Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 October 18

= October 18 =

Two questions
First question: Could anyone please tell me if it's acceptable to abbreviate "science fiction" as "SF"? Second question: Could anyone please tell me if it's acceptable to count the file data for pictures between paragraphs as an acceptable space (manifesting as a normal space between paragraphs) or should a single blank line be included as well (with the same result manifesting)?--Thylacine24 (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Where would you be abbreviating to? Within an article, it's possible to create a shortning or acronym for a word or phrase by putting it in brackets for the first use. This is usually only for proper nouns though, so I don't see why it would apply to "science fiction". SF to me would be San Francisco.
 * I usually don't put in a line, but I'm not sure there is a policy on this. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I know some of the article had "SF" in parentheses after "science fiction", but I agree that since it isn't a proper noun, it shouldn't apply. As such, I'll take your answer to the first question as "no", and your answer to the second question as being the former option. (Edit: Sorry if anything in the above answer came off as rude or condescending.) (Further edit: Changed "any of the above answer" to "anything in the above answer".)--Thylacine24 (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of prepositions when part of the name of an institution (also "the", when it's within instead of before the name)
I found a page in which the linked phrase "Office for the Victims of Crime" was written as "Office for the Victims of Crime", with the link piped with "for", "the", and "of" decapitalized. I changed the link so that the piped part of the link was the only part of it. Could anyone please tell me if it's ever acceptable to capitalize these words?--Thylacine24 (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Your edit is fine.  You can leave it in the article as Office for Victims of Crime.  Not as Office For Victims Of Crime.  I suspect that the original editor saw the official website of that agency (here: Office for Victims of Crime).  And it (incorrectly) appears that all of the letters are upper-case / capital letters.  On the official website, they are simply using "all caps" style of font ... which (incorrectly) makes it appear as if the letter "f" in "for" and the letter "o" in "of" are upper-case.  But, they are not.  They are, in fact, lower-case letters being used in an "all caps" style of font.   Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thanks for replying to tell me.--Thylacine24 (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No problem!  Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Consensus
Can someone explain, briefly, how "consensus" works. I always thought that -- when there is a dispute -- the article remains in its status quo state. And when disputed content is introduced -- and challenged -- the article reverts to the status quo (i.e., the disputed content is removed). And the status quo version of the article remains until consensus is reached on the dispute. And, not that the disputed content remains, while the consensus discussion proceeds. Is my understanding correct? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Does Consensus help?--Shantavira|feed me 11:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Status quo" is defined functionally at Wikipedia (that is, in the practice of how people use it), as "The state of the article I like the best". Instead of worrying about which state is the actual "status quo" state (since in using that term, people just mean "the version I like the best"), the best practice is to not edit the article at all, even if the other person has.  That is, what you yourself should do is to not edit the article.  If the other person in the dispute edits the article themselves, what you should do is ignore them and do nothing.  The advantage of that is that nothing bad happens to you.  At all.  The discussion continues, consensus will develop, and after the consensus is clear, any changes continue to be made.  Remember, if you let other people do the wrong thing, and then do nothing yourself in response, nothing bad happens to you.  -- Jayron 32 12:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, the above advice is contingent on the disputed text not being in violation of WP:COPYVIO or WP:BLP. Those policies trump all other considerations.  Otherwise, however, the best advice is to not edit the article yourself, and let other people screw up.  -- Jayron 32 12:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Status quo (to me) essentially means "how the article looked  prior to  the disputed edit being added in".  In other words, removing the disputed edit, while consensus develops.  The "opposite" approach is: let the disputed edit remain in the article, while consensus develops.   I always interpreted Wikipedia policy to embrace the former approach, not the latter.  That is what I am asking here.  According to Wikipedia policy, which is the correct approach?  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The correct approach is to avoide edit warring. This sometimes means leaving the altered text in place, even during a disagreement. There's nothing wrong with doing a single revert & calling for discussion on the Talk page, but if the other editor(s) change back to the disputed text, you're usually better off letting it be while the Talk page discussion continues. Attempting to force things back to the previous version can just result in flared tempers and things getting out of hand. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Visual Editor problems
I have used VE (to add inline cites) without problem for a few years and now for the last few weeks, I cannot load the VE interface. The blue progress bar quickly moves to about the 75% mark and then freezes until I press. The problem appears to be specific to my browser (Chrome) as other browsers (eg. MS Edge) will work. I have cleared the cache, waited for an hour to see if it unfreezes, ensured windows and Chrome are updated. I am happy to edit solely in source mode, but do prefer the automatic references in VE. Any other things to try? Loopy30 (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It works for me in Google Chrome on Windows. Does https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Example&veaction=edit or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Example&veaction=edit&safemode=1 work? What if you log out? Do you know RefToolbar/2.0 in the source editor? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello PrimeHunter, thanks for your reply. Neither of those examples worked for me in Chrome, either logged in or logged out. And no, I have never used RefToolbar for trouble-shooting WP editing problems. Is their a module in it that may be appropriate to try? Loopy30 (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to use RefToolbar for trouble shooting. I meant whether you know how it can help make references if you use the source editor. I don't know what causes your Chrome problem with VE. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

When could my draft be accepted?
Hi,

My draft have been under review for more than 10 weeks. When could I get the review result? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ql87 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * You can get an indication of the age spread of pending submissions by looking at Category:AfC pending submissions by age. One thing which may have led reviewers to leave your draft to one side and move on to easier cases is that most of your references are bare URLs. If you expand them it may make life easier for reviewers.  You can do the improvements while you are waiting for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I ran through and fixed a few of the references so they don't use bare URLs, but there are still some more left to fix. You might want to look at what I did so that you know what to do.  That said, I think that article is unlikely to be accepted in the state it is in.  The last two sentences of the first paragraph should not be there.  Instead those links should be at the end in a section called "External links".  All of those photographs of various letters of appointments and certificates and covers of books he co-authored are primary sources.  In fact, the article seems to be entirely built around primary sources.  Wikipedia articles should be primarily based on high-quality secondary sources, with minimal support from primary and tertiary sources.  Especially in a biography, where one would expect more detail about his life and who he is, rather than a bare list of academic appointments and works published.  The draft does not use prose very much, and prose is preferred to long lists.  The article also does not demonstrate how he meets the inclusion criteria established in the general notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for academics.  I suggest you review those guidelines and then revise the article to be in compliance with them.  Lastly, if you are Benjamin Lev, or if you are a close family member, friend, colleague, or were employed by him to write this article, I suggest you review the conflict of interest guideline and guidelines about autobiographies. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 13:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to emphasize the need to establish notability, using our definition of the term, not yours. Please read WP:YFA. Note especially: if the subject is not notable, then no article is appropriate, no matter who writes the article. Any other shortcoming can be fixed, but no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Don't even try. Your article will fail to be accepted, and if it is forced onto Wikipedia it will immediately be deleted. If, after you carefully read and understand our definition of notability, you still feel that most reviewers will agree that your subject is notable, then add the references that demonstrate notability first. Then you can work on the other problems. -Arch dude (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I got your points. And could I revise my draft by myself to make it acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ql87 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The last sentence of my previous reply was "You can do the improvements while you are waiting for review". Obviously, as stated in the other two replies, if the subject is not actually notable it would be a waste of your time to try. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Grouping references
Hello. I gather that there is a method of grouping citations together in an article so that the reader, instead of seeing a long string of references after a cited statement, sees only one. Can anyone explain how to do this? I'm sorry if the request is a little vague, but some advice here would really be helpful. The specific article I'm concerned with is Freud and Philosophy, where the sentence stating, "Commentators have evaluated it from a variety of philosophical perspectives, offering both praise and criticism for Ricœur's arguments and conclusions", is followed by seven different citations; I'd like to bundle these together but I'm not sure how to do it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by bundling them together? Ruslik_ Zero 11:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know quite HOW but I think you mean like in Frank Gaffney, check ref in first lead-sentence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You use multiple cite templates inside of one set of tags. If you're using the menu bar shortcut, simple delete all of the tags except the first and last.  -- Jayron 32 12:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That was a brilliant explanation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because all of those reverences use, you might use . So this:
 * becomes this:
 * which renders as this:
 * becomes this:
 * which renders as this:
 * which renders as this:
 * which renders as this:


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Trappist the monk. You have accurately worked out what I wanted to do and provided me with the correct information. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Changing your username
Is there a way to change your username — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awromnessrulz (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is, but as you have no edits other than to post here, you should just create a new account. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, see Changing username. That said, I notice you have exactly one edit, and that's this one to the help desk asking about changing your username. Please note that "User accounts with few or no edits might not be renamed, as it is quicker and easier to simply ." ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 13:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Foreign edit summary
So, a new user posted an edit summary of "درست کردن اشتباه" (Persian, I think). Should I address him about it or something. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey EDG 543. You might consider leaving them a message using Template:Welcomeen-fa.  G M G  talk  15:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Efficient way to mass-ReFill?
I'm currently trying to fix the referencing at List of introduced species. Up until now it just had external links, and lots of them (~900). What happened when NessieVL tried to run a little fixer-upper on it has prompted me to try and format these correctly, as references. Wrapping each one in ref tags was easy enough, however it turns out that my fondly imagined next step - throwing it all into ReFill - isn't quite working. The poor tool just chokes when presented with this many entries. Now I'm trying to do it batchwise in my sandbox, but that isn't much more successful; doing a few screens' worth at a time works alright, but at some point bigger blocks (or the entire thing) have to be submitted to sort out the duplicate entries, and that overtaxes it again. So, question: is there some high-powered alternative to do this job with? Is it likely to be a resource sharing thing, and I should just wait for the dead of US night? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: might be one particular ref that makes it bog down - working well right now with further batches. Further bulletins as events warrant :p -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, it's definitely one particular ref that stops the tool cold. Can't figure out which one because it seems to stop before visibly switching to it. Will just have to leave a chunk unpolished. Feel free to close/archive. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Auto-updating edit count
I have been trying to be more active on Wikipedia as of late, so I have been editing a lot. I like to keep my edit count up to date as I can, however find it tedious having to go and edit my edit count all the time. Is there something that I can put in my userboxes to auto-update my edit count? Thanks. EninE (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked at the user boxes recently, and did not see any that auto-populated the edit count. It's not something to obsess over, just update it on your page once in awhile if it is important to you.  Also: Editcountitis.  RudolfRed (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I won't let it bug me!