Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 March 18

Help desk
< March 17	<< Feb | March | Apr >>	March 19 >

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.

March 18

How do I change Wikipedia's clock to local time (NYC as an example or Iowa City)? I'm referring to the digital clock used by Wikipedia with UTC

The digital clock on Wikipedia needs to somehow be edited to local time. How can Wikipedia editors change their clocks to local time (for example: Eastern Standard Time, Central Daylight)? Angela Kate Maureen Pears 04:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tropical Storm Angela: Go to your Preferences, then Appearance, then scroll to "Time zone" and you can set it to whichever time zone you prefer. ––FormalDude talk 04:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I would assume there's no way to change the clock in the upper right corner of the screen from 24 hour format to 12 hour format? If there is please let me know as that would make it much easier for me to understand what time it would be in UTC. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: There is a way! Check out User:Guywan/Scripts/12HourFormat. ––FormalDude talk 05:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: The clock in the top right corner doesn't change to 12 hour format with that script. It's still in 24 hour. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If you want comments to appear in local time, check out Wikipedia:Comments in Local Time and follow the instructions there. ––FormalDude talk 04:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Kimberly Newell

Kimberly Newell's birth place was Vancouver BC (not Nelson BC). Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_Newell?msclkid=576a6de9a67311ecbf7cb7f2f458aa9b — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.4.117 (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

You're going to want to discuss this at Talk:Kimberly Newell and provide a reliable source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The entry in the infobox still says Nelson but was piped to Vancouver by the OP 2 minutes after posting their query. I don't think this subterfuge is appropriate or helpful, so I have reverted it.

Although Nelson isn't specifically referenced, it is in accordance with the first link in the Article's External links section. However, the second and third of these links give Burbaby (a city adjacent to Vancouver).

I suggest that Spitzmauskc, the creator and main editor of the article who introduced Nelson should weigh up the available sources (not necessarily just those three) and either cite the most reliable, remove the entry, or mention the disagreement in the article's text. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.229.59 (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Nelson's birthplace is a bit unclear. It is given as Vancouver by the IOC and in her Princeton athlete bio, as Nelson on Elite Prospects, and Burnaby by the hockeyDB. I have no issue with changing her birthplace to Vancouver as it is well sourced and will do so. Spitzmauskc (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Template for 'Failed verification'

Hi. I found a Wikipedia article that states a person's exact birth date, with a link to a source. But the source only states the person's age, not their exact birth date. I'm inclined to add a Failed verification template. Am I being too picky? Ghastlyman (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ghastlyman I'd rewrite per source, especially if WP:DOB (living person) applies. Depending on what the source says, there are templates like {{Birth based on age as of date|52|2013|November|12}}, in this example the source from 12 November 2013 said the person was 52 at that date, it turns into 1960 or 1961 (age 62–63). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Ghastlyman (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I am blind and I also do not understand how to format my citations. HELP PLEASE!

My father was Edward Joseph Lakso (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_J._Lakso). I noticed that there are several errors on his page, including the name he was born with (which was a different surname!) I have all sorts of documentation of proof for these things BUT I have recently gone mostly blind AND there isn't a chance on this earth that I will EVER understand your instructions about how to present the citations ANYWAY. Really. I just can't do it. I tried and tried and failed miserably. I really cannot understand it. I bow my head to anyone who is able to do this obscure thing. Is there ANY chance that someone could help me?

For example:

The page says he was born Edward Joseph Lakso, but that is not correct.

His name at birth was Edward Joseph Shea (III) but his mother and father broke up soon after he was born. Ed's step father married his mother shortly after that (21 Nov., 1936.) (I have no record of either the marriage or the divorce of Ed's bio-parents, so it is possible they weren't married, but the marriage record of Ed's mother to her second husband (LAKSO) has her using her first husband's surname (SHEA) so they WERE likely married and I just did not find the documents.)

I have at least two documents for these facts: My father's birth record that gives his name EDWARD JOSEPH SHEA and the marriage record for Ed's mother and her second husband Vaino Wayne Jalo Lakso

CITATION SOURCES: (1) California Birth Index, 1905-1995 - Author: Ancestry.com, Publisher Ancestry.com Operations Inc, Publisher date 2005, Publisher location Provo, UT, USA, repository Ancestry.com.

DATA GIVEN IN THIS SOURCE: Name Edward Joseph Shea Birth Date 20 Sep 1932 Gender Male Mother's Maiden Name Chiarle Birth County San Francisco

(2) "U.S., Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Swedish American Church Records, 1800-1946"

DATA GIVEN IN THIS SOURCE: Name Victoria Shea [her maiden name was CHIARLE] Gender Female Marriage Age 23 Event Type Marriage Birth Date 1913 Marriage Date 21 Nov 1936 Marriage Place San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA Church Ebenezer Lutheran Church Spouse Vaino J Lakso — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurie Lakso (talk • contribs) 09:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Basically you are saying that you are finding it challenging to edit because of personal reasons. While I sympathize with your condition, it is possible that the problem may not be about presentation, which could be easily fixed, but about the very reliability of your sources. Your attempts were probably rejected for the sources you provided were unverifiable or unreliable.-- Abdul Muhsy talk 12:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

We have specific places where we deem them to be unreliable. Church records and ancestry.com aren't really places we trust. I wouldn't worry about style or layout, but rather can we trust where the info is coming from. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ancestry.com is not reliable, but the California Birth Index is a reliable primary source, and it has an entry about "Edward Joseph Shea, born 1932-09-20". (Of course, that may be a different person.) Church records are also reliable-ish primary sources, but those are not available online from my quick search. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Laurie Lakso Hi there! Thank you for your interest in improving Wikipedia! Since you have a conflict of interest, you should not be editing the article about your father directly. Instead, you may post suggestions on the article talk page Talk:Edward J. Lakso with the best published reliable sources you have. Or, you may use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard if you find that easier. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, don't worry too much about properly formatting references. If you can provide just a plain URL to where the reference can be found, someone will come around eventually to fill in the details. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Welcome to Wikipedia, Laurie Lakso. Your attempts to edit the page (in 2019 and recently) were decent, but I think you have a significant misunderstanding about Wikipedia’s purpose or philosophy. Wikipedia articles about people do not aim to be an exhaustive description of that person’s life, career, or accomplishments. Wikipedia articles (about anything, not just people) should contain the documented facts about its subject.

The keyword is documented. Adding things such as He was also the line producer on the Charlie's Angels episodic television show, following Barney Rosensweig's brief tenure in that job with a reference to "personal knowledge" is not the way we do things. It might very well be true, but a reader cannot verify it. Even we cannot verify it - you might be lying, or mistaken; or even you might claim to be his daughter but be someone else entirely. That means that a lot of what you might want to add will not be added unless there is a published source supporting it (99% of the time, that means a newspaper article).

Now, removing incorrect information is much easier. If there are incorrect and unsourced facts in the article, you may remove them (or just tell us what it is and we will do it). If there are sourced facts that are nonetheless incorrect because the original source is mistaken: the official answer is that you need to take that up with the original source, not us; the practical answer is that you tell us what it is, if it is minor stuff, many editors (including myself) will remove the information altogether and leave a note for future editors that we are aware of an incorrect source.

Regarding the birth name (which is the only issue that you have mentioned explicitly here)... Our guideline at MOS:CHANGEDNAME says the birth name may be given in the lead [introductory paragraph] as well, if relevant... it is not always appropriate to list every previous name of a subject. If the only sources that give the name Shea are birth records, I do not think it is very relevant/appropriate to list the birth name (even if we have a good source for it). I have therefore removed the birth name altogether. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Should {{use mdy/dmy dates}} mandate their presentation in the wikitext?

Hi all, I was hoping if someone could comment on whether edits like this are helpful. In the article from the diff linked, most dates are in the mdy (February 14, 2022) format, but there does exist a few in the dmy (14 February 2022) format. I understand that adding {{Use mdy dates}} would present this to the user in the correct way. Meaning such edits would not make any difference to the overall presentation of the article. But still, it okay to change dates from one format to another?

I feel like this would make sense in cases where an article consists of dates formatted mainly in the date style used. In such cases, you're helping the article be consistent with its date formatting. But in cases where another style is predominantly used (ie. 2022-02-14), such edits would not need to be made. (I suppose 2022-02-14 is a special exception, since a lot of articles seem to have mdy/dmy being used but format dates like that).

So, to re-iterate my question, is it okay to change date formats in wikitext to the date format being used in the article in cases where the article already predominantly uses the said date style in the wikitext? Satricious (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The dates in the edit that you are complaining about were all inside cs1|2 citation templates. Those templates read the {{use xxx dates}} template and apply the dictated style to the rendered citation. Because cs1|2 automatically renders dates in accordance with {{use xxx dates}}, there is no real need to have scripts running around changing dates in cs1|2 templates. If all that is accomplished by the script is a change to cs1|2 template date parameters then that amounts to a violation of WP:COSMETICBOT so the script should abandon the edit.

There is already a freely-available date-fixing-script (User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM_dates.js). I suspect that it is also guilty of WP:COSMETICBOT, so I suppose that you can continue to use your script but I gotta wonder if we really need two scripts...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh cool, thanks for the pointers! Yeah I'm abandoning my user script (for the most part). Shortly after I wrote it I suspected it would not be of much use so I came here to check whether such edits would be acceptable and whether something else already exists. I did not know about WP:COSMETICBOT and am glad I know about it now. I'll probably only use my own user script in very rare cases in which I'm already updating an article which I contribute to that happens to strictly format their dates according to the date style used (ie. 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has all their dates formatted in the wikitext; I could then use my user script to aid me in changing any odd dates (for consistency's sake) while doing my own 'substantive' edits) Satricious (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: The script by Ohconfucius also updates dates in the infobox and article text, so I don't believe the script is "guilty of WP:COSMETICBOT". However, some editors may be using the script to only update citation dates when it's not necessary. GoingBatty (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, but when the only changes are dates in cs1|2 templates, that is a violation of WP:COSMETICBOT.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Some editors are unsettled by seeing different date formats when they enter edit mode, despite there already being a {{use xxx dates}} template; I am one of those. So long as a semi-automatic edit does not make inconsequential changes, there is no violation of WP:COSMETICBOT. In addition, there are also a non-negligable number of articles where citations are not wrapped in {{citation}} templates that may need aligning because autoformatting doesn't act on those, whereas the MOSNUM script changes those. One of my other scripts usually picks up numerous necessary changes. -- Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 13:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Repeating myself (with emphasis): when the only changes are dates in cs1|2 templates, that is a violation of WP:COSMETICBOT. It does not matter that [some] editors are unsettled by seeing different date formats; editor 'unsettlement' does not forgive cosmetic edits. Yes, I know that cs1|2 is not used for all referencing. Your script is obviously in compliance with WP:COSMETICBOT when it changes date formats in those references to be in compliance with an existing {{use xxx dates}} template because the format change is visible to the reader. When the script only changes dates in cs1|2 templates to follow the format of the existing {{use xxx dates}} template, that is a violation because the change is not visible to the reader – cs1|2 automatically renders dates in compliance with an existing {{use xxx dates}} template. When there is no existing {{use xxx dates}} template, edits by your script are imposing a format chosen by you or by the script operator so, again, not a violation of WP:COSMETICBOT unless all dates in the article are already in the desired format and there are no other changes.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Updating a Biography Help

I updated a biography page for John P Sanders. I am working with him so all of the content was approved by him. All of it was rejected. I want to add information about the philanthropy work he is doing now and more information about his career before he worked for the federal government. Do I have to cite every single detail about his life? I just don't understand why it was all rejected by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SophiaPhiladelphia1995 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi SophiaPhiladelphia1995. As you work with Sanders you have a conflict of interest, and will need to declare such on your talk page. Please read and follow WP:COI#howtodisclose before making any edits to the page. Looking at your edit (such as [1]), you are adding external links into the body of the pages, which is a no-no on Wikipedia. You are also removing sourced information. As an encyclopedia, we do not need the content to be approved by the subject. The article is about the subject, not written/maintained or chosen by the subject. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Lee, thank you for the information. So the reason the content was rejected was not because of sourcing issues but because of the external links and because I removed some information that was already within the page? And could I externally link something like the Blue Iris Fund, which is a new philanthropy that doesn't have a Wikipedia page at this time? SophiaPhiladelphia1995 (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

1. You need to stop until you have made full disclosure of your status as a paid editor. I've left instructions on your talk page.

2. If this Blue Iris Fund is so obscure that there are no newspaper stories about it, then no, don't talk about it.

3. Remember, we don't give a darn how Sanders wants to be seen. We are looking for substantive coverage about him from reliable sources, not how he pets puppies and gives money to charities. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Sophia, please have a look at my essay User:ColinFine/What Wikipedia doesn't care about. ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Attribution for a copied deleted page

When submitting edits to Wikipedia, we all agree that "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." However, if the edited page is later deleted, then the hyperlink or URL will not lead to any page history showing who made what contributions. So, how does attribution work when the link is no longer valid? Is it lost forever? RudolfRed (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If the page it deleted, then the content to be attributed is usually gone too, so it's attribution is irrelevant. If that isn't the case (such as an article being merged prior to deletion), then see Wikipedia:Merge and delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pppery: I am thinking more of the page being copied outside of Wikipedia, such as to a mirror. Even if the content is gone from Wikipedia, it still exists elsewhere and should be attributed to its authors. That is what I am curious about. RudolfRed (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Good question, RudolfRed. On WP:REUSE there is an overview of this stuff. The Re-use of text under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike section has a section on Attribution which implicity touches on your question. Also, the Re-use of text under the GNU Free Documentation License section says this:

However, please note that the Wikimedia Foundation makes no guarantee to retain authorship information and a transparent copy of articles. Therefore, you are encouraged to provide this authorship information and a transparent copy with your derived works.

---R. S. Shaw (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@R. S. Shaw: Thanks for info. RudolfRed (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Ukrainian Minister's statement in Wiki article on Wildberries

Hi-

Not sure if this is the right place to address this, but I could use some help. I'm a longtime Wiki reader but logged-in for the first time today to try to rectify something I found misleading. After reading an article on the AOL homepage about "grey" goods and a massive Russian online retailer called Wildberries I looked-up Wildberries in Wiki. I noticed the following:

"In July 2021, Ukraine imposed sanctions against Wildberries and its owner Tatyana Bakalchuk. Trade in military uniforms and Russian books was named as the reason.[15]"

That sounded like something trying to bolster Putin's claim that Ukrainians were prejudiced against Russian speaking people. That led me to the note section. The article referenced in #15 was in Russian, but ref. #16 was in English and said:

"Ukrainian Minister of Culture Oleksandr Tkachenko said Wildberries had been banned because it had sold Russian propaganda and uniforms of Russian soldiers on its platform."

Then I copied & pasted part of the Russian article (ref. #15) into Google Translate and saw that the Ukrainian Minister had specified "anti-Ukranian books" in that article.

I firmly believe that the comment should be edited to say "anti-Ukranian books" instead of "Russian books" to be accurate:

"In July 2021, Ukraine imposed sanctions against Wildberries and its owner Tatyana Bakalchuk. Trade in military uniforms and anti-Ukrainian books was named as the reason.[15]

My problem is that I am finding the editing process WAY more difficult than I thought it would be and since the Wiki article on Wildberries is translated into many other languages I'm worried that this misleading interpretation of the Ukrainian Minister's words will serve to further Russian disinformation. Can somebody help me? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletonkeycollector (talk • contribs) 19:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Skeletonkeycollector, the editing process is that hard. Everything needs to have a reference, etc etc. This is meant to prevent people from spreading mis- or dis- information, although as you get more experienced it becomes quicker. Sungodtemple (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

– Hello, Skeletonkeycollector. When you don't know how to add or change information in an article, the general procedure is to go to the article's talk page, e.g. Talk:Wildberries, and add a new section (via "New section" tab at the top) to describe what changes you think should be made. What you wrote here is a good description; you can copy it from this page and paste it into the new section form on the talk page. A version of the heading you have here would be good in the "Title" field of that form. That article isn't too actively edited, and it's possible that your request won't be responded to for some time. Perhaps someone here will offer to take it up, or you can ask at the Teahouse. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear R. S. Shaw, Thank you SO much! You've been very helpful. I added this to the Talk page as you suggested. I'll check-out the Teahouse. Have a great weekend! Skeletonkeycollector Skeletonkeycollector (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Stop Media Viewer from reappearing after I "disable" it?

Is there a way to 100% completely, permanently and irrevocably stop Media Viewer from appearing? "Disabling" it only works for whatever image I am viewing and then for subsequent images it comes back. I will also put out there that it's the only thing that has ever approached the level of irritation of the Microsoft Paper Clip, which I didn't think possible. It triggers deep and visceral rage like only the Paper clip was ever able to do so there's definitely some weird UI psychology going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auenwald (talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Auenwald: AFAIK ou can disable the MediaViewer in Special:Preferences § Appeareance, under "Files" by unticking Enable Media Viewer
Note that after saving your preferences, you need to reload all open tabs you have for the english Wikipedia for the changes to take effect. Victor Schmidt (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

You mean while signed in, right? According to Wikipedia's instructions, that's not necessary, and I don't want to.

Further, the disabling function itself is just plain broken. It only works for the image you're currently viewing. As soon as I go to another image it comes back. Auenwald (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Auenwald: If you're talking about the desktop browser interface, then the Preferences setting (while logged in) that Victor described does disable the Media Viewer, and it persists for all image viewing, and it will be in effect whenever you are logged in (until you change the Preferences setting). --R. S. Shaw (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)