Help desk
< January 1	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 3 >

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.

January 2[edit]

What to do if you are in the middle of creating an article and you highlight something and accidentally delete some of the source . How do you get it back.[edit]

I was writing an article about a dog breed when I accidentally deleted a lot. I can't just click cancel or go to history so what do I do to revert that edit? Thank you. Tvshowoflife (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you didn't publish your edit(s) then they probably won't have been saved, and unless I'm mistaken I don't believe it can be retrieved if its unsaved. StarryNightSky11 ^☎ 02:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Have a good day/night. Tvshowoflife (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to place more urgency on an article involving "WP:CHILDPROTECT" and "WP:SUSPECT"?[edit]

There is currently a discussion here which potentially involves "WP:CHILDPROTECT" and "WP:SUSPECT". Is there a way to place more urgency on it and this discussion?

Also, on a side note, I asked a question here about WP:MULTI earlier, but I never received any response. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are conversations taking place at two of the project's most high visibility noticeboards. WP:FORUMSHOPPING at a third noticeboard does not seem like a good idea to me. Cullen328 (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Cullen328: Even if WP:CHILDPRO is involved? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response Jax 0677, Wikipedia:Child protection discusses inappropriate adult/child relationships among editors. It has nothing to do with article content. Cullen328 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and this was followed by a post at AN. @Jax 0677 STOP forum shopping to get the answer you want. It's not going to help. cc @Cullen328 Star Mississippi 17:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of disasters in Great Britain and Ireland by death toll (formatting issue)[edit]

I've tried to split one of the tables into two in this article. Something has gone wrong with the formatting but I can't work out what. Llewee (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by [1]. The table end code |} must be at the start of a line . PrimeHunter (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping Vandalism[edit]

How do i protect a page from Frequent vandalism. its hard to revert it frequently . Subinbenny001 (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Subinbenny001. Please submit your report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Cullen328 (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: OP has been renamed to Tusk001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the article this seems to be about is List of highest-grossing Malayalam films. Page protections are handled at WP:RFPP Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Victor Schmidt, is there a way to Protect the Article from Vandalism ? Tusk001 (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Victor Schmidt wrote, pages can be protected by reporting at WP:RFPP. Meters (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help about the reference section number 20 Opening Ceremony Athens 2004 Olympics Olympic flag[edit]

Can you help me fix and correct the reference section number 20 Opening Ceremony Athens 2004 Summer Olympics the Olympic Flag? 100.2.114.167 (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have now worked on the article 2004 Summer Olympics opening ceremony and the problem with that ref has been fixed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is about "reliable sources" and "NPOV" policies[edit]

Hello, I would like to bring attention to a general problem. (I think it is better located here than where I previously put it)

My issue is: The very idea of "reliable sources" is toxic, arbitrary, and a violation of NPOV policy.

Trying to define "reliable" and "non-reliable" sources is an impossible task, since every source now and then publishes wrong information, either deliberately on purpose (bias of editor, CEO) or accidentally (developing story, reliable info not available). Therefore Wikipedia should not use the approach of "reliable sources" but only the original WP:NPOV approach. Only single supporting/disproving points or arguments can be reliable or plausible or not, but to call a source reliable or unreliable is both a Poisoning the well fallacy and an Appeal to authority fallacy.

So-called reliable sources give a false sense of certainty in areas where there is no certainty. This false sense of certainty which should rather be ambiguity then leads to cult-like behavior. Very dangerous and pre-enlightenment.

Where can these Wikipedia policy issues be discussed? Der Eberswalder (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not here, this is a help desk. It isn't a place to propose changes to policy. But before you find a more appropriate place to do so, I suggest you take al look at what WP:NPOV actually says: the phrase 'reliable sources' occurs in it 18 times... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, let me reformulate: How can I help to bring attention to a change of this NPOV policy? Wikipedia has a very bad reputation due to that false sense of certainty where ambiguity is more appropriate. Der Eberswalder (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) would seem the appropriate place to start, though I very much doubt you are going to get very far proposing fundamental changes to core policies without making some very strong arguments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to try starting a discussion at WT:NPOV since the talk pages of policy/guideline pages are typically the best places to propose that changes be made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Der Eberswalder I think your comments here show a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia and its policies. Neutral point of view does not mean without bias, as everyone has biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors in determining what to believe. Wikipedia does not claim to be the truth, only that what is presented can be verified. It's up to the reader to determine what they believe. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Der Eberswalder, you assert without evidence that Wikipedia has a very bad reputation, and yet Wikipedia remains a top ten website worldwide with billions of monthly page views, and is #1 by far in educational content. The very policies you hope to change are among the reasons for Wikipedia's success. Cullen328 (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I am raising here is the false sense of certainty in many articles, which I believe is caused by the reliable sources policy. I could be wrong and this is caused by something else.

Sure, some sources are more reliable than others. However, much misinformation comes from governmental institutions (power plays trump facts always) and reputable scientific journals (the very nature of science is that there is always some sense of uncertainty as well as the necessary skepticism to any claims). I have noticed a religious cult-like certainty in many Wikipedia articles that is not warranted. Wikipedia should be better reflect reality - which is in many areas the normal ambiguity and uncertainty of life. Der Eberswalder (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The false sense of certainty in many articles (examples please?) can result from two things.

Either the editors of that article did a bad job representing the existing consensus of reliable sources (outside Wikipedia). In that case, that’s a problem. Discuss on the talk page, on the relevant noticeboard, try to edit the article yourself, etc.

Or the existing consensus of reliable sources (outside Wikipedia) is strongly one one side. In that case, Wikipedia should reflect that consensus. One such example is the article shape of the Earth. There is an extensive body of recent literature describing the Earth as flat, but it does not get to be presented as a scientifically-valid minority viewpoint, because it is not.

Can reliable sources can be wrong? Yes. For instance, many reliable sources will tell you that the first man to circumnavigate the world was Ferdinand Magellan. The source might specify that in fact he died on the way, but virtually nowhere will you find that Juan Sebastián Elcano actually completed the trip (not to mention the nameless sailors aboard, but the commanding officer does get to receive most of the credit). That may be due to Spanish crown propaganda at the time to minimize the achievements of a Basque person, but it has stuck in many textbooks as the "historical truth".

"Reliable sources" does not mean infallible sources, but it does mean those that have been less wrong than others in the past. Such a criterion is necessary, because the alternative (presenting any viewpoint on any issue no matter how crazy it is) is untenable. Yes, the Earth is round, or at least more round than flat; if you reject that, you need to reject centuries of advancements in science, navigation, cartography and so on as one big conspiracy.

I assume your beef is with Talk:The_Gateway_Pundit#Fake_News_NPOV in which case disputing that exact instance on WP:DRN is more likely to work than overturning a fundamental pillar of policy. (Reading the previous discussions and addressing their points also increases your probability of success, though obviously it is not very high to start with.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the wording false sense of certainty, implies certainty that the sense of certainty is indeed false - the user recognizes fallibility only in Wikipedia and its sources and not in himself and his own sources. That is an attitude which is counterproductive in a collaborative project. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External Link[edit]

I am adding an external link under notes of this page

H-1B visa

and it's showing me the error -{{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

This is my first edit and I don't understand the reason behind it.

Please guide.

Thanks Nizamuddin Siddiqui (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word "help" in the error message was in blue, indicating that it was a wikilink, in this case to Help:CS1 errors#param has ext link. Another editor has subsequently removed the citation, not only because it was malformed but also because the citation wasn't used. The citation should be placed immediately after the text which it is supporting, see Help:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nizamuddin Siddiqui: The website property on cite web is to hold the website name not any part of the site url. For example on Sainsbury's. Its a shop. The url would be https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/ and the website value would be Sainsbury's. scope_creep^Talk 16:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy for/against creating "WP:" links to same-name "MOS:" shortcuts?[edit]

Is there a policy that recommends/discourages Wikipedia editors from creating, e.g., the WP: redirect/shortcut WP:QINQ (a redlink, as of writing) to match the MOS: shortcut MOS:QINQ? LightNightLights ^(talk) 10:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots and lots of WP namespace redirects to MOS (and HELP) namespace entries, so go ahead if you think it would be helpful. See Wikipedia:Project namespace for more information. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would support creating the WP:* equivalent for any MOS:* otherwise you run into situation where a WP:FOO and MOS:FOO link to totally different things which would be unexpected for the average person typing them. It's already confusing enough with stuff like Apostrophe and WP:Apostrophe or whatever ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing[edit]

I would like to edit the page relating to the author & archaeologist, Graham Hancock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock ..I am puzzled as to why this academic has such a negative screed written about him & am concerned with LIES published by this site, about Mr Hancock's work & about Hancock himself. 94.193.62.179 (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss the article is Talk:Graham Hancock. You would need to support any proposed changes by references to published reliable sources. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its perhaps worth pointing out that there is no mention in the article of Hancock being an academic. scope_creep^Talk 16:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nor of his being an actual archeologist. He does not carry out excavations or science-based examinations of artefacts, he merely looks at sites and artifacts (or photos of them), reads the reports of real archeologists, and then creates highly speculative hypotheses that often come close to demonstrable fantasy. (I do not refer to his explicitly fictional fantasy novels.)

My personal opinion, FWIW, is that reading his works (which I do) can be entertaining, and that they sometimes draw attention to sites, artefacts, unresolved archeological puzzles, and speculations by actual academics that are worth reading into, but that his own original ideas are of no academic value whatever. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on template capitalisation[edit]

Hi, I've encountered a user running an automated tool that, amongst other things, makes bulk changes to the capitalisation of templates throughout articles (for example; changing {{cite web}} to {{Cite web}}), which as far as I can tell is totally pointless. Is there a policy that covers edits like this? Thanks. XAM2175 ^(T) 16:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XAM2175, might be a WP:SLEEPER, or someone making 'edits' to gain extended confirmed / autoconfirmed perms. And yes, this is totally pointless. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Perhaps WP:COSMETICBOT? If all that this editor is doing is changing template capitalization, then that to me amounts to a cosmetic edit which should not have been done in the first place. If the editor is changing the wikitext in a substantive way and also changing template capitalization, then that sort of edit is not cosmetic and so is allowed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. @Trappist the monk and @Mike Turnbull: the edit in question is this one. It has included a few productive changes – de-linking an instance of the page's own title in the infobox, converting hyphens to en-dashes per MOS:RANGE, and filled a bare ref or two – but the diff is made very challenging to read by the sheer volume of invisible cosmetic changes. I'm not hugely fussed by the insertion of spaces into line breaks and ref re-uses because those improve readability of the source, but the title-casing of templates has nothing going for it and there's nothing at all wrong with them being lower-case. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of that edit was made by User:Citation bot. I suspect that Citation bot is not responsible for the template caps because looking at the bot's recent contributions, I don't see eveidence of similar capitalization changes. Perhaps Editor Jindam vani is using a custom script or some other tool to make those changes.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is WP:WPCleaner that's mainly responsible for the changes in capitalising the template names. Not sure why it bothers to do so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The editor says they're running a custom script. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi XAM2175. WP:COSMETICBOT is our policy on bot or bot-like edits that do not affect what is actually visible to readers. Such edits are fine if bundled with substantive changes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XAM2175 If this is done by an automated tool (i.e. some type of bot) this is against policy: see WP:COSMETICBOT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: you are right. i run sed command for entire article. i did mention on my talk page also. i make edits using wpcleaner. i am fixing one error at a time. so, i thought, is it worth? then i decided to add referencexpander (expand references), refill (to fix references & duplicates also), citations gadget, autoformatter. almost half of the time, it happens as described by XAM2175. i am in no mood to upset or bother patrollers. i request senior editors to advice me to continue or stop. i will abide by it. thank you. <_> jindam, vani (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So long as you are also making a substantive change when you run your script, I don't know of anything that proscribes converting template names to their canonical form.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

just now rechecked cs1 templates, and they dont have upper case in template examples. i am completly wrong and purged cite from my sed command. today i have made couple of edits, however from now on it will not be repeated. <_> jindam, vani (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you link to a wikitionary definition[edit]

Hi Folks!! How would you link from a wikipedia page to the [2] entry. I used something before years ago, but can't remember. It for linking surgeoncy at Joseph Lister#Assistant surgeoncy. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 16:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[[wikt:surgeoncy#English]] → wikt:surgeoncy#English

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: Happy New Year!! I hope you and your family have a great 2023 scope_creep^Talk 16:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question about permissions to upload a photo[edit]

Dear Help Desk,

I would like to upload a portrait photograph to the entry for the novelist Hilda Kay Grant. This photo was used on the dust jacket of one of her novels (published 1956). When she died she willed rights to the novels to my mother. I subsequently contacted Harper-Collins (who had acquired the original publisher Abelard-Schumann), who in a letter reliquished their rights in favour of my mother. When my mother died last year, these rights reverted to me.

My question is, what procedure, upload of documents, etc. is required in order to prove my right to use the photo and to not have it subsequently removed from the Wikipedia site.

Thank you for your advice. Cum salis grano (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cum salis grano. The question is whether you have evidence that you hold the copyright to the photo. Normally the copyright in a photo is held by the photographer, unless it haqs been explicitly transferred to somebody else; so the publishers may or may not have held the rights to the photo and transferred them with the other rights.

If you can show that you do hold the rights to the photo, then you may upload the picture to Commons using the upload wizard, and choosing the option that says you hold the rights and are licensing it as required by Commons. (Note that this means that you are granting a non-revocable licence that allows anybody to use or alter the photo for any purpose, commercial or not).

If you cannot show that you hold the copyright, or you are not willing to license it in that way, you may be able to upload it to Wikipedia as non-free content, provided you can show that its uses meets all of the Non-free content criteria. ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cum salis grano. I'm going to expand on what ColinFine posted above about non-free content in that non-free photos of deceased individuals are generally OK to upload as use for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about the individual in question per item 10 of WP:NFCI as long as there are no free-equivalents which could possibly be used instead for the same purpose as explained in WP:FREER. Obviously, a new photo of a deceased person can't be taken per se, but an older already existing photo can possibly be found which is either no longer eligible or never was eligible for copyright protection, or is eligible for copyright protection and can be released under a free license accepted by the Wikimedia Foundation. Since you have a specific photo in mind, you might want to ask about it at WP:MCQ instead of here since that's where you going to find Wikipedia users who may be more familiar with image copyright. If the photo you want to upload can already be found somewhere online, then providing a link to where it can be found would also be helpful.

Having posted all of that, the Hilda Kay Grant actually has more pressing issues than a lack of an image. Much of the article is unsupported by any inline citations and unsupported content can be removed at anytime per WP:BURDEN. So, if you're planning on trying to improve the article, it might be better to first find more reliable sources that discuss Grant and which might possibly be cited in support of the article's content. Adding an images would be a nice if possible, but a lack of images is pretty much never the reason why a Wikipedia article ends up being trimmed of unsourced content or even nominated for deletion in some cases.

Finally, it seems from you post that you might be somehow related to Grant (perhaps she's your grandmother?). If you are related to her, then you probably should also take a careful look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (COI) since users are generally discouraged from directly editing articles about subjects for which they have a conflict of interest. In this context "generally discouraged" doesn't mean "prohibited", but it would be a really good idea to familiarize yourself with relevant Wikipedia guidelines related to COI editing (see Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for more on that) as well as other relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines so that you avoid running into problems if you do have a COI and do intend to directly try and edit the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and indirect evidence[edit]

University Laboratory High School (Urbana, Illinois) has a list of alumni. I went to their respective articles and added Category:University Laboratory High School (Urbana, Illinois) alumni where it was not already. One of these has been reverted because the school is not mentioned in that article. Now, it seems to me that I have seen plenty of articles with Categories whose relevance is not obvious from anything in the article itself. What is the policy? —Tamfang (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CATVER (my emphasis): Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Uncited category}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate or if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category. Umimmak (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find guidance at Wikipedia:Categorization#Verifiable. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image Deletion Process[edit]

How does one start the image deletion process? How do I contact an admin? 2603:8001:D300:6C00:7C28:B9EF:3B3C:655C (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If the image is hosted here on the English Wikipedia, the proper place is Wikipedia:Files for discussion. If it is hosted on Wikimedia Commons, you will need to discuss it there. Cullen328 (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updates of 1985 in Greece of photos of references of Leaders[edit]

Here you are. Can you see and fix the problems of Greece 1985? I put in the references of their stories of the Greek President Konstantinos Karamanlis, Speaker of the Hellenic Parliament Ioannis Alevras will be acting President of the Hellenic Republic, and Christos Sartzetakis is the President of the Hellenic Republic. 100.2.114.167 (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: 1985 in Greece Maproom (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move a page[edit]

Need help to move this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fai_D._Flowright to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fai_D._Flourite 2600:1700:600:A710:F5BB:ADAE:2B87:4975 (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP. Welcome to HelpDesk, please open a request at WP:RTM. Happy editing/redirecting! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]