Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 March 5

Help desk
< March 4	<< Feb | March | Apr >>	March 6 >

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 5

Runaway radio button in infobox

Any idea why the radio button for "Show map of Tamaulipas" shows up near the upper left corner of the map in the infobox at 2010 San Fernando massacre? Seems to occur on Firefox and Chrome. Is this a template problem? Thanks, Brycehughes (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Brycehughes: Hi there! I see the same issue with Chrome. If you don't receive a good answer here, you might want to post your question at Module talk:Location map. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Brycehughes: It can be fixed with {{location map|Tamaulipas#Mexico|float=center}}. The default is float=right to work with stand-alone maps. Apart from the button issue, it also gives poor alignment of the map in the infobox. Maybe all uses in infoboxes should have float=center and the documentation should say so, but I don't know the template well enough. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

To write information

Hi, Pls let me know how to write articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4040:D18:6C09:C575:5837:D935:A8B0 (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Writing a WP-article that isn't quickly deleted is difficult if you have no experience in how to edit and what is demanded per WP:s rules (there are quite a lot.) WP:TUTORIAL is a good place to start. On how to start an article, pick a topic that meets the demands here: WP:GNG, otherwise you are wasting you're time. Then move on to Help:Your first article. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Featured picture

I am not exactly sure where the discussion of Featured Picture nominations takes place, I do not see a link at Wikipedia:Featured pictures. But anyway, how was there a consensus, in the current geopolitical situation, to show a picture of a Soviet rocket? I am not saying that showing the picture means Wikipedia is taking a stance on this issue, of course, NPOV also applies to controversial topics. But then, I guess, NPOV does not necessarily apply to the selection of content for the main page. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Toshio Yamaguchi: Pictures are nominated for featured status at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, but you apparently refer to "Today's featured picture" on Main Page. Wikipedia:Picture of the day#Guidelines says: "Featured pictures are currently selected in roughly the order in which they were promoted". File:Soyuz TMA-13 Edit.jpg was promoted to featured picture status 9 July 2020‎ at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Soyuz TMA-13. It was added to Template:POTD/2022-03-05 on 20 February 2022, four days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The timing is just a coincidence. The March schedule is at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/March 2022. I don't know whether pictures are sometimes removed due to the timing. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Does seem like a bad coincidence though, maybe we should have considered pulling it before it went live (and running it at some point in the future instead). I can definitely see why a photo of a Russian rocket wouldn't be popular right now... Joseph2302 (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

It may be too late but Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors is the place to request changes to content which is already on the main page. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems I am not the only one who finds this choice kind of poor, see Template talk:POTD protected/2022-03-05. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, me too, a very inopportune time for a photo like this, How can someone be so . . . I dunna want to say it . . . . so ill-advised. And I suspect it is not a single person decision, so who all thought this would be good???!!!???? Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Slipped through all volunteers, I guess. We're all volunteers here. On Feb. 20, there were 0 issues. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Help required

I'm a brand-new user who just signed up today. Could someone possibly give me some pointers on how to get started? It will not be difficult for me to manage the web because I am a computer engineering student. Just point me in the right direction. Signing PlayOboe (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

PlayOboe If you need a tutorial, you may use the new user tutorial. If you want to look for areas to help out, the Community Portal is a good place to start. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Another query: for my semester study, I need to do some extra-curricular assignments. Is it possible for me to write some Wikipedia content and submit it as a university assignment? Is it possible to have a senior editor assist me? Signing PlayOboe (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

PlayOboe If that is your motivation in creating Wikipedia content, that is up to you, but you would have to ask your professor if they would accept Wikipedia writing as an assignment. You are welcome to continue to ask for assistance on this page or at the Teahouse; if you want a mentor to advise you specifically, you may be able to find one at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and time. I'll take my time to understand everything and will do all you say. See you again. Signing PlayOboe (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Just a word of caution PlayOboe - some tutors expect assignments to include original research and/or your comments on/analysis of the subject, which are NOT acceptable on Wikipedia. Please read No original research, Synthesis and Neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia is Not a web-host - articles are OK but essays are not - best of luck - Arjayay (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@PlayOboe: If your tutor/teacher accepts the principle of Wikipedia edits for extra-curricular credit, please direct them to Wikipedia:Student_assignments#Advice_for_instructors. (The rest of the page may be of interest to you, too.) It is a bit long; the most important parts are (1) to not ask students to do edits that go against Wikipedia policy (that will not end well for anyone involved) and (2) to grade students based on what edits they made, not on what part of those edits eventually stuck (the latter part is somewhat random: it depends a lot of who is watching which articles and how they react). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@PlayOboe Further more, to test your editing skills or when ready to create an article please use your Sandbox and Drafts. SoyokoAnis - talk 16:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

File upload on en.wikipedia vs Wikimedia Commons

Hi all, I've used the last few days to look around and try to familiarize myself with this place, and so far, it's been going alright. Nevertheless, one thing that does confuse me is that there seem to be separate systems for picture (or media file in general) upload on both the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons. Could someone shed some light on this for me? I can only assume that this is at least in part due to international copyright law, but I'm not really an expert on the matter, once things go beyond the obvious ground rules.

Thanks in advance! Doctor Duh (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Doctor Duh: Your speculation is correct. Oversimplifying, to be placed on Commons, a file must be "free to use" anywhere in the world by our definition of "free to use": this means it may be restricted by a copyright license that is no more restrictive than CC-BY-SA. Almost all WMF projects (separate language Wikipedias, etc.) permit the use of Commons files, but technically each WMF project is governed separately and sets it's own rules. The English-language Wikipedia permits the use of any Commons file, but it also permits the use of files under a "fair use" justification under US law as we interpret it. These files cannot be placed on Commons, so we have a separate repository for them. Our "fair use" rules are conservative to make sure we stay well within the boundaries of "fair use" practice in the US. The WMF servers for these files are in the US. -Arch dude (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Doctor Duh, good question. Basically, Commons is the place to put "free" (per license or age) images, like images you take yourself with your own camera and are willing to "donate". Some images published by governments fall into this category, hence all the nice pics of US presidents. WP, on the the other hand, is the place for "fair use" (WP:NFCI) images, like a book cover, a logo, a fictional character, people that are dead but not since a very long time, etc. Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for your very helpful responses. Creative Commons licensing and the broader concept of how blatant plagiarism will get one into trouble aren't totally foreign concepts to me, but the duality of systems tripped me up a little. Doctor Duh (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Doctor Duh: Please be careful. Plagiarism and Copyright violation are two different things and are only loosely related. Copvio is copying of copyrighted material without permission. It is a violation of copyright law whether or not you attribute the source. Plagiarism is copying without attributing the source, whether or not the material is copyrighted. It is not by itself illegal, but depending on circumstances may be fraud, and is a violation of academic norms that can result in academic sanctions. So: always attribute your source, and always check the copyright. -Arch dude (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Arch dude: Noted, thanks. I guess WP:COPYRIGHT would be the place to start reading up about it some more, correct? Doctor Duh (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Doctor Duh: Only if you are desperately interested in the details or if you are unsure in a particular situation. Our rules are complicated because we try very hard to follow the law, and copyright law is an absolute nightmare. -Arch dude (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, this much I do know about it. Your advice is welcomed, and I will proceed with care. Doctor Duh (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Do different language versions of wikipedia 'vastly' have entirely different articles?

Is it different articles for different language versions of wikipedia? Not translations relative to most spoken language of same article bulk? I am needing to back up articles about lots of different nations and I already have english wikipedia backed up, I am now wondering about these questions because I want to get the other ones backed up too if the other languages include more on each of those pertaining nation territories. Please confirm this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.73.141 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Articles on the different encyclopedias are developed independently: there is no particular intent for them to contain identical information. Even when isn article starts out as a translation from one Wikipedia to another, the articles will generally diverge as they are modified independently. -Arch dude (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The same subject can have very different articles across languages due to each project's policies and guidelines. For example, what might be permissible on the French Wikipedia may not be allowed on the English Wikipedia, which is one of the things translators need to be aware of when translating across different languages. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tenryuu Yes, of course. Different languages may have different articles depending on what is allowed on that Wikipedia or what a lot of users interests are. SoyokoAnis - talk 16:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course. Just don't rely on the languages section to the left to provide you with different versions of the article. You have to be creative and skilled to find native articles from other languages. For example if you search for Falkland Islands and you then look for Falkland Islands and you look for the spanish version on the navbar to the left, you'll be directed to [1] . But if you look for Islas Malvinas on the spanish wiki, you will find [2]. The explanation here is related to the WikiData attempt to unify articles across languages, and an incompatibility between English and Spanish visions, which led to a split into two articles, one of the isles according to the English and one of the isles according to the Spanish speaking nation. This is the most egregious example, but you will find more subtle cases everywhere.

Similarly if you look for Blue in English, or Celeste on Spanish wiki, none of them will redirect you to italian's Azurro. Instead, each three of these colours will redirect to their own page, creating 9 pages total. In order to find out the concept azurro if you were not already familiar with it, you would have to do something like lookup Sky, then look for the italian version, and then look for references to its colour in the page. If you do this for some languages, you will also find out that some versions will describe the sky in a greenish colour.

In short, there are vastly different articles mostly because the boundaries of what articles cover are usually not exactly the same, so don't look for exactly equivalent concepts, keep an open mind, and you will find these vastly different articles.--TZubiri (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it different articles for different language versions of wikipedia? Much more discussions pertaining to different nations each relative to english version alone by getting the others?

Is it different articles for different language versions of wikipedia? Much more discussions pertaining to different nations each relative to english version alone by getting the others? Not translations relative to most spoken language of same article bulk? I am needing to back up articles about lots of different nations and I already have english wikipedia backed up, I am now wondering about these questions because I want to get the other ones backed up too if the other languages include more on each of those pertaining nation territories. Please confirm this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.73.141 (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Different language-editions of Wikipedia have different articles, and the Wikipediae are not segregated by nation, but by language. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

RefToolbar Autofill causes blank screen

Anyone else having issue with RefToolbars autofill options? Everytime I try to use them it breaks the tab, everything below the address bar is just blank and I have to back out of editting. I've posted at WT:RefToolbar as well. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 20:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Ignore me. After playing around, and just about to write another comment it's started working again. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 21:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

writeing a story

how do i write a story to be published on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porterbowman28496967 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Porterbowman28496967. This is possibly just a matter of nomenclature, but: we don't have "stories" on Wikipedia, whether you mean fiction or news reports. What we have is encyclopaedia articles: neutrally written summaries of what independent reliable sources have published about a subject. Since every article should be based almost entirely on such sources, if there are no suitable sources then an article is not possible: the Wikipedia jargon for this is that the subject is not notable. So writing an article begins with finding suitable sources - only when have they been found is there any point in even trying to create a draft.

Since finding and identifying suitable sources is something that new editors typically do not have the skill to do easily, I always advise new editors to spend a few months improving some of our existing six million articles, and learning about sources, before they try it. But when you think you are ready to try, please start by reading your first article, which will show you how to create a draft that you can work on and get it in shape before submitting it for review. ColinFine (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Reference list without usage.

Hello, I typically add references to articles inline. But I also see some articles where there is just a list of references in the references section. Since I am creating a stub, this might be especially useful, since not all references are used, I'm just marking them as relevant for expansion.

I would appreciate an edit into the article Draft:Maria Mendeleeva to make the references presentable in this fashion.

Thanks!--TZubiri (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello TZubin. While Wikipedia policy does not strictly require references to be inline, in my experience reviewers require this. You can see why: if the references are not inline, then the reviewer must do much more work finding where particular information comes from - work that the writer could have done before submitting.

Personally, I don't understand why anybody would create a stub in 2022: to my mind they are a feature of the early days of Wikipedia, before we had drafts and AFC. I would rather see a draft remain a draft and get expanded before submitting it. But I don't think everybody agrees with me. ColinFine (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the goal would be to mine those references and inline them. Perhaps the header could be changed to "further reading" to highlight the lack of inline references.

I remember an argument from the Cebuano Wikipedia mass editor Lsjbot, who proposed that creating stubs would encourage users to edit, as it is simpler to edit an existing article than to create it. Aside from the technical difficulties of creating an article, precreating a stub (and filling it with references), prehandles any policy blockers that new users might have a harder time navigating, like notability arguments.

So yeah, at least for that reason, I think stubs are still very useful to increase beginner collaboration.--TZubiri (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that argument is seriously bad. If creating a stub encourages editors to expand it, why do we still have thousands and thousands of stubs? I would actually like us ot have measures that discourage people from creating new articles, and funnel themn into improving - or deleting - existing ones. ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This wiki wide discussion is already well documented in the lsjbot page and Cebuano Wikipedia page, check that out if you are interested. It's out of scope to debate it here. I just removed the <ref> tags and changed it to "Further reading." Thanks.--TZubiri (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

TZubiri, please can you add inline citations and a references section, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations. You need to show that Maria Mendeleeva was notable in her own right, see Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria. I agree with ColinFine's opinion that creating stubs is of limited value in en Wikipedia, Cebuano Wikipedia is a much smaller community. TSventon (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Also note that we have a template, {{no footnotes}}, that is likely to be slapped on any article that contains "just a list of references in the references section". I can't imagine that a draft would be approved by any AfC reviwer without inline citations. Deor (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't outright decline it, but I would leave a comment. I think the thing here is that they're going to use some sources inline and others as future; a draft purely with general references would be a pain to go through manually, however. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)