Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 August 5

Help desk
< August 4	<< Jul | August | Sep >>	August 6 >

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 5

Leonid Bolotine

 Courtesy link: Draft:Leonid Bolotine

I was sent here for help in posting a new page. I am new at this and have fixed what I could figure out, but there is still clearly some material that needs help. Thanks for your assistance!

Hi, in the future please don't paste the entire contents of a page over here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The reviewers have asked for more reliable, independent sources that are not sites like Facebook (or here). Sources like the New York Times are good. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

We require reliable sources for all facts: see WP:RS. We have additional requirements for sources used to establish notability, and this is easy to mess up. see Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability). -Arch dude (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

References from propaganda articles and events that have no reference

Hi Wiki, My question is regarding the typical political issues. As we know, often, references are picked up from major new reporting websites to edit a Wikipedia article. Also as we have seen in recent times, even major news publishing businesses have reporters who fall prey to their own biases and give a prejudiced picture of an event, basically propaganda. Citing such links in the Wikipedia articles works, but is far from the truth.

On the other side, many events happen without getting coverage. Such events are not very coverage worthy, or fairly insignificant with respect to the world's most sensational news. Therefore, a citation cannot be arranged, even if the event happened and is known by everyone who has been a part of it. Right now, such edits get rejected by Wiki, but can we do better than that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudranilchakrabortty (talk • contribs) 01:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rudranilchakrabortty: our policy is described at Wikipedia:Verifiability. Like all policies, it can be discussed, debated, and changed. The discussion takes place on the policy page's talk page, not here on the help desk. -Arch dude (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rudranilchakrabortty: Note that Wikipedia has a total of only three "core content policies". These have been in existence for about 18 years, and are fundamental to the way Wikipedia operates. Any change would require extensive discussion to reach consensus. -Arch dude (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Citing myself, in publicly published works

Unfortunetly, I've never been published myself, outside of "I saw you"s, in the local newspaper. But an friend of mine is a university professor, has numerous peer reviewed publications, and had done a couple of edits that cite his own work. His username makes clear that the editor and the author cited have the same name, and so it's pretty obvious that he is citing himself. The work has been published by respectable peer reviewed journals in his field, it is not self published. It seems to me that this is entirely appropriate, as it is so transparent, and does not break WP's "no original research" rule, as his edits are not original research. Yes, he did original research previously, had it published, and now is just adding to WP based on his old research. But I can see it might be viewed as crossing into a grey zone. I was wondering if there are any clear policies on the matter, and what is the general preception of this sort of contribution. --Keithonearth (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Keithonearth: I don't think there are clear policies. The closest I can think of is WP:SELFCITE, which shows that it is indeed a grey zone. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Keithonearth: I think that first sentence at WP:SELFCITE summarizes it pretty well: Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. If you happen to be reading an article, notice a factual mistake that is not supported by a source, and have published on the subject, correcting the mistake and citing your own legitimately-published work is good for the encylopedia. What is frowned upon would be something like editing many articles and citing your own work when it adds nothing useful (i.e., as a secondary or poorly-related cite). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 16:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Reference VS Cite

I am very confuse about the where we use the Reference and cite. Please experienced writers help me how we can accurately apply these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azher rao (talk • contribs) 07:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Azher rao:, Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Referencing is the entire basis of English Wikipedia, although I have never come across a completely clear explanation of it. You might like to begin your journey here: Help:Referencing for beginners. There are two main ways to create an inline citation. The first is outlined in Help:Referencing for beginners without using templates, in which you manually create a reference in the body of the main text, between <ref> </ref> tags. This method is relatively simple, but it is easy to make a mess of the formatting. The other way, outlined in Help:Referencing for beginners with citation templates, involves {{template}}s, in which you fill out the required information using a pre-defined set of parameters, depending on what you are citing, such as {{cite web}} {{cite book}}, etc. The cite is still surrounded by <ref> </ref> tags, but it will be automatically formatted in the Wikipedia citation style. It requires a little extra effort, but the result will always be correctly formatted. Both methods require the existence of a {{references}} template in the 'References' section at the foot of the article: existing articles will already have one. Have a look at other articles by clicking the 'Edit' button at the top of any article - you will hopefully get the idea. Best of luck, and happy editing. MinorProphet (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Azher rao, The tl;dr (too long; didn't read) version of it is: a reference is where you're getting the information from, like a book, website, magazine, etc. A citation is what the reference is in the article's text.

The simplest method for websites would be to put the URL in <ref></ref> tags, but Wikipedia prefers as much information about the source as possible, like who wrote it, what time you accessed it, etc. Templates like {{cite web}} make that easier. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Updating image file

Please can you advise on how I can update the image on page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Birkenhead_School_High_Res_Crest.png#file

I am the Marketing Manager and want to update the School crest.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

KLAMARKETING (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

KLAMARKETING Please see the important information about your username, and some policies that you are required to comply with, that I posted on your user talk page(User Talk:KLAMARKETING). 331dot (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Whereabouts of an Wikipedia Article about my Family that I have been contributing to

Hi Fellow Wikipedia Contributors and Users. I'm a bit dumbfounded to find that I can no longer call up the Wikipedia article [in German] on my family of which someone else is the originator but to which I have been contributing as recently as maybe 2 years ago. I am wondering if the originator may have withdrawn the article with the result that there's now no discernible trace in Wikipedia. I have never had any problems accessing Wikipedia articles in German or English before and cannot imagine that my browser is now preventing me from downloading German language titles for review. It's all very weird. If it seems the conclusion is well founded that the former article has been withdrawn by the originator, would I be correct in concluding that there is nothing preventing me from drafting and submitting my own fresh article on my family and its origin and history? I would not wish to inadvertently offend the earlier originator whom I do not know, nor breach some other part of the Wikipedia contributors' code of ethics, so would appreciate any help and guidance Wikipedia contributors might kindly give. Thanks. JvB Jens v. Brasch (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Jens v. Brasch This Help Desk is for the English Wikipedia only; if your issue is on the German Wikipedia (a separate project with its own editors) you will need to address it there. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error empty references define - 2020 Beirut explosions - rhosus.shiparrested

Hello Help Desk,

Would anyone kindly explain the ref tags to me? I have been using <ref name"ThisStringIsARefName>{{Cite Template|param=param}}</ref> and <ref name="ThisStringIsARefName"/> for some time and it generally works, but I came across Template:R on 2020 Beirut explosions. The issue I don't understand is why

Cite error: A list-defined reference with the name "rhosus.shiparrested" has been invoked, but is not defined in the <references> tag (see the help page).

appears. Could anyone assist? Xenmorpha (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Xenmorpha, I haven't come across this before, but it appears to be Template:R, which re-uses the ref name defined in <ref name="ThisStringIsARefName"/> with less clutter. eg <ref name="rhosus.fleetmon"> is later referred to as {{r|rhosus.fleetmon}}. The error message appears because the ref name has been defined elsewhere in the article, and you are only editing a single section. It usually doesn't matter, and when you publish the changes, it tends to sort itself out. MinorProphet (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

How to cite direct knowledge regarding a member of my family

Hi there,

I am editing trhe wikipedia page of a deceased family member. I added a picture and information about his life and sons but my edits were deleted and I was told I need a source. As a living relative I have direct knowledge of this. What can I do here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BHFamilyHistory (talk • contribs) 12:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You cannot do anything if you cannot provide reliable sources for that information. "Direct knowledge" and "family tradition" and the like fail our core value of verifiability. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Try publishing the source you got the information from. A Tree In A Box (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

New account has marked all edits as minor

Special:Contributions/CPPNewYork Seems fishy to me. I don't know enough about Wikipedia, nor do I have the time, to handle this myself, so I figure I'll flag it here. —⁠99.203.54.98 (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the edits themselves; but I have left a {{uw-minor}} notice on their talk page. Seagull123 Φ 14:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Url needed

The article monarchy of Spain contains this text:

A copy of the Spanish Constitution, signed by King Juan Carlos, is held at the Palace of the Cortes.

The constitution defines the government's responsibilities. The government consists of the President of the Government and ministers of state. The government conducts domestic and foreign policy, civil and military administration, and the defense of the nation all in the name of the king. Additionally, the government exercises executive authority and statutory regulations. The most direct prerogative the monarch exercises in the formation of Spanish governments is in the nomination and appointment process of the President of the Government (Presidente del Gobierno de España).{{url needed|reason=URL given was for an unrelated story|date=September 2019}} Following the General Election of the Cortes Generales (Cortes), and other circumstances provided for in the constitution, the king meets with and interviews the political party leaders represented in the Cortes, and then consults with the Speaker of the Congress (who, in this instance, represents the whole of the Cortes Generales).

The template template:url needed does not exist. What template should be used instead? JIP | Talk 14:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

JIP, The message refers to the {{cite news}} template, which requires a valid |url= parameter. However, {{Cite news}} is the wrong template for citing the EC English style guide. Someone has removed the url from the cite, and added {{url needed|reason=URL given was for an unrelated story|date=September 2019}}. This is the reason for the red message, which refers to any template missing a url with a valid access date. The best template is probably {{cite web}} using similar parameters; the url I found, shown in ref.[4] below, is for the Eighth edition of January 2016, Last updated August 2020; so you should change the title accordingly, and add |accessdate=5 August 2020. MinorProphet (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Open Street Map - Make map display in English

The map in the Infobox at 2020 Beirut explosions displays in Arabic. This is sub-optimal on an English-language site. Is there any way to make it display in English, to help English-speaking readers of the English-language Wikipedia? Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The data exists - the placenames are displayed in English if you click on the "Interactive fullscreen map" link - but I don't see any way to get at it through Template:OSM Location map#Parameters. "nolabels" comes closest. —Cryptic 16:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

How to ? help needed with guidance

Hello,

I want to know how can i add a page for a particular individual and company who wants to have a page on Wikipedia??

Thank you and looking forward to detailed response.

Best regards, 17:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)188.50.201.189 (talk)

Ideally, an article would be created by someone who is not involved with the individual or company. If they have asked you to create an article for them, I strongly suggest you read and understand the conflict of interest and paid editing policies, as while you would not be completely disallowed to create/edit, your contributions will be viewed with more scrutiny. Edit requests are generally what editors with COI (paid or otherwise) use to contribute to articles. You may also wish to tell these interested persons that being on Wikipedia isn't necessarily a good thing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

IFPRI page - Please review talk page

Dear Sir or Madam, Can you review and approve/update the changes I left on the Talk page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Food_Policy_Research_Institute Thank you. Erica Saito — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esaitocgiar (talk • contribs) 17:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Esaitocgiar: I responded on the talk page. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Being blocked

Tell me why to contribute when i try to answer on a subject some idiot has blocked me i dont know who this buttfungus is but has several times blocked me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.245.109.1 (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You are editing without logging in, so we cannot easily tell what edits you have made and we therefore cannot know exactly why you are being blocked. A user of this IP address was warned, not blocked, about adding an unreferenced name -- Bryce Stanley (Stand up Comedian) -- to a page. That edit was removed because it does not meet our requirements for lists (there is no article for that person) and was unreferenced. To answer you more general question, you should not waste your valuable time attempting to contribute unless you are willing to learn a few basic things about how we operate. Please start by reading WP:AGF. -Arch dude (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

If you have an account that is blocked then you need to follow the unblock process on that account's talk page and not make further edits. the block applies to the person not the specific account. RudolfRed (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Your notice that wikipedia has neutral content is laughable

At the end of the day, your moderators are admins favour the content that they support. I can attest to that fact with the highly Indian favoured content that I have seen all throughout wikipedia. Your claim of being neutral is laughable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.120.121.117 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean, IP editor? There are many articles that are related to India because a fraction of editors on here that exhibit an interest. Whether or not they're good articles are another topic entirely. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

When it comes to articles related to India, IP editor, that area is somewhat of a backwater, especially where popular culture is concerned. I have long wondered whether the unofficial policy is to just let that part of Wikipedia regulate itself to some extent. I am not bothered, as Indian pop culture is not one of my interests. Editors with an apparent conflict of interest are found editing articles about India-related topics more frequently than in other areas, from what I have seen. This includes business interests, family interests, ethnic advocacy and fandom. India-related articles comprise an area in which Wikipedia needs to improve its standards. I somewhat shudder to think of the neutrality situation in the various Indian language Wikipedias.

In defense of the high proportion of India-related articles on Wikipedia, I note that, if India is considered an "English-speaking nation", then it may contain a large proportion of the world's English speakers. As for undue emphasis on the "Indian" aspects of an article subject, it's a relic of the time when Wikipedia was hungry for content; any competent editor is welcome to rework an article to correct undue emphasis, and that includes all of us.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Any editor with a point of view (e.g., a Pakistani point of view) will perceive a site with a neutral point of view to be biased. We get complaints all the time, usually from IP editors and usually making sweeping generalized claims of bias without any examples. We are variously accused of liberal bias, conservative bias, US bias, anti-US bias, anti-christian bias, anti-islamic bias, and many other biases. We do the best we can. We can try to help you correct any specific biased paragraph you care to point out. -Arch dude (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Despite what is claimed, Wikipedia IS plagued with bias.

Thibeinn (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone know why there was a spike on this chart in early 2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Synesthesia And it went down afterwards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B031:FA6B:389A:1F77:6577:B6B1 (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not understanding your question. There's no chart on the talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean the spike in article views around January 31 2020? It could be due to any number of factors, from a social media post to a world event to random chance, but it's very hard to determine which.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)