Help desk
< July 29	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 31 >

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 30

I screwed up editing my own bio

Hi---- My bio was created by others and was incorrect and out of date etc-- so I wrote a new one, only in doing so, I deleted my photo an all the information in the box norm ally at the top right- in fact, that box no longer exists! Everything in that box was correct--- please help me get that back, along with the photo. THANKS and BLESSINGS . Tim Sullivan New Rebellion Entertainment (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the previous version for now. I'm sure someone will advise you on updates. Knitsey (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tim. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. It is the norm for an article about somebody to be written by others - in fact writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, because it is likely to be difficult for you to write sufficiently neutrally about yourself. Please read the message on your user talk page User talk:New Rebellion Entertainment. ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that are almost wholly copied from public domain source

I found the writing style of the article on Philipp Emanuel von Fellenberg to be rather odd, and did a google and found that it is almost exactly the same as a biographical entry on Fellenberg from the now public domain 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1910): https://www.gutenberg.org/files/36452/36452.txt (if you search that page for Fellenberg you'll find it easily).

What is the Wikipedia policy on this? I assume copyright isn't a problem since the text is so old, but shouldn't there be some kind of disclaimer stating that this is a REALLY old text that comes with all sorts of early 20th century biases.

I'm going to make some edits to improve the text in any case - but is this kind of thing common? Lijil (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution for public domain works is indeed a thing, and the disclaimer can be put at the bottom of the page with {{Source-attribution}}. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Lijil, it's common. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica#The history of adaptation for some background. You'll occasionally see Britannica 11th ed (1911) referred to rather obscurely as "the 1911 encyclopedia" or similar: if memory serves me right (and it may well not do so), when Project Gutenberg was busily scanning this old edition, the publisher of its successor conceded that the content of the 1911 edition was in the PD but insisted on the protection of its "Encyclopædia Britannica" trademark. -- Hoary (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lijil: It's very common. We have thousands of articles from the Dictionary of National Biography. There are no legal (copyright) issues since it's PD. There are no ethical issues (Plagiarism) since we have already attributed the original. So now you are free to make any changes that you as an editor think will improve the article for our readers. This specifically includes updating any old-fashioned prose. -Arch dude (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for this. I don't think the attribution really clarified that the whole article was verbatim from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but if that's the way it's usually done so be it :) Lijil (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lijil:Anyone who cares can easily determine the exact history of any part of the article. To my mind there is no difference between our obligations to the author of a sentence that happened to be in EB11 and the author of a sentence that was added by a Wikipedia editor, and no reason to go to any extra effort for that older author. That said, when I added such articles I usually started by adding just a raw copy, adding only the attribution, and I started the talk page with an explanation of what I did, before I started updating. -Arch dude (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining a bit more - using the talk page to explain this is a good strategy! Lijil (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Taylor Parsons page please

I am Taylor Parsons, this article is causing me great mental stress. I have transitioned and it’s for personal safety reasons that I’m requesting the article on me “Taylor Parsons” please be deleted. kind regards taylor Taylorppp3 (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Taylorppp3: Wikipedia does not delete articles because somebody requests it. I understand that you have transitioned, however one of Wikipedia's guidelines, MOS:GENDERID, requires deadnames to be used if the subject was notable under that name. Because you were notable under your deadname, it will be included in your page. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an Articles for Deletion discussion asking that the article be deleted. There have already been questions about whether the climber was even notable enough for an article, it was nominated for deletion in 2021 - and Wikipedia:BIODELETE suggests to me that if a not particularly notable requests an article about them be deleted we should do so. Lijil (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you deleting this would be most appreciated Taylorppp3 (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: OP's account may be shared given this comment. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Affric

Ref. number 48 should be OK - but needs to be fixed. Are u able to do this please, I cannot . Thanks 175.38.42.62 (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Western Australia! You're told {{cite journal}}: Cite uses generic title. You've got "[unknown]" as the title; and, yes, this looks generic. There's a kludge for this: enclose the value in double parentheses (change it to "(([unknown]))"). -- Hoary (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC)

Reference help requested. Hi! The Page was moved before I could make a redirect. Everything is fine, as it should be. Please undo the changes I attempted. ^[1] RV (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Agreement on Textiles and Clothing: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia". en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2023-07-30.

Thanks, RV (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion

I have been trying to nominate The Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings for deletion. I am a experienced editor but have never nominated an article for deletion before. I read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and tagged the article with the uncontroversial tag. Another editor then removed the tag, suggesting a merger instead, which would not really be appropriate. I then added the subst:afd1 tag and created a discussion page only to be told by the other editor that it was the wrong way to do it - and indeed the article does not appear on the log of nominated articles. So I have obviously missed something and wondered if someone would be good enough look at the edit history of the article and tell me where I have gone wrong and how to put it right? Southdevonian (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really cannot stress enough how much easier this is to do if you use WP:TWINKLE. All you have to do is write the nomination, it does all the other steps for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but is there a way to do it without using Twinkle? Southdevonian (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. I think that they are clear, but not necessarily straightforward. I think that I have filled in the gaps. TSventon (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks TSventon for fixing it. Reading the instructions again, I think I must have gone wrong by not inserting the right edit summary with the tag. Southdevonian (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as though you didn't copy and complete the code for steps II and III. I always try to preview the code once I have copied and completed it to see if anything has gone wrong. TSventon (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again TSventon. Will remember for next time. Southdevonian (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Wiktionary

I just made this edit to remove a "citation needed" tag, and I feel unsure about it because:

Is this OR? This is the definition of the word, though, and connecting fact that the word means "hairy" to the fact that the beast by that name is hairy seems to me like WP:BLUE.
Is Wiktionary a source? I can't see it in WP:perennial sources. It's user-editable, of course, so do I have to find other dictionaries (which won't list multiple foreign languages on the same page, meaning I need to track down multiple bilingual dictionaries)?
Do I have to make this a full-blown citation with ref tags? It seems silly to need any authority to confirm that "hairy" means "hairy", even in foreign language versions. It means that in Portuguese and Spanish, it's hardly an obscure word, it's not up for any debate. But then I suppose I'm saying it shouldn't even need the Wiktionary link.

Card Zero (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Card Zero, referencing aside, I'm quite baffled by Its name is derived from this shaggy appearance. Despite the French origins, its more recognized name is Occitan —or any Latin origin— for "hairy". This seems to be about two or more Romance cognates meaning "hairy"; but what it's saying, I don't know. That's in the article. As for the comment above, I'm similarly baffled by "hairy" means "hairy", even in foreign language versions. So, the referencing: I don't see why you have to depend on Wiktionary. Dictionaries from reputable publishers shouldn't be that hard to find. -- Hoary (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was making an assumption that Peluda is its historic name, even in France. I think the person who wrote its more recognized name is Occitan had the same impression, and was trying to explain why the 15th century French would give their monster a Spanish name. But in fact it appears that Peluda is due to Borges. Should the page be moved to Shaggy Beast? Card Zero (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa’s Dog Breed of the Day is Not Working

It Hasn’t Been Working Since July 28, 2023 and We Tried to Fix it but Nothing Worked I Showed Dad. He Unplugged it but still didn’t work. Since August 12 is My Birthday and National Dog Day is August 26 it Might Work Those 2 Days. On August 26 Every Dog Breed is Probably Dog Breed of the Day. Masonmariocart (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the help desk for Wikipedia. We have no control over what Alexa does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a general help desk, this is the help desk of Wikipedia. You should communicate any Alexa problems to Amazon. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Masonmariocart: This is the help desk for Wikipedia, we can't help you with any other issues. You will need to contact Amazon about your Alexa issue. RudolfRed (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page previews

In the Brave browser, when I hover over text that links to another article, unlike in Chrome, a page preview won't show up. Is there anyway to fix this? Hankhill240 (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried hovering over text in Brave in Linux and the page preview worked. Try checking your Wikipedia preferences, in the Apperance tab, under the heading Reading Preferences.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hankhill240 Thinker78 (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Agreement on Textiles and Clothing: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia". en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2023-07-30.

[1]