Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 July 17

= July 17 =

Can I copy/paste an article in my sandbox to organize a course of edits instead of doing them on the original page one by one?
This is to be applied toward a single editing act of an article currently undergoing AfD discussion. The idea being to avoid messing about with profuse and perhaps erratic editing of article under AfD at a critical time. Any suggestions in this respect? Thank you.Neuralia (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The answer is yes you can, but sometimes whether you should is doubtful. If copy/pasting to a sandbox, WP:CWW must be complied with. That means using an edit summary like
 * That is, the edit summary states that the text is a copy, and links to the source page. Working in a sandbox is fine if the operation will be finished reasonably soon, but would be a problem if someone edits the original article while you are working in the sandbox. Also, if too many changes are made in a single edit, there is the risk that someone might revert the whole thing because some part of it is (in their view) unsatisfactory. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Categories meant for mainspace articles should be deactivated in other places, e.g. with draft categories. If there are fair use images then they are not allowed to display outside the real article. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Categories meant for mainspace articles should be deactivated in other places, e.g. with draft categories. If there are fair use images then they are not allowed to display outside the real article. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

References for the article
Can somebody please provide me with the link where name changes to articles can be submitted? Thank you. Aussieflagfan (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Discussion about a name change would go on the talk page of the article. If the change is not controversial, then it is done by moving the article to the new name.  If you tell us what article, we could move it for you.  If you are asking about Flags of the Australian Defence Force then there is strong opposition to the move.   Dbfirs  08:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

References for an article
Hi!

I'm currently editing the page National University o Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine (in English). I'm planning to upload information on notable faculty and alumni (name and the most outstanding achievement in one sentence). My problem is most of them do not have Wiki pages in English (only Ukrainian and Russian). I know that Wiki does not encourage giving links to pages in other languages. I'd be grateful if you helped with the idea how to provide references for the material I'm posting (it is based upon the Ukrainian and Russian versions of the page). I fear that it might be deleted due to the lack of references. Thank you! Світлана Жаркова (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I fear you may confusing Wikilinks with references. It is acceptable to Wikilink to a page in another Wikipedia if there isn't one in English: in fact, there is a template ill which will insert such a link, but if somebody writes an article in English it will automatically link to that instead (though this is less likely to be useful for a language with a different script). See WP:ILL for more.
 * References are different from Wikilinks: they must be to reliable published sources (which excludes any Wikipedia). They do not have to be online, or in English (though both are preferred if they are available). If you cannot find a reliable publshed source which says that this person is an alumnus, then the article shouldn't say so. (Ideally, the articles you are wikilinking to will cite reliable sources, and you can check the sources and cite them directly; but not all existing articles are up to standard). See referencing for beginners for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have a WP:COI you will need to declare it. Also note that any alumni should be notable enough to have their own article on English Wikipedia Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Unreviewed Article List Confusion
Hi,

So I just finished my first article Fairness Project in 5 years or so, so I'm a little out of practice.

I decided I was happy to go via the NPP route rather than AfC, and moved it to a new page in the article workspace out of my sandbox.

I cleared the sandbox tag and a couple of minutes later I realised I hadn't added a unreviewed article tag, so I did so. (I didn't use ArticleWizard)

However I was wondering if there was an issue since it hasn't (or at least, hasn't yet) shown up on Special:Newpagesfeed or Category:Unreviewed new articles from July 2018. If someone can confirm I haven't missed out some fundamental step and that it will go through the NPP process as and when the reviewers work their way through to July that would be strongly appreciated

Cheers,

Nosebagbear (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It's there shown as unreviewed at Special:NewPagesFeed, and also appears in the category to which you refer. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks - just impatience on my behalf then, and probably some caching on my end. Nosebagbear (talk)

WMF legal advice
Looking for advice from someone who works in WMF legal about some copyright issues concerning web archiving. Is there as forum or someone who could be contacted? Thanks! -- Green  C  16:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am going to assume you know for sure that you really need someone from WMF legal. (If not, go ask WP:MCQ first.) I would contact the email given at wmf:Answers/Licensing (the info one, not legal, but I guess the latter is plausible). Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Failed to parse MathML error that I can not fix
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_dodecahedron

Under the Surface area and volume heading, the equation A = is getting a Failed to parse. It happens on a Mac with latest Safari & Firefox and on Win10 with Chrome. It does not happen on an iPhone

Surface area and volume[edit] The surface area A and the volume V of a regular dodecahedron of edge length a are:

Failed to parse (MathML with SVG or PNG fallback (recommended for modern browsers and accessibility tools): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "/mathoid/local/v1/":): {\displaystyle A =

I tried fixing it, but if I edit the page and push Preview BEFORE making any changes, it works. Bodysurfinyon (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅, Lourdes  17:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Frustration in creating and editing Wikipedia pages
I am not a computer geek. Recently, after years of research in the anthropology and archaeology of south Florida, where I live, I have reviewed existing Wikipedia pages: Fort Center, Big Mound City and Belle Glade culture for accuracy, detail, reliability and citations. Where necessary, I have authored pages on critical and significant cultures and sites. Believing that Wikipedia provides a valuable tool. The link feature allows the reader to read related Wikipedia pages and gain greater understanding. Apparently, I have made data entry-type mistakes and my efforts to improve the quality, detail, accuracy of my pages and edits has resulted in nasty and not helpful emails from the staff at Wikipedia. With all of Wikipedia's know how, they have not created a way for contributors to write or speak with the staff to resolve the problems.

I am now so put off by the antagonism after so many hours contributing to the pages, I am ready to just give up. If Wikipedia ( despite getting more current, scientifically sound, sourced updates to false, incorrect or outdated information on south Florida's archaeological sites ) then so be it. It's Wikipedia's name and brand on the page and not mine. Case in point. Today I attempted a second time to edit and make current the page, Big Mound City. The page created years ago has the wrong dates. The page despite numerous books referring to the site as one of four in the area, fails to incorporate/link to those pages. Today, I edited and cited five authored/credible sources. The original sources by C.W. Corbett were unauthored. You would think that this would improve and add value to the page. Wikipedia deleted and kept the old information. Your welcome EHMANNV (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi - the issue here is that the info you added had some grammatical and syntax errors. I'd like to help, and started a discussion on the talk page. [] Help Desk administrators can archive this item whenever convenient - I also notified the user on his talk page. TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I'm sorry you are finding it frustrating: that is many people's early experience of contributing to Wikipedia, because it is a big beast, with a lot of policies and procedures which are quite unlike anything else - especially most academic writing. One matter that confounds a lot of people is that Wikipedia does not, in general, acknowledge experts. Experts in a subject are welcomed because they know where to find the reliable sources, and how information about the subject can be organised; but in actually writing articles they are given no greater credence than any other editor who can read and summarise a reference. In particular, original research is not permitted in Wikipedia: every claim in an article must have been published somewhere. (I'm not saying that you inserted any Original Research: I haven't studied your contributions to see; I'm just explaining one of the ways in which Wikipedia differs from most other projects).
 * "Wikipedia" did not revert your edits: two particular editors did, and left you messages on your User talk page explaining why. This is how cooperation works on Wikipedia: the bold, revert, discuss cycle (please read that link). So reverted your edit to Fort Center because it added information without giving a source; and  reverted your edit to Big Mound City because she found it unreadable. If you accept their criticisms, you are welcome to edit the articles again, paying note to what they said; if you disagree, I urge you to discuss it with them on your User Talk page, or the Talk page of the relevant article, until you can reach consensus about what changes should be made to the article. (If you cannot agree, there are further steps laid out in Dispute resolution).
 * I hope you won't give up on Wikipedia: please stick with it and learn your way around. --ColinFine (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If you find the syntax confusing, you might also want to look into using the visual editor - click the pencil in the upper right of the editing area and click "visual editor". That requires a lot less knowledge of the syntax we use in Wikipedia articles. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Disagree with Editor jessicapiece@Wikipedia re edits to Big Mound City
First, I am not an authority. I read a great deal. My edits I believe were not only readable but worthy of reading. Three reasons for my editing of the existing page: Big Mound City

1. For the first time ever, the archaeological site has dates. The dates in the text based on TWO UNAUTHORED ( and suspect ) websites were disproven by Colvin and Lawres and published in the Florida Anthropologist Journal in 2017. 2. Using links, the edit I believed added more value to the information on the page because the authored literature on the subject ( Milanich, McGoun, Thompson & Pluckhahn all view Big Mound City as a four site archaeological phenomena. 3. The references used originally are blatantly false. All one has to do is the click on the links and realize that Big Mound City is not listed on Mississippi sites or burial mounds. That is because it is not a Mississippi Culture site and they are not Mississippi Indian mounds. So if you are unwilling to have a page support factual information. Then please take down the page.

EHMANNV

EHMANNV (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You'd probably want to take that up on Jessicapierce's talk page or Big Mound City's talk page. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that the mounds found in southern Florida are not Mississipian in a strict sense, but Robert S. Carr states: "Mississippian influences in the extreme southern end of the peninsula appear to have been ephemeral at best, but there are important cultural manifestations dating to ca. A.D. 1000-1500 that suggest the pulse of Mississippian development may have reached South Florida." (Carr, Robert S. 2012. "Mississippian Influence in the Glades, Belle Glade and East Okeechobee Areas of South Florida." in Late Prehistoric Florida: Archaeology at the Edge of the Mississippian World. University Press of Florida. Page 62. ) We can discuss sources to use and how to use the material from them at Talk:Big Mound City. Please note, though, that it is important to provide enough information in citations to allow readers to find and read the sources for themselves. - Donald Albury 21:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * and Here at the help desk we try to answer questions about using or editing Wikipedia. Here is our guidance about content discussions: Please take this to the article's talk page. This avoids a fragmented discussion across multiple pages. -Arch dude (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * please look at the state of the "Big Mound City" after your edit, as here; particularly the paragraphs immediately above the References section. I have no views on the archaeology, but your edit made a mess of the formatting, and I'm not surprised that it was reverted. Maproom (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)