Help desk
< June 9	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 11 >

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.

June 10

Grammar review

Hi guys,

I just translated the whole "history" paragraph of Amsterdam-Noord from Dutch into English. Could someone just rapidly look at it to be sure I didn't make any mistakes (it takes one minute to read)? Thanks!

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone over the entire article. There are a few issues that need clarifying. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's done :) WhatsUpWorld (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, on a very minor issue that I don't feel confident enough about to change myself. If a man is executed by hanging, we say he is "hanged". But if an already dead body of a criminal is suspended by a rope "as a frightening example", we say he is "hung". At least, I do (I'm English). But I can't find a grammatical justification for this. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster might help you feel more confident. 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the criminals were hanged, the corpses hung. I've changed it. Note that even if the method of execution were different, the corpses could still be hung, it's just the juxtaposition of the two usages that caused some confusion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018-19 NHL season

Five NHL 2018-19 Teams are still red start the last five teams like 2018-19 Pittsburgh Penguins 2018-19 Calgary Flames and 2018-19 Tampa Bay Lighting. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this is not a forum where you can request articles be written. Please raise this at the appropriate project page or you can request articles be written at WP:REQ. Or, as also mentioned to you previously, you can write drafts yourself and submit them for review. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to add more info

Hi,

I am wondering how to contact the author of a page.

I would like to provide some information so he can improve the page.

How do I contact the author?

The page is https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2018_Christy_Ring_Cup

Thanks, Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.171.211.74 (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kevin, there is no single author of any Wikipedia page. You are quite at liberty to edit the page yourself. Please add reliable sources for any content or changes. (See WP:REFB for how to do this). You could also propose your changes on the article talk page or at one of the project pages listed there. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of what Eagleash said, Christy Ring Cup has accumulated more than a total of 50 edits by more than eight editors in the last month. Some of those editors do not have Wikipedia logins. You have just as much right as they do to add to the article. Just edit. If you make a mistake, someone will remove your edit or fix it up, with no hard feelings. There have been 130,000 active editors here in the last month, and all of them made their first edit at some time, so why not you?-Arch dude (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question concerning establishing notability for a living person.

   Hello Wikipedia Expert, there is a notable author with a Wikipedia page - Thaddeus Stanley Golas. He is no longer alive. There is a living person who is actively and currently involved with maintaining the publishing of Golas' books and wishes to know if they are notable for this affiliation with a notable author. The person in question has no other verifiable notoriety. The proposed page on this person would have little or no verification from other published sources. The proposed page would be biographical and highlight the affiliation with Thaddeus Stanley Golas as it's main topic.   Thanks ahead, Metaphysics Man (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so the proposed article is not acceptable. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While notability is not inherited, it is possible that there is enough verifiable information about the activities of the maintainer that it is worth a mention in the Golas article. Notability is needed for a separate article, but not for a section in a parent article. The quality of the sources are the same (WP:RS), but the nature of the information in the sources is not. Do note that editors (you and others) are still expected to evaluate whether or not the information is encyclopedic (i.e., useful to a reader interested in Golas.). Also note that if you are associated with the subject of this information and most especially if you are that person, you should not add it directly to the article yourself, but should add it to the article's talk page and ask for another editor to evaluate its suitability. See WP:COI. -Arch dude (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted entry

When I went to the entry for Robert Clifton Robinson, it said it was written using material from a deleted file or a file being considered for deletion. But when I searched for it under deleted files, I was informed "no such file" exists. Is Wikipedia contradicting itself?

Please see if you can clear up the confusion. I'm distressed because, without further explanation, such as why the file was deleted, the only information available on the man is from his own pages and sites, including the website for his ministry and his author's page on Amazon. Obviously, none of these provides impartial details -- that's what I look to Wikipedia for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FD00:4980:99B6:61CB:2613:7D41 (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no information to establish notability (WP:NOTABLE) by our peculiar definition, then there is no way Wikipedia editors can create the article you need. We create articles by using information from the very materials that you say is non-existant. We have no other mechanism of gathering such information. -Arch dude (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your first paragraph refers to. Robert Clifton Robinson and File:Robert Clifton Robinson.jpg were deleted but don't match your description. If you mean other page names then please give links. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-breaking space in citation templates

I have several years' experience editing Wikipedia. I also edit publications in the outside world. How can I duplicate the functionality of the html code for a non-breaking space in citation templates (e.g., a non-breaking space code or a nowrap template the the date field of a citation template generates an error code)? Or, do the templates themselves include some intelligence about where not to break a line? For example, a line should not wrap at the space in "January 3" or "3 January". When a citation template generates a page number, does the template allow the line to wrap after "p." or "pp."? Is there any downside (other than extra work) to using, for example, {{subst:cite book}} with citation templates, then insert non-breaking spaces in the resulting text?—Finell 23:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only dates in cs1|2 templates that are 'wrap protected' are access dates. If I remember correctly, I did that because access dates lie at the end of a citation so are more likely to need to be wrap protected than other dates. That functionality was added to Module:Citation/CS1 November 2014. There has been little, if any, call to wrap-protect other dates in cs1|2 templates. Pagination, when the rendering includes the p. and pp. prefixes, is wrap protected so that the line may not break between the prefix and the first page identifier(s). Journal pagination is not protected. The content of |at= is not protected.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very prompt and thoughtful reply. I understand your rationale, and it works.—Finell 16:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finnell If you understand the explanation, you are halfway to being involved in the cs1|2 template work. :)Naraht (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]