Help desk
< July 9	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 11 >

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.

July 10[edit]

Is Wiktionary allowed as a source?[edit]

The recent article LUMI says that "lumi" means "snow" in Finnish, citing Wiktionary as a source. As a native speaker of Finnish, I can say that the claim is definitely true. But can Wiktionary be used as a source? JIP | Talk 01:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JIP: Wikitionary is user generated content, and as such, is not usable as a reliable source. RudolfRed (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue it also falls under WP:CIRCULAR as it is a sister project. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 02:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JIP: I've replaced it with a reference to Severi Alanne's dictionary, which I think should qualify as a reliable source. DuncanHill (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Rose Ashby[edit]

I royally messed up the referencing of Sylvia Rose Ashby, mainly because I wasn't aware of {{sfn}}. Is there anyone who can help me fix it? When I try to correct it, I seem to end up making things worse. Any help would be absolutely gratefully received. I put a tremendous amount of time into this article, it seems a pity it's ruined by my odd referencing system. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is unique... It appears that none of your edits to that article have introduced {{sfn}} so your question is perplexing. Further, it seems that you are changing the established citation style in contravention of WP:CITEVAR. The article's citation style was introduced by Editor Chris.sherlock at this edit. Before changing the article's citation style you should perhaps consult with that editor in keeping with WP:CITEVAR.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trappist the monk I am Chris Sherlock. See my user page. As the original author, I would like to get the article up to speed. And you appear to have missed this edit. Looks like the use of {{sfn}} to me! Which is unsurprising given I attempted the change… I don’t mean to be snippy but if you aren’t able to assist perhaps someone else might be able to help me out? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at {{Harvp}} and it looks like I need {{Harvtxt}} for the references that cite other sources. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to looking at every editor's user page to see if they are using one of several user names and you should not expect me or other editors to do that.

Yeah, I missed that edit; not sure how but I did. That {{sfn}} does not work because cs1|2 templates create the anchor ID from the content of |last= or its alias |author=. Because the matching cs1|2 citation uses |author=Crawford, Robert, {{sfn|Crawford|2018}} does not match. The fix is to change |author=Crawford, Robert to |last=Crawford and |first=Robert.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I hadn’t been bullied, then I would not have felt the need to change my username. Thank you for at least responding. And if you don’t want to check the user page, it’s unclear what I can do about it, other than inform you of who I am. I do expect that if I tell you to check my user page after you make an incorrect assumption, that you do so. I also, interestingly, expect you to actually look at the history if you decide to sardonically say I haven’t done something. Had I not had a one-way IBAN, which I find most unfair, I would have happily edited away anonymously. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Masroor is not caliph in Islam please correct this[edit]

Who is caliph in Islam now? Mirza Masroor Ahmad incorrect information is written in Wikipedia Please remove this information Mirza masroor not a caliph in Islam please remove this entry in Wikipedia. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.97.174 (talk • contribs) 10 July 2021 10:54 (UTC)

WP:CALIPH. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tenryuu~~ 111.68.97.174, if you think there is an error in Mirza Masroor Ahmad, or some other article, you should discuss it at the talk page of the article. Maproom (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: I don't. I'm pointing the IP user to an answer to their problem, which has been noted months ago. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (x3) Please see the erticle talk page; it seems this has been the subject of prior discussion. I believe it may also have been raised at this help desk previously as well. Eagleash (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is likely not even reading these replies. Most of the complaints we've been getting about this aren't even about Wikipedia, but Google's search algorithms which we have zero control over and would dearly love to drag Google engineers into the room to yell at them nonstop about this shit. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 14:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When and why did standards for stubs change?[edit]

In the beginning of Wikipedia it used to be fine to have a stub that contains two sentences. These days it seems that such stubs get automatically deleted. When did this policy change. Did it change via an RFC? If so, can anyone link me to the relevant RFC? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ChristianKl Can you provide some examples of stubs being deleted merely for being stubs? 331dot (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: One recent example I discussed with other people outside of Wikipedia is WELLBY. It's an academic topic, the article had cited one very reputable source with the world happiness report. There are other academic papers about the concept (but not cited in the stub). In 2006 when Wikipedia was still growing in editorship such a stub would likely not have been deleted.

ChristianKl I would say that Wikipedia is a living breathing entity and the only thing that’s changed is somebody chose to move this particular article back to draft space. The information still exists here World Happiness Report#WELLBY, so Draft:WELLBY may or may not be necessary. (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.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: The thing that changed also is that Wikipedia stopped being welcoming of new editors and stopped growing in editorship. By their nature stubs make it easy for new editors to contribute as it's easier to improve a stub then to improve a well developed article. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristianKl: Official policy has not changed, but our consensus "standards" have evolved. In 2006, the "draft" system did not exist, and now it does. -Arch dude (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two-line stubs can still survive provided they cite sources. Lack of any sourcing is a perfectly valid reason to either delete or move an article to draft space. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that two line stubs used to be called “substubs”. Anyway, a good example of a stub like this is John Mathieson Anderson, which I recently expanded (slightly). So they do exist. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the day, you used to be able to create a stub with virtually no content beyond the title, and no references. Here's one I found recently, Sudbury Augustinian Priory, which seems to be entirely spurious. My efforts to remove it have been foiled so far. Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge You haven't tried AfD yet. TSventon (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: If I recall correctly, the lack of sources in the stub was never a valid reason for deletion. The person proposing a deletion was supposed to do at least a cursory search for sources as part of the process, and a lack of any off-wiki sources is a perfectly valid reason for deletion. -Arch dude (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: there is a reference here[[1]] from Suffolk.gov.uk referring to "Augustine Priory (site of), Friars Street (Dominican Friary)". At risk of guessing beyond the sources, this suggests that the Augustinian Priory might be the same thing as Sudbury Priory, which already has a perfectly respectable article. If no one can find good grounds that they're different and need two separate articles, the one you'd like to see the back of could easily be deleted. Elemimele (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions - please see Talk:Sudbury Augustinian Priory. Alansplodge (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image formatting[edit]

I tried to add an image to Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha#Early life in the United Kingdom, but the infobox has pushed it down the page into the next section. Is there a way of beating this? Alansplodge (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: By setting the alignment to 'none' instead of 'left', the photo now sits after the correct section heading, but the text is below, not beside the photo. Better? but not perfect yet. --Verbarson (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: Now I have copied the alignment |upright |left from the coin image further down. Apart from reducing the image size, it seems to have done the trick. --Verbarson (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undone the last change. The results when viewing the whole page did not match results when only editing and previewing one section.--Verbarson (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Verbarson, better than it was! Alansplodge (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding quotation marks to a long list of song titles[edit]

There's a webpage with long list of song titles that aren't in quotation marks. Could anyone please tell me if there's any way to apply quotation marks to each in a fast manner?--Thylacine24 (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thylacine24: Sounds like something WP:AWB could do, but I haven't tried it. RudolfRed (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed: Thanks, but I think I'll just stick to adding the quotation marks manually.--Thylacine24 (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thylacine24: You don't mention which page you're referring to, so the following suggestion might not apply. Sometimes I will copy the text into another text editor and use find-and-replace rules. For example, for a list of songs where each song has a bullet, replace * with * " will add the quotation marks in the front. For a list of songs where each song has a wikilink, replace [[ with "[[ and ]] with ]]". Then paste the text back into Wikipedia and save. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Thanks. I've already added the quotation marks to the page, but I'll try your suggestion if I encounter this again.--Thylacine24 (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

request to remove controversial information on Wikipedia[edit]

hi

how can i request to wikipedia to remove information page which has totally wrong and anti religious information please anybody help me to resolve this issue i am very thankful

Thanks and regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadeemawan75 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't remove content on request. If there is a specific problem with an article, you will have to tell us what the article is, and what the problem with it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this more WP:CALIPH bullshit? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about waiting for a response, rather than jumping to conclusions based on nothing but a username? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not jumping to conclusions based on a username; we've had WP:CALIPH complaints here already today, and they tend to come in groups. (And if this is a WP:CALIPH complaint a responce is likely not forthcoming; most of these complaints are drive-by in nature.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 01:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC) (edited further 01:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC))[reply]

It's usually IP's. Nadeemawan75 created an account to make the post so a ping may work. A YouTube search on caliph Wikipedia shows dozens of videos about this nonsense. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of them recent, PrimeHunter? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 10:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any recent. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]