Help desk
< March 3	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 5 >

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.

March 4

Relevance of Wikipedia's Manual of Style

How much attention should an editor pay to the contents of Wikipedia's Manual of Style? I ask that question because of a disagreement that has arisen with another editor. I removed "nationality = American" from the infobox in Louise Brooks based on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Nationality and citizenship, which says, "Most biography infoboxes have nationality and citizenship. Generally, use of either should be avoided when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth, as specified with |birthplace=." The infobox contains "birth_place = Cherryvale, Kansas, U.S.", which seems to me to justify omitting her nationality.

I asked the editor about the basis for restoring nationality. The reply was: "Because the assumption that her nationality is American simply because she was born in the U.S. is just that, an assumption, and Wikipedia doesn't publish assumptions, it published facts. The MoS -- which is not mandatory, and is simply a guideline -- should never have suggested that and should be changed." (emphasis in the original)

I am perplexed. How does an editor know when the Manual of Style should be applied and when it should be ignored? Eddie Blick (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teblick If this other editor wants to change the Manual of Style, then they should work to do so, but not prevent you or others from following guidelines. 331dot (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 331dot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teblick (talk • contribs)

Teblick it seems like they have it backwards. There's no assumption being published by excluding the information - excluding the information allows readers to infer that, sure, but we don't need to assume our readers can't infer simple things like that. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot321, your viewpoint seems logical to me, much as I was looking at the situation. Thanks. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well but User:Teblick et al I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Really most rules here (like the Manual of Style) are either suggestions or descriptions of what's usually done. They're useful in providing guidance ("How do people usually do such-and-so?") and in avoiding repetitive arguments -- rather than having 1000 discussions in 1000 places about "Do we write 'the president of Cuba' or 'the President of Cuba'?", the way it's usually done is written down in a rule that everyone can look up.

In the instance you describe, apparently there's a rule, but an other editor wants to do it different in that particular instance, and so? My inclination would be that if she cares enough about it to make the edit, fine; let it go. The last thing we want is people getting into adversarial states of mind of over stuff that doesn't matter. You don't know whether or not the person's nationality really should be included in the infobox, I don't, the other editor doesn't, nobody does; there's no way to prove it, it's a matter of personal taste. In this case "I wrote it that way and I think it's fine, wasn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed" is a perfectly reasonable response to somebody substituting their taste for anothers. See also WP:BRD. Herostratus (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, Herostratus. I have personal preferences about some style matters that differ from what the Manual of Style says, but I respect the manual and defer to it for the sake of consistency across articles. If every editor considers his or her personal preferences to be more important than the Manual of Style, then we might as well remove the Manual of Style entirely.Eddie Blick (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not black and white like that User:Teblick. It depends on the rule. Which depends usually on the answer to these four questions:

Is the rule considered important enough, and followed consistently enough, that substantial numbers of other editors are going to insist that you follow it, and trying to do resist will just result in a sterile argument that you won't win?
Is not following the rule going to impact the user's experience in some way? Will it be at all distracting to the reader if the rule isn't followed consistently across articles?
Is not following the rule going to make us look sloppy or amateurish? That (even if in a small way) makes the reader trust us less, and hurts our standing in the world.
Whatever the rule is, is it followed or not followed and (if followed) interpreted the same way throughout the one article? Because if not, all three of the other points will likely be in play.

If you can't answer any of these questions in the affirmative, then just let it go. Nobody cares, or should.

There's a rule that we say "October 8" and not "October 8th". You'd better follow that rule because other editors will insist. It was chosen at random (could have been the other way instead) and it's not "right" on the merits, but it is subject to point #1 and arguably to points #2 and #3, because it's something that is in a lot of articles and kind of stands out a bit. ENGVAR should be followed with fanatical devotion, as another example. And there are a lot of rules where these 4 points apply, and fine.

On the other hand, there's a rule that says we have to say "In Spring 1943" and not "In Spring of 1943". It's a silly rule and I ignore it. It's not how I like to write, and I mean hey I'm writing the article so leave me the gosh darn heck alone. Rules like that are micromanaging and it's not a good way to develop volunteer staff. If somebody else comes along an changes it, this is annoying and pointless but also not worth worrying about.

A lot of these rules were put in place by like 5 people in 2008 and 4 of them aren't even active anymore. People like to make rules (some more than others) because that's how people roll, but so.

Anyway, the particular situation you describe -- it's no, no, no, and no, so let it go. See WP:NOTBURO, and BTW the MoS is just a guideline which means everything in it is just a suggestion.

And anyway there are a lot of rules here. I've been here 15 years and I probably still don't know most of them. The one you describe, for instance, I've never heard of. It's just not possible to keep track of them all, but you can get 95% of the way at least to editing usefully if you just follow these two rules:

Mind that you follow the core constitutional rules: WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:IAR.
Don't be a jerk.

Finally: at root, this disagreement we're having is really mainly based on who were are. I like rules less than you do. Maybe I'm right, maybe you are, or probably its not that simple. It's just not subject to rational argument except at the margins, we are who we are. But the margins count. Anyway it's worthwhile to keep this in mind. Herostratus (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Eddie Blick (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael coleman

Prince — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:6:902:0:0:0:26 (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to have to be a tad more specific, friend. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 02:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

see prince. -Arch dude (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Memories

I am hoping to help the residents of our suburb to recollect, share and record their memories of events that make up the history of our suburb. Can I create a subheading under our suburb listing and encourage residents to come on to Wikipedia to share their memories and images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasyak (talk • contribs) 02:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tasyak That is unfortunately not in keeping with the mission of Wikipedia, which is to summarize what independent reliable sources that can be verified state, in the form of an encyclopedia article. It is not a place like social media where people can gather and share memories and recollections. Social media, or perhaps another alternative outlet would be better suited for that. 331dot (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to publish what you learn in a book, as a recorded history, other editors could use that as a source, but we can't have the histories directly. 331dot (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tasyak: The ideal location for this would be a wiki or other forum run by a local newspaper in your community. -Arch dude (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tasyak. Arcadia Publishing is a company that is very intersted in working with local authors and researchers to develop books about various comunities. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found this https://localwiki.org/main/LocalWiki_for_Local_History which might be of help. Now if the OP's community did create a local wiki, could they add that link on the wikipedia page for the community? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

process of providing the copyrights for my company page

I have made my company page and I have used some of the information which was on my company's website (www.OpinionExpress.in) About us and now Wikipedia has deleted that page after I have given the reference. so please guide me on how I can create my company's page and what documents have to submit for copyright and how I can submit it. My company name is Opinion Express. It is a monthly magazine. Sauravgupta7297 (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sauravgupta7297. I'm afraid the answer is that you probably cannot. It sounds as if you have a (very common) misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is. It does not contain "company pages" - not one. It contains articles about notable companies: articles which are based not on what the company says or wants to say, but on what people who are unconnected with the company have published about the company. If your company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then we could have an article about it; if it doesn't then no article about it will be accepted. If we do accept an article, it will ideally not be written by you, as it is likely to be hard for you to write in a sufficiently neutral way about it. In any case, the article will not belong to you, you will not control its contents, you will be strongly discouraged from editing it (you can suggest edits), it will not be based on what your company says or wants to say, and it could end up containing material about your company that you don't like, if that material has been published in a reliable source. All this is because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory or social media. --ColinFine (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you can't usefully "submit documents". every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article must be findable in a reliably published source. Unpublished documents are completely irrelevant, and non-independent published documents (such as your company's website) can be used in only very limited ways. --ColinFine (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving my Sandbox article to the main site

Hi there,

I'm just looking for help to move my sandbox article to the main Wikipedia website.

Thanks so much, Ollie — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverGeorgeC1 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OliverGeorgeC1 I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit your draft for review, but you should not do so yet, as you do not have independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the person. You have two sources, one being the website of her organization, the other being a press release. These do not establish that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Reviewers look for at least three sources with significant coverage- not just a brief mention or press release. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate phrase

We see inappropriate phrase ‘slaves of min aung hlaing’ in the article myanmar army,,,,, please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.231.94.179 (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text was added to Myanmar Army earlier today and has been removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page I created has disppeared

In January I created a page (titled Ran Namerode) with this account (Wikinamerode) and now I cannot find it anywhere - can anyone help me find it please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinamerode (talk • contribs) 10:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinamerode No article or draft by the name "Ran Namerode" has been created, and your account edit history indicates no edits to such a page. Did you perhaps create it while logged out of your account? 331dot (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the Hebrew page he:User:Wikinamerode/רן נמרוד? The only English page you have created is User:Wikinamerode with one line. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please check myanmar army page

We have seen hate groups targeting Wikipedia articles taking full advantage of free edition some of the words written there such as Ma A Loe means motherf**ker in Burmese language and also the word ma Thar gyi is very rude and low grade to appear on the famed Wikipedia page,,,,, please take action soon...... thanks you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.231.94.179 (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. the best place to bring this up is on the article talk page, Talk:Myanmar Army. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no edit button

I can not see edit button on pages. There is only edit source button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRTFR55 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MRTFR55: The edit links depend on settings at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. If you want the source editor then just click edit source and ignore whether documentation says "edit". If you want VisualEditor then remove a checkmark if it's there at "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, save preferences, and then set a choice at "Editing mode". PrimeHunter (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia entry: List of world cities by population density

In the table two cities are not in their correct place: #7 Delhi and #48 Karachi. Since I don't have the actual number, have never edited before and don't know how to reach an/the editor I hope here to reach someone who can take care of it or refer this to someone who can. Thanks, 4tunamayo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4tunamayo (talk • contribs) 13:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4tunamayo It's difficult for us to help you unless you have the information you wish to change, and a reliable source to support it, even if you don't wish to edit the article yourself(which is fine). You may wish to bring this up at Talk:List of world cities by population density. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4tunamayo is correctly saying that our stated ranks and densities in List of world cities by population density (permanent link) do not match up. Either the rank or density for #7 Delhi and #48 Karachi is clearly wrong. Maybe the area and thus density is a matter of definition but the ranks should match the densities we state. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a bunch of possible copyvio revisions (or attributing the text properly)

Full disclosure (I feel this is necessary since I am highly interested in the article involved and may have been "overzealous" in trying to stop other editors from adding unsourced information): I was initially seeking Pending changes protection for List of Talking Tom and Friends (TV series) episodes at WP:TEA to counter someone (mainly 41.58.xxx.xxx, along with some other IP, possibly same person in different places or two completely different persons) who was adding unreferenced plot summaries for episodes that will supposedly air later, but now I have been informed that the unreferenced plots do not warrant protection due to the frequency of those edits.

However, I've noticed that at least one of the episode summaries which I've removed while trying to remove the unreferenced plots (I didn't check any more plots as I didn't have the time) are at least 90% identical to the episode summary at a fandom. I don't know whether the fandom allows verbatim copying or has any system to handle people who want to copy the text, but if they don't allow verbatim copying, this will need a bunch of revdels for every revision that had such plots. More plots (which may have been copied) can be found at the "next episode" link within the infobox in each fandom episode page. This may have to be done for every episode which is currently on the Wikipedia list article. 45.251.33.205 (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I checked two of the plots on fandom and those were added to fandom in September/October 2020 and added here this year only. So this may be a clear (but complex to handle due to the possibly large number of URLs involved in this copyvio, IMO) copyvio. 45.251.33.205 (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PPS - To whoever checks for copyvios: You may have to check old revisions of Talking Tom and Friends (TV series) for copyvios involving the fandom as well since the aforementioned listicle was copied directly from an old revision of the article. 45.251.33.205 (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to "this fandom page of T&C"., everything on Fandom is CC BY SA 3.0, which is the same as here. So there is no actual copvio, except that if the fandom article was written before its content was added here, then fandom should be credited (in the edit summary, presumably). I make no comment as to whether such large-scale copying is sensible, only that it doesn't seem to be WP:COPYVIO. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Turnbull and OP: Not "should" be credited, but must be credited. If it is not credited, then it is a violation of the fandom site's copyright license to us, because that license requires attribution. -Arch dude (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Arch dude, I meant that to be read as "must" ;-) However, the IP editor who is adding stuff from Fandom is not making that clear in edit summaries so I've no idea what if anything now needs to be done, since, AFAIK, edit summaries cannot be altered after the event. Perhaps the page needs a comment adding (via template?) that it contains lots of Fandom material, licensed CC BY SA? Such an approach is taken in other articles which use validly copied material. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine Fandom's authors would be credited by linking to the page histor(y/ies) of the specific article(s) being copied from on the talk page, in a manner similar to translating or copying within Wikipedia itself. An edit summary would not be sufficient attribution. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 16:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But that would require multiple URLs to be linked to since many of Season 5's episodes have plots copied from Fandom. It will be relatively complex but if there is no other way then I suppose we should do it this way. 45.251.33.205 (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is murky. The intra-Wikipedia rules specify what Wikipedia will accept as fulfilling Wikipedia's copyright license. When copying from another site, we must decide how to fulfill that other site's copyright license. Even when it is the identical license, we cannot assume that the other site will interpret it exactly the same way. Ideally, we would provide attribution that points to each individual fandom page as of the date that the material was copied. I personally think the attribution should be conveyed every time our HTML article page is served to a web browser. Since every instance of copied text in the article should be referenced, the least obtrusive way to do this is to add "some text copied from" in front of each such reference. Alternatively, you can move all references that need attribution into a separate reference group, and then put a header in front of the reflist for that group that states that text was copied from all of these referencesunder a CC-BY-SA license. -Arch dude (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude and Jéské Couriano: Looking at WP:RSPSRC, I note that Fandom is pretty much deprecated in any case, and if used the template {{Wikia content|sitename=somewebsite|articlename=somearticle}} is supposed to be used. That seems to be the real problem here and could be solved just by adding that template ONCE to each offending page, which the OP may wish to do. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull and Jéské Couriano: The "real problem" is copyright law and our own plagiarism guidelines. The documentation for {{wikia content}} makes it clear that we must attribute each fandom.com article separately. As I said, we can and should create a separate reference group for these attributions to cut down on the clutter. -Arch dude (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that should be the most robust approach, Arch dude. Count me out of actually doing the work, however! ;-) Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Making edits/changes to my wikipedia page

Dear Wiki Volunteers,

First, let me say how much I appreciate your hard work and how much I appreciate Wikipedia. That said, I was recently on a feedback board, asking for help with updating my page. I am a dinosaur and was completely confused by the directions I was given. I know it's possible to do, but it is not so clear, nor easy, to make the simplest changes. I, of course was not adding any weird, or libelous information, just updates about me and my career, and of course, since I didn't know how about the protocol of making changes, all my hard work was erased. I don't mind, but I wish I knew how to add info properly. I know I am supposed to go to the "Talk" page, and add sourced backup to any additions, but I have no idea on how and where to do that, specifically. I suppose there's no step-by-step example of how to do this? That would be super helpful!

Any way I could talk to someone about it? I certainly have source press, etc. to back up my additions/changes.

Best, Michael Holman (filmmaker) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4001:E49A:3425:B428:E7E9:83F5 (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at the Teahouse, please only ask questions in one place. Thanks! Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE DISAPPEARED

HELLO, I HAVE HAD, AND ENJOYED A WIKI PAGE FOR MANY YEARS, WHEN I LOOKED TODAY, I AM TOLD THAT I DON'T EXIST, NOT THAT I HAVE BEEN REMOVED, I DON'T EXIST. PAGE TITLE. CHRISTOPHER STONE SCULPTOR.

OLD Christopher Stone (sculptor) - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org › wiki › Christopher_Stone_(sculptor) Christopher has made prolonged visits to Aswan, Luxor, and Cairo to study Egyptology, and to the Czech Republic to study eastern European Art. Stone collaborated as artist designer at the Worlds Trade Fair (Expo '92) in Seville, Spain, working in both Spanish and British Pavilions. ‎Life · ‎Selected exhibitions.

NEW The article that you're looking for doesn't exist. You can create it, but... Before you create an article, you should read this guide. New to Wikipedia? See the contributing to Wikipedia page for everything you need to know to get started. Need interactive help? You can ask questions at the Teahouse, help desk or through live chat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenoops (talk • contribs) 19:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thenoops the article was deleted. You can see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Stone (sculptor). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thenoops. It is a common misconception that a Wikipedia article is for the benefit of its subject. This is not the case: of course the subjects of some articles do get some benefit from the article, but that is not in any way part of the purpose of Wikipedia. The corollary is that nobody and nothing in the entire imaginable universe deserves or is entitled to have an article about them. Wikipedia sets the conditions for subjects to appear in its index, and they are collectively called notability. If a subject does not meet these criteria, then no article about them will be accepted or kept, irrespective of the subject's wishes. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox alignment

How is it that the infobox in Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette lists his several services aligned (properly) to the left, while the infobox that I added to Charles Sweeny has them centered? I used the same plainlist template. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

|branch_label=. If present but empty, the Service/branch label is omitted from the rendered infobox; delete |branch_label=and the infobox renders the default label; provide a value and that value becomes the label. I don't know if this is how the infobox is supposed to work so you might want to raise this issue at Template talk:Infobox military person.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I've brought this up at the template's talk page. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename while a merge discussion is in progress? BLP issues

Currently there is a discussion on whether to merge the articles 2021 Australian Parliament rape scandals and Parliament House rape allegations. However since neither case is certainly a rape (and in one case, the accused has publicly denied it), I am concerned that "rape scandals" is a WP:BLP violation, and think the former should immediately be renamed to 2021 Australian Parliament rape allegations, regardless of the outcome of the merge discussion. So I have 2 questions: (1) does it look like a BLP violation?, and (2) is it against procedure if I decide to "be bold" and rename an article during a merge discussion? Adpete (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adpete:. I'd say yes, please move it immediately, and tweak the intro while you're at it. It is a BLP vio, IMO. When it comes to procedure, sure we don't like things being moved while discussions are under way, however two things: 1) With BLP you're playing a trump card against procedure, and 2) also in your favour, the discussions don't (much) centre around the titles. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image from the German Wikipedia

I am wondering how to get this image included on Clementine Helm. It seems eligible for PD so I could just upload it to Commons and retrieve it from there - but is it also possible to retrieve it from the German Wikipedia without going through those steps? Thanks, Urve (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, probably not PD eligible though I'd have to check more closely. Original question still stands, thanks, Urve (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Urve: You can't reuse it directly on en Wikipedia. You either need to upload it to commons or upload it here if it meets WP:NFCC RudolfRed (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate but understandable. I have never understand NFCC, it must be congenital, so I will pass - but appreciate you pointing it out. Thank you. Urve (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Urve: I'd just note a much better version of that image is available from here, where it advises "Clementine Helm (aged 58). Portrait from her novel Backfischchens. Leiden und Freuden, 25th edition, 1884." Anyone who can view that book (which might be obtained by asking at WP:RX) – doesn't hurt to try – might find therein the credit for the photo, and then see if that person died more than 70 years ago.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]