Help desk
< May 22	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 24 >

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.

May 23[edit]

Can’t create a WP book[edit]

Why is it that every time I start creating a new book and have added pages to it, whenever I come back the next day it is gone??? Yesterday at the top of my WP screen it showed the horizontal Book creator bar and displayed the link Show book (11 pages) but when I clicked on it today it displayed as Empty book and now shows it as (0 pages). What’s the deal? Can anybody help me with this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlderGrosse843 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KarlderGrosse843: Click the "Contributions" link at the top right to see your recent edits. Among those I see Book:Go Rio River Boat Tour. Go to that page, and in the the third header box is an option to re-edit the book in the "Book Creator". That should take you back where you were yesterday. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There have been issues for years with the PDF creator. Perhaps this link will help. Help:Books TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can I propose the creation of pages[edit]

I want to create the pages of two organizations and a public figure but I don't know how to suggest it. For example, in Knowmad Institute it appears in a page with a red link, but I don't want to create it...I would like to help but I don't know if I would do it alone — Preceding unsigned comment added by JazzShadow (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JazzShadow: I can't find any article with the words "Knowmad Institute". If you want to suggest someone else creates an article, you can try using Wikipedia:Requested articles. GoingBatty (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an article is usually a waste of time. So DIY! You don't seem to have edited before (or anyway under the name JazzShadow). Starting an article when you have no experience of improving other articles isn't an easy feat. Try improving and augmenting articles that already exist and that interest you. Then, when you've had some practice, embark on Draft:Knowmad Institute (if you can do so from reliable, independent sources). -- Hoary (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, it's called the "Nomad Institut".--Quisqualis (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JazzShadow: I am also about to leave a message on your talk page with useful links on how to edit on Wikipedia, and also how to create a new article. Seagull123 Φ 17:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization[edit]

Hi,

I'd like to know if someone could edit the First Kurz government, Bierlein government and Second Kurz government articles so that "Cabinet of Austria" in the infobox takes a cap just like in Kern government. I haven't managed to do it myself. Many thanks!Sampiresse (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done with a change of template--Quisqualis (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicate article[edit]

Hello! After creating the article Villeneuve-Saint-Georges (Paris RER), I had mistaken the meaning of "move the page" and ended up with a duplicate of the page 'Montgeron-Crosne'. Can you help me delete the Montgeron-Crosne (Paris RER) page? Thanks.A smart brainy man (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A smart brainy man: It appears that Montgeron-Crosne station still exists and Montgeron-Crosne (Paris RER) has been deleted. GoingBatty (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Files on Commons not coming through[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T253405

File:P132-RUS.svg and File:P158-RUS.svg are not coming through to ENWP even though they are on Commons (commons:File:P132-RUS.svg and commons:File:P158-RUS.svg). If I try to upload these files locally, the upload form says the files already exist on Commons.

Other files in the same category work just fine and . I feel like I'm missing something obvious. –Fredddie ™ 17:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredddie: I believe this is a known bug - see the Phabricator link I added. GoingBatty (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Thanks for the link. Glad I'm not seeing things. –Fredddie ™ 17:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting IP socks[edit]

What is the recommended course of action when finding an IP address that is highly suspicious of being a blocked user? WP:SOCK says "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address" may be a form of sockpuppetry, and WP:Blocking policy says "User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block should also be blocked", but WP:SPI says "CheckUsers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address per the privacy policy except in extremely rare circumstances". I have in fact seen requests for SPI of IPs declined because of the privacy policy. So where should they be reported? Nardog (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should still take this to SPI - if it's blatent and correct, the IP/IP range will also get a block for evasion.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks. Is SPI still the venue if the last block (of the master or one of its socks) happened more than six months ago? Nardog (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nardog, yes. Although technical evidence will no longer likely be held, behavioural evidence can still be evaluated there, and it keeps a good record of if suspected socking has occurred. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 20:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Noble: Thanks, but I'm still not clear about when a block becomes "stale". Let's say a user was indef-blocked years ago but kept contributing as IPs all the while until recently, should I report them or would that be considered a clean start? Nardog (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nardog, Technically it doesn't. Blocks are usually indefinite, and clean starts aren't permitted where there are active bans, blocks or sanctions. In practice though, if a user blocked a long time ago has returned, and has clearly changed, I'd personally not shout about it; the point of blocks is to prevent damage, and if the user has really changed then this is now irrelevant.

But in these cases it would hard to find if sockpuppetry was occuring anyway. If a sockpuppet has been noticed as being a sock, they have probably been making the same mistakes they were banned for. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 21:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it necessary to provide a source for something that is its own source?[edit]

For example, if I were to write something like "On an episode of abcde shown on channel 54321, which aired on 1 Jan 2020, Smith said he did not like apples", I can't see why a citation would be needed, since the source would be "abcde, channel 54321 airing on 1 Jan 2020". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncpwiki (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is such a template as {{cite episode}}, which should be used when implicitly citing a television show as the subject. However, Wikipedia summarises what reliable sources say about a subject. If no other sources talk about something, it's likely not pertinent. On the above, why is Wikipedia using this information? It seems like WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncpwiki: You generally shouldn't have to write the "On an episode ... 1 Jan 2020" part; just "Smith says he does not like apples.<ref>{{Cite episode |...}}</ref>". If it's truly important to have the context of the exact episode info in the prose, then yes, you would duplicate the information (though probably in a different format in the prose than the what the {{Cite episode}} produces). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncpwiki: Please see WP:PRIMARY. Primary sources are to be used sparingly. This includes interviews. Technically, your in-text full reference to your source fulfills Wikipedia policy, but our convention, built up over the course of the last 19 years, is to use the word "source" to mean something that uses the <ref>...</ref> syntax. Failure to follow this convention just makes work for our poor volunteer editors. Also, in the future some brave soul may want to create tools that extract sources from the wikitext. These tools would miss your in-text source. -Arch dude (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a fraud: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Carrillo[edit]

His obit in the Washington Post discovered the truth behind his actual identity, he was not Cuban or Latino or an immigrant:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/cuban-american-author-hg-carrillo-who-explored-themes-of-cultural-alienation-died-after-contracting-covid-19/2020/05/21/35478894-97d8-11ea-91d7-cf4423d47683_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos Parker (talk • contribs) 23:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article is not a fraud. It accurately presents what reliable sources said. His story is a fraud. The Washington Post story that corrects his backstory appears to have broken less than three hours ago. Someone will update the article now that we're aware, or WP:SOFIXIT yourself. Meters (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested rewrite on article's talk page, which is where this should be to find knowledgeable editors on this subject. Meters (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]