Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 December 22
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < December 21 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 23 > |
| 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. |
December 22[edit]
Editor conduct[edit]
Is it permitted to never use edit summaries? Is it merely a nice thing to do, or is it in some sense required? For example, Ptb1997 has had editors post on their talk page about using edit summaries as far back as 2015 (2014 is you count their first welcome message), with 6 distinct editors asking them to use edit summaries. One section (User talk:Ptb1997 § Edit summary) is rather insistent, with no acknowledgement from Ptb1997. The xtools summary is telling: 9.8% of 25,564 edits with edit summaries. This is an annoying thing in general (editors not using edit summaries), but it's rather egregious someone has been doing this for 8 years, asked/warned multiple times, and still does it. What makes it worse is most of them are small edits, and in chunks of say 20 at a time to an article, so when these appear in a recent changes feed I watch, it is quite the pain to sift through. Kimen8 (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Kimen8, while use of edit summaries is widely considered to be a best practice and is strongly encouraged, providing edit summaries is not currently required by any policy or behavioral guideline. Accordingly, an editor cannot be blocked or otherwise sanctioned solely for failure to use edit summaries. If there are several behavioral probelms to deal with, then I think that most administrators would consider the edit summary issue to be an aggravating factor. Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's extremely unfortunate. It should be considered disruptive editing, or the same as using misleading edit summaries.
- Failure to provide an edit summary puts a burden on every other editor who wishes to watch an article for changes: instead of simply reading edit summaries (and trusting them accurate), an editor now must either view each diff in its entirety, or view the range of diffs (not sure the technical term, but where you view all say 20 diffs as one combined diff). Either way, this now requires an editor to review the content of every change, when it should be the case that viewing a high-level executive summary is required. I'm not sure how this is acceptable, as it is against the spirit of cooperatively building an encyclopedia, to not do minor work to help reduce unneeded work other editors must put in. It is seemingly the case in those I've been (frequently) bumping into who have a lot of edits and refuse to use edit summaries, that they have been told, sometimes repeatedly, and yet they do not respond to this request, whether to acknowledge it or refuse it; that is, the request to them to use edit summaries goes ignored, repeatedly. Is there any way to start a discussion on this somewhere more impactful? Kimen8 (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, Kimen8. A milder version of what you're suggesting (merely asking for a summary rather than requiring one) is a frequently proposed-and-then-rejected proposal. -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Lovely. So editors can effectively monopolize an article by making 50+ edits, back to back, with no edit summaries, such that anyone wishing to also work on the article must delve into the content of the diffs. The fact that some behavior is laid out and expected to be followed but, per that link you have provided, other behavior is treated as it it can't be laid out and expected to be followed, is baffling. Anyway, this is the first truly discouraging encounter with WP policies I have run in to so far as it is on the face obviously behavior that puts more work on other editors, in a cooperative environment, and would not put undue work on the editor making the changes. Kimen8 (talk) 11:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Kimen8, the editor you've reported here was blocked for a week in 2022 for unexplained edits, and more recently indefinitely pblocked from mainspace for failure to communicate with others, but that block was overturned. Total lack of communication can in fact lead to sanctions.I'm sure you're aware of how to compare selected revisions in an article history, which will combine an arbitrary number of diffs for review. It looks like this editor almost exclusively does minor copyediting and link retargeting. I personally wouldn't worry too much about checking each of their edits: if they had more problematic edits, the lack of edit summaries combined with the problem edits would have led to a block much earlier. Also, their most recent three edits have summaries, and they have a formal warning about edit summaries in their most recent unblock message, so they may be improving and may also be on thin ice if not. Folly Mox (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- What confuses me is the obstinancy of those refusing to use edit summaries. Despite there being great benefits that are not hard to explain, there is principled refusal to use them, simply because it is not required. For those too lazy to write edit summaries, there are canned edit sumaries or even few-character abbreviations that are commonly used for simple edits.
- I, again, do not see how this does not fall in to disruptive behavior when this is a cooperative project. If editors are required to abide by MOS and other behavioral and conduct guidelines, because they make a cooperative project run smoothly, I do not see why this is any different. Kimen8 (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've seen lots of editors brought to ANI for refusing to use edit summaries, which typically results in no action or a warning. The same goes for MOS noncompliance, trivial cosmetic edits, high error rates, and other undesirable behaviour. I think the underlying principle is that if the content edits are genuine improvements, even if there are problems we want to allow the editor involved to keep making them. If enough people complain about the same editor, usually something happens. There are tradeoffs. Folly Mox (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Very well. Thank you for the discussion. Kimen8 (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- FWIW, I'm fundamentally in agreement with you that people really should use edit summaries, especially if repeatedly asked to do so, and I think Ptb1997's block log indicates that admins have concurred that this is a problem.As to trusting the edit summary as accurate with respect to its edit, this is something of a dangerous practice. Many editors (including me) treat them more like git commit comments in that sometimes they're representative of the edit, but not necessarily so. It's always safer to review the contents of a diff or series of diffs. Folly Mox (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Very well. Thank you for the discussion. Kimen8 (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've seen lots of editors brought to ANI for refusing to use edit summaries, which typically results in no action or a warning. The same goes for MOS noncompliance, trivial cosmetic edits, high error rates, and other undesirable behaviour. I think the underlying principle is that if the content edits are genuine improvements, even if there are problems we want to allow the editor involved to keep making them. If enough people complain about the same editor, usually something happens. There are tradeoffs. Folly Mox (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Kimen8, the editor you've reported here was blocked for a week in 2022 for unexplained edits, and more recently indefinitely pblocked from mainspace for failure to communicate with others, but that block was overturned. Total lack of communication can in fact lead to sanctions.I'm sure you're aware of how to compare selected revisions in an article history, which will combine an arbitrary number of diffs for review. It looks like this editor almost exclusively does minor copyediting and link retargeting. I personally wouldn't worry too much about checking each of their edits: if they had more problematic edits, the lack of edit summaries combined with the problem edits would have led to a block much earlier. Also, their most recent three edits have summaries, and they have a formal warning about edit summaries in their most recent unblock message, so they may be improving and may also be on thin ice if not. Folly Mox (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Lovely. So editors can effectively monopolize an article by making 50+ edits, back to back, with no edit summaries, such that anyone wishing to also work on the article must delve into the content of the diffs. The fact that some behavior is laid out and expected to be followed but, per that link you have provided, other behavior is treated as it it can't be laid out and expected to be followed, is baffling. Anyway, this is the first truly discouraging encounter with WP policies I have run in to so far as it is on the face obviously behavior that puts more work on other editors, in a cooperative environment, and would not put undue work on the editor making the changes. Kimen8 (talk) 11:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, Kimen8. A milder version of what you're suggesting (merely asking for a summary rather than requiring one) is a frequently proposed-and-then-rejected proposal. -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- And it's far from unknown for editors to put deliberate fake edit summaries, often to hide dubious edits. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that is obviously an issue. But if you are watching recent changes feeds, and do review an editor's edits for a while, you can generally get an idea of whether someone's edits are good or not. Of course at any moment someone can do something bad, but the point is, with an edit summary, and with someone who is generally fine/good, having an edit summary saves having to view individual diffs as they come by, or perhaps even choosing not to go view the diffs at all (after a burst of edits). Kimen8 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- And it's far from unknown for editors to put deliberate fake edit summaries, often to hide dubious edits. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
How can I Add George Washington Carver Regional High School, Rapidan,VA[edit]
Carver High School, do not have in Virginia, George Washington Carver Regional High School, Rapidan, Virginia 2601:547:1500:BDB0:F8EE:85C7:D521:6CE6 (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- a high school is not automatically notable, but most are. It must be notable to have a Wikipedia article. See WP:NSCHOOL to see how to determine notability. If notable, then read a few Wikipedia articles about high schools to get an idea of what a good article would look like. Then proceed to WP:YFA. -Arch dude (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- You might also find Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice to be helpful. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
What am I supposed to do here[edit]
I'm being pretty lazy and transferring only photos I consider to be low hanging fruit to commons, and I've run into an interesting error, related to this file. The copyright on the architecture has expired and it seems to have been created by the uploader so I believe it's good, but I'm blocked from importing it to commons because the first upload somehow does not actually have an image. I'd assume that's some bug early mediawiki software had, but what is the expected repair for these really old files that are somehow missing an image on one of their revisions? I've run into this a few times but I thought I was doing something wrong. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- PARAKANYAA, technical problems with Commons are best discussed at Commons, which is a separate project from the English Wikipedia. Commons:Village pump/Technical is probably the best place to ask. Cullen328 (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- I mean the problem is with a file that was originally uploaded to the English Wikipedia so I think the problem is more on this end of things. But oh well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- PARAKANYAA, the file is currently hosted and readily available here on English Wikipedia, so there is no problem here. You want to move it to Commons, and so that is where the problem is and where the expertise is, in my view. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- There was a problem here as reported. The file history had two entries but the oldest version was missing the file and displayed an error when you tried to click it. They were uploaded within a day by the same user with the same resolution so I assume nothing significant has been lost. @PARAKANYAA: I have deleted the non-existing file. That sounds self-contradictory but it seemed to work. Administrators can see deleted files but this one is still missing from that feature. Try if you can import to Commons now. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter Worked great, thanks! PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- There was a problem here as reported. The file history had two entries but the oldest version was missing the file and displayed an error when you tried to click it. They were uploaded within a day by the same user with the same resolution so I assume nothing significant has been lost. @PARAKANYAA: I have deleted the non-existing file. That sounds self-contradictory but it seemed to work. Administrators can see deleted files but this one is still missing from that feature. Try if you can import to Commons now. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- PARAKANYAA, the file is currently hosted and readily available here on English Wikipedia, so there is no problem here. You want to move it to Commons, and so that is where the problem is and where the expertise is, in my view. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- I mean the problem is with a file that was originally uploaded to the English Wikipedia so I think the problem is more on this end of things. But oh well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Problems with new article[edit]
Hello, so I made an article in Spanish (called: "BCL-M5") which is a translation of the English article, the problem is they're not connected and the Spanish article doesn't exist in wikidata. Here's its link: https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCL-M5 Gattor1 (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Gattor1 - go to BCL-M5 in the English Wikipedia - there should be a list of languages (on the left in my layout, but you may have a different one) click on the pencil symbol and add the Spanish version to the list of languages on the Wikidata page. Save and exit. Reloading BCL-M5 should show the Spanish version. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Gattor1 (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Done. I've gone and added it to Wikidata, though it might take some time before it becomes available. If you're using the now-default skin of Vector 2022, you have to go to the top right corner where there's a 
icon with a number of languages. Clicking on that opens a dropdown menu, from which you can click Add new languagesat the bottom to bring you to the Wikidata page for it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Can a YouTube video from Sky News be used as a reliable source?[edit]
On the article about the 2023 Prague shooting, another user has linked a report by Sky New's official YouTube channel, is this type of reference permitted on Wikipedia?. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 🎄 16:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- @StarryNightSky11 Yes, the official channel inherits the reliability of the source. See WP:RSPYT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Michael D. Turnbull Cheers.
-- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 🎄 18:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Michael D. Turnbull Cheers.
Electrical Stroke[edit]
– Added section header. GoingBatty (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Is there such as an Electrical Stroke? 2600:8800:9D02:6F00:47:DE5E:A837:14A0 (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi there! As stated at the top of this page, this place is meant for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. For other types of questions, you can try the reference desk. GoingBatty (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Remove deletion[edit]
I request undeletion of my article Professor Thomas L Blair. What to do? 2A00:23C5:6786:5901:7C40:C323:CAFF:81EB (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thomas L Blair was moved to Draft:Thomas L Blair at 19:16, September 23, 2021. It was deleted as an abandoned draft at 20:58, March 25, 2022 after 6 months with no edits. If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13 Meters (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I can't change my title[edit]
subst:Uw-displaytitle|Netheart can't type:| or use {{DISPLAY TITLE:Netheart}} It's didn't work at all BingJiao (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- @BingJiao: Hi there! It appears that you are trying to change your user page User:BingJiao to an article about a company called Netheat, which is not allowed (see WP:UPNOT). Therefore, it has been deleted.
- Creating a new Wikipedia article can be quite challenging, especially if you have a conflict of interest (COI). To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction, and spend a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. When you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple published independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the company, and determine whether they demonstrate that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you would declare any COI on your user page. Then follow the instructions at Help:Your first article and summarize what the sources have published, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting for review, declines, and rewrites, before an article is accepted. Hope this helps. GoingBatty (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- thank you for reply BingJiao (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @BingJiao: Oh, I missed answering your question. {{DISPLAYTITLE}} can only make a limited number of changes to how the title of a page is displayed, such as the use of italics or lowercase letters. See Template:DISPLAYTITLE for some examples. GoingBatty (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- thank you for reply BingJiao (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Watch all pages within category[edit]
Does anyone know if there’s a way to add all pages within a category to my watchlist/to watch all pages within a category? Apologies if there’s an obvious answer that I’ve missed! Best, —a smart kitten[meow] 23:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- @A smart kitten: Hi there! Help:Watchlist#Alternatives to watchlists states that you can use Related Changes to monitor changes to pages belonging to a category. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @GoingBatty Thanks for the pointer - that looks like it could be helpful :) —a smart kitten[meow] 00:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)