Help desk
< December 1	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 3 >

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.

December 2

unused user page removal

Can someone here delete my old [user page] which I never used and has my real on it. Thank you :) --Sweetcorn (msg) 10:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The help desk of commons-wiki was located here: Commons:Commons:Help desk. This is en-wiki help desk. If you want to delete en-wiki user page of yours, try Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. ~~Not sure commons-wiki had CSD or not.~~ Matthew_hk t c 10:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion Matthew_hk t c 10:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done the speedy request for you this time. Matthew_hk t c 12:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benghazi

Perhaps the referemce to the attack on the Benghazi Consulate could be corrected to what actually happened, instead of using a fictitious account based on a movie. Someone needs to read what actually happened, from sworn testimony by the SOLE American witness, Ambassador Stevens guard, who testified under oath before a Congressional and Senate armed services committee. What you have posted is garbage from accounts of 2 CIA paid operatives who arrived long after the takeover ended. Zero shots were fired as 70-120 jihadists walked onto the Consulate grounds, your article states thousands of shots. B.S. The takeover lasted 11 minutes. It needs to be corrected, because what you have is right wing propaganda. Use the Gowdy conclusions, that is truth, not the garbage you have... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.37.77 (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this refer to 2012 Benghazi attack? Please post a link to any articles you wish to discuss at this page. Please also sign your posts at talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). With regard to the article, Wikipedia reports, in as neutral way as possible, on what has been written about a subject in independent reliable sources. There are over 250 sources cited in the article. If you have concerns about the content of any page, please feel free to raise them on the article talk page... but be certain that you have sources available to justify any changes you wish to see made. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, IP user. Thank you for wanting to contribute to improving Wikipedia. The proper place for discussions about the content of the article 2012 Benghazi attack is on its talk page, Talk:2012 Benghazi attack. I have not looked closely at the article, but it appears to me to be copiously referenced to reliable sources. If you wish the article to be different, you will need to convince other editors that the consensus should be changed, and that requires (as a minimum) constructing an argument from reliable sources, not just stating something to be fact. You should probably read through the ten archives of the talk page before posting there. --ColinFine (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add a seperate article

I want to add a not article about national stadium karachi "Renovation 2017" ..plz tell me how can i do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohsinkhan22 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If just renovation, may be a new section in the same article, is sufficient. Only for rebuilt and the old and new stadium are distinctive, such as Juventus Stadium, Wembley Stadium would likely to have a separate article. To start an article (any notable topic), one option was Wikipedia:Drafts/Wikipedia:Article wizard/Help:Userspace draft, such as Draft:National Stadium, Karachi (2017) if there is really a need to have a separate article for a separate, different-looking building Matthew_hk t c 13:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.203.34 (talk) 14:17 2 December 2017

Fixed

this apparently refers to Agnus Dei (liturgy). The edit here removed a ref tag. I have restored it. Eagleash (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rotate image

The image for this South Korean promotional poster has been uploaded incorrectly: Secret Love Affair. (I'm thinking the uploading editor assumed the Korean titles read similar to English). The figures should be horizontal; not vertical: [1]. Can it be simply rotated within the image box? Maineartists (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. I can't really read Korean, but the logo of JTBC is correct , and the Arabic number is also correct in the portrait direction. Matthew_hk t c 17:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In current direction, the second name/word from the bottom left, matching the Korean Hangul of the actor Yoo Ah-in; the first from bottom left matched Kim Hee-ae. Since the westernization vertically from top to bottom, or horizontally from left to right/right to left are observed in Asia. Matthew_hk t c 17:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, someone obviously does not know Korean has mucked up this poster, big time. Regardless of your explanation, one of two things is wrong: the image or the text. So which will it be? This is the English WP; who speaks Korean? I think the visual is more important, IMHO. The poster is wrong, period, in regards to the original image: [2]. I do not believe it's the promotional poster. Maineartists (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It had many version of the poster for various situation, probably it was designed to post it in portrait orientation despite the same background image as landscape orientation. You can just upload the clean without text version to cover the old version in File:Secret Love Affair-poster.jpg, just need to scale the pixel to fair use manually or by bot. Matthew_hk t c 01:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The poster uploaded by Accireioj is correct. It is the official one and it doesn't need rotating since the Korean is correct (Korean is read from left-to-right just like English and can be read from top to bottom). Moreover, you can't reach a proper consensus if both of you can't read Korean and think that the text/poster is flipped. The one you are uploading is a fan-translated one from God know where (you did not change the source). Also, there is no rule against uploading non-English posters, heck, even citations can be in non-English. Plus, there is also no rule stating that images should be landscape oriented, if that was the case, all movie posters should be changed to landscape. Please read MOS:IMAGES. Therefore, I see no reason to change it and I'm reverting it to Accireioj's. In addition, if you want to enforce new rules, there should be a bigger discussion, not just 2 users agreeing on something and reverting other user's changes. CherryPie94 (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 SEC Football standings

Can you Move the 2018 SEC Football standings from the draft page to the main 2018 SEC Football season article please. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have completed a draft and you consider that it is ready for mainspace, then place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the source which will submit the page for review. Eagleash (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How Long does it take to review it. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the note at the top of Draft:2018_SEC_football_standings. It may take some time before a reviewer gets to it. I notice this draft does not cite any sources, so it may be WP:TOOSOON "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." RudolfRed (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes & Bibliography

Dear Editors:

  As a first-time contributor to Wickipedia, I need help in formatting footnotes & bibliography to my article on Frederic Homer Balch.  When I press the I button, a whole slew of characters appears but I'm unable to print titles in italics.  Also, how does one raise letters for footnote numbers in the main text?  Or how to format footnotes themselves or to italicize titles in the bibliography?

  Thank you for your help.

Steve Harris (User Name: SteveLHarris) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveLHarris (talk • contribs) 19:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SteveLHarris: there are a few alternative ways to do this. The basics are covered here: Help:Referencing for beginners. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be Original Research if ....

...if I use voting results and draw a chart for a party. year A got X votes, year B got Y votes, year C got Z votes and so on. I could generate a chart but would that be Original Research? Τζερόνυμο (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a chart as long as you reference your sources for all of the information in the chart. Basically, the same rules apply that would apply if you described the information in a paragraph instead of a chart. One thing to watch out for: do not use information form multiple separate sources to make an assertion that is not in any of the sources. This is called "synthesis" (See WP:SYNTH) and it us easy to accidentally do this when building a chart or other graphic. This is often a judgement call: if you are unsure, be bold. -Arch dude (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Arch dude for your answer. I have seen alot of charts in all opinion polling articles, (like polling in UK, Germany, France and so on, and I am certain there is no single document citing all the information. Why is that? Τζερόνυμο (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Τζερόνυμο, presenting information from several different cited sources in one place - whether a paragraph or a table - is fine. Drawing conclusions from the data is not acceptable. --ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I think it's not merely acceptable to put data from multiple sources on one chart: it's to be encouraged, because it makes the information easier for a reader to understand, and that should be a primary goal for an encyclopedia. WP:SYNTH must be considered, but it is very easy to over-react. Read WP:NOTSYNTH to get a better feeling for this. The only difference is that with charts and graphs, the editor must evaluate the synth issue slightly differently to make sure the non-verbal aspects of the presentation are not pushing the reader toward a specific synthesized conclusion. Again, this is a judgement to be made by the editor. If in doubt, be bold: go ahead and add the table (with all references, of course) and then discuss it in the talk page with any editors who worry about synth. -Arch dude (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]