Help desk
< August 2	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 4 >

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.

August 3

Dominos

Playing dominos and it’s not giving me the right points or wins it giving away to my conpoment I have wrote about this issue befor and it has not been fixed. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:6800:E65:84F1:B614:4249:74DE (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the help desk for Wikipedia. You will need to contact the website or app creator for the game you are playing. RudolfRed (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit/update the language template of a <> Code block

Courtesy link: VHDL

Hi,

When I write/edit code in the <> Code block some synthax is not show correctly. For example the text between /* */ is not show as comments. Is it possible to edit and fix the language template ?

Thank you for your help :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik henri (talk • contribs) 01:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, and WHat

"Notability" seems to me to be a rather vaguely defined concept. What exactly constitutes "notability"; and why isn't the state of being factual/accurate and widely refe — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZFT (talk • contribs) 02:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ZFT: For an explanation of the concept as it pertains to Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Notability. GoingBatty (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, ZFT, a topic is notable, and therefore eligible for a Wikipedia article, if it has received significant coverage in published independent, reliable sources. Every word in that summary is very important to understanding the concept, and these words are interpreted based on the 19+ year history of this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, and What Wikipedia Is Not (^I accidentally clicked enter before I was finished)

"Notability" seems to me to be a somewhat vague concept. What exactly constitutes "notability"; and why isn't merely the state of having a significant amount of factual/accurate/coherent information written about it, and being widely referred to (or in some way related to something that is widely referred to), not sufficient alone for a subject's inclusion? In other words, why can't Wikipedia be an "[almost] indiscriminate collection" of organized information (excluding original research, for I understand Wikipedia is not a place to publish original content)?

For example, concerning the franchise Dungeons and Dragons, which as a whole is notable, I've noticed that there have been many articles about characters, races, places, etc., that have been deleted recently. Where, exactly, is the dividing line between "notable" and "not notable" when it comes to fictional elements of a notable franchise, and what is the purpose behind placing that line where it is? ZFT (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~See WP:Notability.~~ (It's not a policy or guideline, but you might also want to read WP:Fancruft.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ZFT:; When it comes to fictional elements of a notable franchise, the question of what should have an independent article vs. be covered in the context of the fictional franchise isn't so much a question of "notability" as one of due weight, avoiding coatracking, and basic article development. Basically, a fictional character should not have an independent article unless there is so much reliably sourced information that is able to be presented in a real-world context that it would overwhelm the base article (on the book, novel, tv series, movie, comic book series, game, franchise, whatever). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about edit notes

Could anyone please tell me if it's all right to make an edit note a new paragraph if it gets sufficiently long, say, three or four sentences in length?--Thylacine24 (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "edit note"? -- Hoary (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: In my case, a parenthetical added after posting to cover something I should have brought up in the original post. Sorry not to specify that.--Thylacine24 (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, something you write on a talk page? If so, avoid tinkering with your post if somebody has already responded to it, and make your new comment in a separate paragraph. (If nobody has responded to it, tinker away.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Thanks for telling me. I try not to do it if no one's responded to it. I have a talk page comment where this is the case, so I'll go fix it right now.--Thylacine24 (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: I didn't realize to ask – do you think this should apply even if the edit note is just one sentence? My bad about claiming that I would fix the edit note I was talking about "right now" in my above response to you – I don't feel comfortable doing so until I know for sure about what I'm asking you here. Sorry to be overbearing.--Thylacine24 (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thylacine24, all this baffles me. If an earlier comment gives a wrong impression that could be corrected with an additional comment -- and if anyone is still likely to be interested (if it's a three-year-old comment, they're unlikely to be) -- then make the additional comment. If either comment consists of a single sentence, then the concision is a virtue. -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Sorry, just wanted to make sure the "new paragraph" thing only applied to single sentences. I have OCD, so I usually feel it's best to make sure of things like this.--Thylacine24 (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Just made the edit in question, meaning that I went against what I said above about usually making sure of things like this before I make the necessary edit. Sorry about that, and please tell me if I'm understanding you correctly – it's okay to make edit notes different paragraphs even if they're one sentence, right? I mean, I'm not talking about concision itself, just making an edit note a new paragraph. Sorry to not understand what you meant in your third response to me.--Thylacine24 (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thylacine24, if you point me to the edits in question, I'll try to comment. -- Hoary (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: They're on this page. Thanks, by the way.--Thylacine24 (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote something. You've then successively appended corrections -- even though there's been no response from anybody else. It's now very convoluted. Because nobody has yet responded and it's convoluted, I suggest that you revise it so that it says what you now want it to say, as directly as possible, with no appendices. -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: No offense, but that feels dishonest to me.--Thylacine24 (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If in doubt you can strike out your previous comment (or delete it as nobody has responded to it) and replace it by what you intended to say. You do seem to be in the habit of rethinking after an initial message, so in future it may be worth thinking in more detail before posting your message. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: Thanks, I might try that. Sorry about the multiple times I've rethought what I've written; I have a Type A personality, so I usually post without fully thinking things through. I'll try not to, but can't make any promises on that front.--Thylacine24 (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citing how widely cited a paper is

I made the claim that Yeo 2011 is widely cited, which it is. Google & Bing searches show it is cited 3365 times. citeseer show it has 20 pages of references, but none of those are stable URLS. I did various searches, but the only results are neuroscience journals pushing their own journals. Do you have any ideas for how create a valid citation? Thanks Bodysurfinyon (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bodysurfinyon. As far as I can see, the only way of creating a valid citation of this claim is by finding and citing a reliable published sources that makes the claim . Anything else is original research, and not acceptable in a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeaahhhh.... BUT, clearly this is not "original research". This is stable information that is readily confirmable, right? I'm all for the Wikipedia process. If you accept that the previous 2 assertions are correct, then I hope we can agree that looking for a way to confirm this claim is a reasonable course of action. It is a fact that on 2020-08-03 the web search says it has been cited 3365 times. Any takers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodysurfinyon (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how to change my user name here?

how to change my user name here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.dinesh charan (talk • contribs) 06:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.dinesh charan, you can just abandon this account and register a new one without any problems. If want to rename your account, though (this is global and will affect your name on all Wikimedia projects), you can do so at this page or here. Please be sure to read the details over at WP:RENAME. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Substituting a dead source?

I'm currently trying to improve an article by adding new information to it: "Work This Body". One of the facts about the song's composition in the article: "Petricca also explained that the song's 'ecstatic and clamorous beat' is 'caused by the band's addition of more than a dozen different percussion instruments into the song'" comes from a Spotify track by track commentary which is currently unavailable due to it being removed: https://open.spotify.com/album/6TqacRIo8Fb9A0vA506wMj The page has been archived on the Internet Archive multiple times, including this link that has a 30 second sample of each track: https://web.archive.org/web/20190114003930/https://open.spotify.com/album/6TqacRIo8Fb9A0vA506wMj However, it does not contain the actual part of the article I quoted. The only place I can find it mentioned/paraphrased is on a Genius lyrics page: https://genius.com/Walk-the-moon-work-this-body-lyrics I know Genius is not generally considered reliable because its content is user-generated, but given the fact that it is the only website to have this piece of information documented that comes from an album commentary that did exist at one point, would it be fine to keep the information with both the Spotify and Genius page cited? Or does its unreliability prevent it from being kept? ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time in Indiana

There's a tag right in the middle of a sentence here. When I look at it in source I can't find it, and when I look in Vis Ed it appears to be transcluded from somewhere, and I think it must have something to do with the external links inline, but I'm not sure what I'm looking at or how I'm supposed to be fixing it. —valereee (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, It was an update required box in Template:INcode whcih I have no-included. Thank you for spotting it Fiddle Faddle 12:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! —valereee (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

emptying empties

If a category that formerly held 2 entries is now empty (2 article edits done yesterday), by when would/should the categories (nothing unusual about them) be "gone" (by some BOT, I'd imagine)? Pi314m (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi314m. If the category itself has ever been edited, so it has some content (eg a description, or a parent category), then it is not empty, and will not be deleted except through the CFD process. If it has no content of its own, then I think that it just disappears when no pages point to it. --ColinFine (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines?

FYI

– Heading added by Tenryuu. 14:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello i need guidlinesAnurag773923 (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anurag773923: Here is a list of Wikipedia guidelines. If you'd like to be more specific as to what sort of guideline you are looking for, maybe I can help you find the specific guideline you need. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i am looking for someone who can guide me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anurag773923 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Roshni Kushal Jaiswal --Danski454 (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anurag773923 and welcoem to the Teahouse

Please read Your First Article I can only evaluate the cited sources using Google Translate, which is only of limited value, a fluent speaker of the proper language (Hindi?) would be needed to do a proper review. I note that the first ref ( 4pilla) seems to have significant coverage of Jaiswal. However I don't know how reliable this source may be. Some other sources don't permit copying, so i can't even use Google Translate to judge their content. One other looks as if it might be substantial, but again i can't judge reliability.

Please understand that that an article, particularly an article about a living person requires several independent published reliable sources, each of which must include significant coverage of the subject, not a passing mention to demonstrate notability. Each of those key sources, usually three to five of them, must be all ofmthe4sae, independent, reliable, and have significant coverage. Also too many sources, especicially too many week sources, is as bad as too few. It buries the high-quality sources. You can ask about a specific source at the reliable source noticeboard if you are not sure if it will count.

I did some light copy-editing of Draft:Roshni Kushal Jaiswal for formatting and grammar. In an article the subject should always be refered to by last (family) name alone.

Please read referenching for beginners. Please use Named references top combine repeated use of the same source. Please use |trans-title= and |trans-work= to show the title and publication name of sources not in English, if at all possible. Please do not list the publication name in |first=, |last=, or |author=; those are only for the actual people who wrote the source, when those are known.

If this did not answer your questions, please respond in this thread with more specific questions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Is this map accurate for 1980? Sorry if this is the wrong spot, I was unsure whether this should go here or on the reference desk. TheAwesome Hwyh 15:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheAwesomeHwyh, 1980s#Decolonization and independence suggests that there were no events which redrew borders, but some islands became independent states by 1985 which hadn't been before. --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it should be fine? TheAwesome Hwyh 16:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use Grammarly to help me write and correct articles?

Félix An (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Félix An: I'm not familiar with Grammarly, but anything that helps produce better quality writing would seem to be a good thing, assuming there are no strings attached to publishing the result here. I doubt it supports wiki syntax, so you'd be editing plain text with it, then copy/pasting the result into the wiki editor to do the wiki markup (linking, references, etc.), just as you would do if you were writing in Microsoft Word or another word processor. Perhaps someone more familiar with it will respond. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Félix An, Grammarly can be helpful in catching basic misspellings and grammatical errors, but caution should be exercised, as Wikipedia's manual of style is, uh, unique to say the least. I haven't used Grammarly in a very long time, but please be aware that articles use different variations of English that Grammarly might not catch. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how to make a link pubic which is yet in draft

dear members,

this is the url of article (

https://en.m.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ravindra_Singh_Bhati&oldid=965939104) kindly take a look & tell how to make this url live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vish.mystic (talk • contribs) 16:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vish.mystic. I have added a header so that when you (or anybody else) thinks that the draft meets the requirements for an article (taking especial note of WP:CSMN - I'm not implying that it has any of those mistakes, just that inexperienced editors who attempt the very very difficult task of making a new article often do so) they can pick the button to submit it for review. I realise that it was not you that created the article, but it was evidently created by a media company who don't know the difference between a user page and an article, and who are almost certainly involved in undisclosed paid editing, so it needs to be reviewed carefully. Please link to articles and other pages inside Wikipedia by using Wikilinks, thus [[Draft:Ravindra Singh Bhati]] displays as Draft:Ravindra Singh Bhati. --ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

iPhone 9

This is a redirect which was last deleted after Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4#iPhone 9. The redirect was also salted two days later. But, it should soon be de-salted. And then I am also not happy with iPhone X as the target for iPhone 10, which was last discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 15#iPhone 10. It's been weeks since the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4#iPhone 9. I really cannot live without a redirect. Look at all the redirects under the Category:Redirects from incorrect names. All redirects under that category are names that do not exist. For example, there is a redirect for Windows 9. Now look at the following sources:

Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neel.arunabh: This is not the place to redo the deletion discussion. You can try at WP:DRV but don't use the arguement that there are other undeleted redirects. RudolfRed (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing with IOS 9.4

Is there anyway to fix the formatting when editing wiki with a device running IOS 9.4? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.65.107 (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any editing issues with any operating system. If you can be more specific, you can ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America

This company has updated its trademark; I was reminded of it from images where it appears, taken at Musikfest in 2019 (Guardian has been a sponsor of that festival for many years). https://www.guardianlife.com/logo-dark.svg is one example thereof. Could a user such as I make this sort of amendment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zigwithbag (talk • contribs) 19:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.65.107 (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Logos for the requirements. I don't think an unregistered user can upload images to Wikipedia, though. --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kosoko

I edited the page to provide additional names being used today by descendants of Kosoko. But this was removed by Budhie.

The reason I see is "Test/ vandalism". Kosoko is my great, great, grandfather and today my family bears the name King. This is what I included on wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:E60:D670:D104:99CC:BCD9:8C04 (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2607, the statements above are the only contributions to Wikipedia ever made from your IP address. What article are you referring to? Maproom (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to this edit to Kosoko, reverted by Buidhe. You added unsourced information. Wikipedia does not accept unsourced information. --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, even information that you "know" from family sources is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Information must be cited to a published, reliable, independent source (click the link for details). This is not only for the purpose of verifiability, but it is often the case that information passed down through generations by word of mouth will change over time, sometimes intentionally embellishing/glorifying the subject (a natural conflict of interest) or sometimes unintentionally (as is demonstrated by the children's game "telephone"). That's why we need to rely on a published source with a reputation for doing their own research and fact-checking before publishing something. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Indeed

Hello,

I am writing you in regards to the Wikipedia article for Indeed. http://de.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Indeed&stable=1 I made changes in the infobox and nothing was updated so far. Could you please help me with this issue?

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indee2020 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Indee2020. German Wikipedia is an entirely separate project, with different rules and different templates. It is unlikely that anybody here can help you. Please ask at de:Wikipedia:Fragen zur Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on the contrary, I can help. de:Indeed uses the template de:Vorlage:Infobox Website, which doesn't contain the fields that you have attempted to set. I suspect the template needs to be changed to de:Vorlage:Infobox Organisation or similar. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Indee2020: I see your edits to the German article's infobox. The US version is Indeed, which you have not edited yet. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]