Help desk
< January 13	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 15 >

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.

January 14[edit]

sfn template question[edit]

In the article Cai Lun I briefly cite Fan Ye with sfn, though his work was "published" in the 5th-century and the sfn template doesn't put {{sfn|Fan Ye|5th century}} properly, even when I use an anchor, since it thinks "5th century" is an author (so it produces "Fan Ye & 5th century). I've opted to just citing without the century, though if someone knows how to do so, it would be much appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: I suggest reading up on template documentation (for example, Template:Sfn) if something isn't rendering properly. Using your example, the first two unnamed parameters are for the first two authors' last names. The template does not appear to be able to take anything for date other than 4-digit strings for year (<year> – required; four-digit year; may have a lowercase disambiguation letter). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A ha! I've read up on the documentation like you suggested Tenryuu, and discovered a solution, using |ref=CITEREFFANYE and then [[#CITEREFFANYE|Fan Ye 5th-century]]. So not a real sfn ref, but appears the same way, which is all that matters. Aza24 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

an article on Tongan/Uvean pre-European history.[edit]

I would like to contribute an article 6 pages long on Tongan and Uvean pre-European history. Is this possible? If so how do I go about doing it?

Mrs L. Vasalua Jenner-Helu MA(Hons) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.226.17.188 (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Six pages is rather specific. I would read up on Your first article and run the content through Wikipedia's Articles for Creation process, as if you had it off of the site, there's a high chance that formatting may not be up to Wikipedia standards, and the sources used may not be reliable enough to establish the subject's notability. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will also need to avoid original research (see WP:OR) RudolfRed (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makaronopizza[edit]

I found this draft when searching for new culinary articles. There are quite many things wrong here.

Makaronopizza itself does not appear to be notable.
The draft cites only one source, and even that is just a recipe.
The draft uses personal commentary, with the creator appearing to insult the dish.
Most of the draft consists of only a recipe.

The author has not submitted the draft for review. If they had, I would decline it in a flash without a second thought.

If this were an actual article instead of a draft, I'd just go ahead and speedy delete it. But what should be done when it's an unsubmitted draft? Can I just delete it or nominate it for deletion? JIP | Talk 02:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JIP, maybe it's eligible for deletion due to copyvio? The recipe is taken from the external link provided practically verbatim. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JIP: A draft is a work in progress. Unless there is a major issue such as copyright or BLP, leave it alone. RudolfRed (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it alone for the time being. Someone will probably come along later to handle it. JIP | Talk 02:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a suggestion to the talk page but is this article a hoax?Spinney Hill (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft seems to have been speedily deleted as a blatant copyvio. JIP | Talk 15:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the draft so I don't know what it said but in the US a recipe (so far as it is only a list of ingredients and a procedure) is not protected by copyright.[1] But there may have been other copyright issues. Thincat (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does this violate the rules?[edit]

I've created a user sandbox for another user as a learning aid. I have copied parts of WP articles into it (with full markup). Does this fall afoul of any rules?--Quisqualis (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barring any issue with the original Wikipedia article (copyright etc..), you're allowed to copy any content on Wikipedia, but must attribute to it. If you didn't, you can make a WP:DUMMYEDIT and mention the name of the Wikipedia articles you copied from. Shushugah (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Copying within Wikipedia - David Biddulph (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to find articles to edit?[edit]

How can I find articles to edit? And after editing, how can I find someone to review it for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyVisitor (talk • contribs) 08:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HappyVisitor! Check Wikipedia:Community portal under "Help out". Or, at an article about a topic you're interested in, check the categories at the bottom of the article and see if you find anything interesting in those categories. About "reviewing", you can ask here or at WP:TEAHOUSE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try to make a correction on my information Axel Addy and lost most of the content - How do I get it back[edit]

Hi, I read my wikipedia page and tried to make some minor corrections and ended up losing most of the other sections. How do I get it back? Kindly assist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axeladdy (talk • contribs) 10:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've been adding unsourced content to Axel Addy which was removed because Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Also it looks like you might have been editing an article about yourself which you absolutely should not do. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, editing an article about oneself is only strongly discouraged, not strictly prohibited, as the policy provides an example of what is allowed. The OP is now blocked, but for readers passing by, content addition in such cases are best done through edit requests on the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tenryuu, Axeladdy is only soft-blocked, pending verification that the person using the account is indeed Axel Addy. --ColinFine (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated Warning Message[edit]

Hello, I have been editing a page that was created before but this message keep showing although I fixed the category, message warning here: To list a page in this category, do not edit this category page. Instead, edit the page you want to list. Either add Category:Youth organisations based in Lebanon at the bottom of the page"How do I fix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tima93Lb (talk • contribs) 13:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tima93Lb. The problem is that you have treated the page as if it was an article that you could edit. It is not, it is simply a page listing other articles which have been marked as being about Youth organisations based in Lebanon. You need to go back and revert all your additions on that page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so, you should never (practically never) edit pages marked Category: - instead, you should only edit articles which are actually articles. I will move your edits to a Draft page. See Draft:Youth organizations in Lebanon. Make your edits there. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation for info on getting your article published. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Off topic. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

just the same old liberal line at this site. your politics sicken me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.11.20.145 (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suppressed files blocking export to Commons[edit]

There are four public domain files, here, here, here and here, that I'm trying to copy to Commons using the "Export to Wikimedia Commons" tab, but I'm getting this message on Commons: "Can't import file because at least one of its revisions contains a suppressed file". Can the suppressed files be un-suppressed, or the revision in question deleted? Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like these files were reduced in resolution as non-free cover art at some point; since then, they've been determined to be too simple for copyright. However, the auto-export tool must see the reduction as a sign that this is not actually a free piece of work. There may be some work around or trick but if I were you I would just re-upload it on Commons and then have the version here deleted. Or, just consider not exporting it, as I can't really see any valid use of the cover art within the public domain. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El cid, el campeador: Thanks for your reply. The option to simply manually upload the image into Commons and tag the local copy for deletion was my first consideration. But my concern was that the file's history here would be lost. If the history isn't important, then I'm happy to do that. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruce1ee: - Yes, that's a good point. Personally, I say: it's a public domain image and the original uploader did not create the image, so there is no harm in just doing it that way. But, I don't want to lead you down a garden path, so I would suggest posting this inquiry at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. I imagine an admin will be able to help you there. There is precedent for file revisions being undeleted for transfer; see Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2019_June_26#Suppressed_file_blocking_a_Commons_move_via_File_Importer_extension. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El cid, el campeador: I'll take it to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. I see there are already a handful of requests to undelete previous file revisions. Thanks for pointing this page out to me. —Bruce1ee^talk 17:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El cid, el campeador: That worked, thank you. This discussion can be closed. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why this section not getting scanned by "Who Wrote That" addon?[edit]

I am pretty sure it's not template like already discussed [2]. Why this section not getting scanned by "Who Wrote That" addon? Rizosome (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rizosome: I don't know. You could ask the developers. See mw:Who Wrote That?#We Want Your Feedback! PrimeHunter (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse family tree by default[edit]

How can I change the default rendering here to collapsed? (state=collapsed does not work ...) Thanks in advance for any assistance! Cheers--Hildeoc (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried |collapsed=yes instead, Hildeoc? That doesn't work for me in preview but I wonder if it will when saved. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the template code so that the template auto-collapses. The code I used was collapsed=yes.‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both very much for resolving this issue! Best wishes--Hildeoc (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Libra (astrology)[edit]

I recently endeavored, as I often do, a light handed correction to the subheading "Air Sign": as the entry professed that Rome is a "Libra city", I simply added that "however" the traditional date of Rome's foundation is April 21, 753 BC. I received a message by an Aloha57 (on the heading of a successive wikipedia search) telling me s/he removed my note because I did not quote a source. I was flabbergasted, but I posted a message to the page s/he indicated, politely pointing out it is common knowledge, and if s/he saw fit to let misleading information stand, it would be a consideration in my (potential) future contributions. Just for the record: I learned the date of the foundation of Rome in elementary school; asking for a source, to me is the equivalent of asking for a source for the date of the Declaration of Independence. The entry stands "corrected" to Aloha57's "truth", I just checked; incidentally, Wikipedia's Rome page has the date I added as that of the mythical foundation of Rome (and the only one on record I am aware of).

I could have easily let this go, it isn't a matter of "being right": simply, it nags to me that the cooperative spirit of Wikipedia, which I treasure, is undermined by this episode; the information on the historical record is discarded in favor of some of dubious (if attributed) and uncheckable source. This episode also makes me reflect on the excessive faith I sometimes put in Wikipedia: while the collective editing is mostly a reliable practice, and often unearths details that would take years of studies on more traditional sources, and I am very grateful for that, it presents some challenges and potential pitfalls, as evidenced by this episode. I'll leave it at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.107.15 (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Aloha27 whom I assume is who is being discussed since we don't have a Aloha57. In general "I learned it in middle school" is about as far from an acceptable source as you can get - I had a primary school teacher tell me that drawing on my hand would give me ink poisoning, didn't make it true though did it. --Paul ❬talk❭ 16:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot accept "common knowledge". We require a source. If it's truly common knowledge, then you can find a source. It this specific case, go to the Wikipedia "Rome" article you mentions and find the source that it cites, and then cite that same source for your correction. Since citing sources is a little bit complicated, you may prefer to just make a note on the article's talk page. (And yes, it's like requiring a source for the date of the declaration of independence: we do that too.) -Arch dude (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree with part of what Arch dude wrote. The source given in the "Rome" Wikipedia article is

Kinder, Hermann; Hilgemann, Werner (1964). Dtv-Atlas zur Weltgeschichte (in German). Vol. 1. Dtv. OCLC 887765673.

You can only cite sources you have read. To cite this source, you will have to gain access to it and read the relevant page(s). This means you will have to understand German. You will probably find it easier to find a different source. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur: I should have said "read and then cite". As Penance, I found better ref: "Technical Chronology and Astrological History in Varro, Censorinus, and Others", Classical Quarterly, N.S. 35 (1985), p. 454-65. -Arch dude (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Paul Thank you for the heads-up. I suggested to the user than discussion would best be started at the Libra Talk page in my comment here. The user did not choose to do that. Thus far, the same advice and reasoning has been given as I submitted. I see nowhere in the user's history of EVER editing the Rome page. I shall forthwith head to that page and see what needs to be done, if anything at all. Regards, Aloha27 talk 17:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A rather simpler source for Rome's foundation date (although less academic) is "this one".. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now I'm really embarrassed. There was no contradiction in the first place. The Libra (astrology) article states that "the Moon was said to be in Libra" not that the Sun was in Libra. Since the date of the founding of Rome is widely agreed to be April 21, but there was debate about the year, the moon may very well have been in Libra. Furthermore, mapping such ancient calendar dates to the modern calendar is problematical anyway, so "April 21" could be anywhere in a two-week window from today's April 21. -Arch dude (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is ample evidence that there were only 360 days in a year before 747 BC, why not just let it all go? I suggest that there is literally no point in trying to work out what happened within a 2-week period approximately 2,773 years ago. I speak as one who, like Isaac Newton, has made an extensive study of the subject of astrology, and that includes the Babylonian Amizaduga tablet. You are welcome to leave your time, date and place of birth as proof that you don't care a hoot. At least no-one mentioned alchemy. MinorProphet (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Astrology is not a science. It is important only because humans have believed in it for thousands of years and have wasted enough paper and ink on it that it is notable by Wikipedia's definition. I just thought it was interesting that there was no contradiction in the article. -Arch dude (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Dr. Vladimir Lumelsky[edit]

A few months ago I submitted an article about Professor Lumelsky. When will it be posted on line? If there are any issues with it could you let me know? Thank you, Michael Shur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.34.90 (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please link to the draft? I cannot find it. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you refer to User:Shurm. That is the user page for your account. It has not been submitted and nobody has viewed it. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation for a way to submit a draft. Try to include references to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). PrimeHunter (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Different answers/information.[edit]

Why does Wikipedia give different answers when posting the same question in a different language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.51.245.73 (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason that you might get different responses when you ask two people who are completely unrelated to each other and have no affiliation apart from the fact that they happen to use the same software for something. --Paul ❬talk❭ 16:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a separate Wikipedia project for each language. Each article in each language is written by different volunteers and there is no formal co-ordination or co-operation among the volunteers. If you see a discrepancy, please make a note of it on the talk page of the article ere on the English Wikipedia, and I assume that the other projects would want you to make a note on their article's talk pages also. If you are asking about questions on the various help desks, then different wikipedia projects have different rule and different volunteers answering questions. -Arch dude (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there is no "pornography" in this category?[edit]

Why is there is no "pornography" in this category list? Rizosome (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rizosome: Because the pornographic website categories are listed under the Entertainment websites sub-category. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Klete Keller photo error[edit]

This is Hunter Hojnacki with the University of North Carolina Athletics. It was brought to our attention that the photo that is currently being used on Klete Keller's Wikipedia page is a photo of our Head Swim & Dive Coach Mark Gangloff. We ask someone to please take this photo down and make a correction as this has brought a significant amount of unwarranted negative attention due to this mistake.Hunter.hoj (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify the real Klete Keller on the image shown here? JIP | Talk 17:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Welcome to the Teahouse, Hunter.hoj. There has been a lot of editing to the Klete Keller page recently, so I'm unsure whether the current very poor photograph is correct or not. The best place to discuss this is on the article's Talk page, pinging the editors who have recently been working on that article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the photo pending discussion. Since the ID of Keller is unsourced and it is cropped from a larger photo, I think we should err on the side of caution and remove the photo until we determine whether it actually is him. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add - there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Klete_Keller#Picture. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong citations[edit]

Question: if an authoritative source contains a demonstrable error, should Wikipedia repeat the error?

Example: I've been having a polite edit war with Murgatroyd49 about a mistaken citation. I changed some ships' tonnages from gross register tonnage (GRT) to gross tonnage (GT) and Murgatroyd reverted them because the source - the company's own webpage - stated GRT. But GRT has been obsolete since 1994 (replaced by GT) and the ships in question were built 15 years later. However, old habits die hard and some companies still cite GRT for ships built since that date, even though their correct tonnage cannot be anything but GT.

We discussed this. I said: "I have to question the "rules is rules" justification for changing something we both know is right to something we both know is wrong." Murgatroyd replied: "In which case change the citation."

If I cared enough and had enough time, I might be able to find a better citation, but the question in terms of Wikipedia policy is still valid: should Wikipedia use its citation rule to perpetuate errors and use that rule to prevent errors being corrected? Bear in mind we are talking (in this example) about a fact where there is no scope for interpretation: GRT is wrong and GT is correct.

What do other editors think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Neylan (talk • contribs)

@Patrick Neylan: Murgatroyd49 is correct in that Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources say for verification, which means information can be wrong, in which case a better source that uses GT should be sought. Doing the conversions by yourself would constitute as original research. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a source is obviously wrong then it is NOT a reliable source. DuncanHill (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case that information should be removed without replacing it with GT in the absence of an appropriate source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit an article[edit]

How do i edit an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuaacena (talk • contribs) 21:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fuaacena, you push the button that says "edit", make the edits in the window that appears, fill in an edit summary, and push the button that says "Publish changes". Beyond that, it varies by what type of edit you are making. If it's a simple copyedit (spelling fix, punctuation, etc.) you may want to push the button that says, "This is a minor edit". If you are adding or changing information, you will need to cite a source for the information. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redirect with multiple redirects[edit]

Is it somehow possible to use Template:Redirect with multiple redirects, such as: "foo" and "bar" redirect here. For the computer placeholder name, see foobar.? JIP | Talk 23:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking for Template:Redirect2 (for two redirects specifically) or Template:Redirect-multi (for any number of redirects) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]