Help desk
< March 23	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 25 >

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 24[edit]

Infobox Search Engine[edit]

I once used a search engine that utilized the Infobox Influences and Influenced data of two Wikipedia pages to return the influences between them. For example, if I input the names Rene Descartes and Immanuel Kant, the search engine would display the Philosophers between them, by using the Infobox Influences and Influences data.

I am trying to find out if know of such a search engine, or if not, is there are way I can do this myself.

Thank you HuntleyMike (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Political party colour[edit]

The colour for the Green Party of England and Wales in the infobox has incorrectly changed from a shade of green to white and I'm not sure why or how to change it back to what it previously was. It seems to be an issue with "colour box|{{party color|Green Party of England and Wales (2023)" in the infobox on the editing page. This has subsequently incorrectly altered the meta data for the party from green to white across a whole host of other related pages, such as where the party is listed in opinion polls and the party colour next to its listed candidates. This issue seems to have occurred in around the last 48 hours. Before then two different shades of green were correctly appearing in the infobox and connected and related pages were showing the correct colour of green for the party. Helper201 (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This change, which I have undone, caused this. @C.david.ham: Please ensure that the outcome you're intending does not break pages which include {{Party color}} for Green Party of England and Wales (2023). Bazza (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source revision and outdated citations (flag a citation)[edit]

I was reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism and noticed that citation #4 didn't provide the quote it was cited for. Furthermore, googling the quote doesn't pull any results. It's a rather nice quote and I'd hate to edit it out of existence, but it isn't properly sourced.

Is there a function to flag a citation for review by a more experienced editor or some other preferred method of handling such a case? Udstrat (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's the {{failed verification}} template for when a source is given but you cannot verify the text using the source, and {{quote without source}} for unsourced quotes. In this particular case, the quote was changed in this edit by a user now blocked for vandalism; I have reverted to the previous version which does appear in the source given. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Company name change[edit]

Hello,

Our company's name was recently changed. Our organization has a page on Wikipedia. I attempted to edit and update our company name, but the changes were undone. Could you please assist me in updating the company name and some content? Deepak-LCS (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deepak-LCS. The first thing I suggest you do is read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Pay particular attention to the latter because a failure to properly declare you connection to your company may be considered a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. The next thing that you and your company need to understand is that your company doesn't have a page on Wikipedia, but rather an article written about it on Wikipedia. This might seem like a silly distinction to make, but it's an important one when it comes to Wikipedia because your company has no real editorial control over what's written about it on Wikipedia as explained here. Any content written about your company will be expected to be in compliance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and not with your company wants. Now, if your company has officially changed its name, then that's important encyclopedic information for Wikipedia readers and should be reflected in the article. So, what you will need to do is go to Talk:Arction Ltd and make an edit request asking that the article be updated to reflect the change in name. You will need to provide some way of verifying the name change in your edit request: usually this is done by adding a external link to a WP:RELIABLESOURCE or even your company's official website that supports the name change. Try and keep you edit request as simple as possible to make it easier for others to assess; for example, something like "I work for Company A and it recently changed its name to "Company B". This can be verified by checking this link. Please change the name of the company accordingly." should be fine. If you write too much or request too many changes be made at once, your edit request is going to be more difficult to answer and may actually be skipped over by those who answer such requests. If there are other things about the article that you would like updated, I suggest you wait until your "name change" request has been taken care of and then make separate edit requests for them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepak-LCS: Hi there! You also might enjoy using the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. GoingBatty (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Links to a section?[edit]

Hi there, is there any tool that allows me to view what articles that specifically link to a section within another article? I'm just looking to compact the Table of Contents at General Motors LS-based small-block engine, and there are several anchors that I would have to correct if I were to do so. TIA. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 06:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi X750. Try checking Help:What links here. I think that might be what you're looking for. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Marchjuly, I'd already given that page a read. Unfortunately, In the case of links to sections or other anchors, the precise target is not shown. does not give me much faith. That's why I thought I'd pop over here, maybe some bright spark had a fancy gizmo or thingmajig that could dig up section links. Guess not, and I'll probably leave the anchors as is. As it stands, however, will that massive ToC be a factor if the article were to be nominated for featured article status? Cheers. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 08:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@X750 Just as an aside: on the new Vector 22 interface, at least on my PC, the ToC appears on the left of the article and by default is restricted to the first-level section headers unless I click on the > marker to expand levels. Hence it's not that "massive" at first and unlike in Vector 2010 doesn't interrupt the flow from the lede to the main text. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely forgot about that, as I still use the legacy vector. Cheers for that, Michael D. Turnbull. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 18:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how to add a article on your page[edit]

how to add a article on your page about anyone, please explain 27.6.173.211 (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "your page"(this entire website?)- writing a new article is very difficult, and it is usually recommended to first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you. If you create an account, you can use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. IP users and new accounts cannot directly create articles, and need to create and submit a draft via Articles for Creation once you have gathered independent reliable sources to summarize in the draft. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't create an article about just anyone, because not everyone is notable. David10244 (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry question[edit]

Hi, while doing RCP I came across a sockpuppetry scenario where the editor was creating numerous accounts in succession to make a wave of disruptive edits to a set of articles each time. The pattern goes like this: they create account 1 to make wave 1 of edits, dump it, create account 2 to make wave 2 of edits, then abandon it and create account 3 to make a third wave of disruptive edits, and so on. It's worth noting they only use one account at a time here, not multiple. Is this kind of behaviour allowed, or is it something that will definitely result in a block of the user if I make a report of it? AP 499D25 (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AP 499D25: Hi there! See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. GoingBatty (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous article title?[edit]

Doesn't the article John Loftus (author) have an ambiguous article and shouldn't it be renamed given that John W. Loftus is mainly known as an author, too? Which would be the best solution? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a case of first come, first served. I've added a hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page on John W. Loftus‎‎. Is it really a problem? Anyone looking up "John Loftus" will hit the disambig page and can choose there. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such policy I've ever heard of, and it would have unacceptable results. Per WP:TITLEDAB, article titles should be unambiguous, unless there is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What policy are you referring to? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The one that does not exist, of course. —Tamfang (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with finding online source material[edit]

Hi there, I am drafting an article on a pianist who was active in the 1990s and early 2000s. Thus there is very little third party information on him on the internet. What is the best way for me to cite the information I have on the artist without it being taken down, given I cannot site it with sources from the web. Cheers, Sam Tucansevb (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tucansevb: WP:PUBLISHED isn't restricted to online sources. Bazza (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cite Books, magazines, newspaper articles etc. Sources do not have to be online, although it's useful if they are. Have a look at WP:CITEHOW for a few source ideas. - X201 (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with editor removing AfC rejections?[edit]

User:Ieromaxos is repeatedly removing AfC rejections and declines without changing the article content much on what seems to be an autobiography or at least a COI (Draft:Georgios Mikellides). I'm not sure where to take this.

Asparagusus (interaction) 15:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

do you want to recommend any meaningful changes in order to be accepted? Ieromaxos (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been rejected multiple times, so I'm pretty sure it's not going to be accepted. All of the people who have rejected/declined your article have left suggestions; maybe you should look at those.

Asparagusus (interaction) 15:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it has been rejected twice (as well as declined nine times) Ieromaxos, you should stop wasting your time and everybody else's time on this doomed endeavour, or you are likely to find your account blocked for disruptive editing. ColinFine (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Ieromaxos from that draft, which should stop the disruption. Star Mississippi 00:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Deletion[edit]

I have a photo for my wiki site that I have permission from the guy who the wiki site is about. His name is Adam Sandoval. The photo is Adam Sandoval standing in front of motorcycle.jpg How do I get the speedy deletion taken off the photo so it can stay on the wiki page? Jamesnewton.indycollab (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesnewton.indycollab: All photos are copyrighted by default, by copyright law. The copyright lies with the photographer, not the subject of the photo. We do not need and cannot use "permission" from the subject. We need a valid open copyright license (CC-BY-SA) from the photographer. That license lets anyne, not just Wikipedia, make copies of the photo. We MUST remove the photo because we must be very sensitive to copyright law. -Arch dude (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but I am Adam Sandoval's agent and Adam took this picture himself with his iPhone and has told us to use the picture for this page so why is it being deleted still? Do i have to update the photo and list that Adam is the owner of the photo Jamesnewton.indycollab (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesnewton.indycollab, you must properly disclose as a paid editor per WP:PAID, and should not attempt to move the article into mainspace again. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesnewton.indycollab:Since Adam is the photographer, he owns the copyright. He may upload it and release it under CC-BY-SA. MAKE SURE he knows what that means: i.e., anyone can thereafter use it for any purpose, requiring only attribution. -Arch dude (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesnewton.indycollab, you also uploaded this picture. Did you take the photo? Why is there some kind of logo in the bottom left? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesnewton.indycollab You ask "Do i have to update the photo and list that Adam is the owner of the photo?" You cannot do that; the photographer must do that. I can't see the picture; did Andy take a picture (selfie) of himself standing in front of a motorcycle? This assumes that you get beyond the issue of Andy's notability. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Draft:Adam Sandoval has got a lot of external links in the prose. They need removing. - X201 (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why do I have to remove external links if it allows the reader to know what the event he raised money for? or are you talking about deleting the repeated external links? Jamesnewton.indycollab (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesnewton.indycollab: Hi there! Draft:Adam Sandoval has more a more serious issue: a complete lack of independent published reliable sources to support the statements in the draft and demonstrate that the draft would meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion, called "notability". GoingBatty (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the references links that are not included? Jamesnewton.indycollab (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's talking about the WP-rule for "Should we have an article about [whatever]?", WP:N. Read it. See also WP:PROMO, and WP:TUTORIAL on how to add references correctly, if you are hoping to make a WP-article that can "stick", this is essential. And if WP:COI applies to you, follow it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesnewton.indycollab on the external links: they can (and should) be used in citations (though for the most part, citations should come from independent reliable sources), but they do not belong as external links in the prose of the article.

It looks to me like you are taking on the very tricky task of writing an article, from scratch, about a subject you are close to, as your first involvement in Wikipedia. That's a tough thing to do, and a very tough thing to do right. Expect to have a lot of people telling you are doing something incorrectly, and don't expect all of them to be gentle about it.

Right now, I'd say your priority number one is to read WP:COI and WP:PAID, and do the appropriate disclosures, because otherwise someone will probably just block your account and delete the draft article. - Jmabel | Talk 22:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamesnewton.indycollab. I'm just going to add that even if you're able to straighten out the licensing problems you've been having so far with your uploads so that they're not all deleted from Commons, there's still no automatic guarantee that those files will ever be used on Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons is primarily concerned with the copyright licensing of the content (i.e. files) it hosts; it's not too concerned with how those files are being used as long as they fall within the scope of Commons. Wikipedia (i.e. English Wikipedia), on the other hand, is not only really concerned with the licensing of files uploaded to it or added to its pages, but it's also really concerned with the encyclopedic relevance of such files when added to Wikipedia articles. It's a moot point now perhaps since File:Adam Sandoval standing in front of motorcycle.jpg has already been deleted from Commons, but that photo has (at least in my opinion) very little, if any, encyclopedic value to Wikipedia readers; so, it would be a bad choice encylopedically for an infobox photo regardless of its licensing. A photo of a Sandoval standing in front of his bike, striking a pose with his thumbs in his jeans' pockets could possibly work as long as his face wasn't completely obscured by his helmet. Nice photo for a personal website or social media perhaps, but not really for Wikipedia. Just from a casual Google image search, it appears that Sandoval doesn't have much of an aversion to having his picture taken sans helmet and sans sunglasses; so, perhaps it would better to try and use another picture instead. Anyway, as it has been pointed out above, there are more important things for you to sort out at the moment than file licensing, and I suggest you focus on them first and worry about uploading more files later. For reference, files that are deleted aren't gone forever; rather, they're only hidden from public review and can be restored at a later date if the reasons that led to their deletion are eventually sorted out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for being kind and a friendly tone. This is my first time creating here and some of the responses I’ve received have been brutal. So, I appreciate you reaching out.

I will work on making the changes this weekend. 152.117.79.118 (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation help[edit]

On Altai Republic, there's a reference named "2021Census", but that reference doesn't seem to be defined on the page. Why isn't this causing a reference error? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 16:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The <ref name="2021Census"> is defined in {{Ru-census2021}} which is transcluded into Altai Republic by {{Ru-census}}. The actual reference is transcluded into {{Ru-census}} from {{Ru-census2021}} from {{ru-pop-ref}}.

Of course, the documentation says nothing about this...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Picture name[edit]

When there is no title of the painting, but only an indication (e.g. 'self-portrait'), this title should be written without italics; or should it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_West. JackkBrown (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of works should be italicised. But there's no reason to italicise a description of a work. Maproom (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to information about an Israeli organisation not described in English Wikipedia[edit]

In Thirty-seventh government of Israel § Monitoring bracelets for domestic violence offenders, I've mentioned an organisation called Amutat Bat Melech, which doesn't appear to be described in English Wikipedia. So I've added an interlanguage link to Hebrew Wikipedia. Then it occurred to me that, for an English-speaking reader, a link to the English-language version of the organisation's Web site would be more useful. Are there guidelines for this kind of thing? Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are. External links may be used only in limited circumstances: I don't believe those apply in this case. The {{ill}} link you have used is normal practice. ColinFine (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Misha Wolf: Don't make an inline external link but their English front page https://www.batmelech.org/?lang=en could be an inline citation after "assists Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox women who suffer from domestic violence,". The existing citation also says that but is mainly a citation for the following quote. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @ColinFine and @PrimeHunter. Misha Wolf (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: In case you want to take a look at what I've done, I've changed the section name and the new link is Thirty-seventh government of Israel § Electronic tagging of domestic violence offenders. Misha Wolf (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]