Help desk
< February 24	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 26 >

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.

February 25

Why is my Wikipedia birthday not appearing on the Category page list?

I noticed that, coincidentally, today is my Wikipedia birthday. I have the appropriate User Box listed on this page: User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page-Intro-10. I am curious: why am I not listed on this page: [[Category:Current Wikipedia birthdays]]? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. The page is in the category, as seen at the bottom of the page, but it is not showing in on the category page. Some sort of database lag, I guess, since the other pages showing on the category page have their birthdays earlier this month. RudolfRed (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed: it's a weird, common, and frustrating inconsistency caused by how various caches are purged. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: to update a page in a category, you either have to wait on the job queue - can be a while - or do a null edit on the page. See WP:NULL which explains this. From there: "None of the other purge methods apply to categorisation nor to "what links here" changes from template edits." Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it is now listed. Thanks. I made a null edit on both pages ... my individual page ... and that category page. Did someone else do anything else, to make it work? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro no, a null edit on the page you want to be properly categorized is what is necessary (a null edit on the category page is not). Yeah, it's quite weird and unintuitive. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

How do I add a page for a celebrity?

How can I add a page for a celebrity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryFPutnam (talk • contribs) 03:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GaryFPutnam: See Help:Your first article. GoingBatty (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct me appropriately

I am trying to change my username. Can someone please direct (link) me to the page where I can make the request. So far, I've just been jumping from article to article but cannot seem to find where I can actually submit the request. I have already read the terms. Regards, RYLELT7 (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RYLELT7, have you consulted WP:RENAME? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: Yes I have. But, I couldn't actually find where I can submit the request. Is it somewhere in that article that I missed? RYLELT7 (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RYLELT7: See the section at the bottom: "Venues". RudolfRed (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, found it. Thanks a lot! RYLELT7 (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing people's pages

I think people should be the only editors to their own pages because they know themselves best to put the spin on their profile most accurately.

2601:601:947E:14B0:8D34:167E:719A:90B0 (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a great many places on the Internet where anyone who wishes to may create and control a web page about themselves. Wikipedia is not one of them. See WP:NOT. -Arch dude (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias aren't for "spin". My head would spin uncontrollably if Donald Trump were the only one allowed to edit his article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:s philosophy is that people are very likely to stress positive stuff and sometimes even lie about themselves, see WP:COI. Also, in the WP environment it's not that easy to know if people claiming to be particular people actually are the particular people they claim to be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that would go completely against the entire purpose of Wikipedia. On the contrary, subjects of articles are actively discouraged from editing articles about themselves. JIP | Talk 23:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already knew Wikipedia is as unreasonable as you for not making the pages by the same people as those who it's about. People are more likely to lie about other people than themselves. So that excuse doesn't cut it. Change your ways Wikipedia!

2601:601:947E:14B0:8D34:167E:719A:90B0 (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are even more wrong about Wikipedia than I thought you were. This is not some kind of social networking or promotion site. This is an encyclopedia. There is no such thing as a "Wikipedia profile" or "someone's Wikipedia page". Wikipedia has articles about things, not pages belonging to people. An article about Donald Trump, for example, is no different from an article about water. Water is not going to edit the article about it, and by the same extent, neither does Wikipedia expect Donald Trump to edit the article about him. JIP | Talk 04:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia can't let the owners of pages be the same people on the pages, then Wikipedia shouldn't do any pages on anyone still alive in order to show respect to the people who are still alive.

2601:601:947E:14B0:8D34:167E:719A:90B0 (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is the "owner" of an article, which you persist in calling a "page." But people are notoriously not reliable sources of information about themselves. Be it Lady Gaga or Vladimir Putin or Arthur Bremer, people portray themselves as they wish to be seen. We could never be taken seriously if we allowed self-published sources to serve as sources for our articles about people, or allowed the subjects of articles [or their agents] to edit those articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do allow that a little, WP:ABOUTSELF. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No body lies about themselves when you persist in saying they do. So I can't take you nor Wikipedia seriously. There's no evidence that anyone lied about themselves except sources that could be lying too. Duh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.90.193 (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As replied above, Wikipedia can't know if someone claiming to be the subject of an article really is it. For all Wikipedia knows, I could be Donald Trump posting from a Finnish IP address. (I'm not, but this is just an example). And as also replied above, people are biased about themselves. Allowing the subject of an article to edit the article would cause the article to highlight all the good points while downplaying the bad points. That is not lying but it is promotion, which is disallowed by Wikipedia. Also, as I and others have already replied above, there is no such thing as an "own page" on Wikipedia. In fact, there is no such thing as a "page" on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has encyclopedia articles just like any other encyclopedia. The article about Donald Trump does not belong to Donald Trump, because by that logic, the article about water would "belong" to water, which is utterly nonsensical. JIP | Talk 03:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence of people trying to have their own Wikipedia articles sanitized - see United States Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon bee

This is a satire site. If Wikipedia labels it fake news, I will no longer donate to Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B122:4FBB:28CF:37F0:F795:3B25 (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donating or witholding donations has no influence on the content of the encyclopedia, as this would cease to be a neutral encyclopedia if so. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia describes The Babylon Bee as a "news satire website". If there is a list of "fake new" web sites somewhere on Wikipedia, that mistakenly includes Babylon Bee, please let us know where, so that we can correct it. (The Onion was once included on such a list, and removed once the error was pointed out.) Maproom (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of threatening anybody just BE BOLD and fix the error yourself. There is no such person like Wikipedia, it's an encyclopedia anyone can edit (and make mistakes or fix them). You can, too!
BTW, you do not donate to Wikipedia. You donate to Wikimedia Foundation, and Wikipedia is one of the WMF's projects. But WMF just runs the project, while its content is provided and maintained by a world-wide community of volunteers, who do not get a cent from WMF for their contrbution. People edit here because they like it and consider that socially useful, not because you pay them. Feel free to join. --CiaPan (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the three articles linked below "RELATED ARTICLES" at the bottom of pages in the mobile version of Wikipedia? Those articles are chosen automatically by our software based on search functionality. I see it currently chooses Waterford Whispers News, List of fake news websites, Fake news websites in the United States for The Babylon Bee. It does not mean Wikipedia is calling it fake news. The article does contain the string "fake news" four times so I'm not surprised by the software choice. It is possible for editors to override the automatic selection with code at mw:Extension:RelatedArticles but this is very rarely done. My search found 174 cases in our six million articles. The Babylon Bee is not among them. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Company Page does not exist

I know that Wellyx is a well-renowned software company for all fitness and wellness businesses but I could not find its information on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.azeem271 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on [1] the company may fail WP:NORG. But if you can find good independent WP:RS, feel free to try Help:Your first article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stand-alone lists bold

Hi,

In stand-alone list articles, should every element be in bold? Is there a set policy or is it up to the discretion of editors/whether it is deemed appropriate? After having a quick look various list articles, it seems like it's article specific. In List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford (FA), the first embedded list uses bold, whereas the following ones do not. I am befuddled; some clarification would be much appreciated.

Thanks, ritenerek ^talk :) 11:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that section (and the one for "Musicians" near the bottom of the page) the bolding looks out of place. This issue is not treated specifically in the appropriate List guidelines, but, looking at MOS:BOLD, bolding in this case does not appear to be justified. Mikenorton (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikenorton, cheers! ritenerek ^talk :) 13:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Why cant i edit anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgameryesir (talk • contribs) 12:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can. This is your other example. From now, do try to edit like an adult. -- Hoary (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing details about myself Pauline Janson

I have edited a page about myself but 2 people keep reverting the edits. How can I stop the edits being reversed or how can I get the page deleted altogetherGrisport2 (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grisport2, better to ignore it entirely and allow others to edit it. Please see WP:COI. You may request edits on the article talk page. See {{Request edit}} Deletion is unlikely. Fiddle Faddle 13:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, Grisport2, see WP:ABOUTYOU for what you can do if there are problems in an article about you. --ColinFine (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grisport2: The material about a marriage was not supported by the reference used, so I have removed it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the Speedy deletion of this page as it contains false information

Hello Wikipedia. I am requesting for the speedy and immediate deletion of this page as it contains fake information which can lead to fraud and also there are many scenarios of article infringement. Kindly review and delete this page as it is urgent. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Things_Zoofari — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.89.0.47 (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is unlikely to happen without community consensus, You are welcome to nominate it for deletion yourself. The most useful method is at WP:AFD. Making a request on this help desk wil not achieve your objective.

In order to achieve a deletion you must declare policy reasons why this article shoudl be deleted. Fiddle Faddle 13:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a procedural nomination for deletion since deletion processes can be arcane. The discussion is linked from the article. You are welcome to comment there, and should do so Fiddle Faddle 13:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Series of failed pings

Over the last month or two, I've been noticing that a number of pings don't seem to have gone through. At first I figured others had simply forgotten or not noticed them, but it's happened enough times that I think there may have been no notification at all. Examples below. Diffs are to the failed pings; parentheticals refer to the initial links, and indicate where users said the ping did not work.

1 diff (see last message)

2 diff (see last message)

3 diff (see last message)

4 diff (see 22 January message)

5 diff (see third-to-last message)

6 diff (see last message)

7a; 7b diff (see last messages; both pings failed)

8 diff (see last message)

There are also a decent number of cases in which I've needed to follow up, and I wonder if the ping didn't go through there either. Does anyone have any idea what might be causing this? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link the difs where you inserted the ping, rather than just page? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found one of them here. I'm not sure why that didn't work. It looks like you included the ping and a valid signature in the same edit, which eliminates the usual problem. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ONUnicorn. Added the five diffs above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique That's really odd. They all look like they should have worked, as does the one above, where you tried to ping me. However, I never got that ping either. This may seem like a dumb question, but you are signing using four tildes, correct? Not somehow creating a manual signature? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ONUnicorn, well at least that confirms that there is something weird going on. Yes, I'm signing using four tildes; it appears as --~~~~ when I type it out. It's manual in the sense that I type them out one hyphen and tilde at a time (so it takes six keystrokes), which is how I've done it for years. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: That's a correct way to sign. Is there something in the "Signature" field at Special:Preferences? Does "Treat the above as wiki markup" have a checkmark? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: Have you tried signing without the hyphens? DuncanHill (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter, there's nothing in the signature field, and no checkmark. DuncanHill, I haven't, though I'll try it when signing this comment. It would seem odd if that's the problem, both because I've used the hyphens for as long as I can remember, and because my pings work sometimes, but not always.

Incidentally, I've been following up (via talk page) on unreturned pings, and have added a couple examples above as a result. Usernameunique (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: Enable both the "Successful mention" and "Failed mention" options at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. Then try to ping me. Wait a minute or so, then refresh the page. Do you get a "successful mention" notification? Do you get a "failed mention" notification? If so, are there any details? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suffusion of Yellow, pinging. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suffusion of Yellow, I got a notification saying "Your mention of Suffusion of Yellow was sent." I'll keep those settings for now to see if it picks up any failures. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: I did in fact get both pings. So that was no help after all... It will get tiring to go back and forth like this. Maybe try pinging an alt account of yours repeatedly, and see what goes through? Otherwise, sorry, no suggestions. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suffusion of Yellow, I don't have an alt account, but could always create one. In the meantime, let me try pinging the other people who have helped out in this thread—in no small part because I'm not even sure my last pings to them went through. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC) Ping to ONUnicorn. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC) Ping to PrimeHunter. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC) Ping to DuncanHill. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: Didn't receive either notification. DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: I wasn't pinged by [2] or [3]. Many (not all) of your failed pings like [4] added blank lines or spaces in earlier text. There is no reason for a space before an indented post and you shouldn't add it to posts by others per WP:TPO. It can also cause poorly looking diffs like [5]. Blank lines between indented posts is against WP:INTERSPERSE. mw:Manual:Echo#Technical details says: "The diff chunk must be recognised as an addition of new lines of text, not a change to existing lines". I don't know the precise rules but stop adding spaces and blank lines, also when you aren't trying to ping. Start a new paragraph or indented line when you are trying to ping, not like [6]. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged again, above. I think PrimeHunter has the right answer; I had completely missed those added spaces in the diffs. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter, DuncanHill, ONUnicorn, & Suffusion of Yellow, yeah, I didn't get any notifications whatsoever—of failure or success—for those three attempted pings. PrimeHunter, you might be right about the formatting edits in my diffs, so I guess I'll put that particular form of obsessiveness to rest for now (or, at least, separate it from pings). It looks like each diff, with the conspicuous exception of the first example above, modified a paragraph that already included a signature, so perhaps that caused some funkiness. And the last three failed pings were in paragraphs that already had a signature, so perhaps the same principle is at play there. Assuming the four pings in this paragraph go through successfully, I'll follow them up with another ping at the end of this paragraph to check. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC) Those went through immediately. Test: PrimeHunter, DuncanHill, ONUnicorn, & Suffusion of Yellow. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: I was pinged by [7] which started on a new line, but not by [8] which continued an existing line. Help:Notifications#Failed mentions says you only get notified if you try to ping IP's, non-existing users, or more than 50 users. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No notifications for the second attempt. PrimeHunter, that sounds like the answer. There's one ping (the first in the list above) that it doesn't explain, but I'm happy chalking that up to a random error for now, and circling back to this if the issue recurs. Many thanks to each of you for your help! --Usernameunique (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: I got one for this, but not for this. DuncanHill (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last one is easy to explain - it's a modification to an existing post, and not a wholly-new post. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique I received this ping. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental Luxuriance of the Translucent Watery Rebus

Accidental Luxuriance of the Translucent Watery Rebus is a Croatian animated feature by Dalibor Barić. The film had its world premiere at the Annecy International Animation Film Festival 2020. It was an official nominee for The Satellite Awards 2021. The film had its USA premiere on the 12th February 2021, in the virtual Laemmle cinema. The film is made using collage, rotoscopy and animation techniques. In his debut feature, Dalibor Barić directed, wrote the script, edited the film, designed sound and made the music for the film, so it is an almost one-man show. Voices to the characters give croatian actors: Rakan Rushaidat, Ana Vilenica, Frano Mašković, Nikša Marinović, Mario Kovač, Željka Veverec, Boris Bakal, Pavlica Brazzoduro Bajsić. The producer is Ivan Katić and the production company Kaos LLC.

Reception

Michael Nordine of Variety gave a positive review and said "it’s also vibrant and alive in a way that few films falling under the wide umbrella of animation even attempt to be." Carlos Aguilar of the Los Angeles Times wrote: "Baric’s entrancing collage, with an incessant penchant for psychedelic dissonance, is in itself a rebus — a puzzle that derives meaning from drawings and letters." Fabien Lemercier of Cineuropa said: "Dalibor Baric is an almost complete one-man filmmaking team. But he is most of all an incredible, utterly extraordinary artistic talent, as demonstrated by his rich and ultra-personal feature debut."

References "'Accidental Luxuriance of the Translucent Watery Rebus’ Review: Adventurous Animated Noir From Croatia" Variety, 24 February 2021 "Review: ‘Accidental Luxuriance of the Translucent Watery Rebus’ is better experienced than solved" Los Angeles Times, 11 February 2021 "Review: Accidental Luxuriance of the Translucent Watery Rebus" Cineurope, 16 June 2020

Removed edit request template, as this is not the place to do so. Please go to Wikipedia:Requested articles to submit the request. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a page for a living person

Hello,

I would like to create a page for my boss and famous winemaker Mark Herold. Will you please direct me on next steps to do this?

Thank you, Kaetlyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaetBart (talk • contribs) 21:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop. Do not pass Go. In addition to the issue of your WP:conflict of interest, I could only find one article about him (as opposed to his products or company),[9] which indicates he doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation of a name

If there are two biography articles of people with the same name and neither is a primary topic, should a disambiguation page with the two names be created or should a hatnote be added to the top of one of the pages linking to the other? Andysmith248 (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NOPRIMARY a disambiguation page should be created at the base name. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Andysmith248 (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about splitting a paragraph

The particular paragraph I want to split, located in the article of a certain song, consists entirely of variations on the same sentence, each of which is a quote or more from a review of the song, each prefaced by the reviewer and publication. The paragraph is overly long, and there's no real topical divide, as far as I could tell from skimming it. There is one sentence that starts off with "[w]hen", though, so that might be a good splitting point. Could anyone please tell me what to do about this?--Thylacine24 (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that they could do so usefully, based on what you say. But if you pointed to the particular article, they (we) might. -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This one. Sorry not to be more specific.--Thylacine24 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thylacine24: I see that the Reception section is already split into "Critical reception" and "Retrospective response". I'm presuming that means that the "Critical reception" section should only contain reviews from the 1990s, and the rest could be moved to the "Retrospective" section. You could also consider splitting the "Critical reception" section into a paragraph about US reception and another about European reception. Are the reviews from Pop Rescue and TalkAboutPopMusic notable, or should they be removed? Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Thanks in general, but I'm no expert on notability. Also, should "retrospective" have its own US/European reception split, to be consistent?--Thylacine24 (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thylacine24: Probably would depend on the size of the paragraphs after moving the reviews to the right sections. GoingBatty (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Thanks. Hopefully I'll get around to it.--Thylacine24 (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]