history of fabricating quotes. The RfC was, in my view, more about demoting the DM to the same status as a random website (that is, not reliable unless proven otherwise) when being a high-circulation newspaper is usually enough to guarantee RS status in most cases (that is, reliable unless proven otherwise). Tigraan Click here to contact me 18:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)