Help desk
< July 12	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 14 >

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.

July 13[edit]

how to get a revision removed[edit]

On a certain talk page, a user posted a question containing (apparently) their home address. I removed it, but it's still in the history. How do I ask for an admin (or whatever) to suppress that version? —Tamfang (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamfang, contact WP:OVERSIGHT. 97.126.97.156 (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is for sure the correct advice, but since I am on that team, I figured out what you were talking about and dealt with it. Please do use WP:RFO in the future though, thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lupton family[edit]

Ref 189 is all wrong and I cannot fix it, please fix if able, thanks. 175.38.42.62 (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(i) Just what about it is "all wrong"? (ii) Do you have any intention of attempting to fix references yourself? (iii) Will these accretions of Lupton/Middleton trivia never end? (This one tells us "...Alan Lupton began at Eton, boarding there from 1888 to 1892. He married Mary Burrell in 1905, the sister of his fellow old Etonian Sir Merrick Burrell, 7th Baronet. His second cousins Francis and Olive Lupton - Kate's great-grandmother - were guests at the wedding.") -- Hoary (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any errors with that ref, please clarify what you think the error is. RudolfRed (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By contrast, I do see an error in the title of this thread: It's the same as the title of another thread on this very page. It would help if the person in/near Perth avoided the repetition of titles. -- Hoary (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I saw words printed in "red" and assumed there was a problem. Thanks as always. 175.38.42.62 (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a problem: you had specified an access date in the future (14 July). Somebody fixed this by changing it to 12 July. This is supposed to be the date that you most recently visited (accessed) the linked reference, usually today's date, certainly not tomorrow's. Card Zero (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Publishing Article for Public Consumption[edit]

Hello,

I am writing an ongoing article about the visual Artist Steph Gorkii, I am wondering how I "Publish" or otherwise make the article available for viewing via your search engine / google.

Please inform me of the steps I need to take in order to do this.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Kody J. Bosch

KodyBosch (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new Wikipedia article from scratch is a difficult process, and not something we generally recommend newcomers attempt - sadly, most such efforts tend to get rejected. If you are intent on this, start by reading Help:Your first article, and pay particular attention to the requirements to meet Wikipedia notability criteria through citation to published reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the reply.

Okay...SOooooo I'm trying to understand the point of a crowdsourcing encyclopedia if it is impossible to add articles to it...everyone has to get started somewhere! i've successfully edited existing articles, and the article I am writing is about one of the greatest American Artists of the 2oth and 21st century, who was famous before his life ended up on the rocks. I have cited numerous sources - including webpages and books. Uploaded images from originals sources that have been sent to me in support of this project. and have been working on this article for months.

There is some contention over this man's Intellectual estate, so I have been hoping that Wikipedia was the best way to get his story out there while allowing those who knew him to edit the articles while they are still alive.

I am willing to jump through however many hoops are necessary to meet Wikipedia's requirements, and however long it takes. I am a young guy and this project will likely be something I am pursuing the rest of my life.

The problem is that wikipedia's "Requirements" heretofore have been almost completely opaque...at least to me.

I hope that Wikipedia will be open to this. I also am a bit of a scholar and have access to original documents on obscure and esoteric subjects, that I would like to contribute to the collective consciousness. but if since I am "new" and there is no route to get any of that information, available no where else out there. then I guess I will find a workaround, of which there are always ---

And by "original sources" I am talking about books about Benjamin franklin that were writtten while he was alive...and are on paper. So even the images scanned / photographed would be original. As well as numerous items in my own collection. I believe Human kind deserves a lot better, and I don't know a better way to disseminate information other than this platform -

Thank you,

Kody J. Bosch

Washington State, USA KodyBosch (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KodyBosch, it is possible to add articles to Wikipedia. (I speak from personal experience.) AndyTheGrump gave you excellent advice for achieving just this. But the most pressing problem raised by your draft is the copyright status of the three images that appear within it (and likewise for commons:File:Stephen Sculpting (Provincetown?).jpg). Please see what I wrote on your talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further, KodyBosch, your remark that "I have been hoping that Wikipedia was the best way to get his story out there while allowing those who knew him to edit the articles while they are still alive" is somewhat worrying. Getting his story out: If you're talking about providing easier access to facts already published in printed materials that aren't available in many libraries, OK; but if you're contemplating a dependence on letters and the like, no. Those who knew him: People who knew the subject of an article may at least use the talk page of an article to suggest edits to that article; but their suggestions must derive from "reliable sources", not from personal recollections, and they need to digest and edit in accordance with the "Plain and simple conflict of interest guide". -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Hello, anybody hanging around who can take a look at Temple of Apollo Patroos? The first reference, more specifically the plato-dialogues.org/tools/agora, URL accessed on June 3, 2008.
IMO, a proper "cite web template" would be an improvement to the page. I would make use of the Refill tool, but as that tool automatically changes the accessdate, I was wondering if it is still a consensus the original accessdate is not that important (as it remains in the article history). Also, since it dates back from 2008, the link might be dead and the tool would not change anything. Thank you so much for your time. Lotje (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lotje. Generally, you should be OK improving citations per WP:CS#Generally considered helpful, but you should be aware that some people do consider switching from a non-template to template format to be contrary to WP:CITEVAR. So, if that's basically what you're thinking about doing and the article as a whole doesn't use citation templates, then you might want to suggest the change on the article's talk page first. If, on the other hand, most of the citations use templates, then tweaking those that don't to use templates should be OK. If reverted, don't argue but instead try to resolve things through article talk page discussion just like you would in the case of a content dispute. FWIW, as long as the WP:CITESTYLE is consistent throughout the article, then whether a template is used shouldn't matter. Non-template citations can be formatted to give the same appearance as a citations that use templates. As for the access-dates, my understanding is that the "access-date" represents the date was last accessed and verified to still be working and suporting the relevant content per WP:ACCESSDATE; so, that date doesn't necessarily need to remain the date the citation was added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Refill automatically changes the accessdate that is yet another reason for it to not use it. The tool cannot know that the online source still supports the text in our articles so should not make it appear that on the new access date the source still supports our article. Every aspect of every edit made by refill must be closely examined before editors driving the tool publish the edit. Alas, far too many editors blithely publish without validating the tool's edits and that is detrimental to the quality of our articles and causes no end of work for those of us who follow behind cleaning up the mess.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and what if the link is dead? Lotje (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LINKROT

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lotje: If you verify that a source supports whatever it's supposed support, you probably don't need to worry too much about the change in access-dates. You should, however, try to verify the source and not just simply change the date. If the source doesn't verify what it's supposed to be verifying or can't be accessed, then there are two possibilities why that might be the case. The first one is that the source never supported what it was being claimed to support. If that's the case, then encyclopedic value of the source should be reassessed and it either be removed altogether (if completely unrelated to the subject matter) or left as is tagged with an inline cleanup template {{Better source needed}} (if somewhat related but not clear). If the source is removed altogether, you either should try to find a replacement or add a template like {{citation needed}} for others to see. The other possibility was that the source actually was "good" when originally added, but over time it either got over written or just otherwise became inaccessible. It that case the source still has value and shouldn't simply just be removed leaving the content unsourced. As explained above by Trappist the monk, there are ways to work around this by either finding an archived version of the source that does support the relevant content, finding a replacement for the source that does the same thing, or by using a template {{deadlink}} to let others know about the problem. Since I don't use tools or scripts like "Refill", I don't know all of their ins and outs. I get that using such things can help save time and effort, but you have to remember that any "problems" their use causes are, for the most part, going to be attributed to those who use them. So, it's probably a good idea (as Trappist the monk suggests above) to go back and make sure the edits you made are OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: @Marchjuly: thank you for your kind help and suggestions. Lotje (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly:, would you be so kind as to take a look at this? I guess, the title a user would fill in would be Find bioprotection products for your crop, which could imo be considered as blatant advertising. Imho, Refill did a wonderful job here by adding neutral information. Cheers Lotje (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

en.wiki does not care what a subject says or wants said about itself. The subject's website can never be a reliable source. Setting those things aside, I don't think that your example citation is all that great. The title that a reader sees is "Find bioprotection products for your crop" so that is the title that {{cite web}} should have. |website= should be the name of the website from the site's logo/banner area so, in this case, should be |website=CABI BioProtection Portal. As I understand it, Refill auto-fills |access-date= with the current date. It should not do that because |access-date= is the date that an editor (not some brain-dead tool) has determined that the source supports the wikitext of our article. Refill has no ability to make that determination so should never auto-fill |access-date=.

Imho, Refill did a wonderful job here by adding neutral information. Not really. Refill simply copied the content from the source:

<title>BioProtection Portal - biocontrol and biopesticide products</title>

Don't give the tool more credit than it deserves.

If you decide to keep that citation, perhaps you should mark it with {{better source needed}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: reaching out to you again on this subject. Coming acrosse the article on Matthew C. Perry (which could do with some improvent

), there is this [37] reference, where the contents of the link seem to have changed. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Comparing the current content to an archived snapshot it looks to me like the content is the same (I did not do a detailed analysis). The link was added to the article at this edit on 10 December 2020; the archive snapshot was made on 14 November 2020.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk:, that is strange, it seems to work now. BTW is that only me, or is it a general thing momentarily, accessing pages takes very, very long. Lotje (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say if it's only you; I'm not experiencing loading delays.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But, there is this: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Slow.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: Oh, I see. Thanks for letting me know. Lotje (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joal Stanfield[edit]

Is Joal Stanfield notable. MagicalPrince863 (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would you say are the three most informative reliable sources about him, MagicalPrince863? (His notability can be gauged from these three.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MagicalPrince863 At present you have a single source to a local newspaper, which means that even if he is notable, you have not demonstrated that. See WP:NBIO for the expectations. Incidentally, find-a-grave and fandom are not considered reliable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobility References[edit]

I have a few questions Nobility References

Is System for Award Management(SAM) fall into this category?. Also is SBA Certified Veteran-owned small businesses fall into this category as well.

I have attached both links for review:

https://sam.gov/content/home

https://veterans.certify.sba.gov/

Geozap619 (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources, not the possession of 'certificates' etc. So no. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images on translated pages[edit]

I have translated a page but the logo and floppy disk images are broken. How can I get these onto the Spanish page? TIA.

Translated page: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_Internet Tstanford1987 (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tstanford1987, those are non-free images hosted locally on English Wikipedia - they are not on Commons because they do not meets its requirements. If and only if they meet Spanish Wikipedia's requirements for use of non-free images, you can upload them to Spanish Wikipedia. You will need to ask there about their rules and processes. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick answer! Tstanford1987 (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]