Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 July 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 3 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 5 >
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.

July 4[edit]

Redirect moves[edit]

I have been closing move requests as a non-admin for a few weeks now, but I am still unsure of how to swap names between an article and a redirect as a non-page mover. Do I send the request to WP:RMT? Or do I tag the page for moving with G6 via Twinkle? I have had pages moved by doing the latter with Template:Db-g6 (Reason:Moved per talk page consensus), though I am unsure if the CSD tagging is appropriate. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello? Is this not the right place to ask this question? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions § Non-admin closure says: Editors are permitted to close the discussion and file a technical move with a link to the closed discussion. In case that doesn't answer your question and you don't get a better answer before this section is archived, you may want to try asking at WT:RM. Rummskartoffel 14:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Balance wheel[edit]

I purchased a Seth Thomas mantel clock that was loosing 2 minutes every day. I received information that to make the clock run faster take two weights out of the wheel I did that, the problem is I must have installed the balance wheel wrong inside the clock, because the wheel is not turning Is there any way I could receive some help on this. (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. We have Wikipedia:Reference desk but you'd have to WP:REGISTER to try that. Perhaps try someplace like Quora? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reference desk (for which you don't need an account) is for answering questions with referenced answers, rather than practical help with clock repairs. I suggest you return the clock to the retailer for replacement.--Shantavira|feed me 08:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Shantavira, at the rd it says "Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled.". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nevermind, that doesn't seem to apply to the separate rd:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How do I make a table in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreddyWitDa$tacks (talkcontribs) 10:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For help on tables, try Help:Table. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First Article got deleted[edit]


I would like to restore my article so that I can make an appropriate changes to it. Since it was deleted for a WP:G11 and not for any copywrite violation and can be improved by changing the content with a neutral point of view and by deleting some external links. Are there any possible solutions? Jaz van (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jaz van You may request restoration at WP:REFUND. It would probably be restored to Draft space so you can submit it for a review before it is formally part of the encyclopedia. It will need to read less like a university brochure and more like an article that summarizes independent reliable sources. If you are associated with the college, please read WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jaz van I was in error, G11 deletions cannot be restored. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jaz van The first thing you should do is ask the deleting administrator if they are willing to restore the content so you can work on it. If they refuse then you can contest it, but for G11 speedy deletions this has to be done at WP:Deletion review rather than WP:requests for undeletion (as it is not an uncontroversial, routine action). At deletion review you would have a week long discussion where you would need to argue that G11 was incorrectly applied, and that the draft was not unambiguous promotion. The only deletion decisions that cannot be appealed are those involving copyright, slander/attack pages and those that involve content that is illegal in the United States. Honestly, it's probably easier to start a new draft if the deleting admin will not agree to restoration. (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should the awards section in infoboxes include the date?[edit]

I have noticed that some awards sections in infoboxes include the date and some do not (even though the date is known). What is the preferred style?
Example: "Nobel Peace Prize (2022)" vs "Nobel Peace Prize" Aankom (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aankom: In the infobox for World Food Programme, their award is linked to the main Nobel Prize article, and the year of the award is linked to a different article, the one for the actual award from that year. I think that's an elegant solution. I don't see any usage guidelines associated with that parameter in Template:Infobox person, so there doesn't seem to be a right or wrong way. Does that answer your question? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that seems to be an elegant solution! Aankom (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archive Template is not linking correct[edit]

On Talk:War on I-4, the template archives is not correctly linking to the archive page Talk:War on I-4/Archives/ 1. It appears that the bot, ClueBot III (operated by Cobi), may have not built the page with the correct naming convention. I don't want to move the page on the chance that causes more problems for the bot. I am looking for help from Cobi or someone else with knowledge on the bot/template. Elisfkc (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was a bad archiveprefix parameter. I have fixed it [1] and moved the archive to the expected name Talk:War on I-4/Archive 1. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PrimeHunter: Thanks, I feel like a idiot for missing that. Elisfkc (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elisfkc: It's easy to miss. Lots of editors have done it when they asked for archiving help so I eventually created Category:Pages where archive parameter is not a subpage for another archiving bot. The category originally had around 2700 pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright Question[edit]

I'm working on an article on something called the "Livingston Chart" or "Livingston Plot".[2] The trick is turning out to be figuring out the copyright status of various versions of the chart. The one I linked above is in Symmetry Magazine, which is an official publication of two national laboratories and the United States Department of Energy. Per WP:PD, U.S. government works are in the public domain BUT most works provided by national labs aren't. The Symmetry Magazine terms of use make pretty clear that they AREN'T putting the material in the public domain, unless I'm reading them wrong.

So back to the drawing board. Next up is the version in the 2001 Snowmass Report. This report is produced for the DOE Office of Science and Technology Policy periodically to guide future policy on particle accelerator dvelopment... but is published by SLAC. I'm fuzzy on how a claim of public domain on that one would be treated.

One approach would be just to reproduce the chart myself - the data is all public, and it would literally be a question of just throwing the numbers back into a charting program and making my own. But does that constitute WP:OR?

This chart is a pretty essential diagram in the field of accelerator physics. There's no question of its wiki-notability. I'm just kind of baffled by how best to actually get it in here.

Thanks for any advice. PianoDan (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correction: Snowmass is from the US DOE Office of Scientific and Technical information. PianoDan (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PianoDan, both Fermilab and SLAC are public/private partnerships. The DOE provides that funding but the labs are administered, managed, operated and staffed by private-sector organizations. Cullen328 (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what I gathered. What about the OSTI report? Or making the chart myself from scratch? PianoDan (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


HOW TO DELETE SEARCH HISTORY Johnmascaro1 (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Johnmascaro1: This doesn't seem to be Wikipedia-related. Google is your friend as it varies across browsers. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Johnmascaro1: To expand on that: Wikipedia software does not retain users' search history. Anything you see below when you click into the "Search Wikipedia" box has been remembered and placed there by your browser. In most cases, you should be able to hover over the suggestions and hit a delete (trash) button, or set the browser so it never shows these at all. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bhojpuri language page[edit]

There are multiple users who are trying to spread wrong information on Wikipedia page of Bhojpuri language — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Then, you can try discussing it on the talk page of the article. Click the 'talk' tab at the top to get to the talk page, and press 'new section' to start a new topic. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 20:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contradiction/Discrepency Reporting[edit]


I'm seeing a contextual contraction (hypocrisy) found on the page "Polyarchy".

Explanation of the Issue:

The opening statement and "summary table" of this page are in disagreement because the opening statement says:

- "It takes the form of neither a dictatorship nor a democracy" (line 2)

...whereas the "summary table" identifies the page's topic as "Democracy". (Row 1: line 2)


How would I request an appeal / revisitation of this page, on account of those issues? Daanksy (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Daanksy. There isn't anybody to "report" such issues to. They are resolved by a consensus among interested editors - of which you are one. If you can see a way of resolving the problem (within Wikipedia's principles of verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research) then you are welcome to edit the article; alternatively, you can raise the issue on the talk pageTalk:Polyarchy, and see who joins the discussion. You might also put a note at WT:WikiProject Politics pointing to the discussion you start. ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Daanksy: It's not a "summary table" and doesn't define the page's topic. An infobox is a summary table but Polyarchy has a sidebar: Template:Democracy sidebar. The heading is "Democracy" but Polyarchy is listed under "Related topics", not "Types". There is no contradiction here. The same sidebar is usually displayed on many articles. This one is on 68 articles. I agree that polyarchy is a related topic to democracy and the link belongs in the sidebar. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is adding references to an article is not considered "minor edit"?[edit]

Why is adding references to an article is not considered "minor edit"? I think it doesn't change the content of the article. QiuLiming1 (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@QiuLiming1: Help:Minor edit says: "signifies that the current and previous versions differ only superficially (typographical corrections, etc.), in a way that no editor would be expected to regard as disputable". Other editors can see an edit is marked as minor and choose to not examine it for appropriateness. Adding references is definitely not minor. Other editors may for example want to see whether the source looks reliable and supports the content. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) @QiuLiming1: A minor edit is marked to allow page watchers to know that they don't need to pay too much attention to it. An unscrupulous editor can add poor sources that push a point of view and mark it as minor edit, to hope it's not noticed. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. In zh:Beethoven (sorry it's in Chinese Wikipedia) the article is filled with many {{citation needed}} and I added some reference to it, in that case do other editors still need to pay attention to my addition of references? --QiuLiming1 (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most definitely. Closely watching what kinds of references are added to articles is one of the ways we maintain as high a standard of quality and reliability as possible. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@QiuLiming1: Each Wikipedia language makes its own rules and many things can vary but I would expect addition of references to never be considered a minor edit. The Chinese page about minor edits is zh:Help:小修改. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. Since zhwiki's help page only explains what is a minor edit, and doesn't describe the rule of that in detail, so I went here to ask. QiuLiming1 (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]