Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 October 22

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.

October 22

Secondary sourcing where primary sourcing may be more relevant

If I don't have access to a source to back up a claim, but a reliable source backs up the same claim while citing the original, can that source be used to attribute a fact?

The context is: "[Researcher A] stated that "claim to be attributed here" ([Researcher B])". I don't have access to the source by Researcher B. Both sources are what I'd consider reliable scholarly material and Wikipedia is built on secondary sources, but I'd rather be sure that this claim could be used. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

GeorgeMemulous, I find your question pretty vague but I will try my best to answer. Although use of primary sources is not forbidden, reliable secondary sources are preferred. They are one step removed from the original observation, and can analyze, compare and fact check primary sources. Such secondary sources provide the best source material for Wikipedia editors to summarize. When using a secondary source that discusses and analyzes a primary source, you need to read the secondary source, but it is not necessary that you read the primary source mentioned, although you can do so if you wish. As it were, the author of the secondary source has done that reading for you. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

possible article on list of suppressed views/ideas in the past

hi, do we have an entry on list of suppressed views of the past, or list of suppressed contemporary views. In regards to views that were suppressed historically, , A favorite example is how opposition to germ theory lead to refusals to accept or properly test the ideas of Semmelweis. I can't find any entry for the kind of list that I am describing here. Kaveinthran (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

So you're looking for a list of ideas that were once generally rejected, and are now generally accepted? Like continental drift and the Big Bang? If so, I wouldn't use the word "suppressed". Maproom (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. "suppressed" is a very loaded term. One layperson's "suppressed idea" is a subject-matter expert's "widely ignored and long-refuted disinformation". --Orange Mike | Talk 06:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks for that added context, I agree with you. Kaveinthran (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It's an area that could easily led to WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, so it would be tricky to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kaveinthran List of superseded scientific theories might be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Merging and renaming articles

The published article SEMCAD needs to be merged with the text of the as yet unpublished draft Sim4Life, and the article must be renamed Sim4Life. The SEMCAD software platform is being discontinued and replaced by Sim4Life. SEMCAD was developed (I think in the early 2000s) by Schmidt and Partner Engineering AG (SPEAG) as a computational tool for simulating electromagnetic (EM) functions of wireless devices; Sim4life was developed by ZMT Zurich MedTech (a SPEAG partner) on the backbone of SEMCAD, with the addition of computational human phantoms to allow simulation of EM radiation with human physiology. How should I proceed? PLBounds (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@PLBounds As far as I can tell, you created the SEMCAD draft, which was accepted into mainspace via the WP:AfC process. If that needs merging with your current (declined) draft Draft:Sim4Life, then why not just incorporate that material yourself now and abandon the draft? The title of the enlarged article can be discussed subsequently, or you could be WP:BOLD and WP:MOVE it yourself. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much, very helpful! PLBounds (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Odd problem with the shift key

Pressing the shift key on my chromebook makes the text entry go to the beginning (for example, if I were to press shift while typing this message, it will cause the caret to start typing at the top.) This only happens with wikipedia. Is this a wikipedia feature or my PC? Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 14:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Image inserting

I was inserting an image in a page at gallery section that I have uploaded in Wikimedia commons. I have tried to edit the link to add hyper and accidentally clicked delete button. The link of my image was deleted. I thought I will do it letter because the battery of my device was low. So I clicked publish changes. When the page returned I saw that other images at the gallery section are showing as plain text and the texts are the source links of the images. It seems like I have deleted some on the previous html texts. 103.121.62.117 (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

C/2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan–ATLAS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have put back the missing </gallery> tag, and the pictures re now showing. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

(1) You included brackets around the filename, which is not necessary when adding to a gallery (2) I've removed the photo you attempted to add, as the quality is not sufficient to merit inclusion there. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Questions about answering edit requests

I've decided to try out something new and answer edit requests, and I've made a couple posts over at Wikipedia talk:Edit requests that could use answering/discussion if anyone here happens to be experienced in that area. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

How to handle reverting by redirect?

Hi. The article Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis was redirected to Hollow Earth today. I reverted the redirect and started a discussion, but the redirect was reinstated. I reverted again and again discussed the issues. But the redirect was again made.

I think we should be discussing an outcome in the Talk pages. What do you suggest as my next step? Johnjbarton (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Johnjbarton, what characteristics sufficiently differentiate Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis from Hollow Earth such that two articles are needed, rather than one article and a redirect? (I don't know anything about this / these topic(s).) Folly Mox (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Folly Mox I don't think two articles are needed. I think that sources in Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis should be reduced to remove some that are not notable and then the remainder should be merged with Hollow Earth. I would need to look into the sources to have an opinion on the final title. I reverted the redirect because it was done with no discussion and contrary to the work by five or six editors in building the article, reviewing it in AfC, and editing it into its current form. It was done with no discussion of the notability of the topic, the references, or the need, or lack thereof, for two articles. I think the article should be restored and the established merge or WP:Redirects for discussion process should apply. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Johnjbarton, since this is not in article space, I want to give you some behavior related advice here, more than what I alluded to on the talk page. I noticed some of this too when I came in as an uninvolved editor from the noticeboard discussion.

At Wikipedia, we have a concept called WP:WIKILAWYERING that we try to avoid. You've been given guidance on that partially through WP:NOTBURO policy and WP:DRNC already, but I mention that because I do believe it would be helpful for you to learn more about this and how to avoid it in disputes. Simply because someone makes a bold redirect does not mean you are justified in automatically undoing the redirect simply because there wasn't discussion (that is the nature of a bold redirect). There needs to be actual reason that the redirect is undone, not bureaucratic ones. You keep using the word "process" but are misunderstanding how the process works. Not every redirect has to go through RfD/AfD, especially when editors agree on it and there's consensus for it.

When the redirect was initially done, another editor left the edit summary, Per WP:FTN. Content history preserved. You can try to incorporate this stuff over there if you think it deserves WP:WEIGHT. . .. Especially since you also agree with the merge, it becomes WP:POINTY when you edit war over the redirect. Just simply work on the target article for content you think should be merged in. KoA (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@KoA You say " Not every redirect has to go through RfD/AfD, especially when editors agree on it and there's consensus for it." which implies that editors agreed and built consensus in this case. Please review Talk:Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis. No editor discussed the reasons for a redirect and no consensus was reached. The only consensus I found on that page when I arrived was to create the article.

So I will give you some behavior related advice. Be nice. Some simple human-to-human communications would have avoided this nasty business. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Either way, @Johnjbarton and @Bon courage are edit warring and both need to stop and discuss it. ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I am here. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

". . . which implies that editors agreed and built consensus in this case". No, it doesn't, KoA was merely adding fuller context, not specifically referring to "this case." Your interpretation seems to me to lack an assumption of good faith and to be suggestive of continued Wikilawyering. [NB: I have had no part in the preceding proceedings, and am merely commenting as a disinterested bystander on what I see in this thread, FWIW.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@@94.6.86.81 Please review Talk:Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis. You do not know the circumstances. There was no discussion of this redirect before it was applied. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Johnjbarton, the noticeboard thread at WP:FTN § They live among us is still open, with recent activity. That's probably the likeliest place for generation of a consensus for or against the redirect. Folly Mox (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Folly Mox Thank you! Can you help me understand why the issues with the article article are not discussed on the article Talk page or why the existence of the FTN discussion is listed there? This approach of redirecting articles without letting the editors involved respond is not the normal practice in say deletes or merges. That fundamentally unfair approach is what set me off. In my opinion the article should not have been even covered on the Fringe Theory noticeboard since it did not espouse a theory but simply reported on it. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Johnjbarton, I agree that a courtesy link to the FTN thread should probably have been posted to Talk:Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis. The immediate discussion between two editors at the noticeboard thread has more of the tenor of an AfD, and maybe the AfD process should have been used instead (which would have alerted watchlisters).

Discussions don't always take place at the ideal venue, and oftentimes relevant notes and pointers are not left where they ought to be (for one example: usage of {{Translated page}} with accompanying edit summary – required for licensing compliance – is not nearly ubiquitous enough).

One explanation may be that the OP of the FTN thread forgot to add the talkpage notification. I'm not sure why the process took the shape it did, but the edit summary redirecting the article did mention the FTN thread (although without linking it).

I'm not familiar with the culture of FTN, nor which articles are deemed appropriate to discuss there. Regardless, the discussion seems to be there now. If that discussion fizzles out without closure, it turns out the preferred venue for contesting a redirect is AfD, according to a 2021 RfC at Wikipedia talk:Merging/Archive 3 § Request for comment: Proposed blank and redirects (linked at Wikipedia:Redirect). Folly Mox (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)