Help desk
< June 2	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 4 >

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.

June 3

Horace Walpole

Ref number 25 should have the publisher - Cambridge University - and the year. Please fix. 2405:6E00:2F96:2B00:4193:B737:8ACA:76CF (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Norwich

I tried to add in 1734 the name Philip Meadows as the 1734 Mayor of Norwich - but failed.

Here is the reference for it https://nrocatalogue.norfolk.gov.uk/index.php/philip-meadows-c-1680-1752-mayor-of-norwich-norwich-norfolk

Please fix. Thanks 2405:6E00:2F96:2B00:4193:B737:8ACA:76CF (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the table, I think. The ref was already there so I didn't touch that. RudolfRed (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the NRO link as well since the Sense of People wasn't listing the specified pages. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi. I was wondering when to use the different forms of sources, "Reference, News, Website". What are the rules for when to use which one? For instance, some articles from the same newspaper might be breaking news but others interviews or something else that isn’t really news. I have especially been struggling with it when trying to source this article. Thanks, Marginataen (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marginataen. It matters very little whether you decide that a given source is a "news" source or a "website" source. In some cases, the distinction is clear, and in other cases, it is a bit murky, but nobody really cares about that. What is vastly more important is whether the source is reliable or not. Focus on reliability and you won't go wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marginataen. This is one kind of big difference between {{cite web}} and some of the other more commonly used citation templates and that is "cite web" actually requires you to provide a URL as part of the citation to avoid it being tagged with an error message. Most of the other citation templates can also be used to cite sources not found online, but "cite web" only works properly with sources available online. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source no. 50 in Joe Biden's article named ""Biden's Road to Senate Took Tragic Tur" article is "News" and has a link. Source no. 53 in the same article is "Reference" and 61 is "Website". Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marginataen (talk • contribs) 20:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been put together by various editors who probably have differing views about referencing. The guidelines recommend a consistent format, but until an article gets to WP:Featured Article or WP:Good Article status it is often a complete mish-mash of reffing styles. The various {{cite}} templates are simply a convenient way to format information in a consistent way. I call this Wikipedia Referencing style, since it has been developed in-house. It's similar to Chicago or Harvard or AMA referencing, but not exactly the same. Hand-written references are equally valid, eg Bloggs, Joe (1 April 1947). "Breaking News!". The Dullsville Reporter and Property Gazette. Dullsville, Arizona: but it's easy to stray from the consistency of the cite templates. It actually doesn't matter which cite you use, the end result (the formatted output) is exactly the same whether you use {{citation}} (apart from commas vs. full stops), {{cite news}}, {{cite web}} or even {{cite book}} - the names of the particular parameters in the specific {cite} simply make it easier to identify the correct information and how it appears in the reflist when you press save. Please sign your contributions with ~~~~ MinorProphet (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MinorProphet Thank you for your elaborate answer. Just to make sure I understand you correctly with an example: Would you for instance recommend that the article Mikkel Bjørn which exclusively consists of links to websites (mostly news cites) gets all its references changed to the same template? If yes, which one?

Marginataen (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the source is a news provider, use {{cite news}}. An article does not have to (probably should not) use the same template for every source being referenced. There are a lot of citation templates; see the list at right side of {{cite news}}. Use the template that best fits the source.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so an interview to a newsmedia which is not news in itself should use {{cite news}}? Marginataen (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. If you provide a real-life example of what you are asking, you will likely get a better answer.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further: I remember reading somewhere that using interviews as sources is discouraged. I can't put my finger on where I read that, but I think that the gist of the reasoning is that en.wiki does not care what article subjects say or want to say about themselves which they would do in an interview.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you are thinking about an imaginary article like "Is disaster coming? The Guardian talks to a well-known climate scientist" which might appear on the Graun's website (not even necessarily in print), that would qualify for a {cite news} template, since it appeared in a standard newspaper, although not 'breaking news'. Trappist's answer above obviously qualifies my idea. I use {{cite news}} for reliable physical print newspapers - the |newspaper= gives the hint, although they tend to have an online version these days. Equally, main news organizations like the BBC and Politico Europe with |website= are fine. Although eg The Register has lots of articles about enterprise computing, I wouldn't say it qualifies as general news, and {{cite web}} would be fine.

PS To refer to any template without invoking it with no parameters as you did, you can use the basic {{tl|cite news}}, or {{tlx|cite web}} to include specific parameters. MinorProphet (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right. So a news article from a news cite like TV 2 (it's like BBC) which is only online should be [cite web]

https://tv2.dk/

And a non-news article like "Is disaster coming?" from the website of a physical newspaper should be [cite news]? Like an opinion pice from Berlingske (it's like the Guardian)

https://www.berlingske.dk/ Marginataen (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles de Choiseul-Praslin

Your biography of Charles de Choiseul-Praslin’s misses 2 references in the ‘Legacy’ section. Although they belong in the category of, one a novel, the other a personal theory; they are published works that need reference. They are the works of Eddy Kühl and Gioconda Belli. They are based on actual accounts of the life of “Georges Choiseul-Praslin” that occurred in Nicaragua. He was a French immigrant that came to Nicaragua ~1852, four years after the tragic murder of the Duchess ‘Fanny’ Francoise de Choiseul-Praslin, formerly Francoise Altarice Rosalba Sébastiani. “Doctor George” as he was commonly referred to, became a coffee plantation owner and practiced as a learned lay medical man in Matagalpa, Nicaragua. Although, suspected, he never revealed his supposed Royal identity, for obvious reasons, for being a fugitive suspect of the French Secret Service. Therefore, those literary works were properly published, one as a novel, the other as the opinion or ‘theory’ of a well published author, nevertheless, historic in nature. New evidence may reveal that the identity of these two individuals was or was not the same. Now a days, we have the technology, by means of genetic DNA sampling, to prove it. However, this proof would entail obtaining access to blood samples on proprietary archival documents, to those of current direct Choiseul-Praslin French descendants, and to those of Gerorge’s Nicaraguan descendants. This type of work is possible, some of which has anecdotally been done. Additionally, blood samples on the archived robes of assassin and victim may reveal the presence of blood of a 3rd individual, but with this further evidence could be labeled as an unidentified suspect in the murder. Although cumbersome and expensive, this may prove embarrassing and unwelcome evidence. Nevertheless, it may reveal direct or indirect evidence of a critical event that contributed to or triggered an important historic one: the French Revolution of 1847. 136.38.45.87 (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Wikipedia is totally the wrong place for posting original research, especially the kind of speculative content you are talking about here. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Reference list using wikidata at F-Droid

I'd like the broken wikidata citations at F-Droid, #1 and #3-5 to be fixed. The Reference list became broken when wikidata was first used: Special:Diff/1032601596/1039350478 in December 2021. I glanced at the linked RTFM, Module:Wd/doc#References, and the page wikidata, but did not see the fix. Help? Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before I explain what I think is the issue: I have never worked with this template so could very well be totally wrong. From reading the documentation linked in the reference: If a title (P1476) or a reference URL (P854) property is missing or the reference has unknown properties [emphasis mine], the module attempts to display it using the {{Cite Q}} template. The 'title of broader work' reference property is on the page for that entry, but not in the recognized property list. The Cite Q also does not recognize 'title of broader work', so that could be the issue: A reference could be displayed using Cite Q only if the reference has a stated in (P248) property and has only properties listed in the table above. If neither Cite web nor Cite Q could be used to display a reference, the following error is returned: Error: Unable to display the reference properly. See the documentation for details. I have no idea what the fix is here; removing the property would probably work but I have no idea if that is actually a solution or just breaking something else to fix this. Tollens (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think the 'title of broader work' entries make sense the way they are being used right now. They could maybe be removed, I'll try with one and see. Tollens (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, removed the incorrect extra property from ref 1, and it fixed it. I'll give the other three a look. Tollens (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of them should be fixed now! Tollens (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! A lot of software-related articles with similar infoboxes could benefit from automatic "stable release version" updates. Too bad it's not easy to do correctly. -- Yae4 (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Meadows (died 1781)

Refs 1 and 6 are the same. Refs 4 and 5 are also the same. - Please fix - the doubling up is not good. Thank you. 175.38.42.62 (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 175.38.42.62. Please take a look at WP:REFNAME because it explains how to handle such situations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

writing about yourself

I know you're not supposed to, but if you were to become notable what would stop you policywiseBlitzfan51 speak to the manager 16:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blitzfan51: Nothing, though you would have to declare a conflict of interest on yourself or risk being blocked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blitzfan51, according to WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged but not forbidden. Hypothetically, if an experienced Wikipedia editor got elected to a state or provincial legislature, they would meet the notability guideline for politicians and could immediately write an autobiography. On the other hand, there would be plenty of other editors willing to write the article. The fact is that the vast majority of people who try to write an autobiography end up failing. Cullen328 (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...and those that succeed sometimes come to regret it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help

In the article Economy of India, since this edit, I'm seeing a message in preview - Script warning: One or more {{cite journal}} templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help). Could you help me please? Dinesh | Talk 17:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is letting you know that citation 310 has the following errors: {{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of March 2023. See Category:CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of March 2023 for details. Heart ^(talk) 18:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page Picture

How do I replace the current main page picture? Slatme4 (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You go to Featured Pictures and participate in the processes that determine what pictures are featured. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 June 3

Contents