Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 August 4

= August 4 =

Shortened footnotes
I want to add a large number of new references to a page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Gubegna), most of which would relate to specific pages in longer texts.

I'd therefore like to change the referencing style to that used on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._B._Mynors. I believe these are shortened footnotes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Shortened_footnotes).

However, I don't know how to replace the old with the new. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyisediting (talk • contribs) 09:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors contains over 25,000 articles with errors caused by shortened citations. It's best not to attempt them at all unless you are highly experienced in their use. DuncanHill (talk) 09:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Is there an alternative that would allow me to capture page numbers in the references? --Andyisediting (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I like Template:Rp used with refnames. DuncanHill (talk) 09:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made an example page at User:DuncanHill/References. You can see there how to use, and I've given examples of using the chapter field in Template:Citebook which I think can be helpful when one book is used for lots of references - it can also help readers when different editions have differing paginations. DuncanHill (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Andyisediting: R. A. B. Mynors already has a consistent referencing system (it uses and cs1|2 templates).  Adding  runs afoul of WP:CITEVAR so don't use  on that page.  If you want to switch the article to, you must gain consensus for that at Talk:R. A. B. Mynors.  There are no sfn errors in that article and, comments here to the contrary, using  does not require an advanced degree in rocket science.  There are tools available to assist in the implementation of -based short-form citations.  See.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Andy isn't talking about the Mynors article, it's the Gubegna article he wants to improve, and that does not use shortened refs. DuncanHill (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And the Mynors article is not consistent in using shortened citations, I count three (used between them nine times) which are not. DuncanHill (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh - and it didn't start with shortened citations, see original version, and there is no discussion on the talk page to approve changing to them. DuncanHill (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Goodness! So much anger. Yeah, I erred in my understanding of the question.  On 10 May 2021, R. A. B. Mynors was .  Since that version of the article, decay; it happens to every article, FA or otherwise.  Still, the preponderance of citations in the article body are .  That the article made it through GAN, two peer reviews, and two FACs suggests that consensus for the current CITEVAR was achieved; how, I don't know – I stay away from those discussions – too much drama.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not angry, just dispirited. DuncanHill (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayley_Turner
Turner was born two miles from Nottingham Racecourse in north Nottinghamshire, one of three daughters of Kate and Richard Turner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arteeeze (talk • contribs) 10:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC) ‎
 * , the article has a talk page where you can discuss its content. However, the assertion that she is one of six daughters appears to be supported by the source used in the article. You'll need to be clear on why you think this should be changed to 'three daughters'. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Infobox of Cambridge University Press & Assessment
This is a newly-created organisation, so I am creating a page for it out of the precious Cambridge University Press page. The infobox however is not formatting properly, and I can't work out where I have typed the wrong thing. Help in rectifying this would be appreciated ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabius Planciades Fulgentius (talk • contribs) 4 August 2021 11:45 (UTC)
 * I've cleared up the mess at the top of the article, by ensuring that the square brackets within the infobox were paired up. Something that's not clear to me: is "Cambridge University Press & Assessment" a new name for "Cambridge University Press"? If not, how are they related? This ought to be explained in the first paragraph of the article. Maproom (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. The very well known Cambridge University Press, and the long established Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate, have merged, into an organisation using a name that no-one has heard of. You are merging the two Wikipedia articles, without prior discussion. I really don't think that's a good idea. Maproom (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearing this up. However, I don't think that is an issue at all. This is a well-publicised merger and there is no reason why this would be objected to considering that the old Cambridge Assessment page redirects to this page. Also, the Wikipedia pages of the preceding organisations are now redundant - so *not* doing the merger makes no sense.Fabius Planciades Fulgentius (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No,, just because an organisation has merged with another one does not necessarily mean that Wikipedia's article about it is redundant. Things that were notable remain notable even if they cease to exist. If they transform into something else, sometimes it's appropriate to move the article and add new information, but sometimes it's more appropriate to create a new article. A fortiori, if two organisations merge it is sometimes appropriate to keep both articles and add a new one. The merge may make sense, but certainly needs discussion. --ColinFine (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, point taken regarding the need for further discussion to iron out any potential objections. However, I still maintain that in this case it is a non-issue. The new page is the re-named University Press page and the Assessment page (from which all relevant details were merged) was relatively sparse. Furthermore, the merger is really a top-level organisational reshuffle that doesn't affect the examination boards under Cambridge Assessment (each with their own pages) as well as the underlying publishing structures of the Press. It is *not* the same thing as two companies merging to form an entirely distinct entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabius Planciades Fulgentius (talk • contribs)

Articles that do things...
I noticed that List of ISO 639-3 codes has a module(?) that allows for searching based on codes, this is something that I've never seen before. Is having this sort of thing in an article something that needs approval in advance? And is there a list of articles in mainspace that have this sort of capability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 4 August 2021 13:43 (UTC)
 * Naraht: The search box itself works using the InputBox extension. It's not specific to the article, only the parameters it is used with. The code-to-language mapping is done using redirects. It appears these redirects were originally maintained by PotatoBot, apparently generating them from the very list itself, but it hasn't edited in over 7 years. I don't know if they're still being kept up-to-date. – Rummskartoffel 16:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

User Frank6292010 reverting changes and deleting discussion on his talk page without replying
Hello, this user keeps on reverting changes to page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maria-Elisabeth_Schaeffler&action=history adding details to the misuse of the name linked to spam, he also reverts talking about it on his user talk page, deleting the section without reply. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Frank6292010&oldid=prev&diff=1037094042 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaboonOSX (talk • contribs) 4 August 2021 13:55 (UTC)
 * Because his edit was vandalism and acusing me because of that. Frank6292010 (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call that edit "vandalism," but I would agree with Frank6292010 that it's inappropriate, as it violates WP:UNDUE; we don't put spam warnings on Bill Gates's page either. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is this same warning on the German wikipedia then? BaboonOSX (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * German Wikipedia may have different conventions to en.wiki (they are all separate projects). Also WP:OSE; & FWIW I would agree this is not vandalism but good faith edits which may (or may not) be unencyclopedic but a clearer explanantion for removal would be useful. Eagleash (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:REMOVED. A user may remove (almost) anything from the user's own talk page, without replying. Other users are free to interpret this as an acknowledgement that the user has read the removed content. It's probably better to reply at least in the edit summary. -Arch dude (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Help with logging in.
(I know there is a page for this, but nothing there helped me with my problem.)

I am trying to log in to Wikipedia on another device but; Whenever I log in, it says my password is incorrect, even though I am sure it is correct. And whenever I let it make an email I do not receive it. Thank you. HenryOmarCCCmango (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:HenryOmarCCCmango has not specified an email address. Enter it at Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

WW II post card
I would like to put a picture of an Army WW II Hospital ship with an posting. How can I do this.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coxalanx (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You can use the File upload wizard, which will prompt you for copyright-related information. Happy editing!  GoingBatty (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A WWII-era postcard is almost certainly copyrighted, so you cannot upload to Commons. If you can offer a fair-use justification that satisfies our very rigorous fair-use test, you can upload to the en.wikipedia. However one of the criteria is that there is no non-copyrighted alternative picture available. Since a picture made by a US government employee in the course of duty is non-copyrighted, it is very likely that such a picture exists. -Arch dude (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Brahmic Scripts
How can one create a PDF of the article "Brahmic Scripts" that does not crop the wide tables of characters included in the article? The current "Download as PDF" only includes the first 12 of the 34 columns in the first wide table (consonants) and the first 14 of the 41 columns of the second wide table (vowels).--SkierJohn (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * With such a wide table, the PDF converter may not be able to handle it. You may have to preview each table to a PDF print or Adobe converter and do them separately TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  17:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Mysterious Cite Error
Can someone explain why I am getting cite errors []? The references seem to be displaying and linking perfectly so I'm not sure why it is also throwing an error message. Thanks! Somatochlora (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A chunk of the lede, including, was stuck inside reflist's refs parameter. This created duplicate definitions for these references, and those duplicates were empty, which caused the error. Removing the chunk in question fixed it. – Rummskartoffel  20:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

article taken down
Hello,

The article that I wrote, my hours of work was simply taken down by another person without providing me feedback or notes. They called it promotional and just took it down. However, whatever I wrote was cited from newspaper articles and other IMDB sources. It's my hours of work. I cannot believe that the content that I provided was simply deleted without me having any access to it, or even before getting a chance of editing it. I was not provided any feedback either.

Please give me access back to the content I created. I don't know who deleted it, but they cannot hold my content hostage. Please get back to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathgechhe (talk • contribs) 22:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The deletion log visible at Neil Mukherjee tells you who deleted it. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm sorry that you haven't had a good experience. Successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia, and diving right in can often lead to the feelings that you are probably feeling right now. We usually suggest that editors gain experience by first editing existing articles and also using the new user tutorial.
 * You may request undeletion at Deletion Review, but to succeed you will need to show how the deleting admin erred, or any new information that was not available at the time. You may ask the deleting admin directly for their views. I can say that most of what you wrote was completely unsourced(or at least the sources were not inline next to the information), and much of it seems to be your opinion instead of a summary of what independent reliable sources say about this musician, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician.  331dot (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You might also/instead say how you now realize that you erred, and what radical transformation you plan for the article if it is returned to you as a draft. (Tip: One part of this transformation would be elimination of the numerous external links at the foot of the deleted article: see External links. Readers who are interested can look in a search engine for themselves.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Please give me access to my work. It is hours of work, and it cannot be taken down by someone's whim without giving me any feedback. Wikipedia cannot be that subjective...right? I will require access to my work to reform it. The thing that perplexes me most is the lack of detailed feedback. If you have to take something down, then provide feedback, give them the chance to do better, if they fail at that, or hold on to their opinion that they are correct even after giving them proof, then it can be taken down. More than anything, it is my work, and I will reform it. But it cannot be held hostage to someone's view, to be entirely taken down so that I don't have any access to work on it. And, I can provide proof for whatever I wrote. It's in the external links that I listed. It also has three direct references to it. I can provide more proof, but first my article has to be reinstated as a draft for me to work on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathgechhe (talk • contribs)

And, whoever deleted it, should know that it's their responsibility to provide feedback, or we are dealing with a power differential here that has no relation to the work or the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathgechhe (talk • contribs) 23:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @Pathgechhe: As has mentioned in his reply, you can ask for the elimination of the page be undone at Deletion Review. Read the instructions and leave a request there so an admin can review it and give you a proper answer. Isabelle 🔔 23:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do that. If I get access to the draft, I am willing to work on it too. And, the links I provided are published newspaper articles. I was suggested not to include them. I thought references should be done through published data.....so if you can.provide me with some feedback on that, that will be great Isabelle Belato. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathgechhe (talk • contribs)
 * You did get feedback, it was just very terse. The feedback is in the deletion log. Your article was deleted because it meets the speedy deletion criteria for WP:G11. Please read that section. You seem to think that just because you spent hours on it, some unpaid volunteer here should spend a non-trivial amount of time giving you a more detailed explanation for the deletion. Because so many people try to use Wikipedia for advertising and promotion, we simply do not have the time for that: hundreds of articles must be deleted every day. If you had used the process recommended in WP:YFA, you would have created a draft instead of an article and you would have been treated more gently. -Arch dude (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes,, references must be to reliable, independent, published material. Newspapers vary in reliability. Britain's Daily Mail, for example, is not reliable. (And newspapers aside, you mention IMDb above. IMDb is not reliable either.) Unfortunately, it's possible to use reliable, independent, published material to confect a promotional article. Be careful to avoid promotion. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive feedback.

What about if IMDB listed the truth of awards? How do you want me to cite it? I used IMDB for that purposes only, as it cited the list of awards. This was not a promotional article, and the information that has been cited is not promotional. There is no lie in it, or extra talk or embellishment. Give me an alternative source that is not IMDB that lists awards. And, also give me examples of how people list it in wikipedia, when they get the awards. I will be happy to oblige. DO you want pictures of the certifications themselves? No one posts that....do they? And the other sources were from the "Times of India", which is a respectable source, and in the external link, there are articles from The Hindu, from The Rock Street Journal, from The Wire. If you have alternative sources, that are published sources, and that could be used instead, for IMDB, do let me know.

And, please help me get back access to my article, it has been deleted, and I am new. I don't know how to access it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathgechhe (talk • contribs) 02:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pathgechhe: (i) Above, Isabelle wrotes: "As has mentioned in his reply, you can ask for the elimination of the page be undone at Deletion Review. Read the instructions and leave a request there [...]" You responded: "Thank you. I will do that." Now you are saying "please help me get back access to my article [...] I don't know how to access it." Go to Deletion Review. (ii) If no source other than IMDb says XYZ, then XYZ can't go into an article. (iii) The Times of India is not a reliable source; please look up your other sources in Reliable sources/Perennial sources for yourself. -- Hoary (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would skip deletion review and instead post a message at the talk page of the admin that did the deletion, and ask them to DRAFTIFY the article. Mention that you have sources and that you want to use the Articles For Creation process to get help and clean the article up. The admin may be willing to restore the article to our special "Drafts" area. Hope that helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)