Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 April 30

Help desk
< April 29	<< Mar | April | May >>	May 1 >

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.

April 30

uploading Wiki page for school

hello, i am having trouble with my sandbox, it is saying i am unable to upload or edit a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jade.bensonn (talk • contribs)

I would refer you to WP:UAL. You'll need autoconfirmed status to create an article. Considering your situation, you'll need to make a total of 10 edits to Wikipedia which means you need 5 more edits. As a note you already cleared the 4 days requirement. I would suggest perhaps patrolling the recent changes page to find vandalism and revert it. If you need more help, you can contact your "Wiki expert" via their talk page. I hope this helps you. Dictonary1 (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Cocotama's Arabic Wikipedia article

Cocotama's Arabic Wikipedia article is a huge mess because the article's character section contains info for another anime. I tried to remove it but unfortunately, @Cyclone605: and @Osps7: had restored the incorrect info about the characters. I tried to explain that the character info presented in the Arabic version is wrong but they do not believe me. If you speak Arabic, please correct the section by translating from List of Kamisama Minarai: Himitsu no Cocotama characters into Arabic. Thanks.

P.S. I apologize if this is the wrong section to discuss this but Help Desk does not have a Arabic language version. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: It appears that you can request help at ar:ويكيبيديا:بوابة_المشاركة; if you're more comfortable speaking English, you can also try the embassy. Vahurzpu (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Interwiki problem

Hello,

Nerium oleander is a redirect to Nerium. Which is fine. But most interwiki link to the first, not the second. The article lose around 70 interwiki compared to what it should have. I don't see how to correct in wikidata : since there are two items, trying to add an interwiki to one item doesn't work if it already is on the second.

Could anyone correct the situation so that you get the right interwiki (for example, by renaming the main article "Nerium oleander" and making "Nerium" the redirect)? As it stands, your article doesn't link to the corresponding articles on most other wikipedias.

Best regards, Esprit Fugace (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Esprit Fugace: In these (type of) cases, the corresponding wikidata items should be merged. But in this case, though Nerium oleander is a redirect to Nerium, I don't think those two are same. See species:Nerium oleander and species:Nerium. Therefore, we should not merge those 2 wikidata items. -- T@hmid (T@lk) 09:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tahmid: Yeah, I'm aware a merge would be unadvisable - "Nerium oleander" is a species, "Nerium" a genus, even if there is only one species in this genus I do realize two items are preferable on wikidata. That's why I was suggesting reversing the current "Nerium oleander -> Nerium" redirect, to "Nerium -> Nerium oleander", it would allow for way more interwiki to link to a correct article (with a minimal effort). Or one could duplicate a big part of the content and have two different articles - if the most complete article was on the species page, it would be way easier to deal with the iw. Esprit Fugace (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Esprit Fugace: I suggest taking this to WikiProject Plants. There is a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Monospecific genera protocol, with a bit about Wikidata frustration. TSventon (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Esprit Fugace. This is a frequent problem on Wikidata, where it is sometimes referred to as the Bonnie and Clyde problem. I believe the usual way of handling it on en-wiki is to use local links. --ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@TSventon: Thank you for the suggestion, it's indeed exactly the same issue.

@ColinFine: Thank you, I didn't know the problem had a name I'll use the solution you propose. Esprit Fugace (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

HOW TO UPLOAD A PICTURE IN A PAGE

Hey, how to upload a picture in a page, there's lot of pages that doesn't have pictures so others are confused. Kenzie Abraham (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Kenzie Abraham Instructions for uploading images are at WP:UPIMAGE. Please review them carefully. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles not having pictures doesn't always mean that someone didn't know how to upload one - it can often be that the article did not warrant an image or simply that no appropriate free image exists. --Paul ❬talk❭ 09:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Ip adress

I recently added new content not being aware.my ip.adress was made permanent that is private information and is honestly illegal to leak an underage persons ip.adress — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicornbeefabd (talk • contribs)

@Unicornbeefabd: it's not illegal for Wikipedia to show your IP address. You are made aware that this information will be shown if you do not register with an account. Furthermore, use four tildes (~) to sign your comments. versacespaceleave a message! 13:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Unicornbeefabd: You can request the IP address is hidden. See Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this has now been done. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

2019 European Parliament election in France

Hi,

On the 2019 European Parliament election in France page, the photo of Jordan Bardella is weirdly cropped for me. Is that the case for anyone else? I just see his forehead.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A452:7DDC:1:FD81:7219:408C:D9F0 (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, a cropped version of the image was used and in the meantime, someone had uploaded a cropped version of the image on Commons. Due to the double-crop, we could only see his forehead. I have removed the {{CSS image crop}} template in the infobox, and now it looks fine. – NJD-DE (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Kleinpecan for fixing the image size. Didn't even notice they were different in size. – NJD-DE (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Editing Reflist

Hi, I need to make a slight change to a link in a Reference so that it remains live. I cannot fathom how to make the change. The page shows

==References==
{{Reflist|1}}

when I go to edit the link. I've hunted around all over the place including on Wikipedia so I would be grateful for some help on how to make the edit. Many thanks, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higgey (talk • contribs)

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anstey_College_of_Physical_Education

Hello John, that page is using inline citations, which means the citations aren't actually defined in the reference section, but some time before that. Do you see the small superscript numbers in the article? Try searching there. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I've added <nowiki> tags here to prevent breaking this page into an extra section. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging OP Higgey —valereee (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Restore Amir Ali Shaik Page

Restore Amir Ali Shaik Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.80.139 (talk • contribs)

Courtesy link to the deletion log: Amir Ali Shaik. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

There was an afd in January that did not find him to be notable. At this point I suggest you very carefully read the general notability guideline and the actor specific notability guideline. If you think he meets those guidelines, gather together a list of reliable sources that are not affiliated with him but that discuss him at some length and detail. Once you have 3-5 such sources (not counting IMDB, which fails reliable source criteria), approach me on my talk page and we can discuss potentially restoring it to draft space so you can work on it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there going to be an end to the demands for more?

Hello

My article has been declined many times and I have complied with all the corrections you folks have asked. Having done all that now we are back to square one and the recent decline is asking me to give “more” citations of what I have already given.

I have in different ways shown notability both locally, nationally, and internationally. If you guys keep asking for “more” citations, I mean what’s a fair “more”? 1, 2, 10, 50? Will there be an end to the demand for more or will it be arbitrarily declined each time and the goal post moved for “more”?

If you take a fair look at the article it seems to be a much better article than many similar Wikipedia pages of similar context, or comparable articles. The article supports itself from many angles with citations, links, pictures, news sources.

Will it be possible for someone to take a fair look at what's going on, compare it with comparable articles and then decide? Maybe talk with a supervisor? Thank You.

P.S. - Being a donor to Wikipedia all this comes as quite a surprise to me.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathless1 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)~

Pathless1 First, please be aware that donations do not influence content. The donations go to the Wikimedia Foundation, which is a non-profit that owns the servers Wikipedia runs on, but has no influence on content. Content is created by a community of volunteers (which includes you), who have established various policies and guidelines for content. There are also no supervisors for you to talk to - as we are all volunteers who have equal editorial control. Second, although Nomadicghumakkad declined Draft:Mohini Mohan Patnaik, they did not leave you hanging, they included a note about what type of source you need more of. Looking at the draft, most of the sources seem to fail either reliable source guidelines, independent source guidelines, or significant coverage requirements. In other words, you need sources that are about him, not that merely mention him in an article about something else, and that are in no way connected with him or the non-profit he founded. Generally speaking, 3 such sources are the minimum for general notability. Right now it looks like you have one such source.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You expressed surprise that an article you've worked on has not been accepted given that you are a donor. I realize you are new, but acceptance of editors has nothing to do with donations. The reviewers of the draft had no idea you were a donor and frankly would prefer not to know. We never want to give preferential treatment to donors we want each article evaluated on its own merits. Now that you stated you are a donor, it means some editors (such as myself) might want to take extra care to make sure there is no hint of preferential treatment.

You did not identify the article. Presumably you are talking about Draft:Mohini_Mohan_Patnaik.

The assessment that it needs additional references is exactly on point. If I have any criticism of the review comments, it is that the comment that you need more sources this is troublesome as that source is not viewed as a reliable source. My bad. The comment made reference to [1] which I mistakenly thought was a reference to [1] which is a different reference. The opening sentence of the article where one typically makes the claim of notability is supported by the Orissa matters reference, which is problematic.

The article starts by making an assertion that the subject is "exponent of the Indian bamboo flute…" I don't know what that means. I've heard the term "exponent" used to mean promoter of an idea, but I think you mean this person plays the instrument rather than promotes the idea of the instrument.

The early life section talks about his family his mother's and father's profession and various other facts not a single one of which is supported by a reliable source.

The careersection starts by talking about early aspect of his career at two different locations neither of which is supported by a reference

There is an interesting claim about him being the first musician from the state of Odisha to present the flute as a solo instrument but it's not supported by a reference.

There is a section on awards with some photos but not a single reference.

In short, there are dozens of factual claims in this draft article that are not supported by references. It is not remotely ready for acceptance.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Sphilbrick what do you mean The New Indian Express is not viewed as a reliable source? It's green on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources(Ok, The Indian Express is green on RSP. The New Indian Express is not listed there at all. However, various archived conversations from WP:RSN seem to indicate it's viewed as reliable). [Comment has been edited] ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

See for example Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_60#The_New_Indian_Express_and_CPI(M) (consensus seems to be in this 2010 discussion that the New Indian Express is RS for the specific claims being made), Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_293#RfC:_The_Indian_Express (The New Indian Express is a spin-off of the Indian Express, and is mentioned in passing in that discussion. The context is a comment that, "The Indian Express’s estranged sibling The New Indian Express has already been caught spreading fake news[36]. In view of this, I thought a RfC [for the Indian Express] would be necessary." This comment is then followed by a comment that "Not sure this is true. . ." which appears to be refuting that the New Indian Express spread fake news. Consensus of that discussion was that the Indian Express was reliable, and was listed as green on RSP. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_331#RfC:_Asian_News_International_(ANI), where the closing summary says, "Editors provided numerous newspapers within India that regularly reprint ANI stories, including The New Indian Express as well as other Indian news publications, though some editors have characterized those sources as either regional or unreliable." One editor in that discussion noted that, " The New Indian Express possibly has issues with undisclosed advertisments and paid news", which would be a concern for the way Pathless1 is trying to use it. Perhaps it's time for an RFC on RSN for The New Indian Express? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

ONUnicorn, I installed a tool which highlights problematic references. I'm not making an independent assessment of the source and perhaps information is incorrect, but it shows up on my computer highlighted in pink with a pop-up text that says "generally unreliable source". My bad, see my correction.S Philbrick(Talk) 17:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

As explained above, donations have exactly zero, zilch, nada effect on the content of Wikipedia. Donations do not go to Wikipedia editors - they pretty much go to funding the servers which run Wikipedia - electricity bills for the computers and such. No one of us editors ever see a single cent of the donations, and we like it that way. Every single one of us editors is doing this as a hobby out of our free will. If donations had an effect on Wikipedia content, it would pretty much destroy Wikipedia, as donors would choose to only donate to those articles they agreed with. JIP | Talk 18:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: Is there going to be an end to the demands for more? (response to my previous post)

FYI

 – Merging with above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

To all contributors in my previous post: The message simply shared the surprise in witnessing what was going on. The surprise was IN context of the constant moving of the goal posts as i mentioned. There was no demand for preferential treatment on account of being a donor. Furthermore, the biggest part of the surprise came from noticing the discrepancy between your demands for "perfection" and the quality of already published/existing comparable articles, which i assume have met your standards and hence published. Using them as a measure, as it ought to be, it's clear my article has exceeded what you seem to require. All i was asking is to take a fair look in context with already published articles. I do not want to argue with anyone. All this has been interesting. Thank you all.

P.S- I have tried twice to respond to my previous post but it's not working or i am not doing it right, therefore i am creating this. I apologize if i shouldn't have but if this response needs to be moved to previous post please go ahead and move it since it seems you can do that. In the alternative if you give me the instructions on how to correctly reply to your messages here i can do it myself. Thank you.

Note: it's interesting to notice the ongoing "rebuttals" being offered, but still no instructions on how i could respond directly to these posts. ( i am having to resort to "editing"). In light of the intense individual as well as group responses, i think it's best for me to stop now. Pathless1 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Two sections of your draft Draft:Mohini Mohan Patnaik are totally unsourced, the awards are all unreferenced and do not appear to be notable. Theroadislong (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Pathless1 please also see other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Pathless1, Wikipedia has been around now for 20 years. A lot has changed in that time. When Wikipedia first started, the policies and guidelines governing content were not as developed as they are now. Draft space and articles for creation did not exist. The process you are using (creating an article in draft and submitting it to articles for creation) is a new-ish (approximately 8 years old) process that was developed to ensure articles met a certain minimum quality standard before being accepted into the encyclopedia, so as to reduce pressure on articles for deletion. However, there are a lot of articles that pre-date that process that are, frankly, junk. There are articles that were developed prior to the various notabililty guidelines that do not meet those guidelines. Given enough time, most of them should eventually either be edited to be in compliance with those guidelines, or deleted. The fact that those junky articles exist and haven't been fixed yet does not mean we should accept additional articles that don't meet minimum quality standards. You say the goal posts keep moving, but they do not. The very first time the draft was declined, CommanderWaterford told you what the goal post is - "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics)." We are not looking for perfection. We are looking for evidence that the topic meets that criteria, and for the article to not be written as a blatant advertisement. You have cited one source that (arguably) meets those criteria - the one in the New Indian Express. We are looking for a minimum of 3, preferably 5. As other people have pointed out, there is information in the draft that does not cite any source at all. Ideally, you would tell us where you learned all that information. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Pathless1 Respond to a post by clicking "edit" and adding your response after the post you are responding to. You should indent your post using the colon symbol (:). Always use one more : than the person you are responding to. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Pathless1, you refer to "demands for more". But there are no such demands. There are details of what someone would need to do to get the draft into an acceptable state. There is no implication that this is in fact possible; maybe adequate sources don't exist. And there's certainly no reason to supply 50 citations; four good citations is ample to get an article accepted, though the unreferenced content would need to be removed. Maproom (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

how to add footnote?

I added some information to the article on William Inge, the playwright. I cited a published biography, and a footnote number appeared after my information. That number doesn't appear in the 'References' at the end of the article, though, which throws all the other footnotes out of sequence. I have read the available info on editing templates, but it's too technical. How do i add the footnote with the correct name of the source i used to the References template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chippy Beagle (talk • contribs)

@Chippy Beagle: It's showing up fine for me. The reference list displays citations in descending order from the top of the article, and updates numbers accordingly if new citations are added in the middle of articles. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Chippy Beagle (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)