Help desk
< October 17	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 19 >

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.

October 18

ndb.nal.usda.gov

ndb.nal.usda.gov references are now at https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@0mtwb9gd5wx: I have posted to Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests/Archives/2022/October#ndb.nal.usda.gov. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for dumb faq question - Archiving my talk page

How do I "archive" or "file" my own user talk page? Looked for it on the FAQ searchbox and nothing relevant popped up. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Archiving a talk page * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should I use a newer image or a clearer image?

I found an Creative Commons image of Nick Lutsko on Flickr that is clearer than and, in my opinion, looks better than the current one. The current image was taken only a few months ago and the clearer image was taken in 2015. Which one would be better to have on the article? Owcs (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Owcs. If the file you found has been released under a free license suitable for Wikipedia's purposes, then there's no reason why both images can't be used for a licensing standpoint. You might have sort out things from a contextual standpoint through article talk page discussion and figure out how to best incorporate each image, however. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly wanted to know if there was a general preference for more recent images as the featured picture. If it depends the article, I'll go to the talk page to figure it out. Thanks Marchjuly! Owcs (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Owcs: In the absence of anything written down at MOS:LEADIMAGE, I would assume there is no such hard preference. Here’s my opinion after looking around a bit.

I think when the subject is well-known in one specific context / visual appearance, we use that. For instance, Tommy Wiseau is known mostly for his appearance (and directing) of a 2003 film, so the lead image is from that film (out-of-copyright because of reasons); not the more recent (2017) photo further down in the article.

When there is no specific association, I think that when the generally prefer a recent image for living people (or company logos etc.), but that preference decreases once the subject is deceased. For a recent high-profile case, see Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_45#Infobox_photograph_for_after_her_death.

In any case, we still prefer photos that are out-of-copyright (WP:NFCCP #3: don’t use a copyrighted lead image if you can avoid it), and of good quality. I would say in your case, unless Nick Lutsko radically changed his stage presentation between 2015 and 2022, you should use whichever photograph is better. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit question

for those of us who don't want to edit your page but found that something is missing, should we just give you the page and note what should be either edited or added?

for instance, Memphis Tennessee has a list of museums, but it does not include one of the best ones that is a draw for me and many who appreciate the history of and beauty of metal that is the Metal Museum, for more information look at this https://www.metalmuseum.org/

Just an important over-site in my mind. 2600:1700:3A40:1400:EC28:2923:CEDE:CBA3 (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The best approach is to propose a change on the article's talk page, similar to what you just did on this page. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI that List of museums in Tennessee contains The Metal Museum. I just renamed it. It used to be called National Ornamental Metal Museum. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I've added it to the list of museums in Memphis, Tennessee. Deor (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing source when pages have different URLs

I'm looking for some ideas on how to reference using {{cite news}} when there are different URLs for different pages. Hack (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hack, your query is unclear to me. Request you to please explain this. Thanks, Lourdes 09:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes, in the article Tony Crafter, there is a newspaper piece that is split over two pages - page 23 and page 26. How do I add URLs for each page? Hack (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citing multiple pages of the same source... Let me know if this helps. In practice, you can see the book example given in the link I have given for some understanding. Thanks, Lourdes 10:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hack: You are actually citing the newspaper, not the web site. The URLs are provided as a convenience to the user. When a template does not do what you want it to do, you are free to innovate. In this case, you might choose to use {{cite news}} with no URL at all, but then add "page 23, page 26" after the template but before the closing <ref> tag. Then, use {{rp}} for each of the two citations. -Arch dude (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The very common solution to this problem is:

{{cite news |author=Gideon Haigh |date=4 February 1991 |title=Crafter's a veteran of stormy times at wicket |newspaper=The Age |pages=[https://www.newspapers.com/clip/111526224/crafters-a-veteran-of-stormy-times-at/ 23], [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/111527414/crafters-a-veteran-of-stormy-times-at/ 26]}}

Gideon Haigh (4 February 1991). "Crafter's a veteran of stormy times at wicket". The Age. pp. 23, 26.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I tackle what appears to be a conspiracy theory but it's in a different language?

Hi, just joined Wikipedia to right a wrong that's been bugging me for years. The Alitalia 112 crash has a page in English that documents the crash and investigation which is fine.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volo_Alitalia_112

But the Italian page suggests a conspiracy theory explanation that is was shot down by NATO and has a photograph as evidence which is presented as factual.

https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volo_Alitalia_112&veaction=edit&section=2

However, the photo quite clearly shows blunt impact damage due to the leading edge of the wing impacting objects at high speed - the ground, rocks, trees on crashing. Multiple photos exist of similar damage to wing leading edges caused by impact with trees, chimneys, telegraph poles and large birds. Also multiple photos exist of battle damaged aircraft showing damage caused by 20mm cannon/smaller calibre bullets. There is an obvious and clear difference - namely bullets/shells pierce and explode causing multiple small and sharp entries whilst impacting objects cause large dents and deformation of metal.

How would I go about editing that? Delete the photo? Leave the photo with an explanation?

Many thanks,

Morgan

Links for photos of damage to aircraft

Trees and Poles: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/tree-trimming-army-air-force-style.24161/

Cannon shells and bullets: https://www.google.com/search?q=20mm+damage+to+world+war+2+aircraft&sxsrf=ALiCzsZ58amMKKhgguPHg6XttnVIgizgyQ:1666080184869&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjkj9isqOn6AhVSecAKHVveD-YQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1271&bih=604&dpr=2#imgrc=JjZNUpN-8lULTM Morganosullivan83 (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In order to improve an article in it:Wikipedia, you go to it:Wikipedia and, following the policies and guidelines that it:Wikipedia stipulates, you improve the article. If you have questions about this, you ask the questions there, not here. If the level of your Italian isn't up to improving articles, perhaps make a suggestion in straightforward, metaphor-free English at the foot of it:Discussione:Volo Alitalia 112 and hope that it will be persuasive. (On metaphor, NB a metaphor by which anyone "shoots down" anyone else's explanation invites misreading.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morganosullivan83, you could ask this question in English on the Italian version of Wikipedia:Embassy or in Italian via Google translate at the Italian version of this page. In either case, click on Languages to the left of the en page and select Italiano. TSventon (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TOC positioning issue

A small table of contents shows up in the middle of Terence Hill and Bud Spencer, and I can't figure out why. I tried adding _NOTOC_ as a solution, but that didn't do anything. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Cleaned. Lourdes 09:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, I didn't see that sneaky little bugger tucked away. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donations

I have no digital currency. I am very disabled. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.17.69.122 (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia please ask it here. If you are concerned because you have seen or received a request for a donation, there is no need to be. Wikipedia is free to read or use and you can ignore donation requests (or not) as you please. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that donations do not need to be made with digital currency, a check can be mailed. However, as Eagleash quite correctly notes, you may ignore donation requests if you cannot afford to donate. Wikipedia is not in dire financial straights. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment about the above. Banks in many parts of the world have discontinued the use of cheques (checks) as a method of payment. So it is not a given that a cheque is an option for this individual. Maungapohatu (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use a Twitter source for this case?

Hello, I'm working on an article where the subject seems to be an alumnus from a certain school. I couldn't find any independent sources other than some social media posts.

Can I use this source [1] as per WP: TWITTER. It's not promotional and is from the official handle of the school itself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Rejoy2003 (talk • contribs)

Rejoy2003, if the only sources you can find on the person are from twitter, it is probably not notable. But if the Twitter account is verified and from a reliable source it can still be used. Sungodtemple (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sungodtemple You might have misunderstood. The subject is very much notable. Only it's his high school education source. I have made a search on the same and the school itself has published some posts on Facebook and Instagram as well. Although they aren't verified though.✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 12:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rejoy2003 We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rejoy2003 If it is a living person our requirements are stronger: For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoy2003 The person may be notable, but it is probably not notable that they performed at their own school, unless independent reliable sources report on that as a notable event. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the above objections. This is about Tsumyoki, whose real name is Nathan Mendes, a notable rapper in Goa. The article already establishes that he is notable. The OP is not trying to use the tweet from the school to establish his notability or to add the fact that the school played his music on campus. Instead, the purpose is simply to verify that he is an alumnus of the school. I think that the tweet is perfectly adequate for that limited and uncontroversial assertion. We do not need multiple independent sources devoting significant coverage to verify where a notable person went to school. Cullen328 (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cullen328 Thank you for understanding this, I'm not really much good with words but yeah that pretty much sums it all. I'll go ahead and re-add the tweet back. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 08:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting question, and normally, I'd agree with Cullen328. I will note, however, that WP:SOCIALMEDIA requires these sorts of sources "not involve claims about third parties", which seems to be the case here.--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 16:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Controversies

How many articles are contained within the entire category tree of Category:Controversies? How many are both in the Controversies tree and in Category:Living people? (I would use the WP:PETSCAN tool for this, but it isn't working properly for me right now.) gnu 57 15:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone cite this using Template:Cite act?

I am trying to cite the German Residence Act using Template:Cite act, but I am having trouble understanding some of the parameters and what I should put in them. I've been trying to cite it for long enough to realize that I was not making any progress, I've come here to see if anyone with more experience with the cite act template could help me with this predicament and cite it for me. It would be greatly appreciated to anyone that has the spare time to help me as I know citing takes a bit of time! Treetoes023 (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Treetoes023: I have no specific guidance since I have never tried to use it. however, you may be able to use some "worked examples". Go to the template page and click on "what links here". You get a list of articles that have used the template. Go to one or more of the articles and click "edit" to see the source, and then use CTRL+F to search for "cite act" within the source to see how it was used there. If you resolve your problem, consider adding a note on the talk page of the template to help the next user with this problem. Good Luck! -Arch dude (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Using some work examples I was able to find a work around to the problem I was having. Treetoes023 (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for edits to entries

How do I suggest updates for already-established entries? I have made several edits myself, but I'd like to make suggestions as well.

For example, the extensive entry on C.J. Cregg, a fictional character on the US television series The West Wing played by Allison Janney, devotes a section to her romantic attachments. It mentions two, but omits a number of others that also figured in the script. An expert on the show is in a better position to find the episodes, and to make the judgment on including them.

This kind of thing occurs often. It does make me wonder why biographies of performers, who presumably have social media managers to update their online profiles, sometimes do not include certain well-known roles. I fix them sometimes, but maybe there's an ethical issue I've not thought of.

Your advice would be appreciated. Frazierdp (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Frazierdp: Thanks for wanting to improve articles. If you have a suggestion to improve an article, you can start a discussion on the article's talk page. You don't need to be a subject expert to add material, if you can find published reliable sources, that you can cite for your addition, then that is all that is needed. RudolfRed (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Frazierdp: Also, we discourage connected editing such as by publicists because it often leads to whitewashing, puffery and bias. They would likely not stick to just editing plot and character summaries. Or, as an example, they might assign outsized importance to their client's role in a film or TV program, shifting the narrative. Encyclopedic tone and neutrality, and accuracy, are all key. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to provide the real reason for Durani's death

Looking to provide the real reason for Durani's death Its found in many Sikh books I can provide their refrences but this point I am providing the Sikhwiki refrence On Ahmad Shah's death in 1772 of the cancerous wound said to have been caused on his nose by a flying piece of brick when the Harimandar Sahib was destroyed with gunpowder, his empire roughly extended from the Oxus to the Indus and from Tibet to Khurasan. It embraced Kashmir, Peshawar, Multan, Sindh, Baluchistan, Khurasan, Herat, Qandahar, Kabul and Balkh. Refrence - https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Ahmad_Shah_Durrani SimranjitKaur1992 (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SimranjitKaur1992, there seem to be good references in the article already. If you think you have better ones (that are not a wiki), please start a discussion on the talk page, Talk:Ahmad Shah Durrani. You may want to review our standards for reliable sources. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Bhangu, Ratan Singh, Prachin Panth Prakash [Reprint]. Amritsar, 1962

2. Gian Singh, Giani, Shamsher Khalsa [Reprint]. Patiala, 1970

These are the other two references. SimranjitKaur1992 (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SimranjitKaur1992, you should start a discussion on the talk page, explaining why those sources should be used instead of the ones currently in place. They don't look obviously better. If you become WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, you can try to edit the article yourself, but you may be quickly reverted. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SimranjitKaur1992:If there are valid reliable sources that disagree with each other and none of the sources are controversial, then all of the theories should be mentioned. Wikipedia cannot adjudicate an actual dispute among experts. Discuss this on the article's talk page. -Arch dude (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]