Help desk
< June 30	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 2 >

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.

July 1

WikiProject Proposal

Hello to all you wonderful volunteers!

I'm helping to start a WikiProject with a co-editor who is also passionate about the project. We're not quite sure how to garner the support we need to start the project. I started with leaving a paragraph comment on some users I found in a similar project or with profiles that looked like they'd be interested but I received a message on my talk page to stop because I was being disruptive. I definitely don't want to bother anyone!I've been clicking around the site and trying to learn the proper community culture to abide by but I'm just left a little confused.

Any and all feedback on how to reach out to other users would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you SilmarilElwing 00:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the "co-editor" and who is "we"? What is the exact purpose of the project?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Tech Repairability TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can see what SilmarilElwing is hoping to achieve (though they could explain it more clearly). I am favourably biased because my smartphone, bought three years ago as a newly-released top-of-the range model, recently developed a flat battery, and the repair shop's attempt to replace the battery left it unusable. If Wikipedia could state which consumer goods can be repaired and which have to be junked when they develop a fault, it would help readers, and help to reduce plastic and other waste. Maproom (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom, that's a great example of the problem and exactly what I'm talking about.

There are so many manufacturers of tech that plan for these device to become obsolete (parts/components begin to break, batteries no longer hold a charge, etc.) right around the time they release the new hot version that they want everyone to buy. There is such a massive push for thin and sleek designs but not enough (in my opinion) of a push for these things to last a long time. The average consumer can no long access the individual components. It wasn't that long ago that you could swap the battery out of your laptop and cellphone rather than replace the entire device when the longevity of a daily charge began to diminish.

The throw away culture around electronics leads to massive amount of electronic waste and is having a detrimental impact on the environment. We only get one Earth. There is a lot of hype around the process of recycling as the ultimate solution. When really, recycling should be Plan B.

Electronic recycling is a greenwashed process. Recycled electronics are taken away from 1st world countries and often (not always, but often) are being sent to third world countries. Out of site, out of mind. People who live at the final destination of this hazardous waste are being exposed to harmful chemicals from the processes they have to go though to extract the minute amounts of valuable metals within electronic devices. Not to mention that there are a limited amount of precious metals on the planet and creating new electronics and that the process uses a massive amount of water.

The prophylactic Plan A should be that companies scrap the income first thought process of selling more devices to make more money–but I can't control that. What I can control is sharing my opinions and educating the public to help them make more informed decisions around what they're choosing to buy. Before I buy (most anything) I do some research to see the real value for my money and the impact I'll have on the environment. I'm hoping others do the same. I see Wikipedia as a far reaching and trustworthy source of information that I'd love to contribute to.

This became a very long winded explanation, but I'd like for anyone who reads this to understand my perspective.

tldr; I want to help Wikipedia include information on the repairability of common devices to help the general public make informed decisions and choose to buy electronic devices that will last a long time in order to help save the world.

Thank you for taking the time to read this (if you made it this far.)

SilmarilElwing 17:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Laudable though that goal is, Maproom and SilmarilElwing, I can't see that it is anything to do with Wikipedia's purposes. For it to serve a purpose like that, it needs to be kept up to date. But (apart from the question of whether there will continue to be volunteer editors who wish to do that), that depends on there happening to be reliable sources published that update the available information. I'm not sure whether WP:NOTDIR or WP:NOTGUIDE is more applicable, but I'm pretty sure that one of them is.

Which is not to say you shouldn't set up this WikiProject. But please take care that its goals are consonant with those of Wikipedia, not contrary to them. --ColinFine (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative account

Is it allowed to use an alternative account for maintenance purposes if some of the tasks that will be performed by the account are not mentioned at Wikipedia:Maintenance? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the account is compliant with WP:VALIDALT I don't see that as a problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Thanks. Also, is it not considered as avoiding scrutiny if the alternative account is properly disclosed? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a template {{User alternative account|LSGH}} that you can place on the User Page of any/all accounts you use that will show you have no intention of misleading anyone, LSGH, and are using the alternatives for what you consider to be good reasons. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism help request from Katrazyna

I have noticed some vandalism at Chester, Texas#History. Namely, the history reported has no citations, and after extensive searching, absolutely no evidence it is real. The stated event and named persons do not exist in any known record, even though the indicated notoriety would have gotten them mentioned. In June/July of 2019, the bogus history was replaced by the version of history that my research has indicated as valid, although they also did not include citations. The most recent edit, in April 2021, replaced the real history with the same bogus history. The two original editors (in Apr 2018) that added the bogus history were accounts with no other edits. The most recent reversion to the bogus history was an "ip address". I don't know how to change this and mark it to be watched so that it isn't just replaced again. Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you, Katrazyna (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is where I try not to roll my eyes. The named persons appear to be the star football players of a nearby high school (Corrigan, Texas?) Several deleted edits are insults of the opposing football players. Is there a way to prevent this sort of silliness?

The whole history section was unreferenced. I have deleted it, restoring the earlier version (which is also unreferenced, but far more credible). Maproom (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluding a section from a page with List-defined references

I was attempting to transclude a section of an article wrapped with onlyinclude, and a group of references inside a List-defined references (reflist|refs=) also wrapped with onlyinclude. The rest is that I'm getting each references twice instead of only once. A simple test at Draft:Sandbox and Draft:Sandbox2. Is this even possible? If so, what am I missing? Gonnym (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no any test code in the sandboxes. Ruslik_Zero 16:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was, but since they are not personal sandboxes, they have since been cleared. FWIW, I looked at the pages earlier today when they were still on the versions edited by Gonnym, and I saw the problem and don't really have an idea what might be done about it. – Rummskartoffel 22:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MAIN PAGE TITLE EDIT -- NAME CHANGE

Hello I need to change the Main Page title to add our new organization name. Is this possible without creating a totally new page?

@Millayarts: Are there any reliable sources that attest to this claim? You should also abandon this account and create a new one, as your current one contravenes Wikipedia's username policy. As you are also writing on behalf of the subject and as such have a conflict of interest, you are strongly discouraged from editing the article, and should limit your involvement to making edit requests on Talk:Millay Colony for the Arts. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The account got blocked at the same time I finished replying. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If they had asked this before spamming the article I would've gone with the soft block, but they didn't really leave that option open. I did check to see about the name change, their website is down and a quick search didn't turn up anything about a name change so for the moment a page move seems ill-advised. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox the old website https://www.millaycolony.org now redirects to https://www.millayarts.org/ and there is an announcement of the name change at https://www.millayarts.org/happenings. TSventon (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. They must've just fixed it I guess, that was not the result I got yesterday but there it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft deleting

How do you delete a draft article? 64.229.230.193 (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the only editor that has provided substantial content, you can request an admin to delete the draft by placing {{db-g7}} at the top of the page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I created an article. It was put up for AfD. The result is this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Aiden Leos. So, what exactly does this mean? I have been here for some 15-odd years ... and I have only seen "keep" or "delete" as a response to an Afd. What exactly does this result mean? Thanks. I assume it means (something along the lines of) ... "let's keep it as a draft stage article, not a "real article" ... not in main space ... it's not notable right now, but it may be in the future". Am I right? If so, practically speaking, how does that become a "real article" in the future? At what point? And by what procedure?

Also, on a semi-related note ... what options does an editor (like me) have, if I do not agree with the closing editor that there was a "clear consensus" for that result of an AfD? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: The article is now in draft space at Draft:Killing_of_Aiden_Leos where any interested editors may work to improve it. If you don't agree with the AFD decision, you can take it to Wikipedia:Deletion_review. RudolfRed (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess my question was ... how and when does an article move from draft-space to main-space? At what point? And by what procedure? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: We see this from time to time. The closer left info about his/her rationale. The article may be premature, but has future promise. See WP:TOOSOON to describe the scenario in more detail. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Draftify" as a deletion !vote is a fairly recent phenomenon, and honestly it's one I'm glad is an option, especially if an article isn't quite ready yet but has the potential to be good after more editing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: When the draft is ready to be an article again, any autoconfirmed editor may move it back to article space, or you may submit it for review by placing {{subst:submit}} on it. Reviews can take a long time, but it is an option if you are not comfortable with moving it yourself and want a reviewer's opinion on if it is ready. RudolfRed (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2021 albums

There is a word called invoke not release of albums by release date can you fix it please. 98.186.54.177 (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of List of 2021 albums there is a line that says

#invoke navbox

I suspect that this is because this is such a stupidly long page that it's running out of space to process the template {{Albums by release date}}. But there's no error message, so I may be wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I thought the issue on List of 2021 albums was actually caused by a recent edit to Template:Albums by release date, which I reverted. However, that didn't fix the issue. When you click "Edit source", you'll see a message stating "Warning: Post-expand include size is too large. Some templates will not be included." GoingBatty (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been on my to-do list; now resolved with the use of Module:Cite web in place of Template:Cite web. The standard citation template is quite markup-heavy and if you have more than a thousand as List of 2021 albums did it hits the 2 MiB limit. Using the module instead is able to reduce the PEIS by about 50%. User:GKFX^talk 22:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invoke edit. However, I am intending to split the list this weekend, and will not need the invoke addition after the list is split, so I will be undoing the change and removing some additional citations for notable albums that no longer require citations. If, after splitting the list, we reach the size limit again, then we can permanently add the invoke command. Please understand that I appreciate that you can up with a work-around, but the size of the article places it in the top 20 or so of Wikipedia articles, and User:OneTwoThreeIP has been persistent in splitting or deconstructing articles that reach the top 5 or grow above 500,000 characters, so it is time to split the article on my terms. Mburrell (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]