Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 July 4

= July 4 =

Conditional template markup
I'm trying to edit the conditionals on Template:State pageantry so that it returns Arkansas', Illinois' and Texas' Outstanding Teen... but I haven't had experience with this before and all my attempts have simply broken the template. I'm not acquainted with any template experts to ask, so have come here. Is there someone who could help me with this or point me towards someone who can? Thanks! ...  CJ [a Kiwi] in    Oz   01:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is what you are looking for? Arkansas was already properly linked, so I added Illinois and Texas. If you have template-related questions, you would probably get better assistance at Village pump (technical). Alex Shih (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, that's exactly what I needed and I will bookmark Village pump (technical) for next time I have a curly question. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in    Oz   02:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree about the venue. Village pump (technical) is more for bugs or if other venues haven't been able to help. It shouldn't be filled with ordinary editing questions. This help desk and Requested templates are better. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, thanks. I was under the impression that (potentially) complex template questions are better asked at VPT but looks like I am wrong. Alex Shih (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on what one understands by "ordinary editing questions". I have spammed VPT a few times for questions about botmaking (not broken bots, not buggy WMF APIs, but how to configure my own bot); it may be an abuse of process but that's the closest we have to Help desk (technical). Of course it shouldn't be used for "which template causes the text to go blue" but I would think really esoteric template questions are in-scope. Maybe that's not how it ought to be or what the description says, but it certainly looks to my eyes as the way it actually is. Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think bugs are posted at Phabricator not Village Pump (technical). Thinker78 (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Relating to a merge and blanking of page without merge consensus being arrived at: 2018 Kulgam encounter
The page 2018 Kulgam encounter was blanked and redirected to Operation All Out (Kashmir) by User:Rzvas. The merge had been proposed by another user User:Adamgerber80 sometime back and the discussion can be found on the talk page of Talk:Operation All Out (Kashmir). It seems no consensus had been arrived at on the merge. The user User:Rzvas made the merge nevertheless and the changes to 2018 Kulgam encounter cannot be undone (by me at least). I would like help knowing whether such a merge is ok and if the page should have been merged or not. Note - I did create the page '2018 Kulgam encounter' as well as 'Operation All Out (Kashmir)', so there may or may not be a COI depending on how it is looked at. I have also left messages on the talkpage of User talk:Rzvas informing him of his disruptive editing and merging. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: I had mentioned I had left messages relating to the disruptive editing and merging of 2018 Kulgam encounter and Operation All Out on the talkpage of User:Rzvas. These edits have been reverted just now by another user User:My Lord. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Incorrect venue. By headcount, there was consensus and by policy based argument, there was consensus. Read WP:BOLD. Merge is not same as AfD, anyone can make closure. My Lord (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Incorrect venue? Then please direct me to where edit wars are discussed or moderated on Wikipedia please.
 * Consensus via headcount?... reasoning also counts for something in that consensus according to Wikiepdia guidleins for all I know a user could be using more than one account, sock puppets. I see that User:My Lord is determined to ensure the page stays blanked so I will not take part in this edit war any longer. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not leaning either way on this (for now) because I'm not familiar with the subject but a couple of statements to make. Just for your future reference it is not true that ANYONE at any time may close a merger request. See WP:MERGECLOSE specifically the part saying In contentious cases, the discussion should be closed only by an uninvolved editor or administrator. As for  I believe that the merge was done in good faith. If you look at the same page (WP:MERGECLOSE) it states Any user may close the discussion and move forward with the merger if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or if there is unanimous consent to merge. which appears to be the case here as no comment has been made in 22 days. So in conclusion and my reply to your original question: I would like help knowing whether such a merge is ok and if the page should have been merged or not. Then yes it was properly completed within WP:MERGE  The Doctor Who  (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you truly believe the page should not have been merged then again per WP:MERGE you have every right to begin a new proposal (noticing the part that states: A new discussion can be held if a page gets merged and someone later objects). The Doctor Who  (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * another quick reminder although I do not agree with the warnings issued by it does not appear your removal of the warnings on  talk page complied with WP:UP?  The Doctor Who  (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this point. I think I will do that but before doing that I need a little help addressing the larger matter related to this issue if you could kindly give your input... I think this merge addresses a bigger dilemma for me relating to what Operation All Out (Kashmir) is actually about. The issue is - there are many incidents listed in the Operation All Out page for which there is no direct source that says that the incidents come under Operation All Out. The page has basically become a list of nearly all attacks in Jammu and Kashmir covered by media sources. That is why also moving 2018 Kulgam encounter here was a problem for me since the sources, as far as I know, did not use Operation All Out in relation to the Kulgam case on 11 April 2018 in consideration... that is also why I had an issue with the merge apart from others. This dilemma relating to what the page Operation All Out is has already been considered on the talk page with User:Adamgerber80 but nothing has been decided and I think someone uninvolved could help in coming to a conclusion and I think this shouldn't wait any longer since the entire page becomes misleading (reason mentioned above - sources don't categorically mention all incidents listed on the page as coming under operation all out). The page should be moved as soon as possible now to a new name or whatever solution seems fit. Maybe you can see the discussion on the talkpage of operation all out Talk:Operation All Out (Kashmir) under the section "Query related to Operation All Out and what this page is about" and help come to final decision faster or maybe involve someone else too who can help close this. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Will use warning messages more carefully... the warning message which said the user will be blocked was not my intention, I can't even block someone so issuing it is nonsensical. I would have undone the edit myself or at least commented my mistake, anyway yeh, will use those more carfeully and not use the messages for which I have no authority to do so. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said before I'm not familiar with the topic in anyway shape or form so I'm not comfortable suggesting a page name. So what I will suggest you do is open a move request and do as suggested there: Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). This will allow anyone to suggest which title they believe to be best. It will also list the move at current move requests so it is more likely to be noticed.


 * As for your second message which says I can't even block someone: the part mentioning the blocking is just a general warning which informs the user that they have the possibility of being blocked if their disruptive editing continues. If enough warnings are issued and an admin manages to stumble across the page and nothing has changed they can block the user otherwise anyone at anytime can file a report at ANI. I issue the same type of warnings all the time (point being: I'm not an admin and have no authority to block). The Doctor Who  (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I will request a page move now and put the question mark as you have informed. That's a good idea.
 * Related to the warnings, got it. Thank you. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think there is an issue, take it up on the article talk page. IMO, the necessary content was copied over. Plus, there is a much larger discussion on the talk page regarding it's rename and will subsume all these pages which do not have WP:GNG for standalone. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Chapel Allerton  Hospital
Please fix my additions - citation 2 - it is wrongly done and I am sorry. Thanks203.39.128.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.128.90 (talk)
 * ✅ (I think): I didn't notice any major issues in the ref but I did make a few minor adjustments based on the source. If someone else wants to take a look and tell me if I missed something? The Doctor Who  (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There were several error messages fixed by intervening edits. Months are spelt out in full (E.g. January not 'Jan') and the url goes in the  parameter not in  . Once again, please do not start multiple sections here using the same heading. Eagleash (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The Sinking City wikipedia page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sinking_City was created some weeks ago. It has been removed and the red-link is not available anymore as a redirection has been set to "Frogwares" wikipedia page. How to either revert back "The Sinking City" wikipedia page, or at least create a new blank page to create the page again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andresrapal (talk • contribs) 09:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It was reverted back to a redirect because the article was created by an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet. Not sure what the best way forward would be. - X201 (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Leave as is, it's not even released yet, let alone meeting any notability criteria, I wonder why this new account is interested in nothing else? Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If you want to create a standalone Wikipedia page about "The Sinking City", the good way to proceed is to read Your first article, create a draft (for instance Draft:The Sinking City), and submit it to Articles for Creation (where the reviewer will take care of replacing the redirect, if the draft is accepted). In particular, be sure to show the game is notable and do not include uncertain future information (such as a release date).
 * Now, it is technically possible to just reinstate the previous version, but I will not tell you how. You can access the latest non-redirecting version here, but read WP:COPYWITHIN if you intend a large copy-paste. Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answers. I'm interested because I'm a fan of Lovecraft games and of this game in particular. I thought Wikipedia was about reliable and indiscriminate information about anything. Why so much prosecution? I can see most of the video game press considered as reliable by Wikipedia policies are talking about the game. Plus it has a release date and it's not a fake project. What if my Notability opinion differs from yours? How do we submit a topic to pass the Notability test? Is this website democratic or ruled by some editors? Andresrapal (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Andresrapal, see notability (video games) for criteria. "How do we submit a topic"&mdash; Who is "we". Also "reliable" and "indiscriminate" are virtually opposite in meaning. Having a release date doesn't make it notable, see WP:Too soon and WP:Crystal ball. If you are a genuine fan, wait until there is something to write about, otherwise it looks like you're promoting the yet-to-be-released game Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * to answer your other questions: no, Wikipedia is not a democracy, See WP:NOT, Instead, we try to resolve issues by building consensus. If your opinion on notability differs from our current consensus (See WP:N), then feel free to discuss your opinion. If you disagree with our definition of notability, discuss on the talk page for WP:NOTABLE. If you believe that the article meets our definition of notability, then discuss this on the article's talk page or in the locations we use for such things (See WP:DISPUTE). If you cannot figure out the proper place to discuss this, then come back here and we can direct you further (sometimes it's hard to figure that out). The help desk is where we help you find the right place, not the place to discuss content. -Arch dude (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

James Kitson, 1st Baron Airedale
Urgent - I  was trying to  make the photo  file at the top of the page into  a   smaller   version   - it is  a photo  at the  top of the  page  but I  accidently  removed it. Please replace. So sorry 175.33.198.186 (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * - X201 (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Jean de Brabant
Good afternoon Thanks in advance for your kind help My biography currently lists the following subjects

•	1Biography o	1.1Les Atriums and Tropics North o	1.2Jobbook

I would like to modify it to read

1Biography o	1.1Les Atriums and Tropics North 1.2 Film biographies o	1.3Jobbook

The new 1.2 would read as follows:

Film biographies Beginning in 1992, Brabant started producing film biographies, mostly for families, in which one or two family members narrate the story of their family. These films, typically lasting between two and four hours are generally illustrated with appropriate pictures and film clips. Families filmed include those of Celia Franca, founder of the National Ballet of Canada, the poet, Irving Layton, Charles Bronfman, former vice-Chair of Seagram’s, Guylaine Saucier and Jean Pouliot, respectively former Chairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the TQS television chain; Yves Fortier formerly President of the Canadian Bar Association and the London Court of International Arbitration; formerly Governor of the Hudson’s Bay Company and Chair of Alcan Inc.;  Roger Landry, former Publisher of La Presse; Lynton (Red) Wilson, former Chair of Bell Canada Enterprises; Heward Stikeman, founder of Stikeman Elliot, a leading Canadian law firm; William Stinson, former Chair of Canadian Pacific Railway and William Turner, former vice-Chair of the Davos Economic Conference.

I would like to add the following sources References: How do I do that? (This involves, I would imagine, also changing the reference numbers)

Once again thanks so much for your help and volunteering.

Yours faithfully Jean de Brabant Jean Ahern de Brabant (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for not editing the article directly since you have a conflict of interest (see WP:COI). I have taken the liberty of copying your suggested edit to the article's talk page and adding the edit request incantation. If you have additional recommendations to improve the article in the future, please add a new section there. -Arch dude (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Can't see the "more" dropdown
Hi there, I created a wikipedia account to add updated information to a page about a non-profit organization. I noticed the the organization's name is slightly wrong in the page title (used "and" when the legal name uses "&"), so I was going to adjust it. Every page I visit tells me to click "move" in the "More" options drop menu on the page, but I can't see that menu. Is it hiding somewhere or do I need to become "verified" somehow? Thank you! Chapdelame (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chapdelame (talk • contribs) 20:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, you have to be autoconfirmed to move pages. In the mean time, you can use Requested moves. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The official site https://tristatebird.org says both "and" and "&", but "and" sounds like the legal name in "Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization" and "© 2014 Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization". Both forms are common both at the official website and elsewhere. Do you have a published reliable source for "&" being the legal name? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * In addition, we do not always use the legal name of an organization. Instead, we use the name which is most frequently used in the reliable sources that are cited. If you wish, you may add a redirect from the "legal" name to the existing article. In this case it's no big deal either way, but we sometimes get involved with organizations that are attempting to re-brand themselves. -Arch dude (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I did some peeking around and you're right! Sorry about that, I just saw the logo and made an assumption. Turns out they're listed on the Delaware filings using "and." Not that big a deal anyway, just being needlessly anal. Thanks! Chapdelame (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the clarification - I've used the site forever but am just now learning about how it actually works. Thanks for your help! Chapdelame (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: Citing same book repeatedly, but different pages.
Please be gentle! I've been editing casually for years, I'm not stupid, I've been searching help for 45 minutes, and I've already looked at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources

but I'm just not understanding how to do what I want.

I previously wrote this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Gabourie

Note that it cites several books (Foote and Blesh) several times, but a different page each time. I understand how to cite a book and how to give it a ref name, but I don't understand how to make the page number change.

If you can help, please give me examples, or even just edit that page directly so I can see how it's done. Thanks in advance!VaneWimsey (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * One approach is to eliminate the page numbers from all your citations. Then move all your citations from the body of the article to a bibliography section at the end, in alphabetical order by author. (If there isn't any author, use the title to put the article in the right spot.) Then add a new parameter to each citation, ref=harv.
 * Next, in each spot in the article where an article came from, put in a short footnote template, sfn. For example,
 * This will produce a superscript number, which leads to a short footnote, which in turn links to the full footnote within the bibliography.
 * The main issues I've found with this approach are:
 * You need a date. If the citation doesn't have a date, add the parameter date=n.d.
 * If you don't know the author, you'll have to read the instructions at sfn, which are complicated. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't know the author, you'll have to read the instructions at sfn, which are complicated. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Another approach is to use rp. This is easier to retrofit into an article that is not already using Harvard references, and some editors like the looks better also. -Arch dude (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * VaneWimsey simpler still is to list your books in a Bibliography/Cited texts section and then use refs of the form Smith & Jones (2018) pp. 102–108. without bothering with Harv. See eg Ham Wall Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You can read Help:References and page numbers for more information. Thinker78 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

VaneWimsey, another route is pretty simple. Just omit the page number from the citation and name your references, and after each citation use rp. For example, in Mummy Cave, I cited a multipage document 23 times this way. The first time, I cited page  with this code:"xii"}}  Elsewhere, when I wanted to cite page 29, I used &lt;ref name=introduction />&#123;&#123;rp|29}} as my citation. Nyttend (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks to all who responded! I've got my article cleaned up now, and I have a much better understanding for the future. FWIW, I prefer sfn to rp. Attaching the page number, in superscript, to the footnote symbol just looks weird. Bit different strokes etc. VaneWimsey (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)