Help desk
< September 19	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 21 >

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.

September 20[edit]

Privileges to delete pages.[edit]

Howdy. I am wondering about what privileges it takes to delete a page, and what I need to do to get it. Please ping me if someone answers, as I don't check this page at all. Thanks, Prairie Astronomer ^{Contributions} 01:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only Wikipedia:Administrators can delete pages (with a few esoteric exceptions), and the place to request adminship is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. The fact that I had to tell you that, though, makes you clearly unsuited to be an admin. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Sorry, I never read the policies or anything. I just tend to naturally be civil. When I first joined, I didn't receive a link to the policy page. I still try to just ask civil. Thanks for the information though. Prairie Astronomer ^{Contributions} 02:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Prairie Astronomer: If you believe that a page should be deleted, you can, if it's uncontroversial, request a speedy deletion or a proposed deletion; if it would be controversial, you should consider drafting a request for deletion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Prairie Astronomer: Administrators to not make deletion decisions. They act on the consensus reached by all interested Wikipedia editors in a process called an "AfD" (WP:AFD), or in response to either of the other two processes described above (WP:PROD, WP:SPEEDY). This means that except for the last technical act of deletion, you have just as much "privilege" to delete as anyone else. -Arch dude (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Hussey, 1st Baron Hussey of Sleaford[edit]

The authenticity of the pic of Lord Hussey himself in the info box was in doubt so I removed it, but now the page is a real mess. Please help. Thanks. 114.76.38.200 (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done (not by me). Maproom (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Hussey, 1st Baron Hussey of Sleaford[edit]

Please see my easier question posted above, I have made a big mistake. Sorry. Thanks 114.76.38.200 (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told on countless occasions NOT to start a new section when discussing an existing topic. You have also been told that when you screw things up the button to use to correct your errors is "Undo". David Biddulph (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Biddulph assume the range she uses is too broad to partial ban from the Help Desk? Didn't she say she was no longer editing here? Star Mississippi 14:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are school yearbooks reliable sources to verify graduation year?[edit]

I was wondering because I was looking at the page of the actress Dilshad Vadsaria and there were two links in regards to the college she attended. The second one was a class of 1999 yearbook and her picture was among the seniors that graduated that year. I asked an editor who frequently edits that page if I could put she graduated in 1999 and pointed that source out to him, he removed it(even though it had been there for at least two years) and said the source wasn't appropriate. Seeing as how that yearbook was actually published online, I really don't see how it would be inappropriate. This is the site where it came from

https://doczz.net/doc/2731249/class-of-1999-----university-of-delaware

99.21.95.87 (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question, you should ask over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.Herostratus (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I transferred from one high school to another during my senior year. Yearbooks are published before graduation day. If a student transfers, drops out, gets expelled or gets killed between the publication of the yearbook and the actual graduation, the yearbook will be inaccurate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, yearbooks are utterly inaccurate from beginning to end. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well the reason I'm asking is because there's a dispute over this actresses' age. Her page has her birth year listed as 1985/1986. And the yearbook in question is a college one not a high school one. And like I already mentioned, her picture is among the seniors of 1999. Other articles mention her attending that college and she herself briefly talks about it in this one.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120307133520/http://cornellsun.com/node/37761

So regardless whether or not she graduated from there, unless she's some of super genius, I think it's very unlikely she'd already be a college senior by age 12-13.99.21.95.87 (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Counterintuitively, persons are pretty poor subjects for their own birthdates. Reasons vary: Stan Kenton's parents lied to him (to hide that he was concieved before marriage); Sonny Liston had no formal birth records and had been told various things; Gene Tierney's family was just plain off by one day; [unamed entertainer] likes to play cute with her age; and so forth.

Nor is the yearbook good enough. So hmmm. So first of all, if there's any indication that the person might have a birthdate that xe'd prefer not to be known, or would rather people think it's different from reality, treat this verrrryyyy carefully per WP:BLP. Options include "Born XXX [ref] or YYY [ref]"; "Born XXX [ref]; some sources say YYY [ref]"; "Birthdate disputed"; or whatever. But. If you don't have a reliable ref -- I consider an unsupported statement by the subject unreliable if there's reason to believe that it might be a different date, with "reason to believe" being in play if there's competing date out there, even from another unreliable source -- I'd just leave it out. Leave a note in the article and on the talk page. Stinks because it's leaving out key information, but that's what we do with BLPs if we don't have stoneground proof. Herostratus (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical TV episode color coding[edit]

In various articles about television series, there are tables showing seasons or episodes with color coding that isn't explained anywhere. For example: List of The Mod Squad episodes, List of Grimm episodes, List of Gilligan's Island episodes, List of 24 episodes, and so on. NO color key given on any of these pages. Why is that? How can any reader be expected to know what these colors mean? ~Anachronist (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems obvious to me that these colours have no intrinsic meaning, but are merely used (arbitrarily and differently in each article) to distinguish between different seasons: for example, in the first of those articles, Season 2 is marked pink in the initial table of seasons, and the table of Season 2 Episodes further down has matching pink header row and row dividers; other seasons are matched in the same way, and the scheme is followed in the last table of Home release DVDs.

Similar 'coding' is present in the other articles, but with different colours as there is (as far as I know) no standard for such things. I do note that the colours used in the Grimm article are not well chosen as they are too similar to one another.

Ultimately it's a matter Graphic design, here mildly helpful but more about the aesthetics. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.2130.195} 90.200.67.3 (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I am skeptical. If the point were simply to distinguish between seasons, then it would make more sense to adopt a consistent key like a rainbow going from red to violet, rather than random colors. Note also that the parent article of each list article also uses the same colors as the list, and there is absolutely no need for the colors in the parent article because it's just a list of seasons. And as you pointed out, in some cases similar colors are used. I thought perhaps the colors were an indication of viewership critics' consensus rating, but I cannot tell. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While that might make more sense, Wikipedia has evolved informally and rather randomly over many years, and those articles were created by hundreds of different editors at different times with different ideas. Some of them may have referred to what colors other editors were using, some did not. You could always ask some of them to explain their use of color, but to me it is also obvious that they are arbitrary. As long as they serve their purpose there is no need to invent a standard scheme.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The colours are often chosen to match official DVD release cover images. A rainbow from red to violet is sometimes used (e.g. List of QI episodes). — Bilorv (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:TVOVERVIEW. Bazza (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The season table in the parent article is usually transcluded from the list article. For example, The Mod Squad#Episodes transcludes List of The Mod Squad episodes#Series overview which marks the table with onlyinclude. I don't mind the unexplained colors. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know about MOS:TVOVERVIEW. So the colors likely do have a meaning, but the meaning is an arbitrary choice. The fact remains that none of these articles explain the meaning. Whether they should provide a color key is a different conversation best not held here. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronist, such use of colour might possibly be a violation of MOS:COLOR and also WP:ACCESSIBILITY. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. All the example articles provide a colour key: The "Series overview" section at the top lists the seasons, and the colour allocated to each one. That is a colour key. What more does the OP want? Chuntuk (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67 and Anachronist: Provided background colours and foreground text colours have sufficient contrast, and no information is being presented by a colour which is not also explained in text, then there's not an accessibility issue. So, for example, the information at List of 24 episodes has sufficient contrast, and is complete even if colours are removed. Bazza (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67: No, if you look at the parent article, the same season table is shown without any explanation. It is not a color key in the context of the parent article. That's where I first ran across these tables (not the list articles I linked). The colors look meaningful, but there is no explanation. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronist, I think your reply is actually meant for Bazza 7. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, then I don't know why. I never mentioned "key", only requirements for accessibility. Possibly Chuntuk, lost when the indentation went awry (might be my fault)? Bazza (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was meant for Chuntuk. Sorry for the confusion. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

According to this template, Wikimedia Foundation has 5 current "people." Is that good/clear enough? If you have an opinion, please join Template_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation#Who's_in_and_who's_not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance Tag Question[edit]

Don't normally get these but I got one for ESR Cayman.

Problem is there is no other info such as talk page discussion. Not to mention it was recently reviewed by someone else.

I want to confirm if templates like these are posted without any elaboration can be removed? Don't think its fair to just go around tagging articles without explanation.

-Imcdc (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Imcdc. The tags in question do seem odd, but rather than removing them, you should discuss it with the editor who added them, MrsSnoozyTurtle, a very experienced editor and administrator. Note, by the way that you did not get any tags. The article got some tags, but it is not your article, even though you are the only one who has edited it up to now. --ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Imcdc: Discussion started on talk page. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "fan" tag. That's weird regardless of who put it there. (not that matters when it comes to content, but for the record the tagging user is not and admin) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GDPR[edit]

Did WMF recognize the applicability of GDPR to Wikipedia? At foundation:Privacy policy there is some mention of GDPR. I assume GDPR became applicable since 25 June 2021. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: WMF's privacy policy is about data collected by WMF about users of all of WMF's web sites. It therefore applies to data about users of the English Wikipedia. Whether or not WMF "recognizes" the GDPR with respect to this data is a question for WMF, not for the English Wikipedia help desk. Please note neither the privacy policy nor the GDPR appear to apply to data that appears in Wikipedia articles: that is not user data. The applicable policy about article content is WP:BLP. -Arch dude (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Categories[edit]

I have a question and a meta-question about redirect category tags. The meta-question is where I can ask questions about redirect categories. All categories in Wikipedia are essentially gnome work, and sometimes gnomes need to ask questions about how to do gnome work more accurately, and accuracy is even more important in gnome work than in other areas. So is there a central place to ask questions about redirect categories? In particular, I have encountered a redirect that is the result of a page move from 2018-2019 to 2018-2019, except that the second form used a dash rather than a hyphen. That is a redirect from a page move, but what else is it? Is it an ASCII-only redirect? It isn't exactly a redirect to diacritics? What is it, or should I ask somewhere else? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion is a good venue for gnomish questions about categories. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Redirecting categories may be relevant to your actual question. TSventon (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:TSventon - Thank you, but I think that answers different questions. I am not asking about the redirecting of categories, but about categories that are assigned to redirect pages. These categories are assigned by tagging the redirect itself, either with Twinkle or manually, and keep track of, for instance, redirects from plural to singular or singular to plural, and redirects from full name to short name or short name to full name. So you answered a different question. Can someone answer my original question? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, sorry I misunderstood your question. My second attempt at the meta question is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect. I would suggest mentioning which redirect you are asking about to make the question clearer. TSventon (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:TSventon - Thank you. I hadn't known that there was such a project, but there should be done, so thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]