Help desk
< July 23	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 25 >

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 24[edit]

Self-propelled shark proof cage.[edit]

Can i obtain a phone contact in australia to guide me through the editing process on this subject?. I am happy to pay for the time. Regards margesson Margesson (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone here is a volunteer, your subject is of no higher priority and engaging with a paid editor will not help your cause.

Please disclose your Conflict of Interest as has been requested or you're going to be blocked. Star Mississippi 01:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no conflist of interest . I am trying to add secondary sources as requested.

Regards margesson Margesson (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you said How do i attach to Wikipedia the patent papers for my shark proof diving cage. That is definitely a conflict of interest, and (coupled with the fact that you are offering money) suggests that your purpose here is promotional. Promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that the patent was of no value to prove the devopment of the shark cage and that i must supply secondary scources which i have been trying to do for some time. The patent has been listed on wickipedia for years under different headings. I have not manufactured diving cages for 45 years . I am not promoting the diving cage for financial benefit but to give the true facts about the development of the shark cage. I am not familiar with the computer or internet so having a lot of trouble a accessing the site. There are many claims on Wikipedia about shark diving cages which are completely false and I hope you can help me correct them.

Regards margesson 2001:8003:B081:F900:7E7E:53B0:F7CB:22F6 (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. If the material you want to add relates in any way to your patent, then you do indeed have a conflict of interest as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Even if this is not a commercial matter, you will naturally want any text to reflect favourably on your work and may find it difficult to be objective (this is not a reflection on you, but a fact of human nature). For this reason you are strongly recommended not to edit directly anything related to your invention, but instead to make edit requests.

On the matter of the patent: indeed, primary sources such as patents are of very limited value in a Wikipedia article. Yes, they demonstrate that an invention was created and registered, just as a birth certificate or company registration demonstrate that the person was born or the company registered. But thousands of inventions are patented and companies formed, and millions of people are born: why should Wikipedia be interested in this particular one?

The answer is that Wikipedia is interested in things (or people) only when somebody unconnected with them has already shown enough interest in them to publish something about them. So if somebody unconnected with you has written about your invention (in a reliably published source) then there may be a case for mentioning it in a Wikipedia article - but in that case, there is probably no need to cite the patent.

The gold standard for sources is discussed at GOLDENRULE. If what you want to add to articles has been published in souces that meet those criteria, it can very likely be inserted; but if what you are wanting to insert is from your own experience or from unpublished documents, then I'm afraid that Wikipedia simply does not publish original research. ColinFine (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colin. This all started when my grandkids were doing a project on sharks and searched on Wikipedia "who invented the shark cage" Answer. - Jacques Cousteau in 1956 used a metal cage tethered to the stern of a boat to film sharks. This could not be invented as it is just a steel mesh frame. Ten years later Rodney Fox went to the zoo and saw a lion in a cage and then claimed that it inspired him to design his own cage. Further on under the heading Rodney Fox, he claimed he went on to design and build the first under water observation cage. That is clearly untrue. My grandkids said, "Poppy, I thought you conceived, built and patented the first shark proof diving cage" Surely if someone claims my invention, I have a right and duty for history's sake to prove otherwise.

Perhaps you could assist me to correct all the false claims regarding shark cage diving on Wikipedia.

Regards margesson Margesson (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Margesson: Just to clarify: you are claiming that you are the first person to create a shark-proof diving cage? If so, do you have any reliable sources that state as such? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes,to my knowledge I definitely claim that I was the first person to create a self-propelled shark-proof cage. I have many reliable sources and working on presenting them to you. This is all new to me and it is taking me a while to pick it up. Could you please be a little patient.

Regards margesson. Margesson (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if someone claims my invention, I have a right and duty for history's sake to prove otherwise. no, not really. Among other reasons, that's not what Wikipedia is for. You need to disclose your conflict of interest, or you're going to be blocked. You're close to that already for clearly only being here to promote the cage you're connected with. Star Mississippi 11:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am working to supply some references to you. I am very disappointed to hear that Wikipedia is "not really" about.

the truth and history. What is it about then? What are you doing about the claims made by Mr fox who runs a shark diving company and claim to have developed the shark cage with no evidence at all. Is that a conflict of interested? Can you tell me how i am promoting the diving cage. Am I not allowed to talk about it?

regards margesson Margesson (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if it is a notable invention, someone unconnected with you will have written about it. You are not forbidden from editing about it, although your continued refusal to declare your COI is an issue. However it's a challenge if not impossible to write neutrally about things to which we're connected. You want to discredit Fox while promoting yourself. That is mot what the project is for. Star Mississippi 13:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Star. I have just been told that there are already two secondary sources listed at the bottom of the page

(1)"Port Lincoln Times", Shark-Proof Diver's vehicle is Tested, May 1, 1975.

(2)"The Advertiser", Diver's Cage Could Beat Shark Menace,

published in Adelaide, Australia, Apr 1975.

Both have been cited by examiner.

Hope that helps.

I am close to being able to forward more references to you. How many are preferred.?

Regards margesson Margesson (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found the first source that you were referring to, and it's unclear what you want changed. The article already reflects the information that you linked to. Would it be possible to clarify what exactly needs to be changed? - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Margesson, what Wikipedia is about is summarizing information that has previously been published in reliable sources. Unpublished information does not belong here, even if it is true. This point can be a difficult concept for newcomers to understand. It is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia that all information must be verifiable, so that anyone reading something on Wikipedia can go back to the source and confirm that it says what we say it says. You say you are the inventor of the shark cage (and I do believe you). But suppose Fox appears here and writes that HE is the inventor of the shark cage. How could anyone else determine which of you is correct? We need published, reliable sources that confirm what you are saying. The relevant policies if you wish to read them are Verifiability and Reliable Sources. CodeTalker (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are two references listed and I will soon supply more. Given the fact that under the heading, "who invented the shark proof cage" that whoever put their hand up would have had to produce the Letters Patent to Wikipedia. Have you checked to see if I hold the patent? "Self-Propelled Shark-Proof Cage" Number 486229 4th September 1975.

Regards margesson Margesson (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, because absent reliable secondary sources a patent isn't necessarily helpful, see WP:PATENTS. Star Mississippi 12:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Code.

Thanks for your question.

There are two issues that I think should be changed.

(1) Shark cages are all listed under one heading whereas there is no comparison between a static, floating or tethered cage which is attached to an anchored vessel and a self-propelled or motorized cage which is powered from a mobile boat via a 100-meter umbilical conduit supplying air and hot water to the diver.

(2) Claims made about the tethered cages and inferring involvement in the mobile vehicle.

This may sound petty, but it is not to commercial divers. I will give the topic some more thought and draft something more definite for your perusal.

Regards margesson Margesson (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

article scope advice[edit]

I am currently trying to work on an article about a bank, but I have noticed that some of my sources talk about it in connection with another bank that is owned by the same larger company. Wikipedia has no articles on either bank or the broader company. I am wondering if it makes more sense to write articles on each separate bank and then a small stub about the broader company, or if it would be better form to write one longer article about the broader company with the information about both banks.

In general I am looking for a policy/guiding article for when articles should be split into two. Thanks! Ronsaur (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most important question is which of the organisations you mention are notable according to the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) policy. If all three are notable, then you can look at Wikipedia:Summary style for guidance on splitting. TSventon (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Floating tooltip[edit]

How can I make a floating tooltip in a navbox without having to use a notes template like Template:Efn? Basically, I'm trying to get this done without it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dissident93: I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but remember that MOS:NOTOOLTIPS requires us not to use techniques that require interaction to provide information, such as tooltips or any other "hover" text. Bazza (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On my recently created, Vigilant Isles 22[edit]

For which, I understand why there might be some controvery, but my question is, why dont the categories show up at the bottom? The link can be found at Vigilant Isles 22. StrongALPHA (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

StrongALPHA, immediately in front of each instance of "Category", you have a colon. Remove the colon (which is only needed when provisionally categorizing a draft). -- Hoary (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

blue projects page[edit]

how can i add more information's on an existing page? 2A02:2F0B:420A:4D00:7C98:50B9:B55F:EA2A (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles in Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, logged in or not. Just pick "Edit".

However, all information in an article should come from a reliable published source: if you add information that you know from personal observation, or that somebody told you, or that you saw on social media, it is likely that another editor will come along and revert your edit. It might also happen that you add information that is properly sourced, but another editor does not agree that it is appropriate for an encyclopaedia article (for example, if they think it is trivial or unimportant) and removes it. This is a collaborative project, and editors often disagree and have to work together to reach agreement.

Please see Help:Editing and WP:BRD for more information. ColinFine (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prince William Frederick, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh[edit]

Ref number 9 should have as its title - The Death of Prince William Frederick, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh

Can this be added please - I'm sorry I cannot do this.

Also - this is the url for the last ref I just added which is number 13 https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/The_Popular_Radical_Press_in_Britain_181/UszxDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=gurney+family+whig%C2%A0&pg=PA408&printsec=frontcover

Something went wrong.

Thanks and please keep the quote in if you can 175.38.42.62 (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

image rendering unrotated[edit]

There's an image at Still_Life_with_Bread_and_Eggs#Description_of_earlier_portrait that I asked to be rotated on commons, and it has been, but now in the article it's rendering the landscape version as a portrait. I tried replacing it, but it still renders that way. Can anyone figure out what I'm doing wrong? Thanks for any help! Valereee (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The portrait looks upright to me, so unless I'm mistaken in what you want, I think it's fixed? WelpThatWorked (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Try clearing your browser cache. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Difference.[edit]

What is the difference between a ban and a block? TheBigBookOfNaturalScience 📖 (💬/📜) 20:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See BAN and BLOCK @TheBigBookOfNaturalScience. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBigBookOfNaturalScience: To summarise, bans are where an editor is prohibited from making certain types of edits, but (from a technical perspective) there is nothing stopping them from breaching the ban. Blocks are often used to enforce bans, and prevent editors from physically editing. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually helpful. Thanks, @JML1148. TheBigBookOfNaturalScience 📖 (💬/📜) 08:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi De Laurentiis[edit]

This article has no references. JackkBrown (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, thanks for pointing out the error. There are likely sources to be found about him, but they haven't been placed in the article yet. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sungodtemple:. Why did you add {{BLP unsourced}} to an article about someone who has been dead for more than 30 years? Is there some reason you feel the article still needs to be treated as a BLP? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't realize. Thanks for pointing out the error. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, many articles have no references. What is your purpose in pointing out here that this or that article has no references? -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JackBrown. As Hoary points out there are many articles that have no references, and there could be many reasons for this. In some cases, the article might have never had any references from the start and has remained that way ever since. In other cases, the article might have actually had references at some point, but these were removed for some reason (e.g. non-reliable source) or for no reason at all (e.g. vandalism). Ideally, all article content, for the most part, should be supported by citations to reliable sources, but lots of articles get created and lots of content gets added all the time without proper references. There's really no way to prevent that given the nature of Wikipedia; so, the best thing that can be done is usually try a sort such things out when they are noticed. The first thing to do when coming across something like this is decide what can be WP:PRESERVEd. If the article has no references, then trying to find some reliable sources to cite as references is one way to try and be WP:HERE. If you don't have the time or desire to do as much, then adding a maintenance template to the top of the article doesn't take much time and is helpful because it lets others no there's a problem. If the article is beyond saving or the subject is clearly not Wikipedia notable in your opinion, there's always WP:DELETE to consider. Howeever, before taking that step, you should do a WP:BEFORE check either by yourself or by asking for assistance at one of the WikiProjects listed at the top of the article's talk page.

I was able to find two reliable sources indirectly mentioning Luigi (they seem reliable to me) and add them to the article, but they're primarily about his brothers and just mention Luigi in passing. There still might be better sources out there (even ones in Italian). -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]