Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 February 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.

February 6

Loss of my "back" arrow

I have suddenly lost the "Back" arrow at the top of my page. (I use the Monotype skin and a Vivaldi browser.) Ideas? Orange Mike | Talk 00:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

If you're using a Windows PC, does Alt+← do anything? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Or did you press F11 by mistake? (Fixed by pressing it again). Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Windows? Pfaughhhh! No, just an ordinary Mac Air, on which F11 adjusts my speaker volume. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't know too much about Macs, but ⌘ Command+← should help you go back a page in your browser. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Citations of downloaded data sets

Some authoritative sources are only provided in data sets downloaded on request. In my instance, the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology will provide a download CSV list of UK reservoirs + attribute data but it is not accessible on their web-site. I have been around long enough that I feel I should know the answer, but the brain is fogged!The data isn't copyright in any sense and I can share it with any oter user but I can't fathom how to create a reference from it. All help much appreciated  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   02:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Velella: a citation must provide a way for an interested reader to access the cited material. As long as you do that, the citation is acceptable. All of our fancy templates, etc., are just shortcuts that cover the vast majority of the cases, but not this one. You should construct your own citation in this case that tells the user how to access the material. The citation would say something like "data from dataset at (put the cite web here). Download data by (put instructions here)". -Arch dude (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I should correct one inaccuracy above - reading of the fine print on the source does assert a copyright to the data but allows me to share the data (with attribution) but not to publish it "on an internet site". Your suggestion therefore is appropriate and helpful. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   02:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like the best answer, but I have a concern. Of course you need to include an access date in the citation; but does a reader have any way of recovering the data as it was on that date? ColinFine (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Probably not. But that is no different from the data being published piece-meal by other organisations. For example the Welsh Government publishes a subset of data concerning raised reservoirs in Wales. If one of those reservoirs changes or if a new one is created then the data-set will be updated and over time this should trickle out to those organisations using or quoting the data. One of the key attributes of reservoir data is the glacially slow rate of change that there is in the data set which may give some comfort. I can add an access-date to the citation for clarity.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Harriet Martineau

Ref number 7 is wrong. - the date of the article's publication should not have "No" in it. I did something wrong. Sorry. Please repair. 58.179.137.31 (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed by moving the date from the |issue= parameter to the |date= parameter. For more information, see Template:Cite news. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Cite Q and Sfn

Hello. I really like to use Template:Sfn in citations, especially when i am dealing with a book or academic article that will be used many times along. But i also have been integrating Wikidata on my contributions, and i thought it could be a good technique to create bibliography sections. But then i discovered that you cant use Sfn with Cite Q, and everytime that you use Cite Q in the body of the article the sources sections will show to whole bibliographical data about the book. which, reapeted many times, will create a polluted section. I would like to now if there is a way of conciliating both techniques, or if there any way to use Cite Q in a more proper way, without so repeating so many times the bibliographical information. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

{{cite q}} is not really ready for prime time. There are those at en.wiki who champion wikidata but overall, editors at en.wiki do not want wikidata in en.wiki articles. When I find that template in an article I expand it and replace the call to {{cite q}} because a simple {{cite q}} template contains no editor friendly information when read in wikitext.

{{cite q}} can and is used with {{sfn}}. But, to do that, you must manually supply contributor/author/editor names in a format that is acceptable to {{sfn}}. That format is typically the last/first parameters; {{cite q}} does not support last/first naming. To keep the article out of Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors you must provide a date in the wikitext that {{sfn}} can read. So:

{{cite q|QXXXXXX|last=Greene|first=EB|date=2023}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Indeed it is not ready to be widely used, but i try to integrate Wikidata in my practice and be a early tester. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

An alternate is to supply a custom CITEREF id:

{{Cite Q|QXXXXXX|ref={{sfnref|Greene|2023}}}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I235 interstate system being built through Des Moines

So I was given a proposal engineering design for I-235 and figured that if someone wanted to add it to the articles for I-80 and I-35 pages that I’d send a picture of it in. It says it was proposed by a joining of the People’s Abstract Company and Associated Lithographs Inc. in 1963. Everyone that’s from the area love to see how things have changed over the years and figured it might be something cool that an editor might like to add into one of your pages. I just don’t know who to send it in to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B1ED:ED93:65E2:269A:39FD:D2C4 (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Does the file have a CC-compatible license? See commons:Special:UploadWizard to upload a scan of the design. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

How best to separate facts from opinions?

I'm trying to improve the article 2023 Israeli judicial reform and am not sure how best to separate facts and opinions which are currently commingled in the article. A good example is the section 2023 Israeli judicial reform#Judicial Selection. This section currently consists of five paragraphs. The first one appears to be factual. The second starts out as factual but develops into a critique of the status quo. The third, fourth and fifth paragraphs are contentious. Though some of the statements they contain are supported by citations, I happen to know (from background reading) that the conclusions drawn in some of the studies cited are highly contentious. How should I re-structure this section to make clear which parts are factual descriptions of the status quo and of the proposed changes and which parts are arguments in support of the changes? Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article should not contain any opinions, arguments, or conclustions, unless each of them is derived from and specifically attributed to a single reliable independent source. Anything else is original research.

It is not always easy to do this, of course, but that is the goal. ColinFine (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ColinFine, my problem is that even when statements are attributed, there can be other statements, also attributed, which say the opposite of what the first statements say. For an example of this, see sections 2023 Israeli judicial reform#Arguments put forward to justify the change and 2023 Israeli judicial reform#Rebuttal. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Misha Wolf: Does WP:DUE somewhat help solve your conundrum? If these viewpoints should be given the same amount of due weight, they should stay in the article. The matter of restructuring is probably best discussed with other interested editors on the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Update the page title for my company

I am trying to figure out how to change the page title for my company page. All I have to do is change one letter from a capital letter to a lower case letter but I can't find the editing module to do that. Can anyone help? Cabhayes (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cabhayes: What is the name of the article? Note that all article names must start with an upper case letter, but there are some methods that can make it appear lower case. RudolfRed (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Cabhayes. Perhaps surprisingly, you are one of the few people in the world who should not directly edit Wikipedia's article about your company (which is not "your company page"). This is because you have a conflict of interest - in fact, if you work for (or own) the company, then Wikipedia regards you as a paid editor, and it is mandatory to make a formal declaration of this - see the link for how to do this.

Once you have made the declaration, you may suggest edits to the article by using the edit request mechanism. The particular change you are asking for is probably a page move, in which case you make a request at requested moves. But, as RudolfRed says, if the issue is that your company name begins with a lower case letter, then it is not possible to name the article that way; in that case you should make an edit request for somebody to insert a {{displaytitle}} template. ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

From Cabhayes' editing history, the article concerned is clearly NanoLumens. I have reverted their recent edits [1] as unsourced, promotional, and not written in appropriate encyclopaedic language. Wikipedia is not a provider of free advertising space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

For clarity: If the article under consideration is NanoLumens, then the change is from NanoLumens to Namolumens and not to nanolumens. It's a retreat from CamelCase. The initial capital letter issue therefore is a red herring, but of course WP:PAID still applies. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cabhayes Even your own website has its copyright notice in the old style, so maybe you need to fix that before you worry about fixing Wikipedia's article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Turnbull @[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]]

Not sure why everyone on this thread feels the need to be so nasty with your replies. It really isn’t necessary. I am not trying to use the page as free advertising. The content is outdated by many years so it needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabhayes (talk • contribs) 12:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cabhayes: Even if you're trying not to use the page as free advertising, editors get very suspicious when you add things like:

We’re pioneers of the true curve™ technology and are committed to being better. With a bold and visionary team of experts we will take your project, in all shapes and sizes, from concept to reality. We bring your creative visions to life, leaving a first and lasting impression. We are LED!

which, as ad copy, is absolutely inappropriate in an encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The spelling is also Nanolumens on their LinkedIn page.[2] Instead of mentioning COI, it might be better simply to change the article to Nanolumens. It's true that the copyright notice on the website says NanoLumens, but all other spellings are without camelcase.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Harriet Martineau

Ref. 8 needs to have the publisher listed - which I failed to acquire. Sorry. Please fix. Thank you 115.70.23.77 (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The ref error was due to a typo in the date, which is now fixed. RudolfRed (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

If you still want to add the publisher, it is Southern Illinois University Press, according to the Google Books link you put in the ref. RudolfRed (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)