Help desk
< February 10	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 12 >

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.

February 11

New account help needed

Hello

I have set up an account and have completed my article but need to change the account or merge it with my employer. I have no idea how to get the article to be under a different users name/account. Cam Gallagher (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Cam Gallagher and welcome to the ~~Teahouse~~ Help Desk! firstly, please note the Username policy. You may not change your username to something like "Ear Up Records" (although "Cam from Ear Up Records" is fine). once you have verified you can use the name you want, you may then ask a request to rename yourself at Rename, however you cannot merge your account with your employer's as only one person may use an account (as well as merging accounts not being possible technically). happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 00:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I share it to Ears up Records? If we set up an account for Ears Up Records can they then share or post my article on their account? If yes…how? Cam Gallagher (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion and spam are not allowed here per WP:SPAM and WP:PROMO, if you are trying to promote or advertise your company or a company you have any involvement in then that information is not welcome here, also note WP:PAID and WP:COI. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 01:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cam Gallagher, before I answer these questions, please note that you (and everyone else working on Ear Up Records) are also required to read and comply with the guidelines on Conflict of interest and Paid editing, given you are employed by Ear Up Records. you also have to post a disclosure somewhere like your userpage with {{Userbox COI}} using this code: {{UserboxCOI|Ear Up Records}}

onto your question: no, and no. each account is strictly for one person only (and one person is only allowed to have one account barring some special circumstances). articles are also posted to the mainspace (without a prefix like Wikipedia: or User:), and not owned by anyone even if they are the subject of the article or working for it (for example, User:Timbl has no additional rights over the article about him in Tim Berners-Lee). happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 01:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Melecie

I am not a paid employee but a student at Belmont University. Bad choice of words. I am unpaid and doing an internship and a big fan of Jeff Coffin and Ears Up Records. Hope that clarifies that there is not a conflict of interest just a student assignment for my mentor. Cam Gallagher (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cam Gallagher. Accounts aren't allowed to be shared per WP:SHAREDACCOUNT; so, you can't and shouldn't do that. If other people at your company want to edit Wikipedia, they will need to create their own accounts or edit using an WP:IP. In either case, they would still be subject to WP:COI and possibly even WP:PAID if they try to edit or create content about your (their) company. Any attempt to share accounts or otherwise not follow relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines could lead to accounts being blocked, pages being deleted or other actions deemed appropriate by the Wikipedia community. So, it's best to follow relevant policies and guidelines from the start. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry It was a bad choice of words. I am a student and unpaid. Completing an assignment from my mentor. Cam Gallagher (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on your talk page about the images you uploaded. Is the founder of the record label the "mentor" you speak of? --CNMall41 (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you'd still have a conflict of interest even if you're not a paid employee; moreover, if your internship is giving you some sort of "compensation" in terms of university course credit, then that could be considered a form of compensation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Gallagher, even unpaid interns can get academic credit, letters of recommendation, entries on a résumé, sometimes job offers and ongoing professional relationships. These are things of value and you should make the WP:PAID disclosure. Cullen328 (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cam Gallagher One thing that might not have been answered: You wanted "to get the article to be under a different users name/account". Articles are started by an editor who has an account name, but any editor can edit (almost) any article. An article is not "under" a username or account name. Once an article is published to the encyclopedia (and occasionally while it's still in draft), other editors can make improvements to it. Each article has a "history" which shows all editors/users/accountnames who have contributed to the article. Also, when you said "can they then share or post my article on their account", an article is posted to the encyclopedia, not "to" an account. I hope this helps answer one of your questions. David10244 (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understood one of our first points here: the company can never have an account. An account must belong to a single unique individual human being, and cannot attach to a job ("PR Guru at Dead Dog Records"), an organization, a title, etc. It is not transferable or mergeable in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lupton family

In the lead of this article the very last name is "Richard Noel Middleton". There should be two accents/dots over the letter "o" in Noel. I cannot do this, please fix if you can. Thank you 175.38.42.62 (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your easiest option is probably to copy the name (or just the letter) from an article where it is spelled that way, e.g. Family of Catherine, Princess of Wales where the link goes. - David Biddulph (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made the fix, by doing exactly what David Biddulph suggested, since this editor often does not follow advice. RudolfRed (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph, @RudolfRed: There is no agreement in the various sources that the name is "Noel" or "Noël". The rest of the article uses "Noel", and I have reverted the change for consistency. The unexpected link from the name in the lead took me, via a couple of redirects, to Family of Catherine, Princess of Wales where "Noël" is used, despite several references using "Noel". I mention this for information; happy to be reverted if the same spelling is used throughout. Bazza (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the future you can use the international keyboard, ẅhich súppörts dìácritics. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, @Sungodtemple, there are many things that the "Lupton editor" cannot do. Several kind help desk hosts generally make the changes that she politely requests. David10244 (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chapters by separate authors

I need a second opinion on how to cite multiple chapters from the same book when each chapter is by a different author. Presumably I want to credit the individual author of each chapter. But does this mean I should create a new citation for every chapter in the book? Or is there a cleaner way to do this that doesn't duplicate so much information? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consider {{harvc}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is exactly the type of template I was looking for. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linking own blogpost

I have a general query about linking my own of post to a wiki article. Is this possible or even allowed? The info would definitely enrich the page in question and I would then link this to my specific blog page.

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.215.62.32 (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLOG. Blogs are not always reliable. Instead, you can use what reliable sources say about the topic, which you definitely read while creating your blog post. See WP:RS for what qualifies as a good source. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may link from your blog to a Wikipedia article: you do not need our permission. You are not permitted to edit a Wikipedia article to add a link from the article to any blog post, yours or others, unless it is a valid (WP:RS) and relevant link to use as a reference, and this is highly unlikely for most blogs. Even if it were relevant and reliable, YOU should not add the link to the article since you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI). In this unlikely case you may propose the addition on the article's talk page, and another editor might choose to add the link as a reference. -Arch dude (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of blogs are unreliable and should never be cited on Wikipedia. The tiny minority of exceptions include blogs by widely recognized subject matter experts who have previously had their work on the same subject published in reliable sources, and blogs by journalists working for reliable news outlets, if the blog is hosted by that publication. Even then, such blogs should be used sparingly. Cullen328 (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I woukd like to point out though that Google SERPS can recognise falsified information. Very similar to Wiki, there was a time when Blogs contained unsourced information but algorithms have changed dramatically in recent years. Therefore, pointing out that 'the vast majority of blogs are unreliable' is an extremely vague statement with no scientific basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4BC9:B44:F6C7:E9BB:5A70:3354:AA71 (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia's terms, the vast majority of blogs are regarded as unreliable, as explained at WP:BLOG. This is not just a matter of whether they in fact contain false information or not: Wikipedia works from verifiability], not truth. ColinFine (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Many, many blogs consist almost entirely of unsourced information. I don't know what blogs the IP user is reading, but they are not the ones I see! David10244 (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing infobox template

I semi-recently added a parameter to Template:Infobox podcast and I would like to add another. I've already brought the idea to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Podcasting#Adding_adaptations_to_the_infobox and it was met with a positive response. However, considering this is a template that's used across many articles, I want to make sure I didn't make any mistakes already and I would like to avoid making mistakes going forward. When I go to edit the template a banner appears at the top saying "Please note: there is already a template data block on the related page 'Template:Infobox_podcast/doc'." and there are multiple red lines of text saying things like "Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox podcast with unknown parameter 'demo'". Can someone point me to documentation explaining these alerts/warnings? TipsyElephant (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TipsyElephant: "there is already a template data block" refers to the TemplateData at Template:Infobox podcast/doc#TemplateData. There is nothing wrong. It just means you should not use the "Edit template data" link when you edit Template:Infobox podcast. If you want to edit TemplateData then do it on the doc page. The preview warnings about unknown parameters are made by Module:Check for unknown parameters. The bottom of the template calls the module with a list of all known parameters. If an article or other page calls the template with a parameter which isn't on the list then the warning is shown in previews. The warnings show four unknown parameters in a call at Template:Infobox podcast/doc#Usage: demo, categories, nocat, country. The call is made with {{Parameter names example}} which automatically adds the parameters demo, categories, nocat because some templates should have them when they are used in example calls. Just ignore that this template doesn't have them. It doesn't do anything which requires them. See Wikipedia:Category suppression#Usage if you are curious about categories and nocat. Maybe Template:Parameter names example/doc should mention these possible preview warnings. country is the only problem. It is a real parameter in the template so it should be added to the list of known parameters at the bottom of the template code. Then the warning will go away. Don't add demo, categories, nocat to the list to make those warnings go away. The parameters are not known to the template and it would be misleading to add them to the list. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: thank you! That's very helpful. I'll make sure to read through the pages you've linked to and I'll probably do a little more research before making additional edits to the template. TipsyElephant (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add a poster to a TV series article

An article, The Spencer Sisters, has no poster. I have a copy of one and I would like to add it, but I'm not sure exactly how. Can I get some assistance please? Thanks! Urbanracer34 (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Urbanracer. Unfortunately, copyright is a complicated business, and Wikipedia's respect for it means that many articles do not have pictures where it would be nice to include them. In general, you can only upload and use images if they have been licensed in a way that allows free reuse: usually, either images that you created yourself, or those where the copyright owner has explicitly released them.

However, Wikipedia has a (restrictive) application of the idea of fair use, by which in certain circumstances it is permissible to use copyrighted materials without getting permission. All the criteria in the non-free content criteria must be satisfied, and it is up to the uploader to justify that. This route is often used for covers of books and albums (but only for articles specifically about the book or album, not for more general articles). I'm not sure when it may be used for posters - WP:NFCI indicates that it may be sometimes, but I think that is saying only when the article discusses the poster itself (I may be wrong, though).

If on studying the criteria carefully, you conclude that the poster is suitable, you would use the WP:upload wizard to upload it to Wikipedia, and then add it to the article. ColinFine (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the info. Thanks. I guess I'l play it safe and not use it on Wikipedia. Urbanracer34 (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanracer34, please see WP:NFCI #4 which specifically mentions posters as acceptable in articles containing critical commentary. You would need to add references to published reviews of the TV show and summarize them. Cullen328 (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The Show is brand new and doesn't have any reviews. All I can find are press releases. I don't think that would be good enough to satisfy the criteria for NFCI #4. Urbanracer34 (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanracer34, that raises the issue of whether we should even have an article about the show at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure more information for the show will come out in due time; it just started airing. Urbanracer34 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds as if it might be WP:TOOSOON then, Urbanracer. ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a strong possibly there. I can forsee one issue: If it picks up more traffic and citations, and the Article is already deleted, it just has to be recreated from scratch again. What would be the point in deleting it now? Urbanracer34 (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen has pointed out that deleted articles can often be restored to be worked on. But if an article is deleted for lack of sufficient sources to establish notability, and later the sources appear, working from the original article would risk working backwards. ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanracer34, no, deleted articles do not need to be rewritten from scratch. Any administrator can restore a deleted article with a few mouse clicks if the topic becomes notable. Cullen328 (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine @Cullen328 I appreciate all the information. Thank you both for your time. I will let this go however it does. Urbanracer34 (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images as reliable sources

Let's say I need a reliable source stating that Nick Offerman plays Ron Swanson in Parks and Recreation. Per WP:RSPSS, Screen Rant is considered reliable for this. Weird thing is, their article includes several entirely unmistakable photos and screenshots of Offerman in character but it doesn't actually include his name in its text. Can I say that Offerman plays Swanson in Parks based on that? Thanks in advance for any input and guidance on this. CityOfSilver 18:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CityOfSilver. It should be very easy to find many reliable sources that explicitly say that actor played that role. I found this source in a few seconds. There is no point in using ambiguous or iffy sources when far better sources are readily available. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Oh I know and I added one earlier today to the middle entry on the list here. It's just that I'd rather use one source instead of two and Screen Rant was the only one I could find that confirms both the claim and the actor. CityOfSilver 19:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I removed my citation since it feels like a bit of WP:OVERCITE and now that I think about it, it's possibly WP:SYNTH since the source didn't mention the subject of the Wikipedia article. I'm irritated that I couldn't find anything reliable that has both pieces of information but so it goes. CityOfSilver 20:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CityOfSilver A quick Google search found this and this too. Reliable sources are easy for the statement that Offerman played Swanson. GoingBatty (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: I know. In my previous message here I mentioned "both pieces of information" to try to make clear that I wanted a single source for two claims, not just that one. You can see my edits today at Gadsden flag although I reverted myself there so it's pretty much moot now. CityOfSilver 03:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any tools that can make editing easier?

Hi I would like to help contribute to Wikipedia. I see other editors working like robots it seems but I don't know how they can do it is fast. Is there some tools I can use to edit better and faster? Masonandd (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: user has been blocked. --ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Von Blumen

Can someone please correct my citation form errors in my Elsa Von Blumen date of birth correction? The citation should read “gravestone, Riverside Cemetery, Rochester, NY” but I’m obviously not getting the symbols right. Thanks. Klankbike (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Klankbike: Hi there! The citation you created was deleted by Trappist the monk because mentioning a gravestone is not the type of published reliable source that is used on Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]