Help desk
< August 22	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 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.

August 23[edit]

Update request[edit]

Indian Actress Sridevi got Filmfare award for best actress category in 2013 for 1986 and 1987 but this development is not mentioned in sridevi wikipedia and film fare best actress wiki. request you to update this information. 122.161.91.176 (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 122.161.91.176. Are you asking about the article Sridevi? If you are, then there are two options you can follow. The first one would be to make the desired edits yourself. It's appears that the article might be currently under a type of protection called pending changes. Articles protected as such can still be edited by IP accounts, but the edit will remained "unofficial" so to speak until it is accepted by pending changes reviewer. So, if you are WP:BOLD, make the edit yourself and support the changes you make with citation to a reliable source so that it can be verified, a pending changes editor may accept the edit if it's otherwise in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you make the edit and don't provide any citations to a reliable source in support or there are other problems with the edit, the pending changes reviewer may try and fix the edit themselves or may decline the edit. If the edit is declined, you would probably be better off starting a discussion on the article's talk page about the change you want made instead of trying to make the same edit again. The other option basically involves you being WP:CAUTIOUS and first proposing the edit on the article's talk page (as an edit request) to see what others might think. In this case as well, you're going to be expected to provide some way for others to verify the details of the edit and usually this is done by adding a link to a reliable source that supports the edit. If you simply post something like "Please make this change" without providing any way for the edit to be verified, then there's a good chance of your request being declined since it can't be verified. Which option you choose is up to you, but the WP:BURDEN of providing a way to verify the changes you want made also falls upon you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I seek an inline double-brace tool that displays language type and a translated word[edit]

I'm trying to find a certain Wikipedia inline textual tool which provides the translation (into English, in this case) of a foreign word, with the language listed before the translated word.

The tool's inline format is similar to {{language|translated word}} (that is my conjectural reconstruction of it, and it is missing some part) and has an output such as

...she told us that le chat (English: the cat) knew that mice love fromage (English: cheese), so the feline...

I have found a similar tool, and its form is {{lang|language type|translated word}} with output such as

...if dogs had been chasing le chat (the cat) through their neighborhood...

but that is not the tool I seek, although it is similar.

If someone can identify the tool that I want, and direct me to the same, I would appreciate the assistance. —catsmoke ^talk 07:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking for a template that automatically provides the English translation? If so, that's not going to happen. Machine translation of individual words is effectively impoossible. The OED lists 100 senses for the word "set", many of them subdivided. ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lang-en {{lang-en|cat}} "le chat (English: cat) but the template highly discourages its use because 1. It's English wiki so unnecessary and redundant (just type out English: cat is better) and 2. Takes up template processing resources. But it can be useful in niche scenarios.

They are all formatted {{lang-x}} where x is the two or three letter language code. Should be a brief section explaining on the Template:Lang page Fredlesaltique (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding (defunct) to inactive websites[edit]

Hi

I want to know if it is right to add "(defunct)" or "defunct" to the official websites mentioned at the external links sections of articles.

Example from Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (film): Official website defunct

If the answer is no, then how we should mention that the link is not active anymore? Example Zachary Levi: Official website

Cheers Shkuru Afshar (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When something in the body of an article cites a website as a source of information, and afterwards that site goes offline, then it is important to note that the website is offline. But since none of the information in an article is directly dependent upon any of those External links-section links for reference (if it were, the link would have already been cited), the solution is to completely remove the link from the post-article list of External links. In the case of your Pride and Prejudice and Zombies link, that link should be removed from the article's External links list. —catsmoke ^talk 09:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shkuru Afshar: Hi there! Another option is to use Template:Webarchive, as I have done on the Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (film) article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a Wikipaedia Entry[edit]

Hi, I wish to add comments to the Wikipedia page of someone I know as Wikipedia have used mainly news excerpts and quotes to prepare the page. This person is new to public life and the page is rather unbalanced. The Wikipedia page has obviously been written by someone who was unhappy with his appointment. The sources have been used taking comments out of context to the detriment of the individual concerned. How can this be addressed? Will my edits, adding text to the wording already in Wikipedia to give context, be shown publically? Creaggam (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Creaggam and welcome to the help desk! what page are you referring to? all contributions and comments will be shown publicly, unless the page is under pending changes protection, in which case it'll have to go through another, more experienced editor for review before being accepted. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 14:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note, Creaggam, that you may not use any information which has not been published. You say "mainly news excerpts and quotes" - that is what an encyclopaedia article should be based on (and books, if there are any on the subject). Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, so if the article is unbablanced, that should be fixed. But if it happens that all the available independent published sources are hostile to the subject, then I'm afraid that that's what Wikipedia should report (and note that non-independent sources, such as interviews or articles based on press releases, should not be used, even if they are the only favourable sources you can find).

The best thing to do is to open a discussion on the article's talk page: express you concerns, cite your sources, and suggest how the article could be improved. ColinFine (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Melecie and Colin - are you Wikipedia Editors? I very much agree that information should be written from a neutral point of view however I do see on Wikipedia selective narratives. We should, in any socioa media environment report im an unbiased way (but often this does not happen) with it referenced e.g companies house, published data / material. Writing about an individaul carries great resposnsibility especially if incomplete, a biased narrative, lazy reseatch etc. and this can impact people's lives. I could enter onto the talk page but will the data it be changed? I have been in the press and people have spoken about me as if public property and they know me. I agree with this "But if it happens that all the available independent published sources are hostile to the subject, then I'm afraid that that's what Wikipedia should report (and note that non-independent sources, such as interviews or articles based on press releases, should not be used, even if they are the only favourable sources you can find)" but in this case the the hostile press reports etc. have not been fully checked out or quotes conveninent cut when the whole quote available. The press reports are sloppy jouirnalism as makes good copy. 2A00:23C8:A41F:F801:C08E:FE27:21E8:C9B6 (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Creaggam: Everyone here (Melecie, Colin, you, me) is a Wikipedia editor. "Editor" means "someone who edits". The newspaper meaning of "someone who controls the content that is published" is not a position that exists here.

in this case the the hostile press reports etc. have not been fully checked out or quotes conveninent cut when the whole quote available. The press reports are sloppy jouirnalism as makes good copy You will have to take that with the journalists or their editors-in-chief. You should definitely not use Wikipedia to correct the record. You can obviously understand that if we allowed that, we would end up with plenty of articles saying stuff like X has been accused of murder, but that’s because journalists have an axe to grind, actually it was someone else. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth for a longer discussion of that point. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you. The record if correct cannot be amended.Sometimes though one can be biased in how something is written. 2A00:23C8:A41F:F801:C08E:FE27:21E8:C9B6 (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the use of the word Editpos I meant people with a degree of responsibility re: content. Goimg to the Editprs in Chief is not the issue here. A record should always be cotrrceted IF the account - even using published aterial does not give the full, corrcet account . Content used without full context and abbreviated for a specific narrative can misrepresemt a person. One should always be fair, honest and unbiased in ones commenst or reproting and report in full. 2A00:23C8:A41F:F801:C08E:FE27:21E8:C9B6 (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Sources When Changes are Requested by Page's Subject[edit]

Hi,

I have been trying to update the Wikipedia page of a journalist/author, at the request of this person. The changes were sent to me by the page's subject directly, so I am not sure how I can cite this source. I would also like to ensure that my changes will not constantly be edited, since they are coming directly from the source. Rslit (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general, statements by the subject of the page are not suitable as references. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth among others. If the subject of the page points out references that support the statements that's fine.Naraht (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Rslit (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Rslit and welcome to the help desk! firstly, please read the conflict of interest guidelines and the ones on paid editing, you need to disclose your COI before resuming edits on Peter Baker. you can't just forward what he says onto wikipedia since we require everything, especially statements in biographies of living persons, to be verifiable. you have to find published sources (ideally ones that are independent from the subject) through say, reputable news organizations: see Reliable sources for more on these. these are required as well, which is why your edits have been reverted (almost) immediately. and once these are all done, you can send a Edit request to the talk page of the article, in this case Talk:Peter Baker (journalist) so that other editors can see if these edits are appropriate, helping you refine them if possible instead of just being striken down. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 14:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, this is very helpful! Rslit (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern and Western Armenian[edit]

I don't know how to rename this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khachig_I_of_Armenia

It should be dubbed Khachik_I_of_Armenia. Khachig is a phonetic rendering according to Western Armenian pronounciation (and should not be used as a main form), while it should be rendered according to the orthograph of Eastern Armenian.

The problem is larger: in scientific publications both Eastern and Western Armenian are rendered according to the phonetic values of classical Armenian (more similar to Eastern) Sever Juan (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sever Juan: Hi there! I suggest you start a discussion on the article's talk page: Talk:Khachig I of Armenia. If there is consensus (or no objection) to changing the article title, then see the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PDFs not opening correctly, pages shows scrambled code[edit]

We recently updated our wiki page with the newest version (https://hovpedia.hov.org/). Now when we upload PDFs, we get a scrambled code page, see example: https://hovpedia.hov.org/img_auth.php/1/1f/Dream_Request_%26_Liability_Release_Forms_Fillable_2021.pdf HELP!! Why is it not showing correctly. Thanks, Michelle 184.191.131.129 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP user, this is a place to ask about using or editing English Wikipedia. If you have a question about the MediaWiki software, try the MediaWiki support desk. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Copyvio-revdel[edit]

Following the instructions at WP:COPYVIO, I've removed a section of Paul Costelloe as it was lifted from their website. Should I use Template:Copyvio-revdel even though the copyright infringing text was added in I believe 2017? KaraLG84 (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KaraLG84: Yes. There is no time limit if the material is still in copyright. However, in longstanding copyed material like this, It's a good idea to (try to) verify that the material was copied into Wikipedia instead of being copied from Wikipedia. -Arch dude (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude Thanks. I'll sort it. Pretty much the entirety of the company's about page was copied into the article. KaraLG84 (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude Ah someone already beat me to it. I'll keep this in mine for the future though. Thanks again. KaraLG84 (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]