Help desk
< August 18	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 20 >

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.

August 19

Bot is marking images for deletion because of non-use, but isn't following the full chain, and there's not a great way to chat about it

A bot is marking images for deletion. On the whole, I think the bot does great work, but it needs an update to account for templates. It marked an image for deletion which I'd uploaded, then sent me a message about it. The only problem is the image is used in a template (so the same image can be used on a main page and also in a summation page), and the bot is apparently just checking the "what links here" and isn't then going to the same "what links here" page for templates which use the image.

The bot talk page specifically asks people not to try to reply there: "Hi, I'm a bot, therefore I cannot respond to your questions. , if you leave a note on my owner, B's talk page, I'm sure he will be able to help you. ..." However, the user talk page states, "I'm largely inactive / 99% retired. There are more important things in life. ..." I am fully in support of that, as I think even a cursory review of my own talk page makes clear. However, I'm not running a bot.

Again, I think the bot is doing great work overall, but it needs to account for templates which use images and then follow that chain through to see why the template exists, or at least what else uses the template. Banaticus (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Banaticus if you read the bot user page it indicates clearly that Please note that under WP:NFCC#9, images used under a claim of fair use are NOT permitted outside of article space. If an image is used only in user space, on a template, in a draft, etc, it is still considered "orphaned".

The bot operations is right. The non-free file cannot be utilised in Template space. – robertsky (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Banaticus. Thinking more broadly (beyond the technical detail Robertsky mentions), I'm concerned that a non-free image in a template is at high risk for use in violation of the NFCC: it is prone to using the template more widely than fair-use allows and makes it hard to keep the image-use rationale tags in sync. For example, fair-use images must not be purely decorative or used in galleries, and therefore virtually never in navboxes either. DMacks (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banaticus, non-free images are allowed only in articles, not templates, and only when the image fully complies with WP:NFCI. Please use only freely licensed or public domain images in templates. Cullen328 (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Banaticus: Which template is this about? Please always identify pages you refer to. The image is not used anywhere currently and I haven't found signs it was used when B-bot nominated it for deletion and notified you 18 August. It was previously used in {{Adventure West Council Infobox}} but another bot removed it 16 August with the correct edit summary "Non-free files are only permitted in articles".[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the "Adventure West Council" Boy Scout Council (or whatever we call the Boy Scouts nowadays) has territory in both Nebraska and Colorado. And so an infobox template for this council was added to both Scouting in Nebraska and Scouting in Colorado. So there needs to be an image= parameter in the infobox template and then the image name put only in the page itself, rather than hardcoding the image in the template. (I'm not offering an opinion on whether it's appropriate to have council shoulder patches in an infobox for each council within a state article - I'm just saying that this is the method that would not run afoul of WP:NFCC#9. If an image is embedded in a template, bots will - correctly - continue to remove it and tag it as orphaned.) --B (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following from thst B said, I find it hard to believe that this use meets the criterion 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" from the WP:NFCC. ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about non-traditional sources

I want to edit the page for DuPage County, Illinois to reference how it has been officially referred to as Du Page county (two words), specifically on the NCEI Storm Events database. This is an official US government website, but the alternative spelling isn't given any particular weight and both spellings are used when selecting the county zone, which tells me this isn't a mistake. Does this work as a reliable source as is, or should I keep looking for another source? GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t use that source to say it has “officially” been referred to with two words, but you could add (and cite) and note to the lede: “also spelled Du Page…” BhamBoi (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism help request from Aubrey.eliza

I have noticed some vandalism at Park Street Church. Namely, individuals are updating language on a present controversy with untrue or biased facts. They are using posts from a blog as a reference. At this moment, it claims "public sharing of internal documents describing spiritual abuse" (the "internal document" in question was a memo from the fired associate minister, and after three rounds of both internal and external investigation, no abuse has been found) and uses biased language such as "only" 2/3 members. Additionally, convoluted language claiming "a majority of congregants rejecting the assertion that Mark Booker is not disqualified from ministry" is confusing. A simple sentence would be that a majority of congregants assert that Mark Booker is disqualified from ministry, and this is untrue.

( Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you, Aubrey.eliza (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People at the Help Desk will not normally get involved in a content dispute. Please follow the procedure in disute resolution, which begins with opening open a discussion with the other editors on the article's talk page. ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was supposed to be dispute resolution. ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam

An editor (not an IP user) is adding a link to the "See also" section in a rather low-profile article, Racetrack (game), about a certain pen-and-paper game. It's a link to a sourceforge project (and, in the present version, a few other links too); I suppose it's possible to download and install a computer-playable version of the game via the link. However, the sourceforge project has no information relevant to the subject that adds anything to the article. I believe policy is that we do not have this sort of links in "See also" (or elsewhere). In Chess, we have link to e.g. ChessBase, but I believe that is because

the article covers chess technology as well as the physical board game itself;
ChessBase does in fact have load of info that adds to the wikipedia article.

The editor has added the link a total of 17 times over 4 months, and has been reverted as many times (mostly, but not exclusively, by me). The user has essentially made no other edits on Wikipedia. I am aware that this regrettably has taken on the character of edit warring (but afaik the 3rr rule applies to muliple changes over a much shorter timespan). I have not succeeded in engaging the user on the talk page, user talk page, or through edit summaries.

So, am I wrong that the link shouldn't be there, and if not, what can I do? Should I request some sort of page protection, or an edit ban on the user? How does one do that sort of thing? (I have made about 7500 edits to en.wikipedia.org over a 20-year period, but I have never considered that sort of action before.) Nø (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS stipulates that the user repeatedly adding the disputed content must generate consensus for inclusion, but at absolute minimum the sourceforge link would belong in subheading External links, not See also, which is exclusively for internal links to mainspace. A pblock would probably be the route to technical enforcement if the user cannot be persuaded to stop and no one else agrees the link is appropriate to include. Folly Mox (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The link has actually at various points been added to either "See also" or "External links". I've now created a block request to the best of my ability. Nø (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My utube video views is not increase please help

my utube video views is not increase please help Nighatomer (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nighatomer, this has nothing to do with editing Wikipedia. You will have to contact YouTube. Cullen328 (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mdkawshar1

Kawshardowanekawshar mdkawshar1 01615031192 2404:1C40:BB:794B:1:0:5F6D:AC73 (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? Are you perhaps user @Mdkawshar1, not logged in? ColinFine (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing multiple chapters

Is there a policy for citing several chapters in one book where each chapter has a different author? Currently, I'm working on a page and found an excellent source with one editor and each chapter has an expert address the topic at length. I will be citing the book several times, but I'm uncertain how best to handle the References section. Right now I'm doing the following, but I have absolutely no idea if this follows policy appropriately:

{{cite book}} – Editor only entered here, link to full book (open access through publisher)
- {{cite book}} again – Author entered here, editor entered again, probably just linking chapter again
- {{cite book}} again – Author 2, ibid, ibid.

Is this appropriate? Is there a better way of doing that? Should I just cite the editor only and let the reader actually go to the book? Any help appreciated! ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{harvc}} is intended for this purpose as a stepping stone between {{sfn}} and {{cite book}}. Perhaps it will serve for you.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you so much! ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThaesOfereode you may be interested in giving feedback about new sub-reference feature at Meta:WMDE Technical Wishes/Sub-referencing which can handle complex cases like this better. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer! I'll give it a look. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USS Kidd (DD-661) page

I made some edits concerning her current location and how she is at dock currently, and I was wondering if Y'all could just make it look better. 2600:8807:3C01:6900:7106:76C6:2ACE:6CB (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more clear on what you think is wrong? One thing I notice is no citation for what you added. See WP:REFB Also, the lede should be a summary of what is in the main part of the article. RudolfRed (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just add citations and sources, as idk how to do that, and make it sound more professional if it doesnt already. heavily appreciated 2600:8807:3C01:6900:7106:76C6:2ACE:6CB (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, IP user: if you want to add information to an article, it is your responsibility to find the sources. That is the part of editing that takes the work, and it is unreasonable to expect somebody else to go looking. Note that if you cannot find a reliably published source for the information, then the information does not belong in a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]