Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 January 29

= January 29 =

the info on Somerville, Tn is incorrect. Somerville,Tn is NOT part of Memphis, Tn
The information on Somerville, Tn is incorrect. Somerville,Tn is not a part of Memphis metropolitan area. Somerville has never been a part of Memphis, Tn. Check your facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.225.182.131 (talk • contribs) 29 January 2018 11:22 (UTC)


 * It seems as though the Memphis Metropolitan Area covers cities in 3 states and does include Somerville. See right:
 * -- ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  11:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Instead of saying "Check your facts", sending other editors on what may turn out to be a wild goose chase, it might be more useful for you to present some. Do you have a reliable source to back up your assertion? nagualdesign 12:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In my experience, "corrections" posted here are nearly always wrong when the poster adds something like "Check your facts", so it can actually be a useful hint that the poster probably doesn't know what they are talking about. Here I guess they don't know the difference between a city and a metropolitan area. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing articles of actors and writers bio
I'd like to clear some points about editing of articles of actors and writers bio. I read in the wikipedia rules that it should bi written in Present time. But what about the events of the person's life which are daated - in 1967 or something like this should it be rendered in Present Time or in Past? Lyupant (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know which rules you've been reading, but there is clarification at MOS:TENSE. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What a peculiar question. Do you mean like, "Spielberg is being born on December 18, 1946 ... In 1981 he is filming E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial..? No, we don't do that. Past events are being written in the past tense. nagualdesign 15:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you have this somehow confused with MOS:INUNIVERSE, which is about plots involving actors or writers. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all of you for your detail explanations on this subject.Lyupant (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Dodgy-looking web source
I see that reference 12 at Manhole cover is to a web page in a domain which seems entirely concerned with asking my permission to install a suspicious-looking browser extension. I'm certainly not going to consent, just to see what happens. Is there a place to report such links? Maproom (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Spam blacklist may contain relevant guidance for reporting such links. Thanks,  Lourdes  17:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Your page on Medical Intuitives is biased
I read through the page on medical intuitives and biased hardly covers it. It was clearly written by an allopathic physician who sees only one pathway to healing. I had actually not heard of it, but a number of medical professionals have referred to it when I talked about how I always know if something is wrong and most often what it is. If this is bunk, perhaps the author can explain why I have about a 98% accuracy rate and behave ethically by sending the person to their doctor to have my intuition checked out. I have called atypical diabetic neuropathy that took the doctors two years to figure out after I sent the person to them with a request to check him for it, atypical meningitis in my brother-in-law and when his sister called the doctors to suggest they look at it, they responded with "how could you possibly have known that? We just figured it out and none of the symptoms are normal," the doctor who set off my alarms about heart and dropped dead of a heart attack within two months. This is not some bizarre "psychic surgeon." It's nothing more than diagnosis.

I was raised by an atheist anthropologist (information about whose parents you have here) and I am naturally cynical, plus I had no idea this existed. I did it naturally for the last 43 years. Just because current science cannot quantify it merely means that we do not yet have a way to do so. You may recall they once scoffed at the idea of bacteria. Please balance this article out in fairness to people for whom it works quite effectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.1.15.110 (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems to refer to article Medical intuitive. RJFJR (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've just read it and it seems fair to me. I can understand why a practitioner might want to put a more positive viewpoint, but Wikipedia tries to present a majority balanced view.   Db<i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  22:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Backlinks count
On Help:What links here, this tool by User:Dispenser is mentioned. However, the tool does not provide valid data: for instance, confer the number 1 given for the term Zeichnung (German for "drawing") in comparison to the actual link list. Am I doing something wrong? And if not, wouldn't it be a good thing, in fact, to add a hit count in "What links here" – as it already exists for the regular search function, for example?--Siebi (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: Another – general – question of mine would be what the current order of What links here actually represents and whether it wouldn't make sense to consider reviewing the order settings.--Siebi (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The tool in this form counts links in English Wikipedia only. So, there is only one back link. To count links in German Wikipedia you need to specify a database name. See general instructions here. Ruslik_ Zero 20:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * T6394 and T8424 are old requests for a hit count. An administrator at the German Wikipedia could add the same tool as us by making a link in de:MediaWiki:Linkshere similar to MediaWiki:Linkshere but with  in the url. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Now, sorry, but in fact, I cannot open the second phab ticket. Why exactly is there a hit count for the search but still not for WLH (globally)?--Siebi (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I missed the T in the second link and have now added it. The phab reports are marked low priority. MediaWiki developers have many other things to work on and there are thousands of software requests. I don't know whether there would be any efficiency or other problems in implementing it. You can say  in the search box. That gives a count like other searches. Search defaults to only show articles. Differences in the handling of redirects may give different counts from other methods. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Common names in lists
How do you disambiguate a person who probably is not going to get an article? Currently we delink people in lists that probably are not going to get articles. But when someone is "John Smith" and you have already disambiguated them to John Smith (New Jersey) from among the over 100 John Smiths in Wikipedia, how do you let the next editor that you have disambiguated him? If you remove the link you lose the proper disambiguation. What should be done to preserve the work of the disambiguation. --RAN (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not sure if I'm reading your question correctly. If the article John Smith is a red link currently, but it is mentioned in the John Smith disambiguation page with a small description, you can only hope that no one in the future will usurp the page for some other notable John Smith from New Jersey. In fact, even if the other editor saw the red link in the disambiguation page with your description, that shouldn't stop them from usurping the said page if they find some other John Smith from New Jersey who is more notable than your John Smith. Of course, I might be reading your query wrong; in which case, do please provide further clarification about your query. Thanks,  Lourdes  13:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

question copied from one of the wiki area.

 * (was told to ask here)

I was curious with one part to a template, (example x) and I copied a part to the sandbox, as from Chronos Ruler. So this had the first two characters have the parentheses (example b) instead of the 'actor A, the line, actor B and the closing brackets', to the characters. Other than a ref/ source. Then do I follow example x as from the template or from example b, and edit it to look how x is? Because in some pages/ articles to an anime show had that for any other current t.v. show seasons? or 'current t.v. season.' Unblue box (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, while your question is not that clear, I'm trying to respond to it to the best of my understanding. WP:MOS recommends maintaining consistency of a template across article. I would suggest that as long as your particular template functions appropriately to your modified usage, the solution to this query would lie on the prevalent system being followed at the particular article you wish to edit. In other words, as is the norm with MOS guidelines with respect to referencing, dating and language styles, in any article, don't try to change the usage of the template if it has already been broadly followed in one style in that article. But in an article where no format of this template has existed (and you're confident that your proposed format has been followed in at least a few other notable articles), then you can, with commonsense, introduce your format. However, if you run into opposition, take the discussion to the talk page of the particular article and go by consensus. Usage of templates and infoboxes has been amongst the most contentious areas for editors. So be open to suggestions as you go along. Thanks,  Lourdes  02:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * oh, it's that, every so often when a tv show (anime) has aired. A source/ ref has told the cast and when added the info with the supplied template usage. Sometimes I see similar items like this. : (Japanese), Chris Wehkamp (English) in the 'edit' part section.
 * Then later this version corrects it and the named spoken language is inserted automatically. :
 * (continued sentence from 'sometimes') Because I wasn't sure if someone kept going by the top one. Then may read the template after not been familiar with the said template after being new, etc. Or when they follow it after some time, then for that time frame in those pages/ articles would may still have that or not? If someone else correct it. Unblue box (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, now I think I understand you,, at least the initial question! You ask, I believe, why does the example with two actors in section §Usage in Voiced by like this:


 * while a line in Chronos Ruler in edit mode is on only 1 line looking like this:


 * and which one should you use? Short answer: use the latter one. The 1-liner, so to speak. As the template is constructed now, it does only partially ignore spaces and line breaks. I have edited Template:Voiced by/doc accordingly.
 * Another thing: when you have a description list, just keep it together like this


 * Blaze (ブレイズ)


 * Ice Radar (アイスレーダー)


 * Snake (スネーク)


 * do not insert blank lines like this:


 * Blaze (ブレイズ)


 * Ice Radar (アイスレーダー)


 * Snake (スネーク)


 * as you did in your sandbox. A blank line starts a new list and that can be confusing to screen readers. For the pesky details see MOS:DLIST and MOS:LISTGAP.
 * Your second question, if I understand you, implies that the strings  and   should somehow disappear. I do not see how that would be possible as Voiced by is transcluded. But if you see this again, post at WT:MOS-ANIME where we have editors much more familiar with the template. Sam Sailor 08:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * oh, next time I'll try that. Unblue box (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)