Help desk
< September 11	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 13 >

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.

September 12

Rosario Tijeras

Hi, I don't know why in Rosario Tijeras (season 3), the number of total episodes is not shown when I use <hr />. For example, watch episode 1, 2 and 3, only 1 and 3 are shown. And the same thing happens in Season 2, in episodes 65 to 67.--Bradford ^Talk 02:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradford: The parameter is analyzed and transformed. There is an old discussion at Template talk:Episode list#Sandbox version update. It appears that triple episodes cannot currently be listed on separate lines. If you write | EpisodeNumber = 128-129-130 | EpisodeNumber2 = 1-2-3 then they are shown as an interval on the same line like at Module talk:Episode list/testcases#Triple episodes. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be splitting them like that. It goes against MOS:DTAB, each episode should have it's own entry. Remember, the item of primary importance here is the episode, NOT how it was broadcast. - X201 (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McManus - actor

Hi - Brian Connelly was NOT my Uncle Marks brother. He was born out of wedlock to my Grandfathers niece. Her parents then adopted Connelly. Uncle Mark had two sisters, my mother Mary and sister Ellen. I would respectfully request that you remove reference to Connelly as his 'brother' as this is offensive to our family and has no basis in fact. Sadly, the gutter press of the UK exploited the family connection for some tacky headlines - please remove this reference. Thank you Lynn Morrissey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.150.197.243 (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lynn, and welcome to the Help Desk. The article actually says "half-brother" and references this usage. Are you asking that the family connection be removed from the article, or that a more detailed explanation of the relationship be added? Dbfirs 06:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD not working, much opposition to my edits no clear or valid answer for exclusion of content I am adding. Sometimes no answer. Need advise.

Various users, some of them I may asume have some good reputation, are reverting my edits on the article Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death. This is a controversial article, many users try to include extraneous claims. At first glance the impression would be that I, that are being reverted, am wrong and need to stick to policies and engage in the talk page to bring consensus.

The thing is that answers on why not include my proposed material does not give what I consider valid reasons for exclusion. When I rebuke and explain why answers are wrong because they are strawmans, biased against non-English sources, or does not adress the issue concerned. There is silence. One user have said they are tired of answering. Yet the reasons given are not valid. It seem to me that these revert-prone users does not even take their time to read what I have written. In the talk page I find "cheap" rebukals to my edits and then silence. Last time I waited one month for an answer to my talk page coment that explained why the content was valid. Without anyone bothering to answer my last talk page content I proceeded to edit the article, and got reverted various times. At my insistence, one editor replied in the talk page. And that reply was much of nonsence, rebuking things I never wrote, conflating writing about conspiracy theories with presenting them as true, and at end stating "The Argentinian book is not a reliable source. Probably Grey Wolf isn't either, but we're pretty much stuck with it for extrinsic reasons. There's no reason to exacerbate that situation by adding yet another unreliable source to the mix." which is the one of lamest reasons to exclude material have ever heard here. Conspiracy theories does not need to reliable to be notable, defeding status quo for no reson, and missing that the sources that are about are reliable. I answered that comment, pointing out why reasons are not valid and I got no answer. So I waited 10 days. Then I edited the article and I got reverted again and warned. I afraid I may be blocked warrying if I continue. It seem to me there are many "reputable" users not realy caring to read what is at the talk page. One explanation may be that the article is in a list of conflict prone articles so many users are watching it and very few engaged in the talk page. The WP:BRD system is not working at all.

So far I have encontered:

Bias against spanish language sources El Tiempo (Colombia).
Strawmans about my edits (perhaps unintended): "unreliable sources", "evidence clearly points otherwise"
Defense of status quo just to not add things to "the mix" (?)
Users telling me to engage in the talk page, to then find no real interest from other users to adress this point.

I honestly need some advice.

1. Asuming the content I am attempting to add is legitimate or potentially legitimate and relevant for the article, how to bring people to the table and have meaningful discussion where people actually read ones comments and proposed material?

2. Assuming I am wrong, how to find someone who explains, with valid reasons, why the content I have been trying to add is should stay out. What perplexes me is the poor quality of explanations I have got so far.

Dentren | ^Talk 13:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you just want someone to agree with you you should pay them for that service. That ensures you won't be disappointed. If you want an opinion from an uninvolved third party (which may or may not agree with you) then you should check out Wikipedia:Third_opinion. Poveglia (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict) I demurred to jump in at the conspiracy theories page because of our involvement in a similar conflict at Augusto Pinochet but since you've come to help desk, I'll put in my two cents for what it's worth. What I'm seeing at the conspiracy theories page is a consensus that disagrees with you. As is often the case in relatively low-traffic pages, the consensus is small enough that otherwise useful guidelines such as WP:1AM don't likely apply. That said, I'd suggest that engaging in edit warring behaviour against multiple editors is not likely to lead to an outcome that you like. If you believe a broader consensus is necessary, I'd suggest you propose a RfC. Now when putting forward an RfC a few items that are important:

Be specific. Ask about specific sources, specific edits, or specific wordings.
Do not include your opinion in the RfC question. Instead, put a comment of support or opposition to the specific topic of the RfC in the !votes section.
Post notices about the RfC on appropriate noticeboards. Generally putting a neutral notification of an RfC on a noticeboard or a wikiproject will not be considered canvassing and will allow for a diversity of opinions.
Be prepared that the consensus coming out of the RfC might disagree with you. I know from personal experience that sometimes I've been involved in a content dispute that I've brought to RfC and the consensus that formed was against me. At that point, accept that is the way it'll be and move on. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "The WP:BRD system is not working", because you will not accept that consensus has not gone in your favor, Dentren. At least three different editors have reverted your addition. You WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT; so, the pattern has been that you wait a short time and then revert to what you want and then cry foul. It has been explained to you the reason why editors, at this time, belief it should not be added. It is true consensus can change, but at some point one needs to drop the stick and move on. Kierzek (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kierzek I fail to see how you can still defend your points as valid as I have refuted them. You have misintrepred my edits, I hope you don't take this personally, but you seem not have bothered to read in detail what I am saying the talk page. I think mention of Basti is legitimate and I have explained why reasons to not include him does not seem valid. If you give me a good reason in the talk page, I will drop this. I am open to revise my opinion and I hope you also are. Dentren | ^Talk 14:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dentren has chosen to take my advice and submit an RfC. I'm providing some additional guidance at article talk about some improvements they can make to the RfC question. I would suggest there's no need to litigate a content dispute here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hope it's ok if I mark this as resolved for now. If anyone disagrees feel free to remove the tag. Poveglia (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

error on my wikipedia page - I am a New York Times journalist

Hi, I'm hoping someone can help fix my page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Amy_Harmon

I am a reporter with the New York Times. Previously my page was accurate but someone has changed it to reflect the biography of another Amy Harmon, who is a romance novelist. Can the changes please be reverted. We are not the same person. This is especially damaging to me as a journalist.

Errors: She was raised in Levan, Utah amongst the wheat fields. -- I was not, I was raised in New York City.

All of this is incorrect: In addition to her work as a journalist, Amy Harmon has also written 14 novels. Harmon grew up in a house with no television and was an avid reader instead. Her love of reading gave her a great understanding of what makes a good story, and this has fuelled her career as an author.

Two of her novels, Making Faces and Running Barefoot, have both become USA Today bestselling titles and Prom Night in Purgatory featured on the New York Times bestseller list. Making Faces was published in 2013 and is a romance novel for young adults. It is a coming of age novel which has been described as a modern retelling of Beauty and the Beast. Running Barefoot is another title for young adult readers. It tells the story of a romance between a small town American girl and a Native American boy.

Also a USA Today, Wall Street Journal, and NY Times Bestselling novelist of romance, fiction, historical fiction, romantic suspense, fantasy, paranormal romance, hailing from Neverland, U.S. , Levan, Utah, She is known to have written several mind-blowing novel series and standalone novels, including: The Purgatory series, The Bird and the Sword series, The Law of Moses book series; Making Faces, A Different Blue, From Sand & Ash, Running Bare Foot, Infinity Plus One, What the Wind Knows, and others. The most recent novel written by Harmon and expected to come out August 20, 2019:

The First Girl Child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.149.100.110 (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else reverted that recent addition. Please check if the article is correct now and let us know. Thank you, Poveglia (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The addition was unsourced and I have removed it. Thank you for not trying to edit the article yourself. The place to point out errors or request changes is on the article's talk page, Talk:Amy Harmon. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I contact an administrator?

Is there any way for me to contact an administrator, other than by use of the "admin help" template? I have a problem that I need some help with, and I don't want to "advertise" the problem on my Talk Page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for example you can send a WP:EMAIL, or go on WP:IRC. If you want to talk to a specific person onwiki you can use use WP:PING. But evading scrutiny, like it sounds like you are trying to do, is not a good idea. Poveglia (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you not want to advertise the problem that you've been caught violating copyrights on your talk page? Poveglia (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Poveglia: Please assume good faith. There are a number of legitimate reasons why someone may want to make such a request in private. Spadaro has been an editor for just over 12 years. So I'm sure they're not entirely clueless to how things work around here.

@Joseph A. Spadaro: If you would like, you can send a private email message to info-en-v

wikimedia.org and it will be answered from one of the members of our volunteer response team. GMG ^talk 14:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is not a suicide pact. You obviously don't know the "problem" Spadaro is talking about; its the fact I caught him violating copyright. If he's been doing that for 12 years we have a big problem. Poveglia (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On a side-note: I'm pretty sure not all OTRS members are admins, and I'd guess they'd be the minority of OTRS volunteers. Poveglia (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

Hi, I'm reading the third book in the series The Last Kingdom by Bernard Cornwell and I noted on the Wiki page for Thule that he references Thule in the book on pages 179-181. I received an error; however, I'm unsure how to fix it, as I have never edited a Wiki page before. I could use some assistance, as I wasn't fraudulently adding information on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.169.9 (talk • contribs)

You added the following:

The Lords of the North, by Bernard Cornwell, pages 179-181<ref></ref>.

That should be more like:

<ref>The Lords of the North, by Bernard Cornwell, pages 179-181</ref>

and then you need to add that in the correct place; after the statement the source is supporting. See WP:REF for a detailed explanation.Poveglia (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When referencing a book it is wise to include the ISBN. The template {{cite book}} can be useful. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of International Events

The page does not include Jiu-Jitsu events.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.26.226.210 (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user. We haven't got an article called List of international events. Which article are you talking about? --ColinFine (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to Visualize a Part of an Image?

Hello, co-editors. Could you please give me a link to the explanation how could I visualize just a (left/right/upper/lower) part of an image from Commons in Wikipedia? I'm sure the information I need is published somewhere, but it's always like this - gigabytes of very detailed and very unnecessary information and nothing on the question, which I really need. Thanks, Иван (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanov id: Which image on which page? {{CSS image crop}} can display part of an image but it's often better to upload a cropped version of the image. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much :) I'll consider uploading a cropped image. Иван Ivan (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a table which is in a template without editing the template

How do I edit a table that is contained in a template, without editing that template? Or does one need to "de-template" the content or userfy it or something? --ObersterGenosse (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ObersterGenosse: You usually have to edit the template. Which table do you want to edit on which page? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unable to edit the template directly a WP:EDITREQUEST might help. You should be able to view the contents of the template even if you are unable to edit it. Poveglia (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to edit the template and I can, but I don't want it to have immediate consequences on all articles that contain the template. How can I do that in my sandbox? --ObersterGenosse (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases explains how template sandboxes work. Poveglia (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ObersterGenosse: It's hard to give proper help when you conceal which page you want help with. Maybe Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases is of use to your secret page. You can also copy the template code to a personal sandbox (note attribution at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia) but it may or may not work there depending on its code and which changes you want to test. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on their contribs I'd say we're probably talking about {{2018–19 Bundesliga table}}. See also User:ObersterGenosse/Sandbox. Poveglia (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I might try copying the template code, and yes, I do want to test something regarding Bundesliga/other league tables. --ObersterGenosse (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]