Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The owner of all (talk | contribs) at 19:30, 17 November 2023 (→‎"Thank" error: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    ↑ To top of page
    Shortcuts
    Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)
    Ask a question
    Skip to top
    Skip to bottom

    November 14

    Removing italics from article title

    Is there a way to remove the italic format from an article title? For example, Together in Electric Dreams is styled in italics, but it's a song—not an album/EP—so it should not have that styling. There is no "italic title" template on the page, so I don't know how to fix this. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Italic title is almost always the results of the "italic title" template or an infobox that forces italicization. This was the latter, with the use of Infobox album lower on the page leading to unwanted consequences. I think I fixed it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me. Thanks. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Trigon (game)

    Is "Trigon" a term to be put in italics? JackkBrown (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @JackkBrown: I don't think so, just like we don't italicize football, baseball, or basketball. GoingBatty (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or Pasuckuakohowog. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoingBatty: @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: why then are "Caid (sport)" and "Episkyros" put in italics? JackkBrown (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone thought it was a good idea? It may be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JackkBrown: I think your questions about italicization would be better asked at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. GoingBatty (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Request rollback

    I made a mess, could you kindly undo all my changes on the Trigon (game) page? JackkBrown (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Maproom (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Italicising words written in the Greek alphabet seems weird. It's not like anyone would mistake them for English words. Maproom (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JackkBrown: As you will know from reading MOS:FOREIGNITALICS which you have been directed to many times, MOS:BADITALICS forbids it. You have also been told not to use direct italics, but to place non-English words inside the appropriate {{lang}} tag. Ecco un esempio: {{lang|it|Ecco un esempio}}. And, εδώ είναι ένα άλλο παράδειγμα: {{lang|el|εδώ είναι ένα άλλο παράδειγμα}}. Bazza (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is wrong to italicize words written with the Greek script per MOS:FOREIGN.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Notability Question

    I'm interested in writing my first BLP. My articles to date have all been listings on the National Register of Historic Places, so inherently notable. I'm reasonably sure my potential subject meets our notability threshold, but I would appreciate a second opinion so as to not waste my time. My question mainly involves the balance of regional vs. national coverage: the person is a real estate developer who has received extensive regional independent news coverage. I've only found one national source so far, but it's a good one: a 1,300-word profile in the New York Times (an abridged version of the same article ran in the Seattle Times). Am I correct in assuming the combined coverage lends notability, or would more national coverage be necessary? DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not possible to give you a definite answer without particulars, but on the basis of what you've said: a single source is rarely adequate; the NYT is generally a reliable source but reliability does not depend only on the publisher, but on other factors as well.
    And it depends very much on what you mean by a "profile" - that often means something that will basically have been provided by the subject or their associates, which is not what is required. Is this the result of independent research, or has it been written up from an interview or press release?
    I do wonder why people so often think that they can get an answer to a question about a specific case without telling us what that specific case is. ColinFine (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ColinFine My apologies for being vague; it was more out of a mindset of trying to give enough information without making someone actually scan through a half dozen sources. The subject's name is Ed Walker from Roanoke, Virginia - the NYT piece contains quotes from an interview but seems independently written. I don't have a WP Library-friendly link, but the citation is Ryzik, Melena.  "Virginia Developer Is On A Mission To Revive His Town". New York Times; New York, N.Y.. 25 July 2012: A.11.
    And I do realize a single source would likely be insufficient. The article would be combined with the considerable amount of regional coverage, I just don't know how much weight that hold towards overall notability. Thanks for the assistance either way. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DrOrinScrivello: See this archived version. When writing the citation in a Wikipedia article, you don't need to write that the New York Times is published in New York. The location would be more important for a smaller publication, or an ambiguous name such as The Record. GoingBatty (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoingBatty Thanks for the link and the tip. I copy pasted from Proquest and thought to remove the "Late Edition (East Coast)" but didn't think about the location.
    I'll add that this is particular occasion is not a big deal, I have plenty to occupy my time with the project Ed Walker article or no, but it has piqued my interest for future reference regarding national vs. regional coverage and notability. In doing research before coming here I came across WP:AUD, but that is only specific to organizations. Is there an exisiting essay or guideline that applies to people? DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DrOrinScrivello: Yes, WP:NBIO. GoingBatty (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoingBatty I'm aware of WP:NBIO, but it doesn't seem to make any distinction between national and regional coverage. I found some discussion in the archives of its talk page, but nothing definitive. I'll likely just stay away from any fringe cases and stick with my corner of the encyclopedia that's a little more straightforward. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are unsure, start a draft in your userspace. As long as it's in your userspace and not draft space, it won't be subject to G13, so you can take your time. If you are unsure about the sourcing, ask someone to take a look at it once you're relatively happy with it. If you really want to subject it to some scrutiny, you can send it through articles for creation, but don't feel obligated. I would encourage you to go for it though. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ONUnicorn Thanks for the suggestions and encouragement. I only recently discovered how useful the userspace can be. I'll work up a draft eventually and see how it goes. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I wanted to Change my user name.

    I made my user name Fortune2725, then went back and tried to change it to my Name Ryan Hyman, and it now added another account that is somehow linked to the Fortune2725 user name. I do not want to use Fortune2725 as my user name. I would like to use my name Ryan Hyman. Fortune2725 (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fortune2725: Hi there! I see you successfully created the Ryan Hyman user. Log out of Wikipedia, and log in as Ryan Hyman, and you'll be all set. GoingBatty (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It said the account already exists now. Fortune2725 (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; assuming you were the one who created Ryan Hyman, you can log out of this account and enter the credentials to use that one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Log/Fortune2725 shows it was you who created Ryan Hyman. As the others say, just log out and back in as Ryan Hyman. The account Fortune2725 will still exist but you can ignore it. If you want to edit beyond this section with both accounts then see Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikilinking Special:Log

    Is there a way to Wikilink rather than external-link a Special:Log? Specifically, a Wikilink instead of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Selby+Abbey Something like [[Special:Log&page=Selby+Abbey]] which doesn't work. Special:Log&page=Selby+Abbey If you could point me to a help page, that would be great. help:log doesn't seem to have any such info. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't look as if you can: you can specify the kind of log in a wikilink, but not the "target". See Help:Special page. ColinFine (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adakiko: I think you can only wikilink by log type and performer, not target. See mw:Help:Log. Query strings with "&" never work in wikilinks. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can also link to single specific log entries with Special:Redirect, like Special:Redirect/logid/155248539. But no, you can't wikilink by target, which is the most glaring omission, nor by subtype (like only restorations in the deletion log). —Cryptic 23:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Adakiko (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    November 15

    Help! I used to be able to choose language of the artickles

    I want to search articles and have an option to see these articles in different languages, like in the old Wikipedia version. English versions often are different from, say, those in the Russian Wikipedia. Help! Alex R. (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey there. I assume that you are currently using the Vector (2022) skin? If so, you can change languages of the article (you may be viewing) in the top right corner. Well known subjects are available in the Russian language. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 02:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Italics

    How do I put italics on one word in the title, such as the word oinochoe in "Oinochoe by the Shuvalov Painter"? JackkBrown (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @JackkBrown: There is a parameter in {{Italic title}} you can use to specify which part of the title to put in italics. RudolfRed (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JackkBrown:{{Italic title|string=Oinochoe}} Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JackkBrown:: You might see other editors use {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, such as {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Oinochoe'' by the Shuvalov Painter}}. GoingBatty (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Did I handle this okay?

    I noticed a typo on Corpus Delicti (band), saw that the article was...really bad... and went in the history to find that an editor added a lot of content to the article with a lot of problems. I went on the editor's talk page and left a message explaining why the edits weren't very good. Was my handling of the situation okay? Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, if it was one editor who did those edits, then just revert the edits and leave a message on the editor's talk page explaining the problems. That's what you did, and I'd say that's good! ThatOneWolf (talk|contribs) 12:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there Dialmayo, thanks for coming to the help desk! the edit seemed like copyvio to me so I ran a quick test using earwig and it was a direct copy and paste from another website that was not suitably licensed, so I reverted the edits and tagged it for revision deletion for copyright reasons. I echo ThatOneWolf in saying that your note on the other editor's talk page was really good, thanks for your contributions! Justiyaya 13:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch with the copyvio! That's a neat tool, by the way. I'll make sure to remember it. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 15:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "Thyrsus"

    Hi, "Thyrsus" and "Kylix" goes in italics? JackkBrown (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @JackkBrown: I think your questions about which words should be italicized would be better asked at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. GoingBatty (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    James IV king of Scots

    The entry on Scotland refers to James IV as being the last British king to die in battle . This is wrong . He was Scottish and never was British . How can we change that please Ensb1 (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ensb1. I see the lead of James IV of Scotland states "James was the last monarch in Great Britain to be killed in battle", and Great Britain includes Scotland, so this seems OK. I don't see anywhere in the article where he is described as British. However, if I'm missing the sentence you want changed, then I suggest you start a discussion on Talk:James IV of Scotland, and specify the exact sentence you want to be changed, and suggest the alternate wording. Or be bold and change it yourself. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    yes but the entry on scotland itself says british and this is what needs to be changed
    eg
    The Treaty of Perpetual Peace was signed in 1502 by James IV of Scotland and Henry VII of England. James married Henry's daughter, Margaret Tudor. James invaded England in support of France under the terms of the Auld Alliance and became the last British monarch to die in battle, at Flodden in 1513. 151.43.159.130 (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    British is just wrong> he was scottish.. always and would never have accepted being designated as british Ensb1 (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed Scotland to match James IV of Scotland: "the last monarch in Great Britain to die in battle". I hope that satisfies all. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [Edit Conflict] Ensb1, the terms 'British' and 'Scottish' can refer to ethnicities, regionalities and nationalities, which are not always the same thing, and which all vary in application according to date.
    With reference to James IV, he is considered British because he was both native to and ruler of a part of Great Britain, and it is a given that (what is now) "Scotland" (previously Caledonia or Pictland, taken over by Scots from Ulster) is and always has been geographically part of the island of Great Britain (and used to be called "North Britain" in one period). Incidentally, his family line probably descended from a Breton who took part in the Norman conquest of England.
    Description of people in a modern encyclopaedia article are generally made according to modern historical analyses and understanding. What James IV himself would have called himself at the time, because of political circumstances then applying, has no bearing on the matter. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    no no no..great britain did not exist at that time full stop. he was scottish and king of scots and would not himself consider himself as british..That is the salient point. show him some respect . of course there are many ethnicities and many ways of being scottish but at that time he was monarch of an independent kingdom fighting the english .. it was not a civil war but a war between two states.. end of exchange he was scottish Ensb1 (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being Scottish (which he was) does not exclude him from being British in the modern sense being used. You are equivocating. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In Great Britain it says "The term Great Britain was first used officially in 1474, in the instrument drawing up the proposal for a marriage between Cecily, daughter of Edward IV of England, and James, son of James III of Scotland". The names "μεγάλη Βρεττανία" and "megale Brettania" were used in the second century A.D. Maproom (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is nonsense. Saying that he was Scottish and not British makes as much sense as saying that he was Scottish and not European, or that he was a man and not a human being. JBW (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How could he ever have been British ? For goodness sake . If he weee here he would tell you he was Scottish . Ensb1 (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Were here Ensb1 (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ensb1 As far as I can see, you seem to be confusing "existing" with "existing as a political entity". Italy had existed for a very long time before the Kingdom of Italy was formed, for much of its history as a number of separate states; likewise India existed as a geographical area covered by the territories of numerous states before it became a unified state. Iceland existed for over 400 years as a part of the kingdom of Norway, and later for almost a century as a part of the kingdom of Denmark, long before the Kingdom of Iceland came into existence in 1918. Britain is an island, which has existed for the best part of 10,000 years, long before the concept of Scotland was invented. JBW (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Scotland was an independent state and kingdom in 1513 QED. SO
    lets stop this fruitless exchange Ensb1 (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Siana Cup; Lip Cup

    Could someone rename these two pages? "Cup" should be in lowercase. Thank you! "Siana Cup; "Lip Cup". JackkBrown (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You have the ability to perform most page moves yourself, JackkBrown. Where you don't, or where some other problem might arise, Wikipedia:Moving a page explains how to proceed. -- Hoary (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JackkBrown: You have been told, on at least three separate occasions at the help desk, how to change a page's title by moving it, and what you can do if you can't do it yourself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Accessing to the previous Help_desk page content

    How Can I access to the older versions of this page (Help_desk) to refer to the reply for my post around 10 days ago ?? Bezyjoon (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your reply is at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 November 4#Adjusting the Break Line Height to a fraction ratio. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, But I would like to know how I can access older posts for future reference ? Bezyjoon (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bezyjoon: There's a callout box on the right-hand side near the top of this page titled "Search the help desk archives and other help pages". You can type terms to look up then click Search the archives. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks ! Bezyjoon (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    November 16

    Thank you

    Britain did not exist in 1513. You are placing modern ideas into then please stop this Ensb1 (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ensb1, we have 6,745,909 articles and people answering questions here are not mind readers. Which specific article are you taking about, and which specific passage? Vague griping is not useful. Cullen328 (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ensb1, "Thank you" is a polite but curiously uninformative heading. I note that on a possibly related matter, you recently wrote "end of exchange". -- Hoary (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ensb1, please read Great_Britain#Terminology.   Maproom (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You already appear to have raised this at Talk:James_IV_of_Scotland#James_IV_king_of_Scots, which is the correct place. There is no need to mention it here as well unless you have a specific question about editing Wikipedia. Shantavira|feed me 08:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: template merges

    This is a general Wikipedia question, so an answer isn't pressing but I'm just curious. The Vital article template has been planned to merge into the banner shell since May of this year. Is there any set time for these merges or is the merge simply done when someone with initiative who knows how to edit a template does? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There's an open request at WP:BOTREQ#Implement project-independent quality assessments to complete some step of the larger process that includes this merger. The template does not appear in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. Folly Mox (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Folly Mox It does, actually. Under "other".PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops 🙃 Maybe someday I'll learn how to read. I hope my hastily posted two links give you some idea of possible template merger processes. Usually there's no set time, but depending on the scope, the processes can be very different. I recently took care of one of these myself, an easy case which could probably have been solved with a redirect (my own opinion at the TfD). Sometimes it requires a high degree of technical know how, as in the case you brought up. Folly Mox (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Government of the USSR and Premier of the USSR

    Hi

    The Government of the Soviet Union has its own article, which is good. But the Government of the USSR for the period 1922-1946 (then named Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union) also has its own article and the Council of Ministers (Soviet Union) also has its own articles. These articles more or less say the same thing. Moreover, one also has an article for the Council of People's Commissars. The Soviet Constitution clearly states that the Council of People's Commissars, Council of Ministers, Cabinet of Ministers el cetre are all "The highest executive and administrative organ of state authority of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is Council of People's Commissars/Council of Ministers/Cabinet of Ministers". That is, they are the same bodies.

    The argument for having distinct articles is that a) the government functioned differently in 1920 than in 1980 and b) having one article makes it difficult to see that. Not only is this wrong, most scholarly work on the USSR says the government and economy functioned more or less the same from the 1930s to the 1980s, it also begs the question why we haven't split up the HM Treasury, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Prime Minister of Norway el cetra for all these institutions have undergone name changes and, of course, undergone transformations in how they worked.

    Likewise, we have an article, Premier of the Soviet Union which is WP:FL, good, which is about the Soviet heads of government. We also have, for no apparent reason, articles on the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union, which deal with the same topic and don't bring anything new.

    My main point here is that, regarding the Soviet Government, we don't have one article on the topic but four. How that helps the reader is beyond me. The logical thing would be to have a "Government of the Soviet Union" article and a "History of the Government of the Soviet Union" article if one is interested in reading about the government's historical transformation.

    @MarcusTraianus: is the main creator of these articles. We are discussing Talk:Council_of_People's_Commissars_of_the_Soviet_Union#Merge article to Government of the Soviet Union? in which it has become increasingly clear to me that he does not understand the topic at hand or how the government of the USSR works. This is, of course, a difficult subject, and I'm course lucky that I have devoted a thesis on the subject of communist institutions (which I handed in last week), so I know more than the average person and user. Writing on Soviet institutions on WP is very bad, and infactual. For instance, the Politics of the Soviet Union says the USSR had branches of government. The whole point of communist politics is the principle of unified power, that there is only one single branch of government, and that is the highest organ of state power. The editors who have written these articles clearly do not comprehend the subject and misinforms our readers as well.
    @Feeblezak: You're also plinged since you reestablished the Council of Ministers page.

    The reason why I took this discussion here is that no one is participating at the Talk:Council_of_People's_Commissars_of_the_Soviet_Union#Merge article to Government of the Soviet Union? other than I N and MarcusTraianus, which is troublesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUzbek (talk • contribs)

    TheUzbek, coming here to get expert content feedback about USSR governance at a general help forum like this is not a reasonable expectation. I have almost certainly read more about the Soviet Union than a majority of Wikipedia editors and yet I am unprepared to comment about the substance of your claims without hours of reading and research. which isn't going to happen since I have many other things going on in my life. The content dispute should be resolved based on what high quality reliable academic sources say. What we will not do is make major changes based on input from a totally anonymous Wikipedia editor who claims to have submitted a thesis on the matter. Kremlinology and Sovietology are established academic fields, and Wikipedia editors are expected to summarize the work of the widely recognized experts in those closely related fields. Cullen328 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally concur, and as I tried to write, the sources are unanimous... If not here where are we going to get input? TheUzbek (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And expert content; I need someone to see WP:OBVIOUS and WP:REDUNDANT. TheUzbek (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheUzbek You made the merger proposal on 4 November but I don't see it mentioned at WP:USSR's list of announcements as a current proposal. I think you would get more attention by alerting the Project. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See Talk:Premier_of_the_Soviet_Union#Merge_proposal. A user tried that but failed. @Skjoldbro: TheUzbek (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    How reliable of a source is Newgrounds.com?

    Should I cite from there or avoid it entirely? Rubellaclinton (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @rubellaclinton: generally, avoid it. it's user-generated content. ltbdl (talk) 10:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Thanks. Rubellaclinton (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Questions about Wikipedia for an application for a prestigous recognition for Wikipedia

    Hi all

    I know this probably isn't exactly the right place to ask this, but I'm not sure exactly where would be better place. To explain, I'm most of the way through writing an application to request Wikipedia is recognised on a prestigous international list of important cultural heritage. With others I've completed most of the application, however I would really appreciate some help and ideas with the following parts.

    A. What makes Wikipedia as unique? e.g things where it is the largest, most viewed, largest community etc. Anything that sets Wikipedia apart from other websites which provide information.

    B. There is a section where I need to answer questions on the reliability and accuracy of Wikiepdia. Any ideas very welcome, I've discovered an academic, Dr Amy Bruckman, who studied the accuracy of Wikipedia and she defined five different aspects of good systems that facilitate the construction of accurate knowledge:

    1. Opportunities for review
    2. Visibility of degree of review (that the review process is visible)
    3. Support for consensus formation
    4. Provide metadata on the provenance of information
    5. Provide metadata on the credibility of sources

    Please could you suggest which functions of Wikipedia fulfil these criteria?

    Thanks very much

    John Cummings (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    John Cummings, rather obviously, Wikipedia is very big. People use it because people use it; and in this regard, it's very similar to Facebook, Twitter-that-now-has-a-sillier-name, eBay, LinkedIn, Youtube, IMDb, and a few more. Also, while Google develops different search bubbles for different people, if an English-reading person looks up XYZ Google does seem to have a general tendency to prioritize the English-language Wikipedia article on XYZ. (This is also true for Japanese. I wonder about Swedish.) My ideas on the reliability and accuracy of Wikipedia depend considerably on the quality of the articles I've most recently read, and what mood I'm in; I see no reason why anyone other than myself should prioritize them over the results of academic studies, some of which are cited by the articles Reliability of Wikipedia and Wikipedia and fact-checking. In English-language Wikipedia, I do notice an enormous difference between (A) the (moderately stringent) demands made of drafts before they can be promoted to articles, and (B) the (extraordinarily permissive) attitude towards junk articles that have already sat around for years. Good luck with your enterprise! -- Hoary (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A See this page of statistics. For me, the biggest thing that sets Wikipedia apart is that it is a wiki in which (with a few exceptions) every single edit on every article and every Talk Page is still available in the page history, so the evolution of the present text is available to those interested.
    B These aspects are often discussed in The Signpost, so that's where I would look for insight and analysis. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Michael D. Turnbull, can you think of any specific articles from Signpost that might be relevant? John Cummings (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was mainly thinking about the "Recent research" section that appears in nearly every edition, e.g. in the archives for 2022 which looks at how Wikipedia has been commented on in external academic research. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again Michael D. Turnbull, really helpful. John Cummings (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @John Cummings: as part of your research, perhaps you could update our self-referential Wikipedia article and its related articles. -Arch dude (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PRESS 23 and preceding pages may have something of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    football kit/pattern

    Hi, when entering the codes for the colors of a team's shirt, I should put that the shirt is both half of one color and half of another, and that it has a white cross in the middle, but I can't find the pattern anywhere GAALIIAV (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @GAALIIAV: Hi there! It looks like Template:Football kit has lots of useful information, including how to create a new pattern. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to create a new pattern as written on the page, but when I go to use it, it doesn't accept it GAALIIAV (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    conflict of interest

    Hi, I read that if you are writing a page on behalf of a third person, I have to declare my conflict of interest by writing that the page is made on commission. Where should I write the conflict of interest? GAALIIAV (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, please refer to WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE for where you can declare it and what you need to declare. If you have further questions please let us know Best,--PeaceNT (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Donation change?

    Maybe a silly question, but I received a donation request today. It made me feel that I should increase the monthly amount I'm already donating. But I couldn't figure where/how to do that. All the "Donation" places I found assumed I would be a "new" donor and, while I could do the math to make it work out the same, it seemed silly to end up with two different donations every month!

    So, two questions:

    1. Can someone tell me how to get to a page that will allow me to just increase the amount of my existing donation?

    2. Will someone please suggest to TPTB to add to all "donation" pages & requests just a line (in small font would be fine) like:

    "Already a monthly donor, but want to help more? Thanks! Just click <here> to increase the amount of your monthly donation."

    Paul Pdalton (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Welcome and thank you for your question about donations! To hide the fundraising banners, you can create an account and uncheck Preferences → Banners → Empty Fundraising. The Wikimedia Foundation does not track the identity of IP addresses, so it doesn't know your age, income level or whether you donated in the past.
    None of the Wikipedia volunteer editors here who add and improve content in articles receive any financial benefit. We all simply contribute our time because we care about building a great encyclopedia for you and innumerable others around the world to use.
    If you cannot afford it, no one wants you to donate. Wikipedia is not at risk of shutting down, and the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts the Wikipedia platform and is asking for these donations, is richer than ever.
    You are welcome to communicate directly with the donor-relations team by emailing donate@wikimedia.org. Thank you! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    LYCONET‎ and Lyconet

    Hello, while working on NPP I ran across the new page LYCONET‎. The correct title, according to the references (and their website), is Lyconet, but there was already a page of that name. I proposed a merge, but then in the merge discussion found that the situation was a bit more complicated. In 2015 it was repeatedly redirected to Lyoness by a now inactive account, in a bit of an edit war with another now inactive account. The discussion at Talk:Lyconet#Proposed merge of LYCONET into Lyconet clarified the problem somewhat, but I'm not sure how to proceed. There wasn't really a proper consensus for the merge in 2015. The new article contains new information.

    There are several options to resolve this: merge LYCONET‎ to Lyoness? Wait for the merge discussion to come to a consensus? AFD LYCONET‎? Other? I really don't want to AFD, as I can't see a problem with its notability and don't think it should be deleted. Is AFD is the "right way" to resolve this? Wikishovel (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, the prior edit war seems to be quite some time ago so you can wait for a new consensus to emerge and go ahead and merge it yourself. If the merge is reverted, then AFD will be the right venue per WP:ATD-R. --PeaceNT (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that sounds sensible. Wikishovel (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikishovel, mostly for future reference: A company is entirely free to trumpet itself by referring to itself as (for example) ⟨LYCONET⟩. But -- unless perhaps the commonest pronunciation is something like (to continue with this example) "ell why see oh en ee tea" -- Wikipedia ignores this and instead writes ⟨Lyconet⟩. -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking more of WP:COMMONNAME, but forgot to mention that above.
    I've often noticed that editors are reluctant for some reason to create an article at a redirect. Once I was told by an editor with over a year's good edits "I don't know how". Other times it's been an evident dodge of consensus, but I see no evidence of that here. Wikishovel (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:HOUNDING vs WP:Competence is required

    I recently raised an issue on ANI which got archived without a response relating to an editor engaging in edit warring, adding in unsourced material or misrepresenting sourced material, etc. It appears to be an ongoing, persistent problem and I've tracked the users edits for a while simply to keep tabs on where low quality content is being introduced. That said, I've tried to avoid reverting their edits beyond a few pages I was previously active on but at this point I'm concerned about reopening an ANI issue considering the last was closed without comment and I sincerely want to avoid WP:HOUNDING. I'm definitely uncertain of what to do about WP:HOUNDING when there's serious issues with misrepresenting sources, edit warring, and low quality edits as a significant percentage of a user's content without any response from the admins at an ANI, even when other users weighed in that this editor had caused issues before.

    Is there an appropriate way to handle this? I've never had an ANI report simply get archived without comment, especially when reporting a user for ongoing behaviour they've previously received a temp ban for and I genuinely don't want to come across as harassing that user if the report dropping off was intentional. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141 § WP:ADVOCACY editor Yokubjon Juraev. It's true that there was no admin engagement (sometimes this is due to lack of topic area expertise rather than a meritless report; sometimes it's an outcome of the lack of a technical way to mark something as "no action needed"). There were comments from two other editors.
    I've never restored an unactioned thread from a noticeboard archive, but it is sometimes done. Maybe an admin reading this thread can remark on whether the reported actions require admin intervention, or stop by the reported user's talkpage for a word.
    I haven't looked into the diffs in the filing – and I'm not an admin – but the accusations are serious, and I don't think you'd fall afoul of HOUNDING if you made a second report. They don't seem to edit particularly frequently, at least. Folly Mox (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was intentionally not raising the thread in question to avoid hounding in the first place; sorry if that was inappropriate. I figured better to err on the side of caution with vaguery than harass someone unintentionally if there was a reason behind how this played out. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 02:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Warrenmck. I am an adminstrator who saw that thread and chose not to comment. I lack the subject matter expertise to determine whether the disagreement about Xinjiang versus East Turkistan is just a routine content dispute (which does not belong at ANI) or a genuine behavioral issue. The evidence presented was unconvincing, at least to me on first reading. Obvious edit warring should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring as opposed to ANI. Misrepresenting sources is a very serious issue that does belong at ANI, but you need to present ironclad evidence in the form of diffs that make the case persuasively. Do not expect adminstrators to read between the lines and do their own research. You need to make a convincing case yourself when you file a report like this. Cullen328 (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328 Sure thing, I can provide ironclad evidence of edit warring going on during that ANI and since, including the editor in question being called out for edit warring by a third party during the ANI. I don't think it's intentional misrepresentation, hence the title of this post. A huge amount of "there is a speculative theory of X" content from sources is being presented in articles "scholarly consensus is X", and immediate reverts of any attempt to either soften or correct those statements, even when direct quotes to the original sources are provided in edit summaries or talk page posts are made pertaining to them. You're right that the East Turkistan issue is arguably more of a content dispute. I think this is at the limit of what I can in good faith say/provide without a user ping (and possibly beyond it?).
    Since this person has already been temp banned for edit warring and they're (still) misrepresenting sources, should I reopen at ANI? My big issue, and the reason I'm bringing this up again, is there's still an anomalously high number of low quality edits being added regularly, and the speed with which they edit war and their refusal to engage, coupled with admin inaction in any direction in an ANI, puts me and some other editors in a bind of either being perceived as edit warring ourselves or leaving poor quality information which contradicts sources on Wikipedia, hence my concerns specifically relating to WP:HOUNDING and WP:Competence is required.
    As an aside, I think if this was an evidentiary issue on my part, that would have been quite helpful to know, rather than ending up here with this post. Though I understand you all must dig through an ocean of ANI reports with that same issue and it'd probably be a lot of spoons to deal with all of them. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) You did provide some diffs in the initial report, but for example you linked Special:Diff/1183914475 (source misrepresentation) with the text "Adding in a source that does not make the same claim it’s linked to then edit warring over it", without providing any diffs of edit warring. I think the framing was probably a turn-off as well, with the bit about being a proponent of Uzbek language preservation (a non-issue) distracting from the genuine problems. I'd probably wait for more evidence before rereporting, and concisely explain the source misrepresentation / speculation recast as fact in wikivoice (the two really serious, ANI style problems) with diffs supporting each assertion. It might not hurt to propose an admin action, like the imposition of 0RR in the Turkic language topic area or something.
    I don't envy your task. It's niche, but the "proto-Turkic" topic area is actually super fraught, with POV pushers and mediaeval ethnicity genre warriors whose research style can often be characterised as "find any citation matching this search string and add it to my preferred claim without context or assessment for fringeiness". Countering them requires some experience in things like historical linguistics, central Asian history, and sometimes competency in languages that most people here can't read. Hopefully your diligence got more eyes on the problem, and more people can coach the user towards proper source usage like the conversation a few months back at Talk:Turkic languages#Tatar in Romania.
    Lastly, it was kind of you to avoid mentioning the specific ANI thread archived without action, but it's very difficult for people here to answer questions accurately based off generalities, which is why I dug up and posted the link. Folly Mox (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd probably wait for more evidence before rereporting
    Since that ANI, they’ve engaged in further edit warring and most of their recent edits which aren’t formatting are either unsourced content which, in my attempts to be supportive rather than just instantly revert I cannot even remotely verify, or cite textbooks in a way that misrepresents the underlying citation. If I made a weak case, that’s firmly on me, but my case aside something does need to be done about incorrect information regularly being added to Wikipedia followed by edit warring over it as an extremely routine behaviour. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    November 17

    Cory Markum

    Is Cory Markum notable. MagicalPrince863 (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    MagicalPrince863, whoever Cory Markum might be, here, in this discussion thread, present the URLs of what you consider to be the best three web pages about them. Each of the three must be reliable and should describe or discuss Markum in depth. -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you need to ask if someone is notable, the answer is likely to be no. The only source that I could find is here, which is definitely not WP:GNG territory.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Page mover/swapper needed here!

    Whoever page mover and swapper you are, please help close the move on Talk:Cancer Minor (constellation). 112.120.56.105 (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Tollens (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Why my edits are getting removed?

    Please help me understand the reason behind my contributions being undone. Kashley79 (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kashley79: Assuming you're referring to Eleanor McEvoy, I will say that this revision is justifiably removed. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, and phrases like [...] has sprinkled his magic on Eleanor McEvoy's enchanting song are inappropriate. The other things are minor but potentially annoying to other editors without investigating any further. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kashley79 People have left some helpful (if generic) messages on your talk page in an attempt to let you know why your contributions are being undone. Have you read them? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Oldest article with only one editor?

    I was wondering what the oldest (mainspace) article is with only one editor, when I realized I don't even know how to get a list of the the articles with only one editor at all... Ideas? Naraht (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Naraht, WP:RAQ would probably be the venue I'd ask about this. Folly Mox (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Asked there, got a response that it would require an almost complete table scan of the 1.2B table of edits and may not even give the right answer due to the spottiness of edits kept in the first year. Consider the request dropped.Naraht (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    G11 an extremely stale user sandbox?

    Hi, and hope you're well. Does User:Gurudev Bapji/sandbox qualify for WP:G11? Thanks in advanced! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If I found that tagged for G11, I would decline it. Several factors that would go into my decision include:
    • The draft is in a user sandbox, not main space, and not even draft space. I give more leeway to userspace drafts, thought will still delete blatant advertising no matter where it is found.
    • The subject of the draft is deceased. I feel G11 is less applicable to deceased individuals and defunct companies than to living persons and companies that are still in existence. That said, G11 can still apply to deceased individuals where living persons still have a financial/emotional/whatever stake in promoting them.
    • The draft doesn't read to me as exclusively and unambiguously promotional. It's obviously written by an adherent of the faith the subject founded, and would need heavy editing to be neutral enough for mainspace, but I do think there are usable parts of the draft if someone was inclined to write an actual article about this person.
    • This particular draft is about a spiritual leader. There is a mainspace article about the denomination he founded. It seems to me that the mainspace article about the denomination is a slightly more useful vehicle for promotion than a userspace draft. This seems like something to keep an eye on - the mainspace article is orange tagged for potentially being written by someone with a COI, having neutrality problems, and needing secondary sources. If this draft were to appear in mainspace I may have concerns about a burgeoning walled garden written by people with a COI on this topic, but as long as it's just hanging out in userspace I don't think it's an issue YET.
    • I do see that the account that created that userspace draft is blocked for sock puppetry. If this were tagged for G5, I think it would be more likely to be deleted than under G11.
    • The page view analysis indicates that, before yesterday, this was getting less than one view a day. If this is a vehicle for promotion, it's not a very successful one.
    Overall, my assessment of this is mostly harmless. I would decline a G11, and not bother with a G5. I'm not interested enough in diving down this particular rabbit hole to adopt the article and try to research and rewrite it. I would just ignore it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gurudev Bapji is blocked indefinitely. Bazza (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as I noted in my response above. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a feeling something like it applied and just wanted to make sure. Thanks for the thorough response! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Window Dressers

    Somone named Johnny Lamberti continues to add his name under notable Window Dressers which is a fault statement. He is an unknown and only tried to add his name for his own monetary purposes. He is not notable, famous or has nothing to do with window dressers. Please look into this further and stop him from adding his name to under Notable Window Dressers. Tinkerbell4444 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy link: Window dresser.
    I took a look, and I see it's been added and removed a few times this month, along with someone trying to add "and FAMOUS" to the section title, but I don't think the level of disruption is high enough for page protection. However, if the issues keep up, feel free to request semi-protection of the page. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreover, I feel like that article has succumbed to a common issue, where the list of examples is longer than the rest of the article. Unseen character is another article that has long had that issue. Perhaps we should consider spinning the examples off into a List of notable window dressers. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the entries on that list are for people who aren't notable (e.g. Diane Arbus's father) or who are notable but not for being a window dresser ( e.g. Armani, Bailey, Barr). Someone with more time and patience than me needs to go through the list and trim it ruthlessly. Maproom (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    List of unseen characters had around 600 examples when it was redirected in 2007. Unseen character only has around 30 examples. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrimeHunter I've opened a discussion on Talk:Unseen_character#Spin_off_the_examples?. I will correct you though; the version that was redirected after the 2009 AFD only included 2 examples. The version that was deleted in 2007 after the second AFD for that article had around 600 examples and approximately zero sources. The first AFD in 2006 resulted in a keep, and that version was very similar to what was deleted a year later. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "in 2007". PrimeHunter (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but it wasn't redirected in 2007, it was deleted then. (The history was restored during the 2009 AFD). ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC) Not that this is that important[reply]

    Removing infobox map

    Does anyone know how to suppress the appearance of the map at Protector Shoal? It is not really good. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jo-Jo Eumerus: |mapframe=no. It's not documented but I looked at the code of {{Infobox seamount}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "Thank" error

    I receive an error when attempting to send thanks for the edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Thanks/1184320747 . When I click on that button the error is " [1bf58c78-5069-4ae2-a993-5a96d846dd51] 2023-11-17 19:30:16: Fatal exception of type "Error" " . TOA The owner of all ☑️ 19:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=1185592478"