Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 28 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 30 >
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 29[edit]

Editing track diagram Template:Katni[edit]

This is about Template:Katni, which is a track diagram of railways in the Katni area. It shows there being no connection between Katni South and Katni Murwara stations, with the source being Google Maps. Google Maps (not the best source for railways!!) also does not show this. However, the following three sources do show the connecting line between Katni South and Katni Murwara:

So I believe there is enough data available so that the template does not need to rely on wrong/outdated Google Maps data. My only issue is the template itself seems very difficult to edit. Could I get some help with that? NS-Merni (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, plus conversion to k-curves and reference added. Bazza (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page verification[edit]

How long does it take for a page to go from draft to a published article? And how do one send article for review and publishing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazario90 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nazario90: When you believe that your draft is absolutely ready, you can add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page to let reviewers know it is ready to be looked at. As it is a backlog and not a queue, it may take as long as months before someone takes a look at it. If this is in regards to Draft:Macnuc services, I will tell you right now that no reviewer will approve it: it is only one sentence long, and there are no citations to reliable sources that establish its notability as Wikipedia defines it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Userspace drafts[edit]

When can userspace drafts be tagged for deletion? Some are abandoned with no indication of notability or are copies of past revisions of certain pages. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Minorax They can't. Userspace drafts are allowed to exist forever. The only exception is if the draft has a {{AFC submission}} template on it, in which case they are treated the same as normal drafts and deleted after 6 months under G13. If the draft content is particularly problematic the general or userspace speedy deletion criteria may apply, failing that you can nominate them for deletion at WP:MFD (though a lot of the regulars will not be happy with this, and will just !vote keep regardless of the actual merits of the draft just to "discourage ragpicking"). Some policies like WP:UPCOPIES may come in handy if you're planning on nominating ancient copies of other pages. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Philippine name[edit]

I revised this template way back few years ago, and now I'm willing to merge to Template:Family name hatnote instead since the administrator prohibited me from doing that by editing or revising the template. RenRen070193 (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recession description[edit]

Hey....couldn't help but notice the description of Recession has changed since yesterday. What happened there???? LOL 64.255.111.26 (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No? Nothing actually changed — maybe you're reacting to what you saw on social media? — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 11:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't read a thing on social media about it. What are they saying??? 64.255.111.26 (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The usual stuff. The WP cabal is being controlled and forced to change the definition by Govt./Big state/illuminati/Bill Gates/Barney the dinosaur/etc - X201 (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a post on the article talk page that will probably answer most of your questions. It's called ATTENTION_NEW_VISITORS_TO_THIS_PAGE - X201 (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!!!! 64.255.111.2 (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arb case[edit]

Do you know why Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Proposed_decision#Bludgeoning can not pass? Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677 Because the reworded version after it, Bludgeoning (alt), has passed, and multiple arbs's votes on that principle stated that their votes were conditional as they only wanted one of them to pass. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Policy/guideline/essay on election coverage[edit]

I remember reading a WP space page that discussed the role of routine election news coverage in determining the notability of unelected political candidates. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: Maybe one of these will help? WP:NPOLITICIAN Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 13:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Those weren't quite what I was looking for, but they did prompt to me to search in a different way. I was thinking of, and have now found, Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill#Political candidates. Just an essay, but good points nonetheless. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

A custom dashboard[edit]

I'd like to generate, for myself, lists of articles in certain broad categories of certain statuses like "botany plus cleanup needed" or "grade C plus dinosaurs"). How do I do this? Is it a "transclusion"? (what is that?) Is it a template I call with some parameters? Do I run a bot? Do I somehow use the Article Alerts thing?

Many questions. I just want to make it a little easier to focus my efforts on tasks I can do easily in subject areas I like as I learn "the system." Thanks in advance! TK.Stet (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TK.Stet. I think that you can take two routes to the sort of tasks you want to find (in addition to trying some suggestions on the WP:TASK page). So, for Botany + cleanup you might start by looking at WP:WikiProject Biology (the nearest Project that will cover botany) and looking a their table of articles by quality and importance to find a set that might interest you and need work to move, say from "stub" to "start", although these ratings may be inaccurate. Clicking on any of the numbers in the table will give you a list of article titles. Alternatively, go to a page for one of the cleanup templates such as {{cleanup}} and click on the "What links here" menu item. That will provide a list of all articles marked with that template. They won't necessarily be biology/botany ones but a brief look through the titles may allow you to spot some you think you could improve. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OH! I didn't realize the "Tools" sidebar changed so much in the context of the page loaded! Definitely a revelation. Thanks so much, @Michael D. Turnbull! TK.Stet (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TK.Stet If you wanted to find articles within a certain WikiProject that need cleaning up, you might want to look at WikiProject Cleanup Listings. GoingBatty (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, yes. Whatever this is (I guess... some user's self-hosted tool?) is impressive. I can see using this too! Appreciate it, @GoingBatty! TK.Stet (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Visitor statistics[edit]

Just out of curiosity, is there any infornatuon about the number of unique visitors to this site within, say, the last 30 days? I'm thinking of making a video about the inner workings of Wikipedia, and want to compare the number of visitors to various editor statistics. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about unique visitors (given that readers could do so from multiple IP addresses that Wikipedia would count as being different) but you might like to look at this regular traffic report from the WP:SIGNPOST in-house monthly publication. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that there are tools for doing pageview analysis, explained at meta:Pageviews Analysis. So one nice graph you could construct after reading the help there is this one, as an example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Place to Report Off-Site coordination?[edit]

In patrolling recent changes the past couple days I've noticed an uptick in vandalism related to articles dealing with certain economic topics such as Great Recession and Business Cycle. In finding out why this might be, I discovered some fairly popular posts on social media talking about credibility of the platform such as this Tweet and this Reddit thread which I believe can lead to an uptick in vandalism on these topics. Is there a place to discuss potential coordinated efforts off-site to alter pages negatively? Sam Walczak Talk/Edits 16:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Walczak: If it does get to the point where someone feels they need to canvas votes by posting on an outside forum, the article has usually become controversial enough that there is already a lot of attention on it. If there is a coordinated attack, an administrator can be notified and page protection can be applied. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

I was told (by an Administrator) that we are not allowed to have a section in an article with the label of "controversies" ... because it violates BLP or NPOV or some such. I am quite certain I have seen "controversy sections" many, many, many times in many, many, many articles. I will go look (later) to find specifics. Also, if I remember, aren't there many articles even entitled as "Controversy about such-and-such" ... ? That is, as the article title, not even as a header within an article? Any input? Thanks. If needed, the article in question (at the moment) is Alvin Bragg. (He is a public figure ... and he has had MANY controversies, since taking office ... widely reported in RS's. Just do a quick Google search.) But, I am also seeking clarification, in general ... i.e., for other articles. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The admin is User:Muboshgu. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a matter for WP:NPOV/N, not the help desk. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Why can I not ask for help, here ... about a Wikipedia editing topic with which I need help? Please explain. I have used this page a million times, whenever I need help. Never heard of that other page (WP:NPOV/N). Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The very first words at the top of this page are: The Wikipedia help desk is a place where you can ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. What part am I misunderstanding? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph A. Spadaro, I'd suggest you start treating people you're asking for help as if they're operating in good faith. You've been advised that a content dispute over a controversies section in a BLP is better handled at WP:NPOVN. It doesn't really matter that you've never heard of that board before, although it's surprising that someone with 93K edits doesn't know there are specialized noticeboards on WP. There are noticeboards for sourcing, notability, conflict of interest, and, yes, neutral point of view, which is what your question is about. This board is for things like "Why didn't my archiving work?" or "I can't figure out why my edits broke this table, can someone help?" Or even, "Where do I ask questions about controversies sections in BLPs?" Valereee (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:CSECTION which says Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies" and suggests other options. Yes, there are many articles which don't conform to this. CodeTalker (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. One - That's an essay ... not a policy. Two - It says "should" ... not "must" ... essentially indicating editorial discretion, as opposed to being required / compulsory. And, again, it's merely an essay ... i.e., someone's opinion. Not a consensus-driven policy. Three - We have "a million" articles that have "controversy" sections. Four - We have "a million" articles that have "controversy" titles. Five - We even have "a million" categories for "controversies". All of this flies in the face that we should (let alone, must) avoid the term "controversy". Clearly, it's open to interpretation ... and something about which reasonable minds can differ. Why is it that that editor does not need consensus (to make changes) ... or at least, claims not to need it? And every time I blink, I need consensus? What's up with that? And why am I not allowed to ask questions at this Help Desk (per that same Admin)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most discussions I've seen on whether or not to have a controversy/criticism section cite WP:CSECTION. I don't believe there's a policy or guideline that addresses the issue. Contested changes to article content do need consensus (see WP:ONUS). You are welcome to ask questions here. It would help if you avoid the appearance that you are using the help desk to further a conduct dispute. Whether intentional or not, your comments here so far do give off that impression. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I indicated that contested edits should go through a Talk Page consensus. I was told (by an Admin, via an Edit Summary) ... quote ... Specific talk page consensus is not required to maintain WP:NPOV. So ... is that true or not? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph A. Spadaro, in general the answer is that the fact other articles contain something questionable (in this case, a controversies section in a biography of a living person) does not mean we should include them in the article we're discussing. It means we should maybe see if the other article needs to be fixed. In some articles it'll be appropriate. In other articles, it won't. Valereee (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, exactly. There's no clear-cut rule. In some cases, it's appropriate; in some cases, not. (Which is precisely what you stated.) In other words ... as I stated above ... Clearly, it's open to interpretation ... and something about which reasonable minds can differ. All the more, that calls for consensus ... not a unilateral dictate. So, how do I proceed? If I -- God forbid -- revert an edit, I'd get 100 people crawling up my ass buttocks, quoting 100 policies that I (supposedly) violated ... and then the obligatory threats of being blocked, accused of edit warring, etc., etc., etc. And when other people do it ... ehhhh .... no problem. How do we square that circle? Oh, because that editor is an Admin ... and therefore "knows better" ... correct? Or what part am I misunderstanding? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You proceed by discussing at the article talk or, if that has failed, at NPOVN.
As for the part you're misunderstanding, it's this: It has already been suggested at least three times that you need to assume good faith and stop treating that article (and frankly, this noticeboard, per your comments about 100 people crawling up your ass, threatening you, accusing you, and allowing other people to get away with the exact same things you did, assuming an admin knows better) as a battleground. This is a collaborative project, and you are required to assume good faith.
As an aside, when you say There's no clear-cut rule. In some cases, it's appropriate; in some cases, not. (Which is precisely what you stated.) it feels a bit as if you're trying to say "gotcha" to me. I'm sure that's not what you intended, but that's how it's landing. Valereee (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

links to other articles[edit]

until a day ago , when reading an article, if I crossed a phrase or noun with more related info, a box would open with a sentence or so of informative text. Now when I hover over the phrase or noun, only a small box opens which pretty much just repeats the phrase or noun. and if I want to learn more, I have to leave the first article. How do I return to that presentation that allows me to learn a bit more without leaving the first article. Thank you Loudfun (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Loudfun: I assume you're talking about page previews that appear when you hover over a wikilink. Check and see if Preferences → Gadgets → uncheck Navigation popups is unchecked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Loudfun: There are two popup features. The default is "Enable page previews" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. This question was your first edit (although with a ten years old account) so maybe you were logged out. If logged out users disable page previews then there should be a "Edit preview settings" link at the bottom of pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recession[edit]

Since this is suppose to be volunteer editing,yet someone changed definition of recession after over century and then lock so it can't be corrected. Just lost my trust in your biased editing. Who died and locked .Deese (HRC) said in 2007 it was after 2 consecutive ,now(Biden) he says not so and on that you change. Sad.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.154.5 (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the lead section there says, "Although the definition of a recession varies between different countries and scholars, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's real gross domestic product (real GDP) is commonly used as a practical definition of a recession." It's time to put all the Biden vandalism stuff to bed. The article is semi-protected until 3 August.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also Talk:Recession#ATTENTION NEW VISITORS TO THIS PAGE. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not reply to threads like this that are written to be inflammatory. They're not looking to talk to someone, they're looking to talk at someone. (And attempting to assign blame for this recession in the US is covered under an Arbitration remedy.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skellig Michael article addition[edit]

The article on Skellig Michael, an island off the coast of Ireland, should definitely be amended to include the following information: On Charles Lindbergh's solo flight from New York to Paris, the first piece of land he saw after taking off from New York hours earlier was Skellig Michael. This was the first indication that he'd actually made it across the Atlantic Ocean and put him on course to finish the trip from there to Paris. This moment was correctly portrayed in the 1957 film about the flight, The Spirit of St. Louis. 76.171.53.117 (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

is NYT article not sufficient as a source?[edit]

I entered a link to an article from the New York Times that came out today about the wedding of two actors. It was declined due "not showing enough coverage about the subject covered" even though the WHOLE article is about her. Can someone advise please what to do to get the article approved to publish with that source? thanks a bunch! Theyoganinja (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Notability (people). A single NYT article focussed almost entirely on a wedding does nothing to establish that Kadia Saraf [1] meets the notability criteria. We'd need significant coverage in sources actually discussing her acting career in depth. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Theyoganinja. You need several independent, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. You only have one borderline source, although you cite the same article several times. Neither IMDb nor her own website are of any value in establishing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
copy that. thanks! Theyoganinja (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theyoganinja Fir future reference, in addition to the above, the picture of her has been flagged and will probably be deleted. You uploaded the picture as "own work", which means that you took the picture. But the picture also says "photographed by Rebecca Weiss". So it's not your work, and it needs a different justification to stay. Just so you know. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, this is helpful. The photo is from instagram. But yes, I'm learning more about how this is done. Thanks for all your help! Theyoganinja (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theyoganinja Most pictures on the 'net that are "freely viewable" are, in fact, not free of copyright, and are not in the public domain, so they can't be copied and used here. You are relasing certain rights to the image by adding it to Wikipedia, and you almost surely don't have the "right" to do that. It's a learning process! Cheers. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added another reliable source. Kadia's career is mentioned in both those articles. I hope that will suffice? Also, I will reach out to the photographer of the image from instagram and ask her to release the picture. Hope to get better at this so I can contribute to other articles. Thanks again. Theyoganinja (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theyoganinja Yes, she could release the rights to the picture. I think that WP:DCP is what she needs to follow. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got the release for the image from the photographer! But that doesn't help if the article is not approved ugh. I added another source article from insider.com which mentions her career and roles in it. Can you look if it can be approved now? Theyoganinja (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2022_July_29&oldid=1104189824"