Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 July 30

Help desk
< July 29	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 31 >

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.

July 30

Thomas Markle

Ref number 1 is incorrest - I did not do it. Thanks 01:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.132.68.1 (talk)

Fixed, thanks. Was missing the title of the story. NZFC^(talk) 01:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

List of all transcluded pages

Where can I get a list of all pages transcluded onto a page? Special:WhatLinksHere, with all options disabled except for transclusions, appears to provide the pages that transclude the one in question, not all the pages transcluded onto that one. To my surprise, if you edit WP:Reference desk/header and scroll down, you'll see that no WP-space pages appear on the Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page list, except for the documentation page, but if you look at the code, you can easily see that it's transcluding pages such as {{rdconfigarray}} and Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/leftside.

Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: You are already doing the right thing: Click the "Edit" tab for the source editor and see "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page" near the bottom. If there is a right-pointing triangle then click it. Wikipedia:Reference desk/header has <includeonly>...</includeonly> around everything except the documentation. Content in includeonly is ignored on the page itself and only evaluated when the page is transcluded. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, okay; I didn't know that noinclude and includeonly would affect the bottom-of-the-page list, which I thought was all templates transcluded on a page, not just those that actually appear. Nyttend (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: It is all pages which were transcluded during the processing of the page. It doesn't matter whether a transcluded page leaves a visible appearance. <includeonly>...</includeonly> does not mean "Evaluate this but ignore the result on the page itself". It means "Do not evaluate this on the page itself". There are many ways a page can contain the code {{foo}} without actually tanscluding {{foo}}. For example if the code is in includeonly, nowiki or comment tags, or it is part of a conditional expression where another part is evaluated. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

How do I select which way I want to view editable pages?

Hi. I joined the community of Wikipedia writers/editors earlier this week. I have a question I hope this Board can help me with. When I first registered, I was given an option of two ways to view editable pages; they were something like 'real view' and a second I don't remember (this one looks like a mark-up language). I chose the second, but think I should have chosen the first option. Can anyone advise me on how to change to the 'real view'? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWCzarnik (talk • contribs) 07:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

AWCzarnik select the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen, then "editing". You'll see an "editing modes" drop-down box to select what edit modes you see, I guess you want the "always visual editor" option Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@AWCzarnik: The "Editing mode" selection does not appear if "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" is enabled. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I thank you both.AWCzarnik (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Page protection

how to protect page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayaz SherKhan (talk • contribs) 09:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ayaz Sherkhan: Page protection can be requested at WP:RFPP. However, it requires a level of disruption which is consistent and ongoing. Page protection will not necessarily be applied to defend a 'preferred' version of a page or in the event of a good faith content dispute, which should be discussed at the article talk page. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Your edits have been reverted again. A change of spelling would require a page move. Please discuss this on the talk page of the article rather than WP:edit warring. Dbfirs 10:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

... later ... I see that you are determined to ignore advice. This: Talk:Jansher Khan is the talk page of the article for you to discuss your edits. Please stop edit-warring. Dbfirs 12:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

How to cite my own Journal Article?

Raza Gulfam (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Hi! Dear Sir/Madam, this is Raza Gulfam. Thank you for your consideration!

While reading the about Thermal Management on Wikipedia, I found that Phase Change Materials have been declared to be the effective candidates for Thermal Management applications. I have recently published a comprehensive article in SCI Journal (namely, Energy Conversion and Management) on Thermal Management of Batteries by introducing four kinds of organic Phase Change Materials. I guess that citation of my article would justify the claim raised over here: Recent developments More recently, synthetic diamond cooling sinks are being researched to provide better cooling. Also, some heat sinks are constructed of multiple materials with desirable characteristics, such as phase change materials, which can store a great deal of energy due to their heat of fusion.[citation needed] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_management_(electronics)#Methodologies

You can find my whole introduction and the relevant article here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320990968_Design_fabrication_and_numerical_analysis_of_compact_thermal_management_system_integrated_with_composite_phase_change_material_and_thermal_bridge

Therefore, kindly, let me know how may I cite that article! Thanks for cooperation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raza Gulfam (talk • contribs) 13:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• This falls under the spirit, if not the letter, of our "conflict of interest" guidelines: see WP:COI. You cannot be expected to maintain a neutral point of view about the relevance of your own work. Therefore, you should not add this citation directly to the article, but you should instead make an edit recommendation (i.e., this help desk post) as a new section in the article's talk page. Another editor can then decide if the citation is relevant to the article and add it and whatever other text you recommend to the article. -Arch dude (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• After further analysis, I find that ResearchGate is not considered to be a reliable source (WP:RS), because its contents are (or can be) simply non-peer-reviewed self-published papers: see WP:SPS. Therefore, unless this paper has been published in a journal that is considered a reliable source, it should not be cited in Wikipedia. If it has been so published, the journal should be cited, not ResearchGate. -Arch dude (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Raza Gulfam (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Thank you for your comprehensive analysis! The article has been published by the SCI Journal: Energy Conversion and Management having Impact Factor 6.377. Please, take a look: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890417310336 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raza Gulfam (talk • contribs) 17:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Raza Gulfam (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC) Thank you for your comprehensive analysis! The article has been published by the SCI Journal: Energy Conversion and Management having Impact Factor 6.377. Please, take a look: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890417310336

User talk:Carriearchdale

Does anyone know why User talk:Carriearchdale is not archiving properly? Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

That was one line about me

whatever i just changed that was not an experiment that was one line about me. please let me add one line to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocking HAMD (talk • contribs) 14:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rocking HAMD: No, do not add yourself to Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. We write about subjects satisfying Wikipedia:Notability, not unknown people who happen to have the same name. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Notability for High Schools

I came across a draft about a high school which didn't seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. I'm not quite clear on what the notability guidelines for high schools are. I've looked at many guidelines/policies, and all of them seem to have different instructions.

From WP:New pages patrol#Top level areas of concern: "Most mainstream high/secondary schools are notable if they are proven to exist"

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools: "must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both."

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists."

Does anybody know what the actual answer is?--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

As long as it is shown with independent sources (not just the school itself) that a high school at least exists, it probably merits an article. It's hard to absolutely guarantee anything on Wikipedia, but that's the general policy. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Berkeley College

Hello,

I would like to make an update to the page below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_College

Below is the most current statisitcs Over 7,100 students (more than 440 international students, representing nearly 75 countries) 55% Bachelor's degrees 36% Associate's degrees — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.54.100 (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to update the page - everything on Wikipedia is done by volunteers, and that page does not appear to have any form of protection, so there is nothing preventing you from updating it yourself. Please make sure to cite reliable sources in your changes. LittlePuppers (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

How to create a new page

Hi , I wanted to know how to create a new page for Mr. Amitansh , he is a producer and actor, born and brought up in faridabad. His punjabi film Dulla Bhatti released on 10th june 2016 and was nominated in jio filmfare awards punjabi in 2017 for one category and nominated in PTC Punjabi awards for 4 categories and won one award. I am sending you his IMDB and google link for your reference and convenience.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8041813/

Amitansh https://g.co/kgs/ougW5i — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.184.82 (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The easiest way for people new to Wikipedia to create an article is via the article wizard. This will create the article as a draft, and you can submit it for approval to be moved to the mainspace, and an AfC reviewer will either decline or accept it. Before creating it, though, I strongly recommend you read WP:Your first article. Also, the article is unlikely to be accepted unless it means the notability guidelines. Most articles require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources in order to be considered notable, but there are some exceptions to this, such as some geographic features and animal species. In this specific case, you'd need more than just the IMDb source in order for Amitansh to be considered notable. Also, if you are closely related to the subject (e.g., his family or friends), please read WP:COI. Hope this helps, and good luck!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Template problem

In List of Arabic given names, the Compact ToC template in the Feminine section links to subsections in the Masculine section. Is there a fix? Clarityfiend (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixed.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Twinkle Help

Hello! I was wondering how you revert edits to the last revisions of an article using Twinkle and having it tagged as "undo" at the end of the edit summary, I'm new to using it. I would appreciate the help! (e.g. (Reverted 1 edit by User1 (talk) to last revision by User2. (TW)) (Tag: Undo) Regards – Braxton C. Womack 06:13 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Braxton C. Womack - it should always automatically tag it as undo at the end. See the history of my sandbox. The last edit was me using the Rollback (VANDAL) option, the next to last was me using the Restore Revision option, and the third to least was me using Rollback option. All 3 of them tagged the edit as undo. Could you link to a specific case where this is not working? Or am I misunderstanding your question?--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply! That answered my question, I was just confused at first because I saw some tagged as "rollback" and "undo". Thanks again! :) – Braxton C. Womack 07:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Braxton C. Womack, it's confusing because there are actually two types of rollback - Twinkle rollback and normal rollback. Twinkle rollback can be used by any autoconfirmed user who has Twinkle installed. All types of Twinkle rollback automatically tags the edit as undo. Normal rollback, on the other hand, can only be used by users in the rollback user group. It is essentially the same as the Twinkle Rollback (VANDAL) option, but it creates an ever-so-slightly different edit summary and tags the edit as a Rollback, instead of an Undo. Hope this clarifies things, and let me know if you have any other questions about this. :)--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Please help-keeps adding things

Hello, I am trying to edit a page for the documentary food Evolution. Whenever I go to publish the page, it deletes the general bio I had and instead pastes a ton of coded looking text. Every time I try to just delete the coded text it adds more. What do I do?!?

Taylor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frecklefacetay (talk • contribs) 22:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you were using { brackets instead of [ brackets to link to pages. I have removed the content. If you want to link to another wikipedia article, use double straight brackets like this [[example]]. Hope this helps. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 22:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Proper style in writing Chess articles

The writing better articles page states, "The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate."

But the Sicilian Dragon page has this chunk:

The result is often some blood-curdling chess where both sides attack the other's king with all available resources: either Black's king bites the dust, or his counterplay arrives just in time that White gets mated instead. The line is one of the sharpest and most aggressive variations of the Sicilian Defence, making it one of the sharpest of all chess openings.

And on its talk page, there is this brief conversation:

What does "unencyclopedic info" supposed to mean. The earlier commentry was lively, and has been replaced by dry prose. "Unencyclopedic" usually refers to original research or personal opinions — see Wikipedia:Five pillars. I suppose it could also refer to unreferenced claims.

I've seen this kind of emotional and informal writing, somewhat like in normal chess books, on several other pages, as well, such as the Trompowsky Attack:

2... g6 is another line, practically begging White to inflict the doubled pawns. Black's development is slightly slower than in the two lines previously mentioned. Black is intending to fianchetto his dark-squared bishop which is unopposed by a White counterpart, and will try to prove that this is more important than the doubled pawn weakness.

While I recognize that several "passionate" terms such as "sharp" are especially common in chess discussions (which is why they have spots on the glossary of chess), this still doesn't feel appropriate for a normal Wikipedia article. Is the standard different for chess pages? What should I follow? EpsilonCarinae (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for WP, and its tone is very unencyclopedic. Please feel free to change the tone to fit WP's style. This is very clear cut and arguments for its inclusion are against the clear weight of consensus, noted at WP:TONE. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 23:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@EpsilonCarinae: As El cid, el campeador noted above, this goes against our policies about formal tone (notably WP:TONE). I've fixed the most obvious issues the articles you mentioned - feel free to fix any you come across in the future, or leave a note here (if you find any before this discussion is archived) or on my talk page and I'll take a look. You could also probably put {{copy edit|for=informal tone}} (or just {{copy edit}}, but a reason is preferred) and someone from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors would take a look at it for you. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to the both of you, I'll keep that in mind the next time I edit a page. EpsilonCarinae (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• You may wish to raise this issue on the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess, to see if the community has developed any chess-specific guidance. -Arch dude (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• In the examples quoted “blood-curdling“ and “practically begging” are not good writing, but “agressive” and “sharp” are OK. Sharp is essentially a technical term in chess and its entry in the glossary can be wikilinked for clarification. —LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The Sicilian Dragon example can be traced back to a single edit by a fairly experienced editor who should have known better... it should have been picked up earlier so thanks EpsilonCarinae for drawing attention to it. I don't think this is really a systemic problem with articles on chess openings, but feel free to fix any other examples of unencyclopedic language if you find them. What we can do is attribute such language to other writers, e.g. "Boris Lefkowitz writes that this opening is 'utter garbage'". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)