Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 February 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.

February 11

2nd RfC possibly being disrupted

I have just posted a second RfC on an issue related to WP:VER. The first, for a different article, drew just three comments, hardly enough to adjudicate an issue in the lead of a page that has one million annual visitors. Part of the reason for the poor response, I believe, is that I worded the issue in as neutral a fashion as possible, which was only fair but may have given the request little "appeal". Meanwhile, the issue - an editor's apparent mis-use of a source (I'm well versed in WP:VER) - affects the lead sentence of about 30 other articles. My larger concern is that his assertion has stood for nearly four months and is beginning to affect content in sources outside Wikipedia. The other editor and I have been debating this issue for weeks, rather congenially all things considered, but it was going nowhere so I turned to the RfC process in hopes of finally resolving the matter. With the second RfC posting, in a different but related article, the other editor immediately pasted two full paragraphs from our previous discussions and accused me of "forum shopping", of not being able to read, and of making baseless attacks. I refuse to respond, but my concern is that his behavior is disruptive and may be a "turn off" to the editors whose input I am seeking. I would appreciate suggestions regarding what I can do at this point. BTW, I'm patient and am willing sit back and let things play out for the moment, if that's your advice. It's just that I don't want this to linger too much longer. Allreet (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Talk:Continental_Association § Request_for_comment_regarding_WP:VER_and_the_use_of_sources TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Well, well...

Allreet, you are doing a lot of things wrong here, regardless of whether you are correct or not (which I have no idea, no opinion about, and frankly no interest in - as a non-American, I feel the precise definition of "Founding Father" is more theology than history).

1. Discussing another editor without mentioning them is poor form. (ping: Randy Kryn)
2. You write very long posts to make fairly simple points. Try to summarize your thoughts before writing them.
3. Regarding the RfC you just opened: it was maybe acceptable to open an RfC at this point, but the title and short description you used are terrible (see WP:RFCBRIEF). Regarding WP:VER, does "clear and direct" mean relying solely on the text of a source, as opposed to allowing verification of an assertion with a combination of the source's title and text? makes it seem like you want precisions about general interpretation of WP:V. But you are not asking for edits to be made to WP:V, you are asking for a precise dispute, namely Are the 53 signers of the Continental Association Founding Fathers of the United States?. That would have been a useful short statement for editors who rely on automated tools to screen which RfCs they want to click on.

I believe you are allowed to change the RfC statement after the fact. Considering nobody else chimed in, I would suggest you do that, and then wait for outside participation. If you feel that you need to answer to comments that others make, keep it as short as possible. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

thanks for alert ping. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

New 2nd RfC (one ongoing, this is the 2nd on same topic) and maybe 10th page discussion is on "if a title can be used as a source premise" (and as wording goes that would be as simple as It gets rather than a huge rambling question), and All has admitted the source is reputable and the Continental Association is one of the four founding U.S. documents. My computer broke so can't use some keys (copy and pasting 't' so I am at a big disadvan'age as this weeks long journey goes from page to page in a forum shop. Help!). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@User:Randy Kryn Is it your computer or simply the keyboard? If it's hardware related (debris, for example, that's preventing a connection), a USB keyboard would be the cheapest/easiest solution. Software-wise, you may need to replace/update your driver. Google the issue. I'm willing to wait a reasonable amount of time for a "fix", since this would put you at a disadvantage and promote taking some unusual, less than helpful steps. Let me know. Allreet (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• To answer Allreet’s post on my talk page (well, the part that is a question, anyway): no, the short caption of the RfC should definitely NOT mention anything about sources/titles/etc.

That is a XY problem. The question you both want solved is whether the 53 signers should be mentioned as Founding Fathers. You both might have locked on a question of whether certain sources say some stuff in the title, but other editors might bypass that question entirely (for instance, because they have found other sources, or because they disagree with a basic premise of your reasoning). You should ask the actual problem you want to solve, and not a sub-question of your own (possibly flawed) analysis of the problem. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Easiest it seems to me would be to close the current RfC as is allowed and open a new one with the question re-phrased per @User:Tigraan's suggestion. Changing the current RfC's question presents complications regarding @User:Randy Kryn's comments. Since no other editors commented, with this approach we can start afresh.

The personal attacks need to cease. If Randy wants to charge "forum shopping", the proper procedure would be to file a formal admin case of some kind. Allreet (talk)

Admin cases aren't my style. I think coming up on 3 RfC's and maybe nine talk page discussions falls near the circle of forum shopping. It's been Groundhog Dayish for weeks now. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Compromised Password

When I open Wikipedia my browser (Edge) tells me that the password for an account I don't use is compromised. I am not able to login with the username and password that is compromised. How do I kill, delete or inactivate this account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtraylor (talk • contribs) 02:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mtraylor: Hello Mtraylor! Mind telling us what the username is (not the password, we don't need to know that)? It'll allow us to see if the username is actually register on Wikipedia. If it is then if the account is truly compromised then the account may also be able to be blocked due to it being compromised. Otherwise nothing else can be done since accounts are unable to be deleted for a multitude of reasons. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

How to Duplicate a page from another language to English

Hi,

I would like to duplicate this page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stéphane_Célérier from the French Wikipedia to English Wikipedia. can anybody help me with that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjanapgs (talk • contribs) 10:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Translation, but of course without any references it would not be acceptable in the English Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

'My page does not exist' notification

Dear Wiki help desk,

I created my Wiki account 3 days ago and wrote an article in order to submit it for the review. I only worked on it in my sandbox and it was deleted the second day. Now, my account apprear as 'this page does not exist'. Can you help me understand how can I deal with this? Thank you in advance! Serendipityyyy (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Serendipityyyy You have no edits, deleted or live, to the project(except for this one). Was it created while you were not logged into your account? 331dot (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The message at User:Serendipityyyy is unrelated. It just means your account hasn't created a user page. It's optional to do that and doesn't affect other edits. Save a draft by clicking "Publish page" (not the most logical button text). If you say what the draft was about then we can search for it but if you were logged in then it wasn't saved. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Question re template:end tab

Hi. could you please help me understansd what is the role or purpose of template:end tab? I am fully familliar with the use of template:start tab.

I just don't see what role the template for "end tabs" serves. could you please help? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sm8900: It adds a "Next page:" button to go to the next tab. It also adds two closing divs. These are needed for {{Start tab|frame=yes}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I have added it to the documentation.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:, I think that is excellent. I appreciate your adding that to the documentation, and also your answer above as well. Thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Help me

help me (2400:AC40:A0C:BEE7:C5F1:1A9D:50ED:D072 (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC))

What is it that you need help with? 331dot (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Watchlist gap

When I collapse the filter menu on the watchlist, there is a gap of approximately 4-5 lines between the collapsed filters and the actual watched titles. I achieve this both under Vector and under Monobook. Is this behaviour by design? Have I accidentally screwed up some configurations? Is it possible to remove the gap, and if so: how? Utfor (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism help request from 199.48.0.5

I have noticed some vandalism at Montgomery bus boycott Namely, they changed Jim Crow laws to Ben Dover laws and also changed a man’s name on the page to something rude. I tried to fix one of the vandalisms but don’t know how to link to other Wikipedia pages. Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you, 199.48.0.5 (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting us to that. I have restored the article to the version it was at before the vandalism occured.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I need help

Hello, everytime i edit in wikipedia, there was this message appearing while previewing the page: Error, something unexpected happened upon loading the preview. Please close and try again. How can i fix this??? Filipinohere (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

updating information

Will you please update the Mayor of Medical Lake, Washington. It is now Terri Cooper. Ms. Cooper was just elected started 1/1/22. Thanks. :)

Sincerely,

Karin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.127.60 (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. You are welcome to do so yourself, or you may wish to direct these comments to the article talk page, Talk:Medical Lake, Washington. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I have updated it. If you have any interest in doing things like this yourself for the future, Help:Edit may be helpful, though admittedly that was included in a template which is more complicated. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Creating translation page from CZ to EN

Hi there! I am trying to make translation of my father's cs.wiki page to en.wiki. The only thing I could do so far was draft and user page because I am not "experienced". Could anybody please help me to publish english page so I can link the czech one to it?

Thank you! Azgalus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azgalus (talk • contribs) 15:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Azgalus: I have added the AFC template for you to submit it for review. I would review it myself, but I don't feel particularly comfortable reviewing biographies. Alternatively, if you make another edit, you will be able to move it to being an article, as you will gain autoconfirmed permissions, which allow moving articles; please remove the AFC template I added if you go that route. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend moving the article into Mainspace yourself, even if you are technically able to do so. It would still get reviewed by our New Page Patrollers, who might treat it more harshly owing to the COI, the foreign-language sources and the (possible) notability issues. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

References

@Azgalus: As has already been noted on your Talk Page, you have a conflict of interest and possibly even could be construed as being paid by your father. However, that doesn't matter when creating drafts, provided you disclose these things as you've already done, at least for the COI. I'm not a new page reviewer but do know that English Wikipedia's standards of notability are probably more stringent than the czech one. The best way to find out is to submit your draft for review. You can do that at the shortcut WP:SUBMIT. The only other advice I'd give is to try and add a couple of references to sources in English. While foreign-language ones are fine if no others exist, it does mean that the person who reviews the draft may need to understand a bit of czech, which will limit the number of editors who can do it. Note that once in Mainspace here you should not make further changes to the article because of your COI and should only request alterations via its Talk Page. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Notability of artists

Are there discussions about how the notability of artists is determined (see WP:ARTIST - scroll down to Creative professionals)? I am concerned that the current criteria mean that digital art, which is rarely exhibited or bought by institutions, is basically invisible in Wikipedia and that that is a serious problem for scholarship on art. I am a researcher and have been trying to connect my dataset on digital artworks, video games, novels and movies that reference technologies to wikipedia and Wikidata, and I found that games and movies are very well documented in Wikipedia and Wikidata, but that I couldn't match more than about 5% of the digital artworks and artists in my dataset. Their work is on the web, they present it at festivals but it's not in museums and I doubt many of them would count as "notable" by current criteria - but I think it's a huge problem if the Wikipedia renders these invisible. Especially when individual episodes of TV shows have their own entries... Lijil (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Lijil Not every episode of every TV show merits its own article; it must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The same applies to digital artists- they must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing (currently) how they meet the broad definition of a notable person. The more specific criteria listed under creative professionals are not meant to override the more general notability criteria, but are specific points that satisfy notability. This does mean that certain topic areas may be underserved, but it is necessary for verification purposes. However, you are welcome to discuss this topic at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). 331dot (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The notability of anyone can be determined by WP:GNG. Ignore any other advice you find, only pain is in that direction. If you want to demonstrate notability, you just need to show that the subject has previously been the subject of extensive, independent coverage in reliable sources. That can be an artist, a business man, a scientific theory, a building, a concept from a branch of philosophy, whatever. It doesn't matter what it is. Wikipedia doesn't care. It just cares that the text in a Wikipedia article is verifiable, and for that to happen, we need to have solid, independent, reliable source texts to use to verify the information. If you have reliable and extensive books and articles and things like that about the artist, just cite those and you should be good. --Jayron32 16:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I believe the point of WP:NARTIST #4b/d (criteria based on exhibition / permanent collection) is that usually such exhibition / permanent display would come with critical commentary from the museum/gallery curator (for instance, in exhibition brochures, guided tour speeches, etc.). Those would be valid sources to meet GNG, but are not easily available (you need to go physically to the gallery, possibly back in time if it was a temporary exhibition and the signs are down).

Digital art will never be exhibited with a sign next to it, but it might still be subject to critical commentary in art journals and the like. (Many of Banksy’s works are notable, even if not exhibited in museums.)

I suspect there might be an availability bias at hand here. One web page is as easy to access as the next one, so unnotable digital art is easy to come by. On the other hand, unnotable physical art pieces might well outnumber notable physical art pieces, but the unnotable masses are hidden in artists’ workshops, museum storeboxes etc., so that the stuff you see in galleries/museums is much more likely to be notable. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The point of WP:NARTIST is to let you know when it is likely sources exist, so it may be worth it to spend the time looking for them. WP:V, a cornerstone Wikipedia policy, still requires that any text still needs sources, and if the sources don't actually exist (or cannot be found), then there shouldn't be an article until they do. --Jayron32 17:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Highlight entries on recent changes and related changes

Is there an easy way to show all namespaces, and highlight any entries that are not in article space. Of course, I can select the highlighting options for all namespaces but article space, but this is awkward. So, as said, is there an easy alternative? (This might apply to e.g. any entries that are not project space, or whatever. What I seek is an easy and quick method, regardless of what namespace I am more or less interested in.) Utfor (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Utfor: When selecting namespaces in a search filter, there is a button that says Exclude selected in the top right. After selecting the namespace you don't want to see (in your case the article namespace), you can hit the button, which will search for everything but the selected spaces. ― Levi_OP^Talk 18:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Levi_OP I am aware of this. I look for the highlight option to use on the no.wikipedia with lower editing rate as compared to en.wiki. What I want is to show both articles and other pages, but as articles are much more often edited, highlighting them results in "visual overload", and I find it easier to get an overview with the highlight just on the relatively few pages outside article space. Utfor (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Utfor: Oh, my brain skipped over the part that said "highlight". As far as I know, highlighting certain types of articles in recent changes isn't a built in feature. You could use a script to do this, which I imagine would be incredibly easy. If you'd like something like this made, you could make a request at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. ― Levi_OP^Talk 20:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Levi_OP Thanks, I'll head over there. I'm a bit unsure though, right beside the exclude selected as you mention, there is a button called highlight results, I would assume this is "built in" (as I have not set any special settings in order for this to work) -- or is it a user script involved? Utfor (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Utfor: Yes, this is built in. I don't usually use the recent changes page so I didn't know about this functionality. It doesn't look like there is a built in way to highlight everything except something and a user script probably is still the thing that you want to do. My question though, is why would you want to do this? If you're highlighting everything except one thing, you're kind of defeating the purpose of highlighting. ― Levi_OP^Talk 21:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Levi_OP It sorted it out. The trick is to choose "blue" for all contents and all discussions and choose "yellow" for (Article). Then, add

.mw-rcfilters-highlight-color-c3{background:white}

to a CSS userpage. The reason for these "inverse" recent changes colour filters is that there are much more edits in article space, and reducing the number of coloured lines improves readability (my personal experience). Utfor (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Are 'obituary' reliable sources?

I want to know if 'obituary' article piece of a living person can be considered reliable or not for the neutral evaluation of that person if the source is "The Independent"? Thank you! 🙏 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arorapriyansh333 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

If you mean an obituary written by the subject, no. (An obituary is an article about a person's death, so a living person should not be a subject of one.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 18:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

An obituary published by a reliable source such as The Independent would normally be regarded as reliable, Arorapriyansh333. But whether or not it is independent depends on who wrote it. If the obituary was written by a close associate of the subject, it would not be regarded as independent; if it was written by a respected critic or journalist, it may be. --ColinFine (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Arorapriyansh333. There are two distinct types of obituaries. The first type is written by family members or close friends of the person who died, and usually, they pay the newspaper to run the obituary. An obituary of this type is not fact checked and is not a reliable source although it may provide clues for refining online searches for better sources. The second type is written by professional journalists about higher profile people who have just died, and often these are researched and written in draft form and fact checked even before the person dies. This type of obituary is a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Made edit

Hi, I made an edit on a page that was correct, but somebody changed it, what can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disinformation Corrector (talk • contribs) 23:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Disinformation Corrector I assume this refers to Julien Blanc. You removed sourced information and replaced it with unsourced information. All information must be sourced to a reliable source that can be verified. Wikipedia does not deal in truth, as truth is in the eye of the beholder, we deal in what can be verified. If you have a source, please read Referencing for beginners and then offer it on the article talk page, in a discussion with other editors to reach a consensus. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)