Help desk
< March 22	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 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.

March 23[edit]

SMK Main Convent[edit]

SMK Main Convent, Ipoh Please fix up this - I remove the info box - or something like that...I'm sorry. Please repair115.70.23.77 (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. A pair of left-hand curly brackets was not paired with a pair of right-hand curly brackets (if that makes sense). Uporządnicki (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finding chart records for music[edit]

Hello, I'm new to making music articles, and I'm curious on how you can find which charts a song debuts in (hard rock, top 100, etc.) and in what countr(ies). Is it really just guess and check, or is there a more automated/quicker way of doing this. Thanks! Johnson524 (Talk!) 03:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnson524: I don't work with charts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Chart performance and charts. You may get better answers at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is late, but thanks for the reply! At very least it gives me a starting point. Cheers! Johnson524 (Talk!) 06:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki page translation[edit]

Hello,

I am a fairly experienced translator working from Spanish to English. I would like to assist in translating Wiki pages but I am just baffled by the volume to information presented to me. I just want to see some pages of source text and translate them. I had intended to deal with a page I found on the "Category:Articles needing translation from Spanish Wikipedia" page (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primera_generaci%C3%B3n_de_computadoras) and indeed I have done that translation outside of the Wiki Translate page in my own editor. I had then intended to retrofit my content into the Wiki editor. But I now see the translation tool is disabled to all but "extended confirmed editors" which clearly I am not.

How can I SIMPLY get into translating Wiki content? I understand there is a need to regulate editing but I find it all rather baffling and obstructive. Can someone please point me to something simple to read so I can make myself useful to Wikipedia?

Regards, Simon Robinson Simonitov zebedee (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Simonitov zebedee. I understand your desire for simplicity but certain human endeavors have aspects of complexity that must be dealt with. The simple answer is to accurately translate the Spanish text into English. But that is nowhere near enough. Is the Spanish article a great article or a crappy article? Is the topic notable as English Wikipedia defines that term? Are the cited sources reliable and do they verify the assertions in the article? Will the translated article comply with the English Wikipedia's core content policies? You must understand these questions and answer them positively, at least in your own mind, before proceeding with a translation. Please thoroughly read Wikipedia:Translation. Cullen328 (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply Cullen328 but I think you are missing my point. The page I found to translate was from a Wiki page itself. I assume (maybe wrongly) that it has been decided this page is worthy of translation, hence it appears on "Category:Articles needing translation from Spanish Wikipedia". With your long list of questions, you are implying too that there would be more to my input than merely translating, a worthy and specialist task in itself (in fact, the gist I get from the Wiki Translate page being closed to all but "extended confirmed editors" is that translations were highly substandard). And that's all I would want to do. Any editorial decisions should come from others more adept and skilled in those areas and the overall 'management' of Wikipedia. Is that wrong of me? Simonitov zebedee (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonitov zebedee, there is no vetting necessarily involved when someone adds {{Expand Spanish}} to an article (which places the article in the category you mentioned). The Spanish article may be good (by our standards), or parts of it may be good, or no part of it may be usable. In the end, you are responsible for all content you add to English Wikipedia, which means you'll need to make editorial decisions about content, sources, tone, etc., to make sure they're in line with our standards. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attack article?[edit]

Hello. Reading the wikipedia policies I was unable to find apropriate rule how to ask of removing attack article about person, which is backed only by a conflict sources. As I read in WP:ATTACK, the criteria is "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced". And I'm reading a wikiarticle related to a person, which is known in connection with only one commercial conflict and all sources of non-trivial information on this BLP-page refering directly or indirectly only to this conflict, contain dubious and inaccurate statements about the biography of this person. By itself, he is little known and the press practically does not write about him outside this context. Does a page linking to multiple press articles around this conflict meet this criterion or not? Thanks Caramoble (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caramoble It would be easier to offer advice if we knew which article you are discussing. Without knowing what it is, I can say that if a person is known only for participation in a "bad" event, that's what the coverage about them is going to be. If the sources in this article are not being accurately summarized for some reason, that should be discussed on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's reasonable. I wrote about this. To judge the quality of the presentation of the material in this article, it is enough to pay attention to the fact that Somkhishvili is called the founder of Lukoil in it, which is an obvious hoax. With the same success, he could be called the founder of Gazprom or Microsoft. The problem of the article is, it seems to me, that if we remove conflicting sources, then from the details of his biography supported by at least something, 2-3 phrases will remain in it. And the mentioned event is not 'bad', but it is completely ordinary. Litigation, which are hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Caramoble (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I would call it an "attack article"- an attack article is something like "JohnPublic is a stupid person who can't tell his butt from his elbow". Regarding the article itself, if it is not accurate to describe him as a co-founder of Lukoil, that should be discussed on the article talk page first, along with checking the source to see what it actually says. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Caramoble. Experienced Wikipedia editors value precision and directness, and we are much less interested in discussing vague hypotheticals instead of actual encyclopedia content. You are alluding to a biography of a living person, and seem to be expecting other editors to do research to figure out what you are talking about. We have a specific noticeboard to discuss these issues which is located at WP:BLPN, the shortcut for the Biographies of Living People Noticeboard. Do not be cryptic there. State the specific article, the specific content that is of concern to you, and explain clearly and directly why the content violates policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 10:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In fact, this is such an answer to the question that I would like to receive by contacting here. Wikipedia is very extensive and I just couldn't a place your noted. I will use your recommendation. Caramoble (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

talk page redirect help[edit]

Hello,

That talk page of this article Jaleigh Johnson redirects to a previous article from my sandbox and I'm unsure how to fix it! Any help would be appreciated.

AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! BOZ (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Update - Delta Cafés[edit]

Good Morning,

I would like to know how it would be possible to update the logo that appears on the Wikipedia tab when we google the term "Delta Cafés"?

Image that appears (outdated logo): https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:Delta_Caf%C3%A9s.svg

Correct image: (logo updated and appearing on the wikipedia page) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_Delta_Caf%C3%A9s.tif

Dmd.gnab (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dmd.gnab, Google moves in mysterious ways. Wikipedia has no control over it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmd.gnab: Our stock reply for such posts:

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines.

A user has updated the logo at Wikidata.[1] We cannot say if or when that will influence Google. They really do move in mysterious ways. We try to update articles to show the current logo. The English Delta Cafés added File:Novo logotipo Delta.png in 2017.[2] If an old logo is judged ineligible for copyright then we usually keep an image of it on a file page. Some articles may choose to mention former logos in a history section, and users can search our files for historical logos. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mayiladuthurai district[edit]

Could someone who knows these monuments kindly put them in clockwise from top order? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayiladuthurai_district. JackkBrown (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: It's separate images. You can click them one at time. Mouse-controlled browsers usually show the url with the file name if you just hover over an image. Deor has mentioned that they were already in clockwise from top order.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a page?[edit]

We would like to add a page about a company (I work for the company), how do I do that? TraxxyLB (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi @TraxxyLB and welcome to Wikipedia! I strongly suggest you do not do that, it's difficult for one to write about something they're affiliated with (in addition to the difficulties of writing one as a new editor), plus there are reasons why you or your company may not want one in the first place. should you decide to write one anyway, here are some things you may want to read:

Conflict of interest
Paid editing, both of these are mandatory reading if you're editing Wikipedia for your company. in particular, you need a disclosure that you are in fact affiliated with the subject somewhere.
Reliable sources, on what sources you can use to back up claims in your articles,. note that while you can use interviews or sources published by the company, you also have to have independent sources, ones published by those outside of the company and are not influenced by it.
Notability, what subjects can have an article,
Your first article, actually writing the article.

happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 14:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence[edit]

Good morning. Is it better "Medvedev meets with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 2010.", or "Medvedev meets Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 2010."? JackkBrown (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I slightly prefer the former. "Meets with" implies that the meeting was planned. "Meets" could mean that they happened to meet in the street. Maproom (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Meets" also could mean "meets for the first time ". David10244 (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tags deleted, not actioned.[edit]

Hello, at Nicolas Sarkis I raised a discussion on notability, possible AfD and inserted 4 'citation needed'. Another editor added tags for primary source, multiple issues etc. The article is a book promo imo. I would go ahead and do the AfD but an editor has deleted all the tags and all the cns without dealing with the issues. One editor has put back the orphan tag. The article is almost entirely sourced to the subject's biog on his publisher's website. I am minded to tag it as spam. Would that be right and would someone take a glance at the edit history perhaps? Thanks Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thelisteninghand Now on the AfD there are two additional Delete votes. In the future, I would just go for it. AfD tends to be WP:BITEy, so the hesitation is understandable.

You might want to install WP:TWINKLE (if you haven't already) as it can make the AfD, PROD, etc. processes much easier. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thelisteninghand, I haven't looked at the article. However: The article is almost entirely sourced to the subject's biog on his publisher's website. I am minded to tag it as spam. Would that be right [...]? Unless there are factors that you don't mention above, no it wouldn't. "Spam" doesn't just mean "substandard" or "inappropriate" or similar. An article about somebody shouldn't be more than trivially sourced to his blog. But if links to a person's blog (however unreliable this may be) are more or less limited to the article about that person, we can't infer that they're spam. (Which doesn't mean that they should be retained even in that article: on the contrary, most, perhaps all, should be cut.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Darrell Henegan[edit]

Darrell Henegan The Darrell Factor (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Don't. Not until you have read Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Darrell Factor And WP:REFB (how to create references) and Verifiability (why references are required). In short, a reader must be able to check everything you say against the reliable, published source that you have cited which backs up each statement. Unfortunately, we can't just take your word for everything. David10244 (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]