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

Back link from links

Using Chrome on Android phone.

After expanding a number of sections on a Wikipedia page and then hyperlinking to somewhere else, when I back link sometimes it does not return back to the point I link from. It will either return back to the beginning of the article or to the beginning of one of the sections of the article but not to the point I was originally on.

Mainly seems to happen with very deep pages with lots of sections

Have you tried other browsers that don't use Blink (browser engine)? Firefox, for example. This problem sounds more like the browser's CSS handling than a problem with Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint. Yes on trying Firefox, it works ok. Now to convince the Google people they have a bug in Android Chrome and see if the will fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.185.202.59 (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

constructive or unconstructive editing

What is it that makes an edit unconstructive or constructive? Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer your question with a question - what was the reason for this edit that appeared to add random letters? 331dot (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The letters are part of a link. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That may have appeared to the editor that reverted you to be unconstructive, which is why they gave you that message. You may simply inform the other editor of that. 331dot (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about a partially unconstructive IP editor?

I'm not sure about the best way to proceed with a constructive but not completely helpful IP editor editing from several addresses. They have been updating several baseball team roster templates, but they haven't been updating the date after each update, and they won't properly format single-digit uniform numbers. I've tried explaining on their talk pages how it would be helpful if they would begin doing so, but the edits continue, and they haven't responded. I'm assuming good faith on their part. It seems like they just aren't seeing the messages. What should I do? Request blocks for each address used? IP range block? Template semi-protection? (The templates in question are Template:Milwaukee Brewers roster, Template:Nashville Sounds roster, Biloxi, Template:Wisconsin Timber Rattlers roster, Template:Carolina Mudcats roster, Template:Arizona Complex League Brewers Blue roster, and Template:Arizona Complex League Brewers Gold roster. The addresses of the editor can be seen in their edit histories.) Thanks. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there's often nothing you can do in situations like this, NatureBoyMD, due to the nature of dynamic IPs and WMF incompetence (WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU—notice this IP editor is on mobile web). If the edits are useful but ill-formatted, the best solution may be to just keep tidying up after them. If they are a net negative, a rangeblock might be regrettably necessary. — Bilorv (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do about it when this page is miscategorized badly: bioherbicide ? it isn't medical toxicology.

Besides the poor organization of the sections, text, and references, bioherbicide suffers from having been categorized as a Medicine Portal article and Toxicology. It is almost right, except farmers work on fields of crops, and doctors work on the bodies of the patients. The topic should be marked as Important, since we are trying to save the world from ecological disaster^{[citation needed]}. Thinkadoodle (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thinkadoodle, the article was created as part of a university project, which often means that the editors are inexperienced. It was assigned to an inappropriate wikiproject, WikiProject Medicine, which I fixed by finding a similar article, Biopesticide and replacing WikiProject Medicine with the Agriculture and Environment wikiprojects. Incidentally, categories are found at the bottom of the article, while WikiProjects are found on the talk page. TSventon (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to track lengthy WP discussions

Is there a 'power user' way to track lengthy discussions here? I've been following [1], for example, but it's not easy to see where new content has been added compared to the last time I viewed it a day or two prior. I can view page history, but that's not a particularly great way of seeing the new content at a glance. Are there other tools I'm not aware of that would make this easier? Retswerb (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncommon for long discussions to be broken up with section breaks; i.e. section headers inserted at points to ease editing, navigation, and reading. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this helps some. But I'd like an easier way to see new replies added in the middle of the discussion as well as content added at the bottom of each section. I'm guessing it doesn't exist, just figured I'd ask and make sure I wasn't missing something obvious. Retswerb (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retswerb this may be obvious, but if you view page history, you can click 'cur' to see the difference between an old revision and the current one. TSventon (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've been doing that but it still feels unwieldy when there are a ton of changes. Good call making the suggestion though, thank you! Retswerb (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Retswerb This is absolutely cutting-edge beta technology, so it might stop working at any time or cause unpleasant things to happen, but try editing your browser's address bar to put ?dtenable=1 at the end of the page title (NOT the whole URL!). For example, right now my address bar says "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_to_track_lengthy_WP_discussions". I would edit that to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk?dtenable=1" - delete the # and everything after it, then add ?dtenable=1. After you do that, there should be "subscribe" links in every section header. Click them to receive a notification every time someone posts a new message in the section. Don't do this too often - they're still testing it and probably I shouldn't even be spreading news of this around, but there you go. The year is 2021 and we can now subscribe to discussions. While I'm here, also click on "Beta" in the bar at the top of the page, check the "Discussion tools" box, and press Save to enable little "Reply" links at the end of every comment, which makes participating in discussions much easier. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I'll give that a try. Thank you! Retswerb (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another tool that might be useful is c:User:Jack who built the house/Convenient Discussions. Among many other features, it gives comments added since your last visit green backgrounds, and adds buttons to the side of the page for scrolling to the next unread comment. – Rummskartoffel 17:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that sounds like just the trick! I'll give it a shot. Retswerb (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Wikipedia

A user called "Lightofiran" and many others manipulate the Turkic peoples and Azerbaijanis articles. They persistently include that "Azeri people are Iranian by genetically". Arguing the genetic characters of the people which has a distinct language and a culture is an actual racism and they are doing this by using controversial references. Denial of the Azeri existence is a government policy of Iran and they are the supporters of this policy. This is shameful.188.119.40.236 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:49, 12 September 2021‎

What is your question and what action do you want to be taken? You can discuss user conduct issues at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where you must notify the user in question of the discussion and provide "diff" links and talk page discussion links to substantiate any claims. — Bilorv (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@188.119.40.236: Lightofiran has made two edits to Turkic peoples and one to Azerbaijanis. In total, that is three more than you have made. What you are bringing up here seems on the face of it to be a content dispute. The correct venue to raise content disputes is at the talk page of the articles involved. Mjroots (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this claim is just completely absurd. I was merely referencing sources that are already previously sourced on the page. I wrote on the page that Azeris speak Turkic language and have Turkic culture but they are in fact of Iranian people origin. Please justify how this is racist. Please review origin of Azeri page as well it backs up my edit. Please do not throw out an extreme accusation as racist. I am half Turkic Iranian myself. I am clarifying that Turkic only refers to culture and language. User:Light of Iran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightofiran (talk • contribs) 20:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to translate a French Wiki article into English

I'm sure there's a better way of translating an article than converting it back to Word and then recreating all the refs and images and links! But I can't find a simple way to do it in your help pages. I'll need weeks to work on it before publishing, and apparently the sandbox wants me to review right away and publish: not possible. Where is a "brouillon" page in English to do this work, and save it without publishing immediately?

I'm sort of a novice, although I did the whole thing in French already.

Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orracudi (talk • contribs) 12:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Orracudi: for more experienced editors, there's a Content Translation tool, but I think your best way of translating at present will be manual. Take a look at Help:Translation. To answer the question, there are lots of places you can save works in progress: User:Orracudi/sandbox or Draft:Article name you're translating here might be the traditional ones, but you can actually put it anywhere in your userspace that you like, like User:Orracudi/sandbox 18 or User:Orracudi/Upcoming translation draft. Sometimes code in the French Wikipedia will be different so if that's what you're having trouble with, I'm afraid I'm not aware of a way to do this automatically. You can use the code editor's "find and replace" tool to replace French template names that appear many times with English ones all in one go.

(These are red links because they don't exist, but you can create them, and eventually move them to "mainspace"—the place live articles go—when you're ready. To move a page, you have to have made 10 edits, which I assume you'll have reached by then.)

There are a few things you want to think about upfront, before trying to translate a French Wikipedia article into English:

The French Wikipedia community are completely different from the English one, so they have different standards in lots of places. Also, like our Wikipedia, the French Wikipedia has lots of pages that are just bad and don't meet the standards the wider community has set. The main thing you need to check is that there are enough references to establish notability of the topic.
It's very important for legal reasons to attribute the content appropriately, even though you're translating it. At minimum, you need an edit summary saying "Translated from the French article [link here]", and for best practice have a look at this advice.

However, I think translation is a very good task for a new editor and it's genuinely helpful because bilinguality is a rare skill.

(By the way, we sign any kind of comments in discussions by adding the code ~~~~ to produce a signature.) — Bilorv (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Orracudi: Alas, you have been mislead by the infamous "publish" button. That button merely saves your work. It does not move your article into the Wikipedia main space. It's mislabeled "publish" because from a legal standpoint you are "publishing" your work into your sandbox (or wherever), and you are agreeing to the Wikipedia terms of use. Your sandbox (or wherever) are technically available for anyone to read, so from the standpoint of copyright law, they are "published". Sorry about that: the lawyers made us do it. -Arch dude (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Waltz

He has no filmography listed. Why is that? He is a brilliant actor and deserves to have at least his filmography listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.250.140 (talk)

Please direct any concerns about a particular article to its talk page, in this case Talk:Christoph Waltz. Note that there is an entire article about his filmography, Christoph Waltz filmography, which is linked to at the top of the Career section. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I recover my password after changing my email address?

My previous email address is gone and my new email address isn’t associated with my username. How do I go about getting a new password recovery sent to my new email address so I don’t lose my account and have to make one again?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.82.197 (talk • contribs)

Hi IP, for security reasons, password reset emails can only be sent to the email associated with your account. You may create a new account, but remember to disclose your old one to comply with policies. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 15:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever remember the password for your username, then after logging in, you can set your new email address in Special:Preferences under the Profile tab, near the bottom of that page. Otherwise, if you abandon the account and create a new one, please disclose your old username on your new user page as Ed6767 advises above. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using an entity's website as a source?

I'm looking at the Burning Man page and also the Los Angeles Police Department. Both of these pages have entire sections that rely entirely on the entity's website as their source. The info in these sections doesn't seem to be in any other way notable.

Examples include:

[LAPD Ranks]

[Temple Guardians]

I know that there are some instances where it's fine to pull info from an entity's site, but I don't understand where the line is. To me, both of these cases seem to cross that line. The help page on references didn't seem to cover this topic, so I'm seeking advice and guidance here.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob drobbs: Hi there! I added {{more citations needed}} to Burning Man#Temple Guardians on your behalf. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Thank you. That's a start, but it doesn't answer the broader question of when it's appropriate to take info from an entity's website and how much info.

Also... any advice on how long one should leave a cite-needed tag up before removing it? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob drobbs: I agree that I didn't answer the broader question, and I'm sure someone else will do so more eloquently than I could. Any maintenance tag should be left until the issue is resolved, such as providing adequate references or removing unsourced information. GoingBatty (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general, primary sources are no good when it comes to establishing WP:NOTABILITY. When it comes to content, it depends on how likely it is to either be factually disputed (a name, date of an event are less likely) versus being a subjective statement ("we are the best"). It may also risk WP:Original research, which is something better suited for secondary sources. I would have fewer qualms removing a primary source, but you could also use {{Better source needed}}. I hope that helps! ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah: Helps a bit. But is the standard really to include everything that can be grabbed from a business or project's website which is factual? Or is there some sort of benchmark to judge what's important to wiki readers and what should be included and excluded? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should really be adhering to the KISS principle while writing. Stick only to what explains what the subject is and does, in as broad-strokes a manner as possible. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob drobbs Excessive details are not limited primary versus secondary sources but are a matter of writing/content styles. Wikipedia:Fancruft, Wikipedia:DETAIL are decent essays. It's not always an easy call though. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah: Thank you. I think that has now answered my question. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a redirect in a navigational template

An edit I made in Template:Foxconn was reverted, because I linked a redirect to a section (Foxconn Trade Union). The rational for this was Wikipedia:Write the article first. I raised a comment on the user's talk page, and also the talk page of WTAF, but haven't heard back, so figured I'd ask for some more opinions. Thoughts? ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italicizing Article Title

Hello fellow Wikipedians. I'm looking to change the title of The Grayzone to The Grayzone (the same exact title, but italicized) so as to bring it in line with how we title websites like The Canary and The Raw Story. I'm not really sure how to do that, though if anybody could point me in the right direction, that would be helpful. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikehawk10 Add {{Italic title}} at the top of the Article, and it will format the title for you. See Template:Italic title for more info. Happy editing! ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah:

Thank you! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I revert an edit when there is no undo button?

When going through American rock bands, I found this oddly empty article: The American Tragedy. I looked at the history and an IP user deleted the whole article three years ago but was never rolled back, their only edits were to that article. I'm guessing there is no undo button now because the edit(s) are so old. Is there still an easy way to revert this user's actions/restore a previous version of the article or does the article have to be manually rewritten from the historical version? I can that if needed, just wondering if there is an easy way to restore it. Thank you - Normal Name (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Normal Name: From what I can see, there undo link for every edit as expected. On the history lines with tags, the undo is to the left of the tags instead of at the end of the line. RudolfRed (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed: Whoops, I missed that. Thank you for pointing it out! - Normal Name (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Submit new bio

Hello,

How do we submit to publish a new bio? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardpeoples (talk • contribs) 22:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Richardpeoples: Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia! We have volunteer editors who write encyclopedia articles that meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". While we do have Wikipedia:Requested articles as a place to request that someone else creates a new article, there is no guarantee that an article will ever be written, as editors write about what they like. Note that writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged, and an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If you would like to become a Wikipedia editor, then you can look at the tutorials at Help:Introduction. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richardpeoples (ec) Who is "we"? In any event, successfully creating a new article is the hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. You are in essence asking "how do I build a house?" while knowing nothing about land acquisition, permitting, construction, plumbing, and so on. New users cannot directly create articles and must use Articles for creation to submit a draft, but you should use the new user tutorial first, and some experience editing existing articles would help. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]