Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 January 23

= January 23 =

Any way to see an article that's been deleted?
Is there any way to see an article that was deleted in 2010? I wouldn't expect to be able to find something that slandered a person or gave out information that should be private, nor would I expect to find something that was a flagrant violation of Copyright. But this was none of those. It was "lines of equal latitude and longitude," that is, places where the latitude and longitude happen to be numerically equal. It was deleted as useless. I suspect that it probably was, but I find myself incredibly curious to read it. This is all the more so because, while the article itself was deleted, there are quite a few articles on very obscure places (articles that probably very few people would ever read) that state that one or the other such line passes through or near the place. "So is there an "articles deemed useless" Purgatory or Limbo? Uporządnicki (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there! See the  section above, where we're discussing the same thing.  GoingBatty (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The usual way is to ask the deleting admin, in this case, to provide you with a copy. Courtesy links for other editors, the page was Lines of equal latitude and longitude and the deletion discussion was Articles for deletion/Lines of equal latitude and longitude. I'll let Courcelles know that they have been mentioned here. DuncanHill (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't go to any trouble--or put this Courcelles to any trouble. It's idle curiosity--nothing more.  There's also the point that Commons actually has two maps of those lines.  I found those when I tried Googling the subject; those and some of the Wikipedia articles (as well as a few things that obviously copied those articles) are all I can find.  The lines form a kind of figure-eight from the North Pole to the South Pole--meeting, of course, at the fictional Null Island, which does have an article. Uporządnicki (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * wayback machine has one copy stored, from 2010. https://web.archive.org/web/20100717043328/http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Lines_of_equal_latitude_and_longitude Naraht (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

question re category key, for a category for templates
I'm trying to change the category key used for template:Start tab, as it appears in Category:WikiProject tab header templates. The reason for this is that, since this category is used to compile specific tab headers as customized and utilized by individual Wikiprojects, I feel that the generic forms for these templates should be grouped together, at the beginning of this category.

I tried to change the category key by using the following text to set the category:

However when you visit the category Category:WikiProject tab header templates, it appears that this category key has not had any actual visible effect. I don't know why it has not had the usual effect. could you please assist? Please ping me if you reply. thanks. ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 03:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The category is added via a transcluded page Template:Start tab/doc. This often causes a long delay when a category is changed, or a sort key like here. I have made a null edit of Template:Start tab to force an immediate update. A purge would not be enough. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * that's good to know. I appreciate your help with that. ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 04:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The search box issue
Clicking on the search box isnti responding,why?l — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:32FF:16:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there! It's hard to troubleshoot such an issue when you haven't mentioned any technical details about how you're accessing Wikipedia (e.g. mobile app, mobile view or desktop view, brand of hardware & software).  When weird things like that happen to me, I can usually fix them by either purging my local browser cache, restarting the browser, or restarting my phone/computer.  Hope this helps!  GoingBatty (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Titling glitch in Billy Bishop
I find myself unable to make third level subtitles under "World War I" show in title box.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It says . Just remove it if you don't want it. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did not think to look to the problem up there.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I want to make a new article what is the best way to do this
I want to make a new article how. Quiet2 (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Quiet2 First gather the sources that meets the demands of WP:GNG. If you can't find such sources, pick something else to write about. Then learn how to use those sources as references in the article, see WP:TUTORIAL. If you can't source it, don't add it to the article. Then move on to WP:YFA. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you have limited experience editing articles.  In addition to WP:TUTORIAL, you may enjoy learning how to edit by going on The Wikipedia Adventure.  I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills before tackling a new article.  Hope this helps, and happy editing!  GoingBatty (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Pregnancy but without sex
How to do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:30FF:16:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a place to ask questions about Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has an article on In vitro fertilisation.--Shantavira|feed me 09:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And there is also
 * Parthenogenesis, birth without fertilization
 * Miraculous births, virgin birth in mythology and religion
 * --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also Artificial insemination. Cullen328 (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Scotts Fork, Virginia
<--What exactly is the current status (and unavoidable immediate future) of this article, and what are the options for seeking a stay of execution? Scotts Fork is admittedly not exactly a newsmaking metropolis (probably much to the relief of local residents), but it's a lot more than just a placeholder in the GNIS. There's not a road map of Amelia County produced in the last 50 years, print or otherwise, on which the name doesn't show up; and the Virginia Dept of Transportation considers it noteworthy enough to list on mileage signs approaching it (one example is shown here): https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3575484,-77.8865709,3a,75y,182.82h,88.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJgx5aeNmXTCxtV6_VNptzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Noteworthiness is contextual. Nome, Alaska, pop. 3,699, wouldn't show up on world maps if it were within 300 miles of New York City. Scotts Fork is in the middle of a vast rural expanse dominated by logging and farming. The landscape is dotted with quaint, unsophisticated little communities where not much happens. A crossroads with Civil War history, a universally recognized name, a working Exxon station, and houses nearby is quite significant.

Surely being small, quiet, and unobtrusive is not a capital crime...I object most vociferously to the sentence that was passed on this village's Wiki presence in my absence.

The moderator who closed the deletion discussion (User talk:Daniel) suggested I leave a comment with the person who nominated this article for deletion (User talk:Wizzito), but it's semi-locked, and so I have no way to get in touch.

-- 2603:6081:8004:DD5:51C:8F86:ED2F:527E (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The deleted "article" consisted of a single sentence saying that Scotts Fork is an unincorporated community in Amelia County (sourced to GNIS). If you can find sources of information about a "Civil War history", and about anything else of interest about the place, other than its mere existence, creation of an expanded and referenced article would almost certainly meet with no objection. Deor (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there! You can still see the previous article at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scotts_Fork,_Virginia&oldid=1053867756 if you like.  You can recreate an expanded article at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scotts_Fork,_Virginia&redirect=no if you like. User talk:Wizzito states "If you wish to contact this user, please do so via an email message", so you could click the link there to get in touch.  You can also comment here with  like this:  to notify Wizzito that you would like them to take part in the conversation here.  GoingBatty (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see Articles for deletion/Scotts Fork, Virginia and WP:GNIS for the deletion rationale. wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  16:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI my talk page is closed due to long-term harassment by other users. wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  16:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also pinging and  as contributors to the old deletion discussion  wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  16:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Good morning, 2603:6081:8004:DD5:51C:8F86:ED2F:527E. I generally love geostubs, and I do my best to find sources which allow them to be kept. I didn't see a whole lot for this one -- but at the time I was going through a large number of geostub AfDs, so I couldn't spare more than a half-hour or so for any given location. If there are more sources, I would whole-heartedly support the recreation of an article with them (as well as the ones I found at the AfD, although these don't really establish notability on their own). jp×g 21:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

In need of help to have a title with a "/"
Hello. The article Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible should be Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible. However, I cannot manage to do it without creating bugs (I have already attempted this page move in October 2020‎, before moving everythig at the current title to synchronise the talk page with the main space). I remember having read somewhere that such a title could be done, but I do not remember how. Could someone help me? Veverve (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion about this at WP:NC-SLASH, which says it should work in the main namespace but can cause some problems - I suggest reading that section carefully (it's only short) and make sure you understand the limitations.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, you won't be able to move it at the moment, because Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible already exists, albeit as a redirect to the other article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * from what I read, there seems to be no way of having the talk page properly linked to an article with an "/" (and no workaround is given). This problem is the reason why I moved the article to "Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible". What do you say: should I keep the title as is despite it being arroneous, or should I move the article to "Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible" despite the problems it will cause for the talk page? Veverve (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * - you are obviously on top of the technical issues already. I am not familiar with the subject area, nor the importance of using a dash vs a slash.   A quick Google search finds most sources use neither, just referring to it as "Eastern Greek Orthodox", while some use either of the other two options.  I don't have any opinion about how important the distinction is.  But if you would like my totally unqualified opinion, I do think that the Talk page is important - so unless the punctuation is very important to the reader I would lean towards the way it is set up now.  At least you will have the comfort of knowing that it is listed as an "Alternative Title" on WorldCat (here).--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Slashes in article titles are allowed by WP:NC-SLASH and we have many. A slash in a talk page title indicates a subpage in MediaWiki. This can cause minor confusion we live with. I don't know whether a spaced slash like in Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible can cause more problems. Which problem are you concerned with? It seems to work at Aoraki / Mount Cook and Talk:Aoraki / Mount Cook. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I have some ideas to make wikipedia better
I have some ideas to make wikipedia better. My idea would be who can edit or rewrite or change - everyone already does that, what if we had verified profiles?

This would increase the chance that the pages are authentic and real. Nowadays people still don't see that wikipedia is a great system of articles for research. Some people think that if you say you read wikipedia, that's a joke. they laugh at you

My idea of verified profiles is to say that the page was edited by someone who has credibility and also honesty and reputation to do so.

People can still edit but it would be nice to include this verified profile feature on wikipedia

Another thing we can do is allow scientists or public figures to also edit through what I call the usual content references, which is to associate the article with the facts.

For example, we have bibliographic references that is something interesting. Another way we can do it is to associate content, for example we can have this symbol @ that requires the person to refer someone to rewrite that article, something that twitter does when you want to make hashtags

Another thing that I find interesting is to put as public statistics of the article, how many people read it, how many people edited it and as well as how people can see how the article is relevant or not

Another thing that I think is relevant is having a democratic system of knowledge, putting the most recent posts, least recent by vote levels

Another system that I think is interesting to include is a comment system on the facts, so that everyone can evaluate what is missing in the article to be edited.

Another thing we can do is include a star system, so we can rate the articles that people like the most.

Another idea is to have better marketing with universities around the world, so that they encourage people to edit wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:658C:4219:C488:7919:1EE1:A8B (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Literally all of this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's mission:
 * We cannot do "verified profiles" because we do not consider any source the subject controls reliable and do not require any sort of personally-identifying information - including credentials - to register. We also do not have profiles, we have articles.
 * We already allow scientists and public figures to edit - just ask William Connolley.
 * Associating articles with facts doesn't work when they're disputed.
 * We already make public statistics on each article public. The only aspect which isn't public is how many people watchlist a given article.
 * We already have a system for discussing content, and it's robust.
 * Do your research, please. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 20:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Page information" under "Tools" in the left pane of the desktop site shows the number of page watchers (example). If it's below 30 then only administrators can see the precise number. Others see "Fewer than 30 watchers". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think what they meant by "Verified profiles" would be some way to verify who is a constructive contributor who is known by the community to be helpful. HOwever this isn't too much of a problem as those who don't edit constructively usually get blocked. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The proper forum to offer ideas is the Village Pump. I would suggest that you review the list of commonly proposed ideas. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)