Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 September 2

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.

September 2

Biological

Who’s the father of Ingrid child in Vikings movie 105.113.40.254 (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, this isn't a general help desk, this is to ask about using Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

We have articles on two movies called The Viking, two called Viking, and one called The Vikings: we don't have an article on one called "Vikings", and I presume you aren't asking about the two TV series (one documentary, one drama) called Vikings, or the latter's sequel Vikings: Valhalla (see Viking (disambiguation)). There appears to be a further recent film Vikings: Revenge and/or The Viking Revenge about which we do not yet have an article.

Please ask again at the Entertainment Reference desk and specify which movie (or series) you are referring to. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.209.45 (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Melicytus orarius

Reference help requested.

I find it difficult to parse the error which the bot noted that I introduced. I don't understand what is wrong, and the bare url page that was shared to explain the error was very long and confusing.

Thanks, Richlitt (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Does the help link at the reference (permalink) not answer your question? If not, what is it about the help text is not helpful?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The error message said "Missing or empty |title=". I've fixed it by adding the title of the page you cited. Maproom (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Death of Ann Grocott

I am the daughter of Ann Grocott. Sadly Ann passed away on 7th April 2024. I would like her Wikipedia page updated. As her sole executor, I hold the Grant of Probate and am able to provided documentation to support this, such as a copy of her death certificate. Could you please advise what you require to update her Wikipedia page. Kind Regards, Nicolle Fogarty Nikkifogarty (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter if you are her daugher or not, can you cite this claim? MacaroniPizzaHotDog (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear this, Nikkifogarty. As MacaroniPizzaHotDog suggests, the standard way to effect such an edit is to cite a reputable published source for it. As I look, I find this Facebook post. We normally avoid citing Facebook posts, but at a stretch we might be able to use this one, as its writer/poster seems to know what she's talking about here. But let's put it aside for now. Can you point us to any published reference for your mother's death? This wouldn't have to be on the web; it could be on paper only. (If not, there's yet another avenue.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkifogarty: I'm very sorry for your loss. One option is that you could send a scan or photo of a death certificate to info-en-vwikimedia.org. That mailbox is staffed by volunteers and there is at times a backlog, so the response may not be immediate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkifogarty: I'm also sorry for your loss. If an obituary was published in any newspaper, you may use it as a reference. It does not need to be a major newspaper, and it does not need to be online. -Arch dude (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

BLP policy

@Hoary and Pigsonthewing: would it be possible to add some advice to WP:BLP about this? There was some inconclusive discussion here in February 2024. TSventon (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not really a suitable page to which article subjects or their representatives should be directed. We have WP:About you and WP:FAQAS. Note that a death certificate is not "self published". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, TSventon, but I've nothing to add to the response above. -- Hoary (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct etiquette for problematic talk page comment

I was adding a talk post to the Talk:History of espionage and the only other comment feels somewhat racist.The title is "Excessive use of foreign words." They are arguing that the use of foreign words such as "shinobi" should be removed. I feel that I don't have the authority to remove it as a novice wikipedia editor, but it also feels like the kind of thing that should be removed. What is the best course of action when you see something that feels borderline and needs a second opinion? Spicygarbage (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Offensive speech#Dealing with offensive speech. It doesn't look bad enough for {{redacted}}, and remember to assume good faith, they might just not understand those words. You can just reply to the comment, letting them know why it could be racist. Other editors who watchlist the page may intervene after, and the OP might retract, fix their mistake or clarify.

Don't remove the comment; only do so in cases of blantant personal attacks, vandalism or trolling. You can read more at WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. Have a good day! win8x (talking | spying) 04:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The writer seems to be making a plea for simple, unpretentious language. It's a reasonable point. I haven't bothered to check if the examples given really are there (e.g. if shinobi actually appears); if not, this should be pointed out in the response. Assuming for a moment that yes, the article is indeed riddled with fancy language, I don't think the writer makes the plea either persuasively or very helpfully, but I don't find the message offensive or racist in the slightest. I see no reason to remove it. -- Hoary (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The writer would, I think, have a point if these foreign language words (they instance "mstovaris, shinobi, Pochtecas, quimitchin, etc.") were used without any explanation (I for one had never encountered any of them before), but it does appear that they are all either wikilinked to relevant articles or explained within the text: if any are not, however, they should be. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.209.45 (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

AfC

So, if I understand correctly, any undisclosed paid company can WP:BOGOF? Just make a draft about a notable person full of promo and fluff, have another account ignore much of the content review steps and publish it to mainspace and then if nothing happens within 90 days it cannot be returned to draft status and we need to have a full AfD (which will fail because the person is notable and AfD is not cleanup) so the only option left is a full rewrite by a neutral Wikipedian who does not care about the subject of the article and probably knows nothing about it so they have to waste a lot of time doing research (or ignore the fact that the horrible article exists, which is what 99% seem to do, which exacerbates the problem).

I have seen this loophole been exploited quite a few times already, and its probably the tip of the iceberg. So we need to be able to return trash back to draft. If it went through AfC (which is meaningless as quality control) and how old it is (it can take a long time until a volunteer notices the article who is willing to fix the problems) should be irrelevant. Polygnotus (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I must be missing something, right? Is it really this easy to publish trash into the mainspace and have everyone ignore it?

Can we just delete WP:NOTBACKDOOR because it, ironically, is used as a backdoor, not for deletion but by UPE and COI editors?

It was added here based on this but that was clearly a bad idea that backfired spectacularly.

Pinging @WhatamIdoing: because they probably know about these things. Polygnotus (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked into what you are describing, but it seems that you are calling for a change of policy. If so, that would be better done either on the talk page of one of the pages you cite, or at the WP:village pump. ColinFine (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Not yet, I am trying to understand the situation. Polygnotus (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: Your post incudes several assumptions, not least "no one finds it within 90 days". Do you have evidence of all this actually happening? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Yes, of course. But I am trying to understand the situation in general, not talking about a specific set of articles. Polygnotus (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Then please share the evidence with us; not so that we can "talk about a specific set of articles", but in order that we can see and understand the processes involved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: If I actually want to change policy (which is not my cup of tea, to put it mildly) I will probably have to make a list of examples, which will take a long time, and I will have to dig into the history of each of the articles I suspect have this history (which again will take a long time). For now I am just trying to see if my understanding of the situation is correct. Polygnotus (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Note that I made this edit. Polygnotus (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong, to the extent that none of this demands "a full rewrite by a neutral Wikipedian".

A perfectly reasonable response to such a situation is to quickly WP:STUBIFY the article. If they're going to dump self-promoting puffery in the mainspace, then we can knock it down to something as small, boring, and non-promotional as "WhatamIdoing's Gas Station is a fuel station in Smallville." Keep all the notability-showing sources (but feel free to remove press releases, corporate web pages, etc.) and then move on to more interesting or worthy editing. Doing this is often quicker and easier than a fight at AFD.

Another approach that's frequently effective is to check for copyvios, as this kind of puffery is often copied from their website, and then you can get a {{db-copyvio}} deletion. The point is, you don't have to do "a full re-write" to get rid of bad content.

I also want to say: This is usually not important in the real world. Really.

We tend to think in high-minded terms about how we need to Defend the Wiki™ from those evil hordes of self-promoting subjects, but under most circumstances, it doesn't really matter.

For example, a while ago I wrote an article about a small-ish business that had gotten written up in a major newspaper. I wrote it because it was kind of an interesting business. A while later, someone re-wrote the article. From my POV, they added a bunch of marketing bafflegab and I suspect them of being a paid editor; from theirs, they were probably trying to update certain nuances about the company. Terrible, right? But...

But: The article's only getting four page views a day (and some of those might be undetected bots or misclicks). That means that one in a 100,000,000 readers (page views) each day is going to see that. Most of them won't get past the lead. It will form, at most, 0.000001% of what readers see on Wikipedia, and therefore basically none of our reputation. If it affects our reputation at all, it might even be a boost to our reputation, because readers' needs often have little or nothing to do with an encyclopedia article. Someone who is looking for the company's official website isn't going to care about exactly what type of corporation it is or whether uses business buzzwords. They're just going to be glad that we had an article on this obscure company, and that it had an ==External links== section in it. Therefore, its existence might be a net positive for Wikipedia's reputation, even though I think my version was better in most (but perhaps not all) respects.

The thing about unimportant subjects is that they're unimportant. You don't need to bother with a full re-write, because they're not important enough for that. Spend a minute or two removing the worst of it, and then move on. Think of it as the equivalent of Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore: Apply a quick fix and stop worrying about it. If it ever gets an important amount of traffic, then an editor will notice it and spend time improving it then. Until then, readers benefit from Wikipedia having the information they're seeking, even if that information is just "That actor whose name you can't quite remember was Alice" or "The company's website is this one". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Excellent, this is the kinda reply I was hoping for. I didn't know the word "stubify", but that is an apt description of what I did to the article. After removing all the promo and fancruft not much was left. I am not worried about Wikipedia's reputation, but sometimes editing Wikipedia does feel like protecting something against a horde of barbarians, which is unhealthy and not how a hobby should feel. Polygnotus (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I know that feeling. Fortunately, we have ten thousand experienced editors working on our side each month, and editors like us make more edits in a day – and edits more likely to 'stick' – than the throw-away spammer accounts ever do. So whenever you feel like stubbing and WP:BLARing articles is not fun, feel free to step away for a while. There has always been someone willing and able to fill that gap (unless you do copyvio clean up. We never have enough folks at WP:CCI). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Name order for South Korean ICC judge

I want to create a stub on the South Korean judge Keebong Paek who was recently elected to the International Criminal Court (ICC), and I'm trying to figure out the appropriate name order. WP:NCKO says "Unless the subject is known to prefer otherwise, family name should be written first." This promotional video for his ICC candidacy published by the South Korean Foreign Ministry refers to him as Keebong Paek (which is the Western name order, given name first). I'm not sure whether I should infer from this that "the subject is known to prefer otherwise" – for all I know, the Ministry might have a policy of Westernization and he might be opposed to it. But this is also the form of the name that's consistently used to refer to him at the ICC, and even a Google search restricted to .kr sites yields a lot more hits for Keebong Paek than for Paek Keebong. On the other hand, a tweet from the Foreign Ministry (that published the above video) upon his election refers to him as Paek Keebong, and that's also the title of the article in the German Wikipedia (the only one that has an article so far).

I feel that much speaks in favour of using the form Keebong Paek that all his work at the ICC (by far his most prominent activity so far) will be associated with, but it would be a stretch to say that the subject is known to prefer it. How to resolve this?

Joriki (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Joriki: You might get better answers at WT:WikiProject Korea. Good luck! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Thanks for the reply! The advice there was to use Keebong Paek. I’ve created the article under that name now. Joriki (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Mullburies

Mallbarrier are not strawberies/ Mallbarires grow on ery prickly sticks like plants. Strawbrrier and other berries grow on plants on gtound. I ould find on picture of malbarroirs. When my parents ha a garden nears Warsaw, Poland i picked bowls of mulberries. can you show a picture? 174.83.93.53 (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this a question about the Wikipedia article Morus? Or about some other article. I can't tell what you are asking. ColinFine (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

IP editor: there are lots of pictures at mulberry and at commons:Category:Morus, including Commons:Category:Morus alba in Poland Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

"Prickly sticks" with berries sounds more like Rubus; maybe the raspberry, which is "Malina" in Polish. Maproom (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia scam

Hello, at the beginning of this year a company called Wiki Mastery contacted my company about a Wikipedia article. After a few months someone from Wikimedia foundation contacted us saying that it might be a scam.

Can you help me with this matter? Thank you. 5.2.203.38 (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. What help are you looking for? Are you saying that you fell for the scam?

If that's the case, I don't think we can help you, but you might start by reading WP:SCAM. ColinFine (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned that you say the WMF contacted you. Usually WMF would not become involved unless you contact them, not the other way around. I suggest that you use the e-mail address in the WP:SCAM page to contact them instead of replying directly to whatever communication you got from "WMF". -Arch dude (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

These scammers frequently impersonate Wikipedia administrators or even WMF staffers. Be extremely cautious about any unsolicited emails making dubious claims, even if they seem plausible on first reading. Cullen328 (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Shaun Spalding from WMF Legal here (you can tell by the (WMF) after my username this is my official account). I can confirm that the Legal department has sent out emails to victims of the well known scams from WikiMastery, Elite Wiki Writers, and other related companies. This warning is meant to help victims of these scams understand the nature of the scam and get refunds (by charging back their credit cards). It's also meant to inform them of Wikipedia rules such that they won't be tricked in the future by other fraudulent actors. This has successfully led to refunds for victims in the past and we intend to keep doing this. So @Cullen328, @Arch dude, @ColinFine if people reach out in the future, this is an official legal department activity.

That said, because we have been successful doing this, and because these companies thrive in an environment of chaos, they have started impersonating these emails. See https://www.reddit.com/r/Scams/comments/1dz6bmw/beware_of_scammer_posing_as_wikimedia_legal/ ... What is happening here is either (a) someone pretending that they are me to actually try to scam someone or (b) a scam UPE company trying to suggest that our emails from the WMF Legal department are fake to then have a public link to send to their clients to undermine their trust in our outreach. Either way, it's a bit sociopathic but that's the nature of these companies. Therefore, if anyone does receive outreach, they can always verify this by emailing trademarks@wikimedia.org (which is another general inbox that I read).

Yes, very confusing, but scammers never make things easy :) SSpalding (WMF) (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, SSpalding (WMF) for checking in here. This is useful information. I am going to save your username and reach out to you if people who have been scammed compain here or at the Teahouse. Do you think that WP:SCAM needs updating? Cullen328 (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

For now, I personally think Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning describes the situation well: these companies are generally terrible at getting edits to stick on Wikipedia (some with proven 0% success rates). That page generally describes the modus operandi of the segment of industry that Wikimastery style companies inhabit. SSpalding (WMF) (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@SSpalding (WMF):Thanks for the info. This is why I directed the user to contact WMF using the address at WP:SCAM rather than replying to an e-mail. This is generic advice for anyone who receives an unsolicited scam warning from any organization: do not reply directly. This goes for credit card companies, utilitiy companies, the IRS and other government agencies, your bank, etc. On the phone, always hang up and call back on a number you find separately. Via e-mail, always send a reply to an e-mail address you find separately, etc. -Arch dude (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep, definitely good advice given! Thanks. SSpalding (WMF) (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Could someone help me delete this wikipedia about me?

Nicholas Parnell

This page, is about me. If possible I would like it removed. Its affecting my current job position.

Happy to provide ID! Nicholasparnell50 (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

After reading the pre-2020 revision of this article, I assume that a majority of the content was not about you (or about someone with a similar name). Either way, you as an individual are probably not notable enough for a Wikipedia page, having won Style Wars which doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for speedy deletion due to a lack of notability. The article is likely to be removed, and won't be created again unless you do something important enough and with enough coverage to be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Malinaccier (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@GeorgeMemulous: I am perplexed, if "Style Wars" doesn't have its own article, then what is Style Wars? FWIW, both Justapedia and Infogalactic also have these articles. Fabrickator (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The article Style Wars is apparently about "an American 1983 documentary film", not a competition with the same name. TSventon (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

As an interesting aside, both the the Justapedia and Infogalactic versions lacks the article's history, and thus attribution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Malinaccier: Hang on - if "the pre-2020 revision of this article [was] about someone with a similar name", then who was it about? Who usurped it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It was about a fashion stylist named Nicholas Parnell who won a TV game show (the same subject as the 2024 version of the article). GeorgeMemulous was (I assume) allowing for the possibility that the requestor was somebody with the same name but not the subject of the article. Malinaccier (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Not quite.

On the revision history, the requesting account deleted most of the article on 8 December 2020, and didn't request deletion until now. The deletion of much of the article was unchallenged, and indeed looking at that revision from 7 December 2020 it is possible that the sources were mentioning a different individual with the same name. Either way, none of the articles were specifically about them, and after the requestor deleted most of the page's contents the article was a 2 sentence stub for nearly 4 years until today. Even back then it didn't have much indication of notability. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Correction: The requesting account was created today, and the article was nearly blanked in 2020 by an account also with 'Nicholas Parnell' in its username. The near-blanking went unchallenged as the article already failed notability back then and was likely an orphan article. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, my read is that it seemed very likely to be the same person. In any case, I did not think this was a controversial deletion, but if there is interest in disputing this deletion, I am happy to provide a copy of the article's text circa 2020 and 2024 and having a formal deletion discussion at AfD. Malinaccier (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Close controversial move

Can someone close Talk:Al-Tabaeen school attack#Requested move 10 August 2024. There seems to be consensus to move but i do not want my first (second?) move close to be in such a controversial topic AlexBobCharles (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@AlexBobCharles For closures on controversial topics, it's probably best to request at WP:CR. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Glitches when typing on talk pages

Hello all. I'm sure there's a better place to ask this, but for the past few months when I edit talk pages to add new topics, there has been an annoying glitch which makes typing nearly impossible. Basically, once I press shift, whatever I am typing gets sent to the beginning of a paragraph in reverse order.

For instance, if I type "The first three letters of the English alphabet are ABC," that turns into "BCAThe first three letters of the English alphabet are."

I've noticed this happens when I switch tabs, such as when I'm grabbing sources. It is affecting me here, too. I would appreciate any advice here. Ornov Ganguly TALK 15:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Oganguly: Please save an edit where it happens so we can check whether something inserted non-displayed characters like right-to-left markers. If it only happens for new topics then you can probably avoid the problem by disabling "Enable quick topic adding" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. What is your browser? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter, disabling quick topic adding and editing resolved the issue completely. Thank you.

For other details, I use Firefox 129.0.2 (64-bit). I suppose saving an edit now wouldn't be necessary unless you would like to know for the future? Ornov Ganguly TALK 17:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Oganguly, please look in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and see if you have the "Google Trans" gadget enabled. If you do, try turning it off. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

username

What is my user name ?? i have email ID but cant remember my uid. 2001:4490:4839:D1C:9C48:F0CA:D471:512E (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

If you are asking about a Wikipedia login name, there are some suggestions at Help:Logging in#What if I forget the username? -- John of Reading (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Uploading a watermarked non-free file

I am working on a draft Draft:2021 Naperville–Woodridge tornado and would like to add a non-free image of the tornado. As far as I know, only one image exists of the tornado itself, and I assume it's non-free. The problem is I can't find the original creator of the image, and a TinEye search reveals that the image was uploaded by ILStorm_Chasers on Twitter, which has been suspended. The image has a clear copyright watermark, but, again, is the only image of the tornado that exists. What would be the procedure for adding this to Wikipedia, or is this one best left not added? GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this would fall under the 'fair use' rationale, since clearly no-one can take another photo as the subject is no longer extant.

You are probably already aware that non-free images, even if appropriate, can only be used in actual articles, so should not be added to drafts. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.209.45 (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

One more thing. The image is conspicuously watermarked, with the watermark taking up a not insignificant portion of the image. It can be cropped to remove this however. Should, once the article is published into mainspace, a cropped image without the watermark but with proper attribution be used? The image is also in a portrait viewing angle and should ideally be cropped anyway. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)