Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 August 13

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 13

Problem while fixing Errors

I am working on a backlog category Category:CS1 errors: URL.There is an article which shows that there are issues in two reference. but when i open edit windows, its just gone but if i again open article, it shows that there are issues in reference. The Article: Alive Alive-O!
–– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 02:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Article title corrected -- John of Reading (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@KEmel49: The {{Album chart}} template builds its own references based on the information supplied in the other parameters. According to Template:Album chart/doc#Supports, for Italy and Spain, it was trying to build a reference from the "artist" and "album" parameters; these were missing, causing the invalid URL error. The template was not expecting to see a fully-formed reference as its third unnamed parameter; although they were visible in the edit window, they were ignored by the template coding.

I've chosen to restore an old version of the album chart without the extra entries added in December 2023. I was not convinced by the references that were visible in the edit window. And when I added the missing parameters and allowed the {{Album chart}} template to build its own version of the Italy and Spain references, they did not verify the supplied chart positions. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

 Thanks –– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 17:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Your edit of JD Vance

Why did you remove the awards and commendations that he received in the Marines? Are you trying to censor the truth? If so, that is despicable. 2601:647:4400:D8B0:AC99:D7B6:487B:5C91 (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Join the ongoing discussion at Talk:JD_Vance RudolfRed (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

How do i remove statements that persecute based on religion?

How do i remove slanderous false statements that are solely intended to persecute a company because of the owners religion? When I try editors blindly deny the edits. Newsbuffstuff (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you please provide article name.-- kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 06:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably Desert Tech.   Maproom (talk)

Newsbuffstuff, the statements that you tried to remove from the article accurately summarize what reliable sources like CBS News and the Salt Lake City Tribune have said about that company. That is exactly what we do on Wikipedia. You have no basis to remove that content. You clearly have a Conflict of interest regarding this company and should not edit that article. What is your connection with User:DTNEY1? Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Rename the page title and url

Hi, I am working as a senior webmaster and designer in Liwa College. As our college name has been changed from Emirates college of technology to Liwa College. I want to update my college name in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_College_of_Technology But there is no option to edit the name. I cant see any move or more option to change or update the page name. Can you please help or guide me to solve this issue.

Thanks Liwa College (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I've moved the article to Liwa College and added a reference for this being the new name. Unfortunately I've also had to block your account as a breach of WP:ORGNAME which prohibits usernames that unambiguously represent a company. I appreciate you likely created this account in good faith to make this suggested change but we don't generally allow usernames like this. There are instructions on your usertalk page on how to request a rename, perhaps to something like "<person name> at Liwa College." Also as outlined on your userpage, you need to be aware of both the policy on paid editing and the policy on conflicts of interest. Again, you do seem to be here in good faith so please don't take this list of policies as a criticism: there are simply some fairly strict rules for how representatives of companies are allowed to contribute to their own company pages. Happy to discuss further if required, after you've renamed your account. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

How to Properly Integrate Cited References for New Technological Advances in Existing Articles?

Hello Community,

I am working on updating Wikipedia articles related to building and construction technologies, with a focus on new methodologies impacting deck repair. My objective is to enrich these articles with updated, reliable information and ensure all additions are substantiated by authoritative sources.

As I aim to enhance the content quality, I seek advice on several aspects:

1. Verifiability and Reliable Sources: What are the best practices for verifying and integrating sources, particularly new ones from rapidly evolving fields? How can I ensure these sources meet the community's standards for reliability?
2. Seamless Integration of New Data: When introducing significant new information to well-structured articles, what strategies should I employ to maintain the article’s coherence and neutrality?
3. Advanced Citation Practices: Are there specific citation techniques or common pitfalls I should be aware of, especially for citing online studies or technological advancements?

For a broader perspective and detailed analysis, here is a link to my project's data Spreadsheet with Technological Advances in Deck Repair. Additionally, further information about our methodologies can be found on our project’s webpage at DeckRepairLittleRock.

I appreciate your guidance to help me make responsible and effective contributions to Wikipedia’s knowledgeable community.

Thank you for your support! Deckrepairlittlerock (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked your account for your promotional username indicating shared use. Wikipedia accounts are for individuals only, not for businesses. Advertising, marketing and promotion are not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but I'm wondering if someone(s) have reached out to the editor/user to suggest re-registering with a personalized login? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

See the (standard) message which @Cullen328 put on their user talk page, Ceyockey. ColinFine (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Navbox and sidebar consistency

Hello there fellow ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask your opinions as to the information concerning navboxes and sidebars, (assuming that there exists both for a particular topic, say Discrimination) should they link to the same number of articles or not? If not, which should link to more articles?

Atakes Ris (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Atakes Ris I think that some guidance is given at WP:CLN, especially WP:BIDI. However, I may not fully understand your question, so please be more specific if the links don't help sufficiently. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

For example, the articles related to Geography have a sidebar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Geography_sidebar) and a navbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Geography_topics), however the number of articles in the sidebar is less than that of the navbox.

Another case, the articles related to Discrimination have a sidebar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Discrimination_sidebar) and a navbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Discrimination) as well, but the number of articles in both are the same.

So I would like to ask, among the general consensus of Wikipedians or otherwise, should a sidebar have the same amount of articles as its respective navbox (assuming that both exist)?

Thanks! Atakes Ris (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Atakes Ris WP:SIDEBAR says that sidebars .... should be treated with special attention, because they are so prominently displayed to readers. That suggests to me that there should be fewer entries in a sidebar than in a navbox which is doing roughly the same job. However, none of this is a policy. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I see, thanks! Atakes Ris (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

How can I protect important information from a vandal?

User:Mellk is vandalizing the article, removing important information with reliable source[1]. I think that he is not going to stop vandalize. So what should I do? Пинча (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Пинча Firstly, removing another editor's content under these circumstances is not vandalism, which has a very specific meaning here as you can read at that link. Melik's edit summary pointed out that the new information should not be placed in the WP:LEAD of the article, which is supposed to summarize what appears later. Hence, if the same information is not in the body text, it should not be solely in the lead. Please follow our normal WP:BRD process and discuss the issue on the Talk Page of the article at Talk:Arkady Babchenko. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

So User:Mellk could have improved it, couldn't he? Removing important information with reliable source is vandalism. Пинча (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If information is 'important', it needs to be discussed in depth in the article body, and then possibly summarised in the article lede. As it is, you have provided nothing that suggests that this nickname is of any significance at all, instead merely citing a single source which mentions it in passing. I suggest you find further sources that discuss it, and then list them on the article talk page, where their relevance to the article can be assessed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If you have questions about why an editor made the choices they made, the best thing you can do is ask them about it in a non-confrontational manner. There was no need to escalate this to this page. DonIago (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Pincha, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Different editors can and do have different opinions as to what is important, and what belongs where in an article.

To insist that you are right, and that anybody who disagrees with you is a vandal, is not collaborative. Please discuss the issue with the other editor, according to WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Removing important information with reliable source is vanalism. Now the vandal accused me in edit war because I reverted his vanalism. Пинча (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You are edit warring. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I reverted obvious vandalism, improved the article, and asked here how to protect the article from vandals and avoid edit war. Пинча (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:EW: An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. It is what User:Mellk and User:Theroadislong are doing. Пинча (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You can do this "I know you are but what am I" routine all you want; a stubborn refusal to talk to other editors on an equal footing will just mean that you don't succeed in getting your edit made. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Mellk called another vandal, User:Theroadislong who reverted even improved version. It is what I am talking about: they are just vandals and don't what to improve the article. Пинча (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to you several times now that disagreeing with you about what is relevant to an article is not "vandalism". Please stop accusing other editors of vandalism. Editors on Wikipedia are required to assume good faith of each other, which you are not doing. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That person calls himself StarshinaZapasa in every social media.[2][3][4] Why can't it be stated in the article? Пинча (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinion on that. Maybe the information belongs in the article; maybe it doesn't, as not everything that is true is important enough to be noted on Wikipedia. I don't know, in this case. What I am saying is that you need to discuss these things in a constructive manner with other editors in order to reach WP:CONSENSUS and stop accusing them of vandalism. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No, they need to discuss these things in a constructive manner with other editors in order to reach WP:CONSENSUS to avoid being accused of vandalism. Пинча (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Your insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is a vandal makes it less likely that your preferred version of the article will end up prevailing. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not their own page and they cannot decide what is important not knowing the subject at all. Пинча (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

And it's not your page either, so you have to talk to people and don't get to sidestep that by pretending they're "vandals". AntiDionysius (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I did not 'call' anyone. I removed the social media name from the lead because it is not important enough to be mentioned in the first sentence. Also not mentioned as a nickname in the lead of ru:Бабченко, Аркадий Аркадьевич. Mellk (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

See how he is lying! He didn't just removed the information from the lead, he removed the information at all. It is called vandalism on Wikipedia. Пинча (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I quite literally removed it from the lead. But the continued personal attacks suggest that a block is needed until you understand the policies better. Vandalism has a very specific meaning as you have been told. Mellk (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There is the obvious difference between moving from lead to another place, and removing at all. Don't speculate here. Пинча (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

how to create account

pasagott! 119.92.138.20 (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a special page for that. Please visit Special:CreateAccount. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Updating company page

Hello! I've read various rules about updating data on your own company page. Ours is a bit out of date and I've gathered several links (to outside sources) to show progress that should be reflected on our page. Can someone tell me best way to submit these to a Wiki editor to update? Much appreciated. - Erin Ehbrown.writes (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The best way to do this is to use the edit request wizard to place requests on the article's talk page. Remember to make these requests as precise as possible, and that all information you wish to insert must be verified by published sources, and preferably by sources wholly unconnected with the company. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ehbrown.writes Best practice is also to declare your WP:PAID status on your own userpage. See that link for how to do so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Briefly looking at the useful "edit request wizard", it doesn't seem obvious where the edit requests go. Is this something that could be clarified, or a pointer to clarification provided? Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ceyockey The instructions on the ERW page say editors are encouraged to submit an edit request on the article talk page using the form below (my bolding). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have to give it a try myself and see how it works out. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Proper use of "van"

Hi, which of the two is correct:

• van Pelt, Robert Jan (2014). "Freemasonry and Judaism". In Bogdan, Henrik; Snoek, Jan A.M. (eds.). Handbook of Freemasonry. Brill Handbooks on Contemporary Religion. Brill. p. 197. ISBN 978-90-04-27312-2. Retrieved 12 August 2024.
• Pelt, Robert Jan van (2014). "Freemasonry and Judaism". In Bogdan, Henrik; Snoek, Jan A.M. (eds.). Handbook of Freemasonry. Brill Handbooks on Contemporary Religion. Brill. p. 197. ISBN 978-90-04-27312-2. Retrieved 12 August 2024.? tgeorgescu (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu My understanding is that Van Pelt is a surname in which the "van" means "from". Hence the first of your versions seems better. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

(ec) You need to add |authorlink=Robert Jan van Pelt. Once you have done so, either is "correct" depending on where you are, see van (Dutch). Wikipedia:Citing sources does not prescribe anything so you can do what you like as long as you are consistent within your article. —Kusma (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I asked the question at nl:Wikipedia:De kroeg. They replied that "last1=Pelt | first1=Robert Jan van" is correct. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

We had this question last year at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 September 5 § Sorting of Dutch names. The guidance is at WP:SUR, with backup guidance at this external source. I feel like I remember there being different answers depending on the nationality of the person in question: for Europeans, "van" / "von" is sorted into |first=; some North Americans have "Van" / "Von" (with initial capital) as the beginning of their surname. When there's doubt, I put "van" / "von" at the end of the forename. Folly Mox (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Dress code of gumboot dance

What they worn? 41.122.1.58 (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This is incoherent. Are you asking a question about a certain article? 331dot (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Is the answer here Gumboot dance in which case the answer is wellies. Knitsey (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

TOC not displayed for non-logged in users

I know this must be an extremely dumb question, but please bear with me.

I have just finished drafting a long article (7,000 words readable prose) in my User space. I asked a friend for comments and was told there is no Table of Contents (TOC). This seems to be the case: unless you are logged in (which my friend wasn't), an article displays with no TOC. This seems to hold for any article, in mainspace or otherwise.

Can this really be true? It makes long articles very difficult to read for readers who are not logged in (i.e. most of them). I have tried forcing a Table of Contents with but it makes no difference.

Am I missing something obvious, or is there a way of fixing this problem? Ttocserp 21:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This question might be better suited to WP:VPT, they tend to know about this sort of thing. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ttocserp: Logged out, I see a TOC on the left hand side, looking at User:Ttocserp/Slave-owning_slaves. It looks like if that is hidden, then the TOC may be at the top of the page, to the left of the page title. RudolfRed (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 Just tested this logged out with the same results. RudolfRed is referring to the directly to the left of the page title in the event that the ToC isn't appearing in the left sidebar. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ttocserp This happens because the logged-out interface defaults to Vector 2022, which places ToC off to the left if visible at all. Logged-in users can choose from a number of skins at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)