Help desk | ||
---|---|---|
< August 15 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 17 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
It has the † witch is the extinct symbol on it but i cant find it in the article and its not extinct as i saw a few on the beach a few months ago 72.73.112.126 ( talk) 00:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I recently made an edit to the page on Neil Degrasse Tyson, where I noted that he made an appearance on a song by Avenged Sevenfold. I understand how this could be seen as trivial, but I thought that it was uncharacteristic enough that people would be interested to know. If someone wanted to look into it, there's a nice story tied to it. For reference, I used a youtube video where a member of the band told an interviewer about it. User Dp76764 undid my edit with the message "GFE, but non-notable trivia. please find a reliable 3rd party source. youtube is not one". While this fact is somewhat trivial, I thought it made for an intriguing window into Tyson's character, as someone who would push boundaries to teach about science. Also, by using a youtube video for reference, I thought that the video of the band member themselves delivering the data was the source, not youtube. I believe my reference was as close to a first party reference as I could get. I have already looked through help articles and such, but I do not know how to communicate with Dp76764 about this issue. If I am in the wrong, I'd like to know why. If I am in the right, I'd like to know the proper way to resolve this issue with the person who reverted my edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Neil_deGrasse_Tyson&action=history The edits were made on 11 August 2017 Samuel010898 ( talk) 00:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Youtube does not cut it.Many YouTube videos are perfectly relaible sources, many more are not. Postings on the official channels of reliable sources are themselves relaible, and their beign on youtube matters no more than the quality of paper that a newspaper is printed on. In this case, the video was on the official channel of Metal Hammer, which is blue-linked and appears to be a relaible source for this sort of thing. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 23:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I want to contribute to the quality of the Santorini (game) article by adding a high resolution image which is a rendering of a model I made based on the infobox photo in the article. The rendering is (arguably) a replacement for the photo, and I have already added it to the wiki commons. How should I go about adding it to the article? Upload a new version of the existing photo? Replace it on the page?
I'd like for someone to take a look and advise, please. Thanks! Jsejcksn ( talk) 01:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
So I figured out that the wrong information for a page here was coming from Wikidata, fixed that, then ranted about how arcane that whole process is at Wikidata.
Coming back here I'd love to attempt to make the mysterious more clear.
'Repository' in the infobox at page
Blink (web engine) happens to come from Wikidata. There is no indication that that is true, except for maybe the existence in the left sidebar of an item under 'Tools' - "Wikidata item" - which does go to the
'shadow' page over at Wikidata.
?) If perhaps maybe one or more infobox items might have data infiltrated in from Wikidata, is the presence of the link under 'Tools' the trustworthy indication? Or are so many pages here now having tiny pieces from Wikidata that that link's presence is useless as an indication? ( Carrot points to Carrot which informs me that a carrot is shaped like a cone. Ah'yep.)
?) Is there any foolproof way to determine whether infobox data is coming from Wikidata, other than comparing the page's source for the infobox with the presence and value of data in the 'shadow' page at Wikidata? This is all very complicated and non-obvious.
If one should happen to peer into the documentation for Template:Infobox_software/doc there are some BTW mentions in descriptions that two values 'might' come from Wikidata: 'website' and 'repo' (repository). How does one know that *only* these two values might come from Wikidata?
Limply helpful is a notice tucked away at top of the template documentation in the midst of so much else that it is completely obscured that "This template uses the Wikidata property: official website (P856)", and also that "This template tracks the Wikidata property: official website (P856)".
?) What is the difference between 'uses' and 'tracks'? I've looked around and still can't figure it out.
I wanted to know because we need to add one or both of
to the existing "{{Uses Wikidata|P856}}{{Tracks Wikidata|P856}}" in that documentation. This is an oversight. (And in how many other places also?) But again, which one?
And in fact links like P1324 should probably be added to the mentions in the template description, such that "..., infobox attempts to acquire the website link from Wikidata." ought to something like "..., infobox attempts to acquire the website link from Wikidata. (see P1324)"
There are too many mysteries here to think that anyone would be comfortable saying that integration with Wikidata is in a good state. But in the meantime, can you point to answers to any of these questions, here, at Wikidata, or elsewhere? Or... even better places to rant? ;) Shenme ( talk) 01:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi I have edited the page /info/en/?search=Currae_Hospital to resolve the issues highlighted. Namely "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (November 2016)". How do I get the error page removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.170.130 ( talk) 04:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
when some links given in an article are not correct, how to delete these links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goelmg12 ( talk • contribs) 07:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Ronald P. Rohner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, I have successfully written a new wikipedia page. All edits have been made but the page is not live. I don't see any button/option that would enable the page to go live. Can you please help in getting the page go live?
I also edited an online page and after the edits I made I could see it in my browser but this new page is only in my account.
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali.shaila ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
How do I create a new page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.71.246.143 ( talk) 15:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I just created the article called: "Abdourahmane Sarr". It is on the main encyclopedia but not on google searches. Why is that?
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by LigueyeKat ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I need help, can someone please make the following edit in this article? /info/en/?search=Ana_Veciana-Suarez
Someone wrote the article about my client with wrong information in it, I am requesting an edit on her behalf to correct the wrong information. Following are the details:
This is the a FALSE statement in the article:
"The Chin Kiss King (Plume, 1998).[3] It was originally published in Spanish as El Rey de Los Besos by Editorial Planeta, S.A. in 1997."
Following is the truth:
"The Chin Kiss King was originally published in English by Farrar Strauss & Giroux in 1997. It was re-issued in 2015."
Thank you! Nayab K. Siddiqui — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.255.103.12 ( talk) 20:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Aspro and DESiegel,
Thank you both of you, for resolving my problem. About the notability part, I agree witth DESiegel, as the criteria for notability, to put it simply, is to have 3rd party publications about the personality, and that has to be renowned publisher. As confirmed by DESiegel, The Washington Post and New York Times are both authentic parties that WikiPedia considers for notability. If you can have some publications on there about yourself, then you can also qualify to be on WikiPedia for being an editor who was mentioned in such sources. There are tens and thousands of wordsmiths out there, who are mentioned in many sources, and should be on Wikipedia too. They aren't here only because they are unaware of the process, which is because of the limited staff of the non-profit organization. If we can spread the awareness, each and every of the wordsmith you mentioned Aspro, should be on wikipedia, because he has put in enough work and effort to have himself noticed by sources like The Washington Post and The New York Times.
Thank you for your time guys! I respect what you are doing for the community and thank you for educating me about requesting an edit in the proper manner. I rest my case here.
Cheers! Nayab K. Siddiqui — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.209.85.59 ( talk) 14:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
Since august 6 an entry appeared claiming that Business Initiative Directions is a company that sells "vanity awards" or fake awards. This company is a Spanish communication consultancy agency, specialized in marketing, corporate marketing and corporate events. They have several events, some of them called International Quality Awards have a fee and include an award gala at the end of the event. To call this a "fake" or a "scam" as it is imply in the entry, its dishonest. They have 50 years working under Spanish law and more than 20 years now under the European Legislation. Is a well known and renowned company in Spain and their line of business is clear: the promote other companies and organizations. Is marketing. Like many other things. The people behind this attacks is hurting a legal company, that is working in total compliance with the European law. The entry is TOXIC is causing massive damage to BID clients and BID reputation. Its unbelievable that Wikipedia will allow the use of its international renowned for some kind of business revenge. Please stop this. BID is willing to provide all information regarding the matter in their offices in Madrid at any given time. Wikipedia was never meant for ruining people business. This is shameful.
This is the entry /info/en/?search=Business_Initiative_Directions — Preceding unsigned comment added by FernandoSantiago ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
This is a mildly disingenuous place to put this question as I'm not an admin and so can't actually use any of these pages anyway, but I was looking at the source of the main page and noticed that not only it but also WP:Main Page/2, WP:Main Page/3, WP:Main Page/4, and WP:Main Page/5 are protected. Why do those four pages exist and why are they protected? Mehmuffin ( talk) 21:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Help desk | ||
---|---|---|
< August 15 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 17 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
It has the † witch is the extinct symbol on it but i cant find it in the article and its not extinct as i saw a few on the beach a few months ago 72.73.112.126 ( talk) 00:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I recently made an edit to the page on Neil Degrasse Tyson, where I noted that he made an appearance on a song by Avenged Sevenfold. I understand how this could be seen as trivial, but I thought that it was uncharacteristic enough that people would be interested to know. If someone wanted to look into it, there's a nice story tied to it. For reference, I used a youtube video where a member of the band told an interviewer about it. User Dp76764 undid my edit with the message "GFE, but non-notable trivia. please find a reliable 3rd party source. youtube is not one". While this fact is somewhat trivial, I thought it made for an intriguing window into Tyson's character, as someone who would push boundaries to teach about science. Also, by using a youtube video for reference, I thought that the video of the band member themselves delivering the data was the source, not youtube. I believe my reference was as close to a first party reference as I could get. I have already looked through help articles and such, but I do not know how to communicate with Dp76764 about this issue. If I am in the wrong, I'd like to know why. If I am in the right, I'd like to know the proper way to resolve this issue with the person who reverted my edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Neil_deGrasse_Tyson&action=history The edits were made on 11 August 2017 Samuel010898 ( talk) 00:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Youtube does not cut it.Many YouTube videos are perfectly relaible sources, many more are not. Postings on the official channels of reliable sources are themselves relaible, and their beign on youtube matters no more than the quality of paper that a newspaper is printed on. In this case, the video was on the official channel of Metal Hammer, which is blue-linked and appears to be a relaible source for this sort of thing. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 23:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I want to contribute to the quality of the Santorini (game) article by adding a high resolution image which is a rendering of a model I made based on the infobox photo in the article. The rendering is (arguably) a replacement for the photo, and I have already added it to the wiki commons. How should I go about adding it to the article? Upload a new version of the existing photo? Replace it on the page?
I'd like for someone to take a look and advise, please. Thanks! Jsejcksn ( talk) 01:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
So I figured out that the wrong information for a page here was coming from Wikidata, fixed that, then ranted about how arcane that whole process is at Wikidata.
Coming back here I'd love to attempt to make the mysterious more clear.
'Repository' in the infobox at page
Blink (web engine) happens to come from Wikidata. There is no indication that that is true, except for maybe the existence in the left sidebar of an item under 'Tools' - "Wikidata item" - which does go to the
'shadow' page over at Wikidata.
?) If perhaps maybe one or more infobox items might have data infiltrated in from Wikidata, is the presence of the link under 'Tools' the trustworthy indication? Or are so many pages here now having tiny pieces from Wikidata that that link's presence is useless as an indication? ( Carrot points to Carrot which informs me that a carrot is shaped like a cone. Ah'yep.)
?) Is there any foolproof way to determine whether infobox data is coming from Wikidata, other than comparing the page's source for the infobox with the presence and value of data in the 'shadow' page at Wikidata? This is all very complicated and non-obvious.
If one should happen to peer into the documentation for Template:Infobox_software/doc there are some BTW mentions in descriptions that two values 'might' come from Wikidata: 'website' and 'repo' (repository). How does one know that *only* these two values might come from Wikidata?
Limply helpful is a notice tucked away at top of the template documentation in the midst of so much else that it is completely obscured that "This template uses the Wikidata property: official website (P856)", and also that "This template tracks the Wikidata property: official website (P856)".
?) What is the difference between 'uses' and 'tracks'? I've looked around and still can't figure it out.
I wanted to know because we need to add one or both of
to the existing "{{Uses Wikidata|P856}}{{Tracks Wikidata|P856}}" in that documentation. This is an oversight. (And in how many other places also?) But again, which one?
And in fact links like P1324 should probably be added to the mentions in the template description, such that "..., infobox attempts to acquire the website link from Wikidata." ought to something like "..., infobox attempts to acquire the website link from Wikidata. (see P1324)"
There are too many mysteries here to think that anyone would be comfortable saying that integration with Wikidata is in a good state. But in the meantime, can you point to answers to any of these questions, here, at Wikidata, or elsewhere? Or... even better places to rant? ;) Shenme ( talk) 01:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi I have edited the page /info/en/?search=Currae_Hospital to resolve the issues highlighted. Namely "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (November 2016)". How do I get the error page removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.170.130 ( talk) 04:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
when some links given in an article are not correct, how to delete these links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goelmg12 ( talk • contribs) 07:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Ronald P. Rohner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, I have successfully written a new wikipedia page. All edits have been made but the page is not live. I don't see any button/option that would enable the page to go live. Can you please help in getting the page go live?
I also edited an online page and after the edits I made I could see it in my browser but this new page is only in my account.
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali.shaila ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
How do I create a new page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.71.246.143 ( talk) 15:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I just created the article called: "Abdourahmane Sarr". It is on the main encyclopedia but not on google searches. Why is that?
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by LigueyeKat ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I need help, can someone please make the following edit in this article? /info/en/?search=Ana_Veciana-Suarez
Someone wrote the article about my client with wrong information in it, I am requesting an edit on her behalf to correct the wrong information. Following are the details:
This is the a FALSE statement in the article:
"The Chin Kiss King (Plume, 1998).[3] It was originally published in Spanish as El Rey de Los Besos by Editorial Planeta, S.A. in 1997."
Following is the truth:
"The Chin Kiss King was originally published in English by Farrar Strauss & Giroux in 1997. It was re-issued in 2015."
Thank you! Nayab K. Siddiqui — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.255.103.12 ( talk) 20:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Aspro and DESiegel,
Thank you both of you, for resolving my problem. About the notability part, I agree witth DESiegel, as the criteria for notability, to put it simply, is to have 3rd party publications about the personality, and that has to be renowned publisher. As confirmed by DESiegel, The Washington Post and New York Times are both authentic parties that WikiPedia considers for notability. If you can have some publications on there about yourself, then you can also qualify to be on WikiPedia for being an editor who was mentioned in such sources. There are tens and thousands of wordsmiths out there, who are mentioned in many sources, and should be on Wikipedia too. They aren't here only because they are unaware of the process, which is because of the limited staff of the non-profit organization. If we can spread the awareness, each and every of the wordsmith you mentioned Aspro, should be on wikipedia, because he has put in enough work and effort to have himself noticed by sources like The Washington Post and The New York Times.
Thank you for your time guys! I respect what you are doing for the community and thank you for educating me about requesting an edit in the proper manner. I rest my case here.
Cheers! Nayab K. Siddiqui — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.209.85.59 ( talk) 14:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
Since august 6 an entry appeared claiming that Business Initiative Directions is a company that sells "vanity awards" or fake awards. This company is a Spanish communication consultancy agency, specialized in marketing, corporate marketing and corporate events. They have several events, some of them called International Quality Awards have a fee and include an award gala at the end of the event. To call this a "fake" or a "scam" as it is imply in the entry, its dishonest. They have 50 years working under Spanish law and more than 20 years now under the European Legislation. Is a well known and renowned company in Spain and their line of business is clear: the promote other companies and organizations. Is marketing. Like many other things. The people behind this attacks is hurting a legal company, that is working in total compliance with the European law. The entry is TOXIC is causing massive damage to BID clients and BID reputation. Its unbelievable that Wikipedia will allow the use of its international renowned for some kind of business revenge. Please stop this. BID is willing to provide all information regarding the matter in their offices in Madrid at any given time. Wikipedia was never meant for ruining people business. This is shameful.
This is the entry /info/en/?search=Business_Initiative_Directions — Preceding unsigned comment added by FernandoSantiago ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
This is a mildly disingenuous place to put this question as I'm not an admin and so can't actually use any of these pages anyway, but I was looking at the source of the main page and noticed that not only it but also WP:Main Page/2, WP:Main Page/3, WP:Main Page/4, and WP:Main Page/5 are protected. Why do those four pages exist and why are they protected? Mehmuffin ( talk) 21:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)