Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 February 17

= February 17 =

Cauley Woodrow footballer for barnsley
As a family member of Cauley Woodrow I have just removed the names Martin Patching from his name as he does not wish to have this listed, Cauley legally removed the names Martin patching from his name many years ago, we have contacted Wikipedia on many occasions regarding this and was assured that this would be monitored to not happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shangoman1964 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging the editor who made the change, to be sure they are aware .--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, it was added in this edit by an IP, and I then sourced it. I think evidence via OTRS of the above would be useful. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for taking the initiative to fix it up. Unfortunately, we can't stop the media from publishing that information, as happened in this case - an editor probably saw it in a newspaper and put that information into the Wikipedia article.  Wikipedia does have a policy of respecting the privacy of living people (here), so I have gone through the article and added instructions for future editors not to add his full birth name.  It is not a perfect guarantee that they will observe it, but it certainly should help.  Thanks for bringing this to our attention.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , sorry if I mis-attributed that change.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the change, as this is exactly the sort of thing that needs to go through OTRS, to verify this is actually the subject asking. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * now you've got me confused. (I know, some people say that doesn't take much!)  I looked at that page you linked, and it describes OTRS as "an organized way for multiple people to categorize and respond to third party emails".  But this isn't about emails at all.  It's about respecting privacy where requested.  So what am I missing here?--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Note has now disrupted the page removing the entire infobox and some referenced content. I have restored it. I agree this needs OTRS attention as we have do not know who is editing as Shangoman, whether it is Woodrow or somebody acting on his behalf or someone else entirely. OTRS can establish identity and a reason for the request. Eagleash (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

/* Nuclear power plans */ edited deadlink
hello,

I have suggested a better link for above-mentioned deadlink and edited it. I want to know that after how many days its actually appear on that page.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaushik buha (talk • contribs) 04:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * your changes appeared instantly on the page, and were removed very quickly by because they appeared to that editor to be "refspam": i.e. links intended primarily to drive users to a commercial site. I think you made a good-faith modification and that KH-1 made a good-faith decision. You need to discuss this on the article's talk page and reach a consensus about whether or not the links are improvements. Please assume good faith (WP:AGF). -Arch dude (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The edits were reverted as noted above. You have raised the matter at the other editor's talk page which is an alternative to raising it at the article TP. Eagleash (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Map for church article
Hi Folks, I have this article: Abbey of Saints Cornelius and Cyprian. I'm planning to add an infobox. I found this: Template:Infobox church, but I noticed it doesnt have a map on it. I came across the French version of the article, and it had a map, that put me on it:. The French infobox with ok with the map. Is there any way I can add a map onto the Infobox:church. I was looking for a module where I could link another infobox, but couldnt see anything. Is there another way, possibly another infobox that would be suitable. Thanks.  scope_creep Talk  09:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I just noticed it has a map section. I'm must have been sleeping again. Thanks.  scope_creep Talk  09:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the parameters are "pushpin map, pushpin label position, pushpin map alt, pushpin mapsize, map caption and coordinates"? For the "pushpin map" name, I think it needs to use an existing template from the location map templates category. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

أمجد فتحى
ده عيل لا مؤاخذه — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoslehAmr (talk • contribs) 10:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This is the help desk for the English Wikipedia, so questions should be in English. If you are looking for a Wikipedia in another language, you can find a list at meta:List of Wikipedias. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Properly citing autism advocates as "well known" on a page
This concerns the page National Council on Severe Autism. The sentence I want to add is: "The organization was founded in May 2018 by well known autism advocates including Jill Escher, Feda Almaliti, Amy Lutz, and Alison Singer, president of the Autism Science Foundation."

Psychology today cites them as well known, and gives specific examples proving that they are well known (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inspectrum/201901/national-council-severe-autism-ncsa-launches). However, this article is written by one of the NCSA's board members, though this article is technically independent of the NCSA.

Is it an okay source to use for this purpose?

Ylevental (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , this question should have been placed at WP:RSN, or on the talk page of the said article. Do that from now on. Now that you're here, the answer is no, it doesn't seem okay. First, your source is a blog. Second, it's a primary source. These make it not a very sparkling source. "Well-known" is an exceptional claim, and you would need multiple high-quality independent sources to prove these people are well-known. So, once again, no. Also, you should read WP:3RR and understand why you might get blocked if you continue edit warring at that page. Lourdes   15:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll remember and I will try not to edit war. Though there has been a lot of plain vandalism on that page. Ylevental (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * And you've been part of it with your biased editing, YL. 2001:8003:58DD:C700:EDCE:9B6F:49F3:DF40 (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

What's that floating "curation" toolbar on the right?


I stumbled across United States support for ISIS after it was mentioned on the fringe theories noticeboard, and it has a floating nonscrolling "curation" toolbar on the right. It look like the one at Page Curation.

I ma not seeing it on any other page and I don't think I did anything to enable it (maybe it got turned on by accident when I was setting up RemindMe or LintHint?). How do I turn the annoying thing off? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , there's a small x on the top of the toolbar. Click on that. Alternatively, you can also go to Special:Preferences and click on "Disable the page curation toolbar. Lourdes   15:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How... how do you patrol pages without the curation script?  G M G  talk  15:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPagesFeed and click on the review button to pick a page to patrol. If I want to mark it as patrolled, I click on "Mark this page as patrolled" at the bottom right of the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Clicking the x made the toolbar go away. Thanks! If I ever want it back, how do I turn it back on? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , when you are viewing any article that you wish to curate, go to the left side toolbar and click on "Open Page Curation". Lourdes   16:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

HTML and its computer programming codes
I am not that familiar with the "computer programming codes" that Wikipedia uses. I think they are called "HTML" (or some such). In any event, I sometimes use computer formatting codes, such as these: and to increase font size... and to decrease font size ...  and  to italicize font... and to strike-out text ... and so forth. My question: Is there a Wikipedia page that lists all (or most) of these codes and explains them? So, for example, if I wanted to "bold" the font, and I did not know the correct code to do so, is there a Wikipedia page for guidance in such inquiries? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * In general wiki source code does not use HTML. You'll find guidance on wiki markup at Help:Wikitext.  Before trying to bold the font, or applying similar formatting, please read the Manual of Style. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks.  I will check that page.  But, I don't understand what you are saying.  I see that sort of "mark-up" (if that's the correct word) all the time, here on Wikipedia.  That's how I "learned it".  When I see that someone uses a "strike-out" for text, I go and look at it more closely ... and I see that it was accomplished with the codes of and .  And, similarly, with the other formatting codes (that I listed above).  So, why do you say that Wikipedia does not use HTML?  Are you saying that Wikipedia does not use the codes that I listed above?  Or, are you saying that these types of codes (that I listed above) are not called "HTML"?    Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * See Help:HTML in wikitext. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a matter of definition. Technically, HTML (Hyper Text Markup Language) is the syntax that is processed by an HTML parser. Wiki markup is not parsed by an HTML parser, it's parsed by the wiki markup processor which uses wiki markup syntax. Wiki markup syntax includes some elements of HTML syntax. Thus, the shorthand usage of "HTML" to mean "some elements of HTML syntax" is technically incorrect, but it is common usage through the industry. -Arch dude (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks.  So, does Wikipedia have a "user's guide" (or an article) that contains a list of the commonly used codes that a Wikipedia editor may need at times?  Such as: and ... or and ..., etc.?  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Help:Cheatsheet does the most common Wiki mark-ups. The most frequent don't use HTL-type code Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  20:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

turning a redirect into a disambiguation
I'd like to turn Ten Talents into a disambiguation to Ten Talents (cookbook) vs. Parable of the talents or minas but this is something I know I will completely screw up as I've done that before when I thought I was following directions. I'm willing to try anyway, but I thought I'd come here and ask whether it would be better for me to go ahead and try (and possibly cause extra work for others) or just ask for help. valereee (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We only make a disambig page when none of the entries is considered the primary topic. In this case the parable probably has the edge on "long-term significance", and because the cookbook article is new there is no clear evidence in "usage". So for now I've added another hatnote to the parable article Bhunacat10 (talk),  17:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you! For my own future reference, what do we understand to mean as something being in usage enough to require a dab instead of multiple hatnotes? valereee (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well no, a DAB is used when there is no primary topic. Primary topic: A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. So the thing to assess is the probable demand among readers for an article, relative to the other articles under the related topic name. This could be judged by one's own knowledge and impressions; by external evidence like quantity of relevant results in Google searches; or by relative page views on the Wikipedia articles when they have all built up some history. Any of these criteria would tell us that (say) Cuisine is primary to Cuisine (magazine), that's why Cuisine has a hatnote and no DAB page Bhunacat10 (talk),  12:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

What is the computer code in Wikipedia to change font color of text?
What is the computer code in Wikipedia to change font color of text? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * According to what I found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikitext#Coloring_and_highlighting_text, you can use color or font color. RudolfRed (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Great. Thanks.  So, where does one find some "official" names that we can use for the colors?  Names that are ordinary words like "blue" or "light blue", etc.  (As opposed to those hexadecimal computer codes and values, like #0000FF for blue.)  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See Web colors. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

"Misunderstood" individuals
Here's the entirety of the Alan Balatine article:"Alan Balatine (fl. 1530s? – 1560) is a supposed historian mentioned by Edward Hall in the list of the English writers from whose works he compiled his Chronicle. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography makes it clear that this person is very likely a misnomer for John Bellenden, and never actually existed."The article's in Category:Fictional historians. Is such a person fictional, and if not, do we have a category for this concept? "Fictional" sounds like a character that was made up, e.g. Bilbo Baggins in his compilation of the history known as the Silmarillion, but Balatine is the result of a misunderstanding presented as an actual person. Unfortunately I wouldn't know what to call such a person; he's not a hoax because hoaxes are intentional falsehoods, he's not pseudepigraphical because pseudepigrapha are false ascriptions of texts to real persons (not real ascriptions of texts to false persons), and I can't think of another term. No point in asking at talk, as it's never been touched except to add wikiproject tags in 2011, and aside from a 2015 expansion on his nonexistence, the article's not had a real content edit since 2011. Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If the ODNB makes it clear that Balatine was likely a misnomer for Bellenden, why can't this information be included in the John Bellenden article and the Balatine page made into a redirect? – Teratix ₵ 01:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) Probably added as in an overzealous attempt to have a Wikipedia article for every entry in the DNB. See WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography. In this case feel free to move the info into the John Bellenden article and change this to a redirect. The project is supposed to try to add an article for every "legitimate" DNB article, and I don;t think this one qualifies. -Arch dude (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. Thank you.  Now done.  Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians Why is this locked?
Why is this article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians, locked from editing?

Doesnt that go against wikipedia standards that every article is open for editing? How come its only this one and another "palestinian"-regarded article thats locked, and nothing else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.161.190.164 (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the arbitration committee decided that articles about the Israel-Palestine confilct should be restricted to extended-confirmed editors because of disruptive editing. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "How come its only this one and another "palestinian"-regarded article thats locked, and nothing else?" Not so. See WP:Protected pages. Britmax (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)