Wikipedia:Help desk
- For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
- Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
- If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
- Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
- For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
- New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).
December 4
Huggle issue
For some reason Huggle stopped showing any edits for me. I can't figure this out for the life of me. Any ideas? Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 02:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Knowledgegatherer23: In Huggle, go to System (top-left) and then Change provider and then choose Wiki. https://i.imgur.com/3wPIY7n.png Polygnotus (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Issue with {{translit}}
Working on Glossary of sound laws in the Indo-European languages and a {{translit}} tag which was originally working has begun to trigger an error. The {{lang}} code orv
for Old East Slavic works just fine, but the translit template keeps firing that red error. I don't want to use the Proto-Slavic tag sla-x-proto
since OES is attested while PS is not. Any idea how to fix this? Thanks in advance. ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- The first sentence of the
{{transliteration}}
template documentation reads:- This template is used to mark up text transliterated or romanised from a non-Latin alphabet script to Latin alphabet script. – emphasis in original.
- The fix is to write romanizations using Latin script only. You are seeing these errors because the transliteration texts are a mix of Latin and Cyrillic scripts.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Life-saver, thank you! The yers are a field-specific convention. Is there any way I can circumvent this issue? I would like to maintain that convention if at all possible. I have a (suboptimal) workaround if no, but I would like to preserve the convention if I can. ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, @ThaesOfereode. I suggest you ask at Template talk:Transliteration. ColinFine (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Life-saver, thank you! The yers are a field-specific convention. Is there any way I can circumvent this issue? I would like to maintain that convention if at all possible. I have a (suboptimal) workaround if no, but I would like to preserve the convention if I can. ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk page templates
Hi there! I'm just wondering if someone can help me insert any required templates onto the Talk page for Online Safety Amendment. I see other articles' Talk pages have templates but I don't know which ones to use. Qwerty123M (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be appropriate, and perhaps helpful, Qwerty123M, if the talk page had templates of relevant "WikiProjects". The article (which I haven't read, sorry) starts (after markup-stripping): "The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 is an Australian bill that aims to restrict the use of social media by minors under the age of 16." Therefore WikiProjects related to child protection, Australia (especially Australian society/legislature), and "social media" would be relevant. Offhand, I can guess what these would be, but I don't know for sure and therefore would check. So for example I'd go to Talk:Facebook (as a social medium) and copy what was there (editing out quality/importance ratings, of course). Ditto for the other aspects, and indeed for WikiProject-unrelated templates. Wikipedia:Template index/Talk namespace might help you as well. It's all easier done than said. -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Qwerty123M: Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
More accurate VS. more common?
If a statement that is easily understood or for other reasons is widely used in news and other occasions, but is inaccurate and controversial; and there is another accurate statement that is less well known, which statement should Wikipedia choose?
My personal opinion is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is used to know all aspects of things, so I think the most accurate statement should be chosen. However, during the editing process, I received objections from some editors saying that "this is not the statement of most reliable sources".
I don't want to give examples just yet because that might create bias. ?8 (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Donttellu8 That raises the question: how do you know which statement is the more accurate? We should simply report what reliable sources say. "Controversial" and "well known" don't enter the equation. If the sources disagree, then the article can say so. Shantavira|feed me 14:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say about a topic. "An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight." – WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC. "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." – WP:WEIGHT. Perception312 (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- While I can understand what you're staying, it would seem like you're introducing what is essentially WP:OR into the article, which is generally not appreciate. However, you certainly can engage your own intelligence to help guide you in finding reliable sources to make that statement for you. For example Fossil fuel is widely considered to be a misnomer because the vast majority is from organic decomposition, not actual fossils. However, that does not mean that we simply discontinue the use of the term, nor find quotes that avoid the use of that term. Rather that is the wide-spread, common name and often quoted in both reliable and academic papers. Regardless of its semantic accuracy, it is indeed the accurate title for the article, and any other article where a citation or statement references fossil fuels is acceptable. Another situation that comes to mind is a politician which makes a statement that is widely reported in reliable sources, and I guess I'm not clear on if your question is regarding if the statement is factually incorrect (ie the politician said something wrong) or if the reporting of the statement was either misrepresented and/or changed (ie thinking about Trump and drinking Clorox bleach). In all of those cases, again, it comes down to reliable sources, especially WP:SECONDARY sources that talk both about the truth and the misrepresentation, and then ensuring that proper weight is applied to both the statement and the discussion regarding the concerning aspects. And beyond everything, weight is probably the most important, as people often spend too much time debating all aspects of the controversy (in article) that results in a single statement becoming WP:UNDUE for the overall balance of the artcile. TiggerJay (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I think it's time to bring up this example. The consensus on Wikipedia is that Taiwan is a country, because many "sources" call it that. Taiwan does function like a country, but it is undeniable that no new government was created after the ROC government retreat, nor did it become an independent Republic of Taiwan. According to this logic, it is appropriate and avoids controversy to describe Taiwan as a rump state of the ROC. This statement is also supported by reliable sources, as this shows. I know the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory, but Wikipedia usually make such vague terms more specific, like we won't say Bermuda is a country, we say it a territory while it can be in the country list. ?8 (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Taiwan looks like a country and [qu]acts like a country. It's a country! Some may want it to be otherwise, but wishing doesn't make it so. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are ignoring what I mentioned earlier about no new government was created after the ROC government retreat. ?8 (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- And this is not the place to argue about it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are ignoring what I mentioned earlier about no new government was created after the ROC government retreat. ?8 (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Finding someone to draw a diagram for me to use in Wiki
I need a diagram drawn, to show a certain gearbox, to add to a WP article. I recall there used to be a page where you could request a diagram, and some volunteers, if they had time, would draw it. Where is that page, if it still exists? Noleander (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Noleander: Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. I don't know whether you can find a volunteer for such a request. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter - thanks for the info. I posted request there. Noleander (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's also commons:COM:GL/I, which is a bit more active than the one here. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- @CanonNi - Thanks for the info; I posted a (second) request there. Noleander (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter and @CanonNi, would that graphics designer get an automatic copyright on the diagram? Augnablik (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Augnablik: If it doesn't count as a derivative work of something which is already copyrighted then they can choose the license when they upload. It would presumably be uploaded to Commons with a license allowed there. See more at commons:Commons:Licensing. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
December 5
What can I include in "Political Positions" for a party leader
I'm looking at updating the political positions for the different leaders of parties in Western Australia (in preparation for the upcoming election), however I'm not quite sure what should be included as I understand the pages for these leaders should not become propaganda pieces, however in their current state they are quite lacking. Additionally, I do not know if party policy announcements (for example on their websites which aren't directly attributed to a specific person) would count as proper sources for a party leader. Any clarification on either problem would be greatly appreciated. Tomo307 (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Tomo307, you should base the descriptions on what has been said about these people in articles in respected newspapers, magazines and news websites, written by people who ought to be disinterested. I know nothing about politics or the mass media in Western Australia and wouldn't be surprised if, as elsewhere, various outlets purporting to be independent seem in reality little more than stooges for this or that party or politician. When there's a suspicion of this, avoid such "referenced" statements as "Murdo McMuffin is a wild-eyed socialist" (plus a reference to your source, The Brisbane Larrikin-Digest) and instead go for "Murdo McMuffin is, in the opinion of The Brisbane Larrikin-Digest, a 'wild-eyed socialist'" (plus of course the reference to The Brisbane Larrikin-Digest). For your questions on the reliability of sources, try WP:RSN. -- Hoary (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Question about WP:SD, "written by a banned user before their ban"
Hello. While reading WP:DP, I had a question and came to the WP:Help desk. As I don't see a separate Help desk subpage specifically for policy questions, I'm posting my inquiry here. I would like to know if articles written by a banned user before their ban also fall under the speedy deletion criteria. --Jeebeen (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Jeebeen Per what I see at WP:G5, they do not, but there might be more usual reasons to delete, speedy or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, articles by a banned user before a ban do not fall under that criterion. Only pages created after the ban. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Wikiproject question
How can I create a Wikiproject? (Sorry I know that's vague lol) Therguy10 (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
I can't load visual editor on Wikipedia
Wow, now i can't edit on Wikipedia even i not blocked in Wikipedia!
How can i fix this? Vitorperrut555 (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Vitorperrut555: You managed to edit an article on December 3. Were you, by any chance, trying to edit a page that was restricted to extended confirmed users? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I just want to edit my User page. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Tenryuu But I can’t? Now I can’t edit anything on Wikipedia even I not banned…. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're clearly able to post comments here and I don't see any blocks on you. Are you not seeing the edit links at the top of the page and view source instead? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Tenryuu But I can’t? Now I can’t edit anything on Wikipedia even I not banned…. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I just want to edit my User page. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Https://
Non-constructive text
|
---|
Nemo! (Belize)
I am writing a draft about the National Emergency Management Office in Belize. I am not 100% certain on which sources establish notability. Source one likely does not contribute as it is primary. OAS, source two, I am unsure if it provides notability as it a supranational entity that covers(?) Belize. I am unsure if Devex's profile (source three) counts as primary and what to do with the mission statement. CNS (source four) I believe may not cover it enough. Deeper insight is welcome along with any other sources that you can find. ✶Quxyz✶ 23:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
December 6
Trouble using links in the Tip of the Day
In the Tip of the Day for today, the buttons to click on for both the previous message and to get more information about external links aren't working for me. They go to an information message that's not relevant to where they're supposed to go. I think a tekkie is needed to look into this ... but in case it's something I should be doing, please advise. Augnablik (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Prior tip" and "Wikipedia:External links" both work for me at both User:Augnablik and Wikipedia:Tip of the day/December 6. They go to Wikipedia:Tip of the day/December 5 and Wikipedia:External links. Do the links fail in both places for you? What does the information message say and what is the url when you view it? PrimeHunter (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, @PrimeHunter, they're working now. All I can tell you is that much earlier today, they weren't. What happened, to answer your question, was ... nothing. Literally.
- I may have some gremlins playing around in my computer because for about 2 weeks now I've had a maddening situation I'll describe for you. When I start typing a new sentence or use a capital letter within my current sentence — also when I try to use a dash, colon, or semicolon — my cursor jumps back to the start of the preceding sentence and what I'm trying to type appears there.
- This means I have to copy those letters or pieces of punctuation and paste it where it should go.
- And that all the capital letters and dashes you see in this message had to be copy/pasted into their correct locations!
- My computer isn't doing this anywhere but within Wikipedia. Do you have any idea who I should connect with about this? Augnablik (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Augnablik: If you have enabled wikEd at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets or the first feaure at WP:HILITE then try to disable it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter, I thought these places you suggested I go would be under the Preferences section on my User page, but apparently not. When I click on the location links in your message, I'm told that I'll leave this page. Maybe that's what I have to do, but that's made it awkward to write you this message.
- When I send you this message, I'll try the links and see what happens, but I did want you to know my confusion about where these links lead. Augnablik (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- (Follow up to my above reply) Okay, I just went to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and found that it was actually on one of the tabs on my User page (Gadgets), but I didnt see wikEd anywhere. And when I went to WP:HILITE, I didn't see a "first feature" I could disable. I feel as if I'm wandering around in thick fog. Augnablik (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Augnablik: A browser will usually only warn you that you will leave a page if you are editing the page or filling out a form, but it may vary. If you were previewing then it also counts as editing. The message is to warn you that you may lose your work when you leave the page. Most desktop browsers can open a link in a new tab by right-clicking it and choosing an option, or by just pressing Ctrl while clicking it. wikEd is in the "Editing" section at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. I don't know whether users can have circumstances which omit it. WP:HILITE doesn't offer the mentioned feature but describes where to enable/disable it on a highlighter marker button . PrimeHunter (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Augnablik: If you have enabled wikEd at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets or the first feaure at WP:HILITE then try to disable it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Need to change page title
I'm researching US radio stations and searched on WPLH, a college station in Georgia. This redirected to WJYI (FM). The issue is confusing because WPHL filed with the FCC for a new construction permit in 2021, was assigned WJYI as its call sign, and then switched back to WPHL when its new license was approved in 2022. The Wikipedia article doesn't cover this well, though the worst of it is having WJYI as a title. In any case, I'm certain WPLH is correct per the FCC and the website. So what's the procedure for changing the page's title? Thanks. Allreet (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Allreet The procedure is Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#How_to_move_a_page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I wouldn't have thought "moving" was the same issue. I probably won't get to this tonight (our time), but shouldn't have any trouble once I do. Allreet (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Allreet I don't know if various redirects will be "a technical barrier to the move", if so, you'll notice. If that happens, you can request a move, see top of that page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks for the additional heads-up. Allreet (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Allreet I don't know if various redirects will be "a technical barrier to the move", if so, you'll notice. If that happens, you can request a move, see top of that page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I wouldn't have thought "moving" was the same issue. I probably won't get to this tonight (our time), but shouldn't have any trouble once I do. Allreet (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Why am I seeing ...
... little symbols I can describe only as "right-angled arrows" on some of the text at my User page? They occur to the left of 4 bulleted items just below a barnstar and several related paragraphs, and also to the left of the first sentence in the first paragraph after that. Augnablik (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- That would be the break lines when editing on mobile (particularly through the browser, not the app)? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 12:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, this occurred on my computer. Now I don't see the symbols when I make a fresh attempt to go to my User page, but earlier those arrows were there. Incidentally, I thought I checked carefully then to make sure I wasn't in editing mode, and it seemed not, but I wonder if somehow I was and didn't quite know it. I'm frankly a bit confused as to what went on. Augnablik (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Dealing with poor English contributions
I recently left a message on a new user's talk page ([1]) welcoming them, but also letting them know that the majority of their edits have not conformed to proper English and reminding them that there are Wikipedias in other languages. Is this the proper way to handle situations such as these? I don't want to accidentally be rude to someone who's actually acting in good faith, but I also don't want to let poor edits like these pass without letting the user making them know. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @GracenC Your message had a reasonable tone but I'm not sure that you really had enough evidence to conclude that User:Harrisonsdgage737 is not fluent in English. For example, their most recent edit was, almost certainly one that they did as a newcomer task suggested because of the "puffery" tag on that article and they removed the words that could have been seen as non-neutral. Their edit summary certainly implied this. The fact that the word "she" was left instead of "She" and that the article has an "Introduction" section header it should not have mean it still needs much more work but that's not something that newbies would always recognise. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looking back on it, I probably did jump to conclusions about them not being a native speaker. However, in the other edits I reverted, namely [2] and [3], it certainly seems like their understanding of proper syntax isn't great (e.g.
to be used by the use of
). I'd like to imagine there's a place here I can direct them to that would be helpful, because like you said they're most certainly going through newcomer tasks and have positive intent, given that they actually removed POV language (totally on me for reverting that without noticing the actual contribution). /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 19:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looking back on it, I probably did jump to conclusions about them not being a native speaker. However, in the other edits I reverted, namely [2] and [3], it certainly seems like their understanding of proper syntax isn't great (e.g.
Looking for a tool to get statistics on article references, specifically reliance on individual domains
For articles with many news org references, it can be hard to tell exactly how much weight is being given to one source. Is there an analysis tool available to display a table of the total link count for each domain in the reference list? Safrolic (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
December 7
Request for clarification on a COPYVIO related issue
I’d like to request guidance on a situation where I have probably erred…
Recently I was dealing with a COI edit request which asked for several blocks of text to be amended to be consistent with the [subject’s] website
. Investigation indicated that the blocks of text were, as I suspected, direct lifts from the subject’s website. Further investigation indicated that (a) the great majority of the Wikipedia article consisted of material lifted directly from that website, and (b) the article had been curated by a series of SPAs for the last 15 years, some or all of which apparently derived from within the subject organisation.
I declined the COI edit request, removed the majority of the article text on the basis that it was WP:COPYVIO and requested WP:REVDEL, which I believe would be normal under such circumstances. The COI editor then informed me that since the subject, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, is part of the US government there is no COPYVIO.
Assuming that that is correct, it still seems to be problematic that virtually the entirety of the recent article text was directly lifted from the subject’s website (e.g. there is a complete reliance on non-independent sources, the material describes the subject in the subject’s own words, absence of NPOV, potential for promotion, etc. etc.).
I’ve not met this situation before and would be grateful for some guidance. I assume that I'll need to replace (in some form or other) the material I deleted, but I'm unsure of to what extent such material was rightly in the article in the first place.
Until recently the article looked like this [4], with the first 6 paragraphs being direct lifts from the subject's own website (i.e. everything prior to NIGMS produces a number of free science education materials
).
Any input here would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- If the editor is saying that the text is from a US federal source, and that is acknowledged on the page, there is no violation. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose it depends what you mean by
acknowledged
. In our article the material was cited (as per a normal citation) to the relevant pages on the subject's web site, but it was not specifically acknowledged within our article that the text has been lifted wholesale from there. Axad12 (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)- @Axad12 Isn't the more important point that the article currently has 9 citations, all of which are to the Institute's website? Without secondary sources, I don't see how it can meet the relevant notability guidelines. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, yes, that was part of my original point, i.e.:
it still seems to be problematic that virtually the entirety of the recent article text was directly lifted from the subject’s website (e.g. there is a complete reliance on non-independent sources, the material describes the subject in the subject’s own words, absence of NPOV, potential for promotion, etc. etc.
Notability is just another side to that, albeit one that could theoretically result in the article being deleted. - My main concern at this point is what material, if any, should be reinstated. However, if you think the article should go to AfD instead then please do go ahead and nominate it. Axad12 (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- That would involve a WP:BEFORE search on a topic I'm not sufficiently interested in. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, yes, that was part of my original point, i.e.:
- @Axad12 Isn't the more important point that the article currently has 9 citations, all of which are to the Institute's website? Without secondary sources, I don't see how it can meet the relevant notability guidelines. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose it depends what you mean by