Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 December 23

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.

December 23

Free access vs Open access

What is the difference between free access and open access. When should I use Template:Free access and when should I use Template:Open access? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Almost always prefer {{free access}} (if such a template is even necessary – for the cs1|2 templates ({{cite book}} etc), it is not necessary). I tend to delete {{open access}} on sight as inappropriate or unnecessary.

Open access implies reusability. Reusability requires an agreement between the publisher and the reuser. Wikipedia has no business inserting itself between the publisher and the reuser.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

What about in an instance where the corresponding OCLC identifier marks the work as being open access? (Example here) Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't trust WorldCat. The Access free link is dead; WorldCat is not the publisher; WorldCat describes the work as an ebook.

The work has been archived at the Wayback Machine. The publisher is Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO); only the publisher can define the open-access status of a published work. In this case, CLACSO licenses the work as CC BY-NC-ND (see Creative Commons license § Six regularly used licenses for a definition). To me, a 32-page paper does not an ebook make. The metadata say that the document is Doc. de trabajo / Informes which Google translate gives as 'Working document / Reports'; not a book. Don't trust WorldCat.

The CC BY-NC-ND license indicates that the source is free-to-read so if you must apply an access indicator template to this source, {{free access}} is the more appropriate. In general, free-to-read external links should not be flagged (free-to-read assumed as the default state). When such sources are not free-to-read, that is when to apply an access indicator (|url-access=registration or |url-access=subscription in cs1|2 templates or an appropriate template from Template:Free access § See also).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Can't argue with that. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Problem in the infobox

I'm not an expert on infoboxes, but I would like to warn you that on the province of Catania page the infobox is completely wrong and highly confusing (I think it's due to the fact that there is "{{Infobox former subdivision" instead of "{{Infobox settlement"). JackkBrown (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@JackkBrown: We're not experts on the province of Catania. The best place to have this discussion is the article's talk page, along with a detailed description of what you think is "completely wrong and highly confusing" in the infobox output. GoingBatty (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I fixed one problem, a "Coordinates" field with no visible content.[1] The other clear problems to me are the placement of the "Area" heading and the duplicate "History" heading. That may be general problems in the used infobox. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@JackkBrown & @PrimeHunter: I reported the duplicate "History" heading at Template talk:Infobox former subdivision#Edit request 23 December 2023. GoingBatty (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@JackkBrown & @PrimeHunter: The duplicate "History" issue in {{Infobox former subdivision}} was kindly fixed by Jonesey95. GoingBatty (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

"Literally" template

In the past, I have added some "literally" templates that I could add better, I'm referring to when there are several literal meanings close together; I discovered (see tiramisu page) that I could only use it once. Is there any way to keep track of these changes? I can't keep track of all my modifications, that would be crazy. JackkBrown (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Your post is not very clear but after some investigation I guess you mean cases like {{lit|pick me up}} or {{lit|cheer me up}} in [2] which was combined to {{lit|pick me up|cheer me up}} in [3]. If you wrote {{lit...}} or {{lit...}} then this search should find remaining cases: insource:/\{\{[Ll]it.*\}\} or \{\{[Ll]it/ hastemplate:"Literal translation". PrimeHunter (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Please only use the "literal translation" templates if both are true: the translation is actually literal, and it adds something atop the regular translation. I find these misused all over the place and often remove them. Folly Mox (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: thank you very much, I solved it! JackkBrown (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Publicly posted material – a reliable source?

I am reviewing Taipei 101 for GAN. I worry about source #32: Publicly posted material, Floor 89, Taipei 101. 17 August 2007. This seems to mean that information boards in that building are used as a source. Is this acceptable as a source or does it need to be replaced? Thanks. Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: One could use {{cite sign}} for this if it's a sign or plaque. GoingBatty (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, so I guess that means that it's acceptable. Solved. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, this isn't a reliable source. It isn't even a citation. It is a location, with an assertion that something-or-other was once placed there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. But in what circumstances can the "cite sign" template be used, then? I assume it cannot be used here because "publicly posted material" is not explicitly stated to be a sign? This is not clear to me yet. Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I'd never cite a sign without including a photo of it. Verification shouldn't be reliant on having to visit a building to look for something that was there in 2007. Beyond that, the usual policies apply to a sign as a source. Who 'published' it? What is it being cited for? The 'material' in Taipei 101 seems to have been cited for a whole lot of details that look like they may have originated with the architects or the owners, but we have absolutely no way of knowing without more details. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I will let the nominator know. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

While I agree a photo would be helpful, this doesn't seem wholly consistent with policy: sources don't have to be easily accessible to be reliable, and there's equally a risk of someone misplacing or relocating a rare book, say. Remsense留 23:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Page

I paid for a page because I was told I have enough of a name and content on the internet to have one..now they refuse to publish it can anyone help ? 2603:8000:E300:3127:681E:FD3F:B231:7ABF (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC

You have been scammed. See WP:SCAM. There are dozens of such scammers. They are not associated with Wikipedia and we have no way to assist you in this matter. Please provide us with the details so we can try to repair the damage to Wikipedia as best we can. -Arch dude (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I have removed what may have been your email address from your message above. -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Sanitized CSS and help with User:Jeraxmoira/sandboxcss

When I try to use User:Jeraxmoira/common.css on my userpage by using it shows a error Page User:Jeraxmoira/common.css must have content model "Sanitized CSS" for TemplateStyles (current model is "CSS"). I am not sure how I should change it to "Sanitized CSS".

W.r.t User:Jeraxmoira/sandboxcss, I am trying to bring the animation down to the bottom of my userpage, but Position:fixed; makes the animation end way before it reaches the end of the page. Any help would be appricated. TIA <3 Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jeraxmoira: User:Jeraxmoira/common.css loads for yourself on all pages. It's not meant for others. templatestyles is meant for the template namespace where CSS subpages automatically have content model "Sanitized CSS". Administrators can normally change content model but not for a personal CSS page, and I wouldn't do it if I could. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, PrimeHunter. Makes sense a little bit now. I actually wanted to create something like this but with different values. Is there a way I can implement the same? Or is adding custom CSS for user pages prohibited? Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jeraxmoira: I don't know a specific rule against custom templatestyles for a user page but it sounds like a bad idea and I haven't seen it. Interface administrators (not normal administrators like me) can probably change content model for a personal CSS page but I wouldn't ask for it. A custom template could be created in template space but that sounds annoying and a likely target for deletion. I wouldn't do it if you don't want to spend other peoples time and maybe irritate them. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no specific rule against it, and it is in fact something several other users do without apparent objection (i.e Frostly). You can create a CSS page in template space and then move it to userspace, or I would be willing to do a content model change. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Pppery. I am still figuring out how to bring the gif to the bottom of the page without losing the running speed/animation duration as Position:fixed; does not seem to work. I will give you a ping once I figure it out. Thanks again <3 Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it proper to refer to software in the past tense?

I was reading the article for Windows Server 2003 article and a random thought entered my mind: Do we refer to software in the current tense even if it's no longer in use? Obviously this is not a pressing issue, more of a philosophical one.

Windows Server 2003, codenamed "Whistler Server", is the second version of the Windows Server operating system produced by Microsoft.

I can see two arguments:

1. Present Tense: When referring to the inherent features, design, or capabilities of a software, present tense is often used. This is because the software itself, as a designed entity, doesn't change over time. For instance, saying "Windows Server 2003 supports..." or "Windows Server 2003 is designed to..." focuses on the software’s built-in features or architecture, which remain constant regardless of its current usage status.
2. Past Tense: When the discussion is about the software's relevance, usage, or place in history, past tense is more appropriate. This is particularly true when the software is no longer in active use or has been superseded by newer versions. For example, "Windows Server 2003 was widely used in enterprises until..." or "Microsoft discontinued support for Windows Server 2003 in..." reflects its historical position and lifecycle.

skarz (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The default is present tense. See MOS:TENSE. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Apart from other considerations, a lot of seemingly superceded software is still in use somewhere. Often this is in stand-alone (off-internet) government or military equipment where the old software works well, is completely understood, and is officially validated, so 'upgrading' it is undesireable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.111.170 (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Sassari and Bari pages

The Sassari and Bari pages have no flags in the "International relations" paragraphs. JackkBrown (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Finally! Some articles that are forgoing those annoying flag icons. Folly Mox (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

What? skarz (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Folly Mox, make that "an article". Namely, Sassari. JackkBrown has added them to Bari, for some (or no) reason. -- Hoary (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@@Folly Mox: It's two articles again. Despite past guidance from several editors, JackkBrown has a habit of making edits with no edit summary, which do not improve content, and which ignore well-established guidelines and policies. Bazza (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: that don't improve the content? Why do you keep attacking me for everything? I have improved many articles, if it wasn't for me many Italian articles in this encyclopaedia would be almost unpresentable. And as for "MOS:FLAGICON", don't blame me, blame all the other pages that have flags (this is the only page of Italian cities, the only one in the entire encyclopaedia, that doesn't contain flags). Obviously, if you want to take responsibility for removing flags only on an Italian city page (it's too easy to remove them on only one and leave them on all the others, and I'm not just referring to Italian cities, but also to U.S. cities, English cities, etc.) and leave them on all the other Italian city pages, I'll make a request to "Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks" to have this problem solved, obviously quoting you, because it's your responsibility. Or can the pages be left as they are. Why should all other Italian city pages have flags and an Italian city (only one) not? In any case, I wish you a Merry Christmas! JackkBrown (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

You don't need flagicons to show something that says "Girona, Italy". The link is plenty. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@JackkBrown: You added the flag icons back in after your edit was reverted. Which bit of the "D" in WP:BRD don't you get? You have been blocked in the past for disruptive editing. Please take more care.

It is not for you to lecture me on what edits I should be making, nor to assign responsibility to me or any other user. It is your responsibility to make sure the edits you make are accurate, verified, and supported by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; in this case MOS:FLAGICON and WP:BRD. Bazza (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: please, we are in the Christmas period, calm down, thank you. JackkBrown (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@JackkBrown: What has that got to do with anything? You may well be in a "Christmas period", but I am not. And, again, do not lecture me. Bazza (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I also noticed, @JackkBrown, that you changed the title of this discussion without notification, altered your input after others had responded (against WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS) and took almost twenty edits to make your point, each of which are logged in this talk page's discussion. You were warned about the latter behaviour when you were blocked. It must stop. Bazza (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: you're a good user, but please don't always attack me on everything, many times for no reason. Anyway, I have restored the title. I wish you a very very happy Christmas! JackkBrown (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Translation

When one translates a page from its original language to another language: is it allowed to alter or add content in the translation? I'm asking because I notice this phenomenon and would like to know if it is an abuse, or not. Honesty145 (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Articles about the same topic across the various language Wikipedias are not necessarily exact translated copies of each other; it's likely many were written independently and later connected. It isn't a problem that a translated article isn't a verbatim copy of the original, at least insofar as compared to an article original to Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you 331dot. It's not an "article on the same topic". On the side of the original article's title, there's a drop-down menu that mentions a number of languages which the article was translated to. Pretty much every article has that. The page one reaches after clicking on the arrow and picking a language is to my understanding not another article on the topic, but a translation of the original article. Does this change your input on the matter, or are we in fact talking about the same thing? Honesty145 (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Honesty145, your understanding is not entirely correct. In some cases, a connected article in a sister language Wikipedia will in fact be a translation (or partial translation, modified partial translation, etc) of another article in the Wikimedia ecosystem, just as you currently understand it. In other cases, the two articles will have been written entirely independently of one another, like 331dot mentioned, and may not share any overlap in structure or sourcing.

Direct translation of Wikipedia content is fraught with peril, due to different standards in sourcing and notability, and the inherent unreliability of Wikipedia as a source. A responsible translator will verify the statements in an article's sources during translation. Unfortunately, not all translators are that responsible. Folly Mox (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Honesty145: There is no legal, ethical, or policy problem, as long as the original is attributed. Attribution is needed to satisfy the CC_BY_SA license of the original. If I personally created the translated article, I would do this in two steps. First, create a close translation, and then make the modifications, just to make it clear in the article history, but there is no actual requirement for this. -Arch dude (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Arch dude. Honesty145 (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, a direct translation of an article from a different version of Wikipedia into English is rarely appropriate, because most non-English versions are less strict about sourcing and referencing; so only if the sources cited in the original are all acceptable in en-wiki would this be at all practical. In every other case, it would be necessary to find different sources, and it is likely that they will not cover exactly the same information, so the content will need to be changed to match the new sources. So the result will often be a modified translation. ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Colin. Honesty145 (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, even if the (for example) Italian article meets all our standards, it may contain cultural allusions that need more explanation for people who do not speak Italian. —Tamfang (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Submission

Back in September, I created an account so I could upload a couple of license plate images that were 'needed' on your site. They are still not posted. I found the process to do so EXTREMELY complicated, so I probably fudged it up. Never got any messages to say so....

Any help? Trekster1966 (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Trekster1966: Is there any additional information? Did you upload them here on the English Wikipedia or on Wikipedia's sister project Commons? If you need help in learning how to upload images you can check out WP:IUI. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Trekster1966, thanks for uploading c:File:NL Licence Plate - 1931.jpg and c:File:NL Motorcycle Licence Plate - 1976.jpg. I added the first to Vehicle registration plates of Newfoundland and Labrador per your notes, but wasn't able to determine where in that article to add the second image. (Tenryuu, global contributions is accessible from a link at the bottom of Special:Contributions). Folly Mox (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Discrepancy in data in different language versios:

How can we report a completely different time and means of death mentioned in the Wikipedia article for this person in the English [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lajos_Magyar ] and the Hungarian [4] versions? Carrotmunch (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

You can examined the cited sources to see which claim is valid. If more attention need to be brought on this, you can start a discussion at Talk:Lajos Magyar, or request help in relevant Wikiprojects. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Carrotmunch:The different language versions are administratively independent, and there is no overarching authority that tries to keep the information consistent across them. This means that any improvement in consistency will be up to individual editors such as yourself. It is up to you, brave editor, to understand the policy differences between the Wikipedia instances, and working within them make changes as appropriate (and thanks for your efforts!) -Arch dude (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Both links are to the English Lajos Magyar. The Hungarian article is hu:Magyar Lajos (újságíró). PrimeHunter (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

"Most viewed since your edit" without using the newcomer homepage?

I really enjoy looking at the "most viewed (since your edit)" section of the newcomer homepage, but I don't want to use the newcomer homepage (I didn't even know it existed until recently). Is there any way to see it (or something similar) without that homepage? Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 23:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd kind of like to know this, too. (Special:Homepage for those who didn't know it existed, either. You need to enable it in preferences first, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but whatever.) —Cryptic 23:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Special:Impact. No idea if this works for accounts with the newcomer homepage disabled. Folly Mox (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

That works! It's a little glitchy in regards to showing the articles correctly (it takes a few refreshes to get it to show everything), but it's something so I don't mind :D Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 00:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Suntooooth: You can also see it for others with a link like Special:Impact/Cryptic. User:PrimeHunter/Impact.js makes an "Impact" link under "Tools" when you are in their userspace. It also works for yourself if you want easy access to your own impact without the newcomer homepage. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)