Help desk
< May 23	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 25 >

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.

May 24

Why are A7 and A9 separate criteria?

To me, WP:A7 and WP:A9 seem pretty much the same, except that one is for "articles about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event" without an indication of importance. A9 seems to be the same thing, but for musical recordings. Why are there two separate criteria? I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 05:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out that A9 only applies when none of the artists have an article. Is there any other difference? I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 05:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is largely historical; as A7 (the "credible claim of significance" criteria) originally had only applied to certain specific categories of articles, generally those which had the potential to use a Wikipedia article for promotional purposes. A9 was created to fill a loophole that people were exploiting to basically do the same to publish articles about their mixtapes. The reason why A7 & A9 have limited categorical applications, rather than being universal, is that the 'credible claim of significance' criteria really is only a problem for stupid shit like "John Doe is a school teacher and a really nice guy" or "Mario's Italian Restaurant is an Italian Restaurant in EBF, Indiana" or something like that. For some other really stubby articles, like say a random species of frog or a tiny river tributary, it was thought that those had a low threat for abuse, and that while those could often be deleted, that AFD was a more appropriate venue for that. --Jayron 32 16:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@I.hate.spam.mail.here A9 Was originally intended as a kind of "clean up" criteria - it used to be the case that if someone wrote an article on their band and their new music recording that they sold 2 copies of the article on the band could be deleted under criteria A7 as a {{db-band}} but their obviously non-notable musical recordings would have to have a full AFD discussion. The original intent of A9 was that when an article on an obviously non-notable musician was deleted under A7 all the related articles on their recordings could also be deleted at the same time. Because this criteria has different criteria for when it applies (i.e it's conditional on the existence of other articles) it was created as a different number rather than an extension of A7. For the historical background you can read the discussion that lead to it's creation Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 31#Extending A7?. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @192.76.8.78 and @Jayron32 for explaining this. I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 23:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Combining articles

I have been broadening the definition of an article (with technical content), which has rendered potentially one additional article redundant (and has become in effect the main page for a number of others). Once I have ensured that all the content in the redundant article is captured, what is the most efficient way to bring them together? Just moving and deleting?Guy WF Loftus (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is about User:Guy WF Loftus/sandbox, which makes extensive use of the contents of Oil reserves, without giving credit to its authors. Guy WF Loftus, if your plan is to replace the current article Oil reserves by the contents of your sandbox, you will need to give due credit to those who have contributed to it. You should also expect resistance from anyone with Oil reserves on their watchlist who disagrees with any of your changes. Maproom (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: You guess correctly on all accounts (thanks for your help). Those whom I would like to credit have no Wiki identities (industry and academic specialists) - how do I credit them? I am hoping for little resistance because what replaces Oil reserves is just industry standard, removing the need for specific (exceptions) and ephemeral content. But of course all informed (and public domain) contributions are equally valid and welcome.Guy WF Loftus (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy WF Loftus: Attribution needs to be made to those editors that created the articles or contributed substantially to them. You can find the relevant guidelines at WP:CWW. Eagleash (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your rapid rapid responses but two core questions remain unanswered:

What is the most efficient way to combine articles (attribution withstanding)?
How do you attribute content to individuals who are not Wikipedia editors but who nonetheless peer reviewed and contributed to wikipedia content?

Guy WF Loftus (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy WF Loftus: For attribution, in the sense of re-using verbatim text that other Wikipedia contributors wrote, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia (a long and boring page, but read at least the first paragraph).

You may cite specific articles / talks by experts etc. if they contributed to your general understanding of the topic when writing it, even if they are not inline citations to specific claims - see WP:EXTERNAL. However, you may not cite some expert in general, you need a published source for that - any use of expert names as an appeal to authority is a no-no.

If you want to acknowledge the assistance of some person, I am not aware of any good way to do that. One would usually want that person to perform the edits themselves using their own account, but it’s too late by now, and not everyone likes wiki-editing anyway. You could leave a note on the talk page along the lines of "I talked with Jane Doe in May 2022 about the article and she was a great help for my edits" (make sure Jane Doe is OK with her name being on Wikipedia forever first). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan:Very clear and most helpful Tigraan - thank you. One question down - one to go (viz. "What is the most efficient way to combine articles?")Guy WF Loftus (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-pasting your sandbox into the article would satisfy attribution etc. requirements, but it would also probably result in one big revert. At this point, you should probably slowly merge your draft into the main article, bit by bit, so that if anyone objects to one change they can easily undo that change only and not the other sections.

There is still a risk that you end up reverted, which is why "the most efficient way" is to make the edits directly into the main article from the start. That way, as soon as there is pushback, you can discuss and see what the problem is. And if there is no pushback, you can work your way through further edits. See WP:BRD (technically not a guideline but virtually every experienced editor agrees with it). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan:Interesting - I had intended doing it wholesale because the parts of the article which have been preserved have been very slightly tweaked to include the broader subject. I am also going to reduce overall sentence length to remove what I can of sub-clauses and nested statements (adding notes to prevent loss of detail but maintain the flow). Wholesale makes this easier because it reduces the chance of making typos, which I have already ironed out from the sandbox. It also makes sense because broadening the subject applies equally to all sub-sections the instant you move the title (unpicking each sub-set introduces the potential for new typos). The compromise is to do this progressively (as you suggest) and logically (by sub-title) only adding the subject change initially, so as to unfold the narrative and limit reversion. This will have the added benefit of providing a clearer audit (old versus new) for individuals to make minor reversions if they feel compelled to do so. It then become passively more collaborative, which only works if contributors are alerted to the change. This needs careful unpicking but thanks for your insights - I will tread carefully out of respect for those previous contributors.Guy WF Loftus (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potential copyright issues with it:Giovanni Pietro Luigi Cacherano d'Osasco

I have been creating an biography article Giovanni Pietro Luigi Cacherano d'Osasco. I know that there is an Wikipedia Italian article it:Giovanni Pietro Luigi Cacherano d'Osasco. I decided not to use and translate that, but use the following source:

Massabò, I. Ricci (1973), "Cacherano d'Osasco, Giovanni Pietro Luigi", Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 16, Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana

However when I used Google translate so some of the translation (as one would expect) was not clear. So I cut and pasted the relevant paragraph from the Italian article and to my surprise the translation was nearly identical, despite far more sources allegedly being used in the Italian article.

Once I had finished my translation, I ran the Italian article through the DYK toolbox Earwig's Copyvio Detector unfortunatly is show that 90.4% of the text of the two articles match.

I do not know what Italian copyright laws are, but I suspect copying text from a 1973 article without accreditation is at the very least plagiarism and most likely a copyright violation. Please can someone who reads and writes Italian informs who ever is responsible for policing this on the Italian Wikipedia that they may have a problem. -- PBS (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PBS, copyright is taken very seriously here at en:WP. They may be a bit more relaxed at it:WP, but I suspect they still won't tolerate what you describe. Unfortunately I don't know enough Italian to report it there. Plagiarism is fine, but should be admitted to – I've seen whole sections closely based on, and attributed to, out-of-copyright editions of Encyclopedia Britannica. Maproom (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

PBS, thank you, I have followed the process at it:Wikipedia:Sospette violazioni di copyright#Testi to report the problem. TSventon (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

backlink

hello my name is Charles; I manage an affiliate store called golfsupplies1359.com; with that said; I've valued your website very highly; I find it informative and trust worthy; and I would like to exchange backlinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.72.238.164 (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to link to any article in Wikipedia. However, there is no place in Wikipedia that is appropriate for a backlink to your store. -Arch dude (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam says that external links are nofollow'd, so even if they are inserted, they will not get any PageRank. I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 23:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And also, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, but an encyclopedia, so I don't think exchanging links builds the encyclopedia. I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 23:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need to be able to contact someone

My family has a page on wikipedia. I went to the page as I do every so often and noticed my parents obituaries appear on the site. There is also incorrect information. How do i get in contact with someone to correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LodeStarrr (talk • contribs) 16:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell us the name of the page (or provide a link to it) so we can help you further? --Jayron 32 16:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be about Boss (rapper), based on reverted edits by this account and certain edits/editors in that article's history. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LodeStarrr Your family does not have a page on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has an article about your family here. You should use its article talk page to make a formal edit request(click for instructions) detailing changes you feel are needed, preferably sourced to an independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia stalker editor

There is a man who has been obsessed with my son Brennan Gilmore ever since he had a band in high school. As he grew older this man would attend his concerts and then send gifts and fan letters to our home. Brennan's mates would tease him about this nut case. Evidently he is a dedicated Wikipedia Editor and scours the internet and publishes any tidbit of info on Brennan. He has followed his college and career till the present day. The fact that Brennan has had some remarkable career and life experiences has sent him into a flurry of self importance as the Brennan Gilmore expert. Several attempts have been made to edit this entry down, but he is very Wikipedia savvy, and they pop back up. As a result Brennan has a Wikpedia " article that stretches to infinity. Brennan hates it. It seems so self serving and ridiculous to have a Wikipedia article that far surpasses Einstein's.

People really look to Wikipedia for info that is more complete and vetted better than news media. I am a monthly paid subscriber myself. Can you do anything about the disproportion of this entry? Brennan says trying will get him excited about engagement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C5:C100:1D33:E8DB:BD70:ED40:6585 (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Brennan Gilmore. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have paid subscriptions. Do you mean that you make a monthly donation to the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that operates the computers Wikipedia is on? Wikipedia does not claim to be a reliable source and people should not be looking to Wikipedia for vetted information, because we don't do that. We summarize independent reliable sources.

Please understand that a Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a topic. If you are saying that the sources offered in the article are not being accurately summarized, please describe the specific errors on the article talk page(Talk:Brennan Gilmore). If the sources are summarized accurately, but are incorrect, you will need to discuss that with the sources themselves to get them to issue corrections. Modern topics that receive much coverage online will by nature often have lengthly articles here.

If Mr. Gilmore is being the subject of stalking, he will need to contact his local authorities or perhaps seek legal counsel for options to stop it. That's not really a Wikipedia matter unless Mr. Gilmore is a Wikipedia editor being stalked here on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be two aspects to this request. One is about content, which you've already been advised on, but I would also direct you to the specific help for people in your situation at Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects. The other seems to be a complaint about the behavior of a specific editor, which is not something the help desk is really designed to deal with. If you have diffs of specific problematic edits that the user in question has made, you may want to start a thread at WP:ANI to discuss it. Accusations by themselves will not result in action being taken, you must present specific evidence. If there are aspects of this that are related to Wikipedia but not visible on Wikipeida, please email that evidence to the Arbitration committee at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org . Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article and don't see anything that is out of the ordinary. It seems properly sourced and neutral. As long as there are no BLP privacy violations, I'm not sure anything can or should be done. Long after the stalker has passed away, there will be a good record of Brennan's life which will serve as his legacy. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein is five times larger than Brennan Gilmore, and it's only one of numerous articles in Category:Albert Einstein. Brennan Gilmore is not large by Wikipedia standards (we have billions of words) and I see no sign of anyone trying to reduce it. The creator and main contributor has 11,500 Wikipedia edits. He had been an editor for ten years before starting the article which is only a tiny part of his Wikipedia work. That doesn't sound like a stalker to me. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a casual observer, I think a lot of the information in the article is.... minutia. Such as Brennan Gilmore's grandfather, John Middlemas, a 97-year-old World War II veteran, "took a knee" in support of NFL players... and His grandfather's activism was inspired by his own New Zealand relative, a British settler... and Gilmore has been outspoken on the lack of restrictions on personal spending of campaign funds in his home state... Do we need to know all of his political opinions, or all of this stuff about his grandfather? I think this is far too much detail. I hope the subject isn't actually being stalked, but if I were Brennan, I would think this amount of detail is weird. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The grandfather taking a knee only became public because Brennan photographed and tweeted it [1], generating 139,000 retweets and many news stories like https://time.com/4956246/war-veteran-kneel-nfl-players/. Brennan's own Twitter replies indicate he appreciated the attention. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter OK, it became public. Not everything that is public is noteworthy, as you know since you are an experienced editor. That event is great for them, and I'm glad Brennan appreciated it, but still -- do encyclopedia readers need to know this? This is just my opinion, of course. Thanks. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a similar problem someone is stalking my wiki entry, constantly editing in stuff and I really need to talk to someone about the problem. 2001:8003:37C0:E700:54C:ECE5:7C44:2115 (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia entries are edited "constantly". We have articles about subjects, you do not own an article about yourself. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia welcoming of Christianity?

I’m a little afraid of joining wikipedia because its users may harass me for being a Christian, After seeing several users calling Christians “crackpots” “nut heads” “lunatics” “fundies” and “thumpers”. Also it seems like it’s largely comprised of atheists. I just want to know whether Wikipedia is welcome or persecuting towards Christians. 104.151.161.88 (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the note at the top of the page that reads "The Wikipedia help desk is a place where you can ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia." I can say that there number of assumptions in your post that are completely wrong. MarnetteD|Talk 22:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD Just for clarification are you talking about me or the assumptions that are made about Christianity? 104.151.161.88 (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to step back from this question and suggest that if you are offended by opinions, strongly held, that are different from your own, then perhaps you should examine if you really should be using the internetz? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 22:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not “offended”, i only want to know if I will be harassed for expressing my belief via user talk page. 104.151.161.88 (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's pretty unlikely. You could also just not discuss it outside of discussions where it's necessary, which should be few and far between as personal views shouldn't be part of editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just got a little discouraged from a editor calling Christian’s crackpots. You may not know how that feels to be called that, 104.151.161.88 (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been called a whole lot, and more. Luckily it's text on the internet, so it's easily ignorable. Of you create an account and find that you're being harassed, there are mechanisms to address that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Well that’s good to know! 104.151.161.88 (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog also are you assuming I’m closed minded because I Christian? 104.151.161.88 (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one should be able to tell from your edits that you are a Christian -- or that your eyes are blue (or whatever). If someone checks your user page and sees that you are a Christian and then harasses you for that, the person can be warned and blocked if necessary. If others can tell from your edits, then maybe, possibly, you need to adjust your edits... Welcome. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Welcome! Llll5032 (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It was a general observation. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for responding (:. 104.151.161.88 (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Christian, and I express it in a userbox on my user page. I have never felt unwelcome because of that. So long as you are not a jerk about it, you should not receive harassment. If you do feel you are the target of harassment because of your faith, ask for administrator help. (I am an administrator, but I am not the only one.) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I have actually seen a fair number of users (in the long time I've been here) who have expressed their Christian faith on their userpage. Generally speaking, that is just fine. At the same time, the times I've seen it go wrong is when there are adherents to a particular religion who feel that their belief/faith somehow removes the requirement from citing sources or doing other necessary Wikipedian things when they edit. Take a look at the links AngusW🐶🐶F has included below and if those things aren't going to be a problem, then there's no problem. Harassment isn't okay here in any case. Jessamyn (my talk page) 02:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And in case you didn't find it on your own, here's the Christian Wikipedia category (i.e. those who have noted it on their userpage) and it's a big group, and the Theist Wikipedian category is even larger. Jessamyn (my talk page) 02:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would read WP:ADVOCACY, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:HOLYWAR. Also, if you are a member of a particular congregation, you might want to stay away from editing that group or leader's Wikipedia article because of conflict of interest. WP:COI AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a guarantee that you will not be harassed, then editing Wikipedia is probably not the hobby for you. I happen to be a Jew and I have been harassed by people who hate Jews and also by other Jews who think that I am not religiously observant enough. I am confident enough to mostly disregard this kind of harassment because it reflects far more poorly on the harassers than it does on me. Harassers get blocked and I have been editing since 2009 without a single block or a single warning of a block. I too am an administrator. We try very hard to control and stop harassment but it happens. Muslims get harassed. Hindus get harassed. Atheists get harassed. Various sects of Buddhism harass each other. In Northern Ireland articles, Catholic Christians may harass Protestant Christians and vice versa. And so on. If you have the courage of your convictions, always edit in compliance with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines and scrupulously refrain from proselytizing, you should be fine. Cullen328 (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably late, but... Wikipedia is on the internet, and obviously there will be people who disagree and want to mock you. However, you shouldn't be afraid of what they say about your religion. There is a welcoming community at WP:WikiProject Christianity that is full of editors that contribute to topics related to Christianity, so why don't you go over there and have a chat with them on their chat page? Haiiya (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undocumented feature?

Hi.

I have been editing articles with the basic Wikitext editor for some time (laptop, Windows10). Recently something happened to change the appearance of displayed text when editing, such that any legal markup, eg

''[[]]'' or ''[[Hello world]]''

gets colored two-tone blue. I could get used to this if it weren't for the cursor also turning blue when within such a string and hard to find, but other several other tricks cropped up at the same time, including:

My [Insert] key now toggles the editor between insert and overtype mode with no indication which mode the keyboard is in.
The span of the vertical slider no longer corresponds with the range of the article I'm editing, and hovering the mouse pointer near the bottom of the slider, its shape turns to a diagonal (NW-SE) pointer and has the power to raise or lower the slider's lower range.

The embarrassing thing is that this happened before, maybe a year ago, and a knowledgeable and helpful User drew my attention to a checkbox in (I think) Preferences, which I had somehow triggered, perhaps by an undocumented Shortcut (does Wiki editor have Shortcuts, such as [Ctrl + W] etc?). Sadly I did not take a note of their solution, and now I can't find the checkbox, and in any case if it can happen to this old duffer it can happen to others. Thanks in advance. Doug butler (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug butler: I'm not familiar with the situation you describe. If others can't help, perhaps you might ask at the technical issues section of the Village Pump. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax highlighter turned on? That is the icon next to the Advanced dropdown on the wikitext editor toolbar.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TTM, that clears the problem. How it happened is a mystery but probably attributable to fat fingers :). The associated symptoms would seem to be bugs; I'll copy this conversation to the Village pump as suggested by TT. Thanks allDoug butler (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 May 24

Contents