Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 November 9

= November 9 =

Bugged page or script.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019

I think this is connected to 2019 automatic update of the date could someone clear the code and precheck it I´m low on code.

Alternative hire someone for a few bucks 5-10 and request it from the wikipedia backend.

It´s one of the tied pages example - 2019 - 2020 that´s linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.109.39 (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Might be bugging servers I need someone to check the coding on this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.109.39 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you tried purging your cache? I'm unsure on what you are asking but this usually helps. Thanks! I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk)  05:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think there is a problem with a page then please say what the perceived problem is. "Bugged page or script" is extremely vague. I don't see any obvious problem with 2019 but it's 263 kB and I'm not reading everything carefully to look for an unknown problem which may or may not actually be there. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Re: ICC Cricket Umpire Ruban R Sivanadian from Toronto, Canada, originally from Sri lanka and I am a Tamilian
Dear Sir/Madam, please note that I was in Malta in the month of October 2019 for T20I games and I officiated 4 games and the wikipedia shows as I am from Malta, it should be Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Twenty20_International_cricket_umpires

Ruban R Sivanadian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.0.245.102 (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Eteb3 (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The Peterborough Islanders are a British ice hockey team.
The Peterborough Islanders were founded in 1996 by Grant Budd, a player with links to the Falkland Islands. The team's first strip carried the crest of the Falkland Islands and the team motto still remains as 'Desire the Right'. The vision was for the club to provide a basis for young ice hockey players to develop and move on to senior leagues, and for senior players to continue playing at a competitive level. The team has played in the Southern section of the (predominately amateur) English National League since its inception - albeit it did not compete in the 1999–2000 season. In 2006 the team colour were changed from white (black for away strip) with a red stars design to white (black for away strip) and red with gold and black trimmings. The logo was also switched from an 'ice rink on an island' design to that of a painted mask. In 2007–08 they captured the South A Conference title, which was then followed by a victory in the Southern Conference Play-offs. In 2009-10 the team were relegated from the English National League South Division 1. They will compete in the ENL South Division 2 during the 2010-11 season.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.248.159.38 (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello IP user. There is no point in posting proposed content for an article here: it is unlikely any of the thousands of volunteer editors will pick it up and work with it. If you think we should have an article about the team, you can make a request at requested articles; or try the difficult task of creating an article yourself: see your first article. But whoever does try to write an article will need to start by determining whether or not the team meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability: if not, there is no point in spending any more time on it, since it will be impossible to write an acceptable article about the team. --ColinFine (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Fake News
Is fake news legal? what happens if i post fake news? [sorry] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.175.163.54 (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC) --

Hi 51.175.163.54. Welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. See WP:RELIABILITY for more on this topic.

Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, or ask me on my talk page. Chip &#x1f43a; • #TeamTrees&#x1F333; 09:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Does WP have transliteration policies?
I edit a good few articles on Islam that use technical terms from Arabic. There appears to be no consistent practice across those pages on a system for transliterating Arabic. I've checked the policy page and there is one reference to transliterating Indic languages, but I can't seem to find any others. Is there such a policy? If not, should there be? (I think so.) If there should, how does a policy get developed? Thank you. Eteb3 (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style/Arabic is an inactive proposal which did not get guideline status. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Searching user contributions by edit summary
I've made a bunch of edits here with the summary "HTTPS security". I'd like to find a list of them so I can replicate them over on the Spanish Wikipedia. However, I can't figure out how to search for edits by what is in their summaries. How can one search for a user's edits that have a summary matching a specific string? Thanks! DemonDays64 | Tell me if I'm doing something wrong :P 14:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi DemonDays64 - at the foot of your "user contributions" page, are a series of links, including "Edit summary search". click that and enter "HTTPS security" in the search box - then the bit that causes confusion, go to "Restrict to namespaces:" and enter, , for mainspace (as it says, but confusingly) hit submit - bingo! - Arjayay (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That works really well! As you can see, I am very observant XD DemonDays64 | Tell me if I'm doing something wrong :P 15:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:ERA - Is mixed notation within an article a "style"
I've been having a disagreement with : concerning how to interpret two sections of WP:ERA. That issue has been resolved between us after discussion and so there's no further problem there; my concern is with regards to future edits and general policy, as neither of us was really sure how it worked.

Under "Era style", the first clause is: "Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article"

Immediately underneath that is: "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first"

I've always taken the second to be contingent on / secondary to the first (which is why it's second). That is, if an article employs mixed notation (and that use of mixed notation isn't just a Trojan Horse to get your preferred style in place, but is the result of organic drift over time), then the article should be changed per the first clause and no consultation is needed, because the whole point of the first clause is that you're properly adding a style where there wasn't one. Jerm (if I follow them correctly) argues that the second clause takes priority, in that a mixed notation article is its own "style" and so, while it should be changed per the first clause, you need to discuss it before settling on one or the other. I can see this being read either way, and would appreciate an actual general ruling (rather than a guess / off-the-cuff interpretation) I could point to one way or the other so that I don't get complaints in the future for not following WP:ERA.

This also matters for things like who is responsible for opening a page on Talk per WP:BRD. For example, in the dispute I mentioned above, I told Jerm to open an issue in Talk if he had a problem, because as far as I was concerned I had set the style (from none to BC) and he was changing it. They argued that I was changing the style (from mixed to BC) and so the onus was on me to open the Talk.

I certainly think that current general practice by the userbase gives the first clause priority, making it so that basically the first person to change an organically mixed page to their preferred style sets the page style: it's what I've operated under and seen continually used by others to date, but anecdata and all that.

I've searched the FAQs for WP:ERA and era style and found nothing. Thank you for your time. Palindromedairy (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * See the lead of WP:MOS which contains the statement
 * "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article."


 * So mixed notation isn't a style, it's a mistake. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Jewish country club
I've done some editing/additions to to this wiki. I'd like to edit the caption to Jewish Country Clubs. How do I do this?

Thanks.

S.T. Shaffer — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.T.Shaffer (talk • contribs) 22:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume this is about the article Jewish country club. But I can't tell what you mean by its "caption". Maproom (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, . If you mean that you want to WP:move the article (i.e. change its title), then I'm not sure that that would be appropriate, though it might be: see WP:NCPLURAL. I think it would be best to discuss this on the article's talk page first. --ColinFine (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Question About Image
I have a question about a photograph that is in an article, but the original file is in Commons. Would I do better to ask the question on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the file in Commons? I have done both, and hope that isn't incorrect. The article is Glenn Cunningham (athlete). What is strange is that there are two right hands in the picture. Cunningham is holding a trophy cup in his right hand, but there is a hand on his right shoulder. Somebody, maybe his wife, is almost hidden behind him.

Am I more likely to get an answer on the article talk page, or the Commons talk page, or neither (that is, do questions like this go unanswered)? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's far more likely that people would see your post on an article's talk page, so writing there seems fine. Does seem like the kind of question a random IP would finally answer five years down the road. But this right hand is just from the person standing next to him in a white sweater, no? Don't see a third person. – Thjarkur (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:Þjarkur. Yes, but her head isn't in the picture, and in monochrome with orthochromatic film (which is what would have been used in 1933), one has to be looking for a person in a white sweater to recognize that it is a person in a white sweater.  What is recognizable is a right hand that is not that of the subject.  On looking at it from that perspective, I think that my original conjecture is mostly likely true, that the other person is probably his wife.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * A tall woman with a big hand ... —Tamfang (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

What makes this primary or secondary source?
An editor in a Talk page claimed 1 is a primary source, but 2 is a secondary source. They both are The Guardian op-eds; what's the difference? —Srid YO 23:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If this refers to Talk:Call-out culture, then Bacondrum is probably best placed to explain their thoughts. – Teratix ₵ 00:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither of them is an op-ed. One is an opinions piece (primary source), one is a book review (secondary source). 00:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Bacondrum (talk)