Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 September 11

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.

September 11

Wikidata getQualifierValue

By using the information from Module:Wikidata, I managed to fetch some information. On a page about a species (like this one), I can get the taxon name (property P225) using {{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|P225|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}. However, I'd also like to get the taxon author (qualifier P405) and taxon year of publication (qualifier P574). The Module page says I should use getQualifierValue or getRawQualifierValue, but doesn't give an example on how to write the code to get that. How should I do that? Thanks! Mateussf (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mateussf: Module:Wikidata says:

The other modules have more documentation. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you're right, thanks, I'd missed that!

Now I tried with Module:WikidataIB but I don't know what to put in pval=. For other properties, there's a Q item for each one. However, for P405 there's no Q item, just a string of text.

I tried this: {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getQualifierValue |qid=Q15381155|P105 |pval= |qual=P405 |name=xyz |fetchwikidata=ALL }}, and I tried with other things in pval=, but it didn't work.

Fortunately, with Module:Wd it worked just fine! {{#invoke:wd|qualifier|P225|P405}}, {{#invoke:wd|qualifier|P225|P574}} returns just what I want! Thanks!

Mateussf (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Death date of Ernest de Munck

Hello, I was working on a draft for Ernest de Munck (Belgian cellist and composer), and was confused with some contradicting information about his death date. This source lists his death date as February 6, 1915, but I found an obituary where I think it says February 5 (My eyesight is somewhat lacking, so maybe it does say February 6 and there is no contradiction.) The obituary was published on February 6, and given that it's 1915 it seems likely that De Munck died on the 5th, but I'm a bit unsure. On the draft I listed it as February 5; is that okay, or is there some sort of note I should put? Thank you, AsYouWish13 (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, the obituary says he was 75 at the time of his death, but his birth date based on the first source would make him 74. AsYouWish13 (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I would try to focus on how reliable the sources are. If good (and more-or-less equally reliable) sources disagree, it is OK to say "February 5 or 6, 1915" and cite both. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the obituary is more reliable. Thank you for your reply. AsYouWish13 (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some confusion because of time zones? Depending on the time of his death, it could have occurred on Feb 5 in one time zone and on Feb 6 in another. CodeTalker (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@CodeTalker, the date of events is always given as that in their current time zone - so if a baby were born here in Australia right now, its birthday would be the 12th, even though many other countries are still in the 11th. It's much more likely that there was an error in publishing the obituary, or perhaps even on his death certificate. StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's a sensible convention, but I wonder if the New York Tribune followed that convention in 1915 when it published the obituary. However I agree that an error in one of the documents is more likely. CodeTalker (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@AsYouWish13: We can't always know the answer. A search of Wikipedia for "Sources differ" (with quotes) will find many similar examples, and various ways of dealing with the issue. Another alternative is to refer to primary su9rces such as an inquest or death register. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Would the engraving on his tombstone count as a primary source? I found an image of it on Commons, and it is now in the infobox. At the bottom of the writing it lists January 19, 1915 as the death date. (If this could be used as a source, how would I cite it?) AsYouWish13 (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be a primary source, and not a very good one. As far as I am aware, whoever purchases a tombstone can have anything they want engraved on it. There is no fact checking of the inscription. CodeTalker (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

How would I go about finding a good primary source? (If there isn't any, I think putting a "Sources differ" note like Andy mentioned would be best.) AsYouWish13 06:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@AsYouWish13: The date on the tombstone is correct: Ernest de Munck died on 19 January 1915 in Maida Vale, London. See this notice in The Strad for 1915, p. 364 and this notice in the Musical News for 30 Jan 1915, p. 96. The confusion that you see in some other sources is caused by the fact that his death was announced on 5 February (see Musical America for 13 Feb 1915, p. 38, lower right corner). But there is often a delay between the date of a death and the public announcement of that death, just as there is in birth announcements and marriage announcements. So it was in this case. Choliamb (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for finding these sources! I will update the article using them. AsYouWish13 16:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Infobox(s) for same events in different years?

I'm currently working on a draft article for the Faber House explosions, which were two explosions between 1985-6 targeting Faber House in Singapore. For the infobox, do I put both events in the same infobox or do I make separate inboxes for each event? Thank you! User:Imbluey2 Please '@' my username so that I get notified of your response (talk) 09:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that preceding your username with "@" does anything. Let's try it: @Imbluey2 . (Perhaps you're thinking of Template:Ping.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary I think you got to type it as "{{reply to | Message text}}" for source (as shown in Template:Ping) or just use the 'find user' function for visual editor. Imbluey2. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 12:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Re:Infobox(s) for same events in different years

Hello, I have previously asked a question on this page (Infobox(s) for same events in different years, September 11) and the only response I got wasn't even related to the question itself. Anyways, to summarise, I am working on a draft article for Faber House explosions, which were two explosions that occured in 1985 and 1986 at the same building. For the infobox, do I make separate infoboxes or just one infobox condensing the information for both explosions. Imbluey2. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 12:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Imbluey2: I would say it depends on the size and structure of the article. Only use one or no infobox in the lead. If there are significant sections about each explosion and important differences between the events then each section could have an infobox but then I wouldn't place an infobox in the lead unless the article is quite large. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Template Talk?

I've just seen a template displaying this text (on Henry V (play)):

This section possibly contains original research. Relevant discussion may be found on Template talk:Original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (September 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

I've intentionally not substituted nor wikilinked it here so you can see the text as it appears. My question is to do with the suggestion that discussion is to be found at Template talk:Original research. I wonder is the template malformed or broken in some way - i.e. should it not direct to a discussion at the article's talk page? AndyJones (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

AndyJones The code is {{Original research|section|discuss=Template talk:Original research#discuss parameter|date=September 2024}}. The discuss link was the example from {{Original research}} so I have changed it to Talk:Henry_V_(play)#Film. TSventon (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you've done. Much better, thank you. AndyJones (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

A search found five other articles with the irrelevant example code. I have removed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Error on issue date for the page "The Second Wave, a magazine of the new feminism."

 Courtesy link: The Second Wave: A Magazine of The New Feminism

On the page of the Second Wave, a magazine of the new feminism, there is a box displaying a cover of the magazine that shows the date of issue as Spring 1971. However, the text below states the date as Spring 1981.

I would like to correct this but not sure how to do it.

Thank you very much. Liberationfemale (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Liberationfemale Welcome to Wikipedia! Check out Help:Editing and WP:Tutorial ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I read that page but still not sure how to edit what's in a box. Liberationfemale (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Liberationfemale: Fixed; I also left some links to guidance, on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding reference citations

I have been editing “Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the telehealth industry” and published some of the edits. Unfortunately, I had read the editing materials but not all of them and not very carefully. I added the references from journals in the actual text in parentheses and not in the citations of references. I have tried to go back and fix them by deleting the references from journals in the actual text in parentheses and add them in the citations a few times but have been unsuccessful. I tried to put in the references using the “cite” and “” but I get a message “There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).” I am writing on the help desk to try to get help and suggestions from someone more experiences. The page in question is page 1 in the first paragraph of “Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the telehealth industry”. Thank you. Chas ICU ChasICU (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I checked your edits and see the potential confusion. On Wikipedia, citations are typically done using Cite templates, in which, in between the <ref> and </ref> tags, a template (often {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, or, in your case, {{cite journal}}) is used instead of typing and formatting everything. Consider checking out the documentation for Template:Cite journal and re-submitting your edits through that.

What may seem to be empty citations to the naked eye may be a named reference, in which the markup of <ref name= "example" /> is used instead of manually reusing the citation. This is used where one source is cited for multiple claims on different parts of the same page as Wikipedia prefers not reusing citations in the manual sense.

Also, I noticed in one of your later edits that you added <ref></ref> to the top of the article; this is what likely caused the error. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

References

I've messed up listing an article for deletion

I have tried to list Lakana as an article for deletion. I did not notice that it had previously been listed for deletion (when the article referred to a completely different subject) and do not seem to be able to sort out the mess I have made of it. I suspect that the more goes I have at fixing this, the worse it will get. So I will come back to this another time – but I still need to undo what I have done wrong and get the article listed.

This is not a matter of whether or not the article should be deleted (yes, there should be a discussion, but that is subject matter-related), I just seem to have got the mechanics of the listing wrong. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

If there's already been one AfD for the same title, you should use {{subst:afdx|2nd}} rather than {{subst:afd}}. After that, the template will give some instructions; start by clicking on the Preloaded debate link. Instead of this process, you can use Twinkle, or make a request at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I've had another go at this and got as far as [1], but this does not appear on [2]. Does something need to run in the background that takes a while, or is something still wrong? I have purged the cache on the deletion log page. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 13:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired:, you need to follow the manual process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion (or use Twinkle). I believe I have fixed the nomination by adding it to todays AfD page and adding a header with the normal links to the nomination. TSventon (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems that I did not read the instructions to the end – a family trait illustrated with a story involving a WW2 recipe to cook something that was rationed and therefore had to be eaten regardless. I am suitably embarrassed. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Dominicans Page moved by someone who used my account without my permission

i am trying hard to undo it but am not able to Nohorizonss (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Nohorizonss Presumably all the edits on your account from 20:44, 11 September 2024 to 21:13, 11 September 2024 need to be reversed as discussed at User talk:Nohorizonss#Page redirects for Dominican articles. TSventon (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

yes exactly Nohorizonss (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nohorizonss: Please read Wikipedia:Personal security practices and take steps to make sure you and only you are able to access your account. You as the account holder are going to be considered responsible for all edit made with your account regardless of who makes them. If other feel that your account has been compromised or is otherwise being shared among multiple users, there's a good chance an administrator will block your account from editing until it's clear that only you're using it. If someone in your family wants to also edit Wikipedia, tell them they will need to create their own account and need to stop using yours. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

yes I've told them , it's a one time incident , I've made sure only I am able to use it, I don't want to get banned for it Nohorizonss (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering:, I see you have deleted Dominicanss and Dominicans (disambiguationn). The editor has requested that all their edits from 20:44, 11 September 2024 to 21:13, 11 September 2024 be reversed. Could you help, or is there a better place to ask? TSventon (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

not all ive reversed them, just the dominicans (people) needs to be moved back and then it can be decided with consensus Nohorizonss (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nohorizonss, you should be able to move it back to the correct page yourself. -- asilvering (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

its was already created years ago so its not going back Nohorizonss (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to help with whatever you need, but you do need to clearly explain what needs to be done. -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

thank you, the page dominicans(people) needs to be moved back to people of the dominican republic Nohorizonss (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nohorizonss, it's been relocated. Please take care when linking and moving pages to ensure that you've got spaces and capitalization in the correct places. -- asilvering (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

it* Nohorizonss (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

What counts as an acceptable source

Hi! Sir Morton Smart was my great uncle. I have a copy of his eulogy in my home (which, interestingly, was delivered by Louis Mountbatten, King Charles “honorary grandfather”). Some of the information in the eulogy is not listed on his page. I was wondering if it’s possible to add this missing information, provided it’s relevant? I’ve never edited anything for Wikipedia before, so I’m not sure if this is an acceptable source or not. Thx in advance :) Lc44lyf (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lc44lyf. The eulogy in and of itself is most likely going to be considered a WP:PRIMARY source for Wikipedia's purposes, which means there are restrictions on how its content may be used. If, however, reputable reliable secondry sources (as defined by Wikipedia) have discussed the eulogy and its contents, then perhaps what they've said about it could be incorporated into the article. Given that your a relative of the deceased, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest first before trying add anything about the eulogy to the article. In particular, you should make clear your connection to the your great uncle in accordance with WP:DECLARECOI. Once you've done that, you can suggest that content related to the eulogy or found in the eulogy be added to the article by making an edit request at Talk:Morton Smart. It's going to be very important, however, that the eulogy be published and accessible so that others can verify its content; otherwise, it's going to be considered original research and not considered acceptable as a source. So, if a copy of the eulogy can be found online published on a reputable website or in some previously published print publication which allows not only its contents but also its authenticity to be verified, please add such information to your edit request. If, on the other hand, you possess the only copy or it's found on some user-generated blog/website without a established history for reliability, it's going to be too hard to verify or otherwise be of questionable value as a source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)