Help desk
< June 21	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 23 >

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.

June 22

NLT template question

I am looking at {{Uw-legal}}. One of the usages shown is: "{{subst:Uw-legal|Article|Additional text}} adds text onto the end of the message instead of "Thank you" " However, it is not quite working that way. I was going to place this: {{subst:Uw-legal|WP:Help Desk|If you have suggestions to improve an article, discuss it on that article's talk page}} ~~~~ but when I hit preview, it the expanded text still uses "Thank you". Am I doing something wrong, or is the template documentation not quite right? RudolfRed (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed: If I'm reading the code correctly, the documentation is incorrect. Using the second parameter adds something immediately after Thank you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Digging further into the parent template—{{Single notice}}—you may have to add |nothankyou=yes to suppress the Thank you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: Thanks for looking at it. RudolfRed (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gradient coloring based on numerical values in table

There's a feature in Excel and Google Sheets in which you can automatically color the cells of a table so that the numerical values span a color gradient, like smooth transition between red-yellow-green, or dark-to-light. The minimum value in the table is colored at one end of the gradient and the maximum value is colored at the other end, with appropriate shadings and hues in between.

Is that available here? I'd have thought after so many years, such a table would be possible, but I cannot find if there's a way to do it. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe thats a no. Table coloring is heavely based on JavaScript on those pages, something we cannot use for articles here. I believe climate templates can color cells dependent on the temperature, but I believe they use hardcoded values. Victor Schmidt (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, there's {{Weather box}}. It might be adaptable to a general purpose table gradient template. Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked on creating a page

I don't understand what do you want to tell us. How to unblock please tell sir.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohit Munda (talk • contribs) 22 June 2021 05:23 (UTC)

@Rohit Munda:Please clarify your question. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating sub-headings in Sociology: People sidebar template

Hi, I have tried finding this out, but can't seem to see the info. I want to add sub-headings into the sociology's sidebar in the "people" section. Adding sub-headings such as European, North American, etc. to better represent the spread of key sociologists around the world. Is this possible? Jamzze (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamzze: I think you’re better off discussing this at Template talk:Sociology. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

Dear sir, My page or article is showing draft. What is meaning of draft published or not or under review.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S Mukul Dixit (talk • contribs) 12:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is not under review. If it were reviewed it would either be declined or outright rejected, as there are no references to published reliable sources to demonstrate notability. see the advice at WP:Your first article. It appears that you may be attempting an autobiography, so you ought to read the advice against that. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of language

My understanding of language is way different from all etymology experts. I claim god inserted language in humans, by inserting Hebrew letter meanings in all myths and languages. Mahabharata mean what created tho Kar-m-a means happened from god. Both Brahma and Abraham were married to Sarah My system is to decode each word by breaking it down to letter meaning in Hebrew I have 3000 words in English that have clear Hebrew meaning I am claiming that all linguists are wrong. I am positive. I hope you believe me after reading my website Po-si-tive means here-this-good Be-lieve= in heart Mc2 = cmc = SHEMESH -meaning sun in Hebrew Three of the smallest bones are in the ear, they were called small bones - ossicles. Ossi-call means voice maker. Artery and Vein mean - ar -Tery= Fresh air. Vein means in it none. It also explains vain as an empty person Finally to-rah is the name of the Egyptians gods of moon and sun. Jews go by moon cycle and shabat means sat tho Maybe this sounds just accidental I have 3000 examples that finally explain how language was inserted into humans. Everything I say is backed by science Can I place it somewhere ? After u review it? The website is: theoriginoflanguage.com Joe Lanyadoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.164.170.122 (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. Wikipedia is not a venue for original research: see WP:OR. Each article here must meet our standards for notability: see WP:N, which means that the topic must have been covered in multiple, independent, published reliable sources. -Arch dude (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

bbc: dance --> sing --> talk .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article idea

I was just looking at this video: Product Shaming! This Needs To Stop.. and wondering whether I should try to find some good sources and create an article about the topic. My question is, does that article already exist? I didn't find anything with a few searches, but I might have missed something. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon Planned obsolescence#Perceived obsolescence is a related topic.I think the main problem will be finding reliable sources that use the phrase. TSventon (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also related: Cancel culture. Except for a few YouTube videos and blogs, "Product shaming" doesn't seem to be a 'thing' (yet); see also: WP:Too soon. 2603:6081:1C00:1187:D850:7CD2:B521:2587 (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I wasn't thinking of using the exact phrase used in the video. I would look at whateber sources I can find, give up if there aren't enough, and use the most commonly used term from those sources if it looks viable.

Right now it looks to me like Planned obsolescence#Perceived obsolescence has it covered, and there isn't enough material for a standalone article. Thanks for pointing me to that. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why I'm not autoconfirmed?

Hi, I think I meet the criteria of 10 edits and 4 days membership. Why I'm not autoconfirmed? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iusde (talk • contribs)

Your account was created on June 19. As it is only June 22 now, you are still one day short. What's the rush? Pyrop e 18:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the 22nd would be the fourth day. It's possible that the account isn't 96 hours old yet. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement is four days old, not that the account has existed for part of four separate calendar days. A day, by common convention, being 24 hours, yes, that translates to 96 hours. So, no, the 22nd is still only three complete days. Pyrop e 19:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Age is sometimes interpreted as starting at day one, so I can see where the OP might have misunderstood. It's probably better for WP:AUTOCONFIRMED to specify four whole days. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of many examples of that in common English usage, and that being the case the policy already states what you are wanting it to state. The key word is, as I emphasized above, old. For example, if you talk about a child being one year old, you mean that they have reached or passed their first birthday. On the day of an object's creation it is not one day old, it is brand new. It is only on the subsequent day that the object would be considered a day old. Think of a loaf of bread. Day old bread, commonly specified in recipes and such, definitely indicates bread that has been sitting around since yesterday, not bread fresh from the oven. Anyway, this is all a silly semantic point! Pyrop e 19:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Wikipedia. E Eng 01:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright permission to use image from Wikipedia

Dear Wikipedia Help Desk Volunteer, I am the author of three books on rocket propellants and I am about to publish my fourth book on rocket propellants. I have donated to Wikipedia on several occasions. I want to use an image from https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hydrogen_peroxide Skin shortly after exposure to 35% H2O2 in my next book and for teaching classes at the university. Where can I obtain permission to do that? EWS 97.113.239.252 (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the image in question, you will access the file description page that includes licensing information. 2603:6081:1C00:1187:D850:7CD2:B521:2587 (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...Presumably you are referring to File:Hydrogen peroxide 35 percent on skin.jpg which specifies: I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. (etc.) 2603:6081:1C00:1187:D850:7CD2:B521:2587 (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since this particular image was released into the public domain, you have no legal obligation to provide an attribution for it, and you need no permission from anybody. However, you are working in a academic context, so in my opinion you should provide an attribution anyway, as a matter of academic integrity, to avoid any possibility of plagiarism, and to provide an example for your students. The level of attribution is up to you. A minimum would be the URL of the image. -Arch dude (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A question about re-directs, which attempt to accommodate a common misspelling

This is a question about re-directs, which attempt to accommodate a common misspelling. Specifically, the Fort Meyers Eight was spelled incorrectly. It should be the Fort Myers Eight. (There is only one "e" in the word "Myers" ... not two.)

The original page -- (Fort Meyers Eight) -- is itself a redirect to: Daniel Conahan#Discovery of additional skeletons.

However, the original page -- (Fort Meyers Eight) -- was spelled incorrectly.

So, I corrected the spelling and created a "new" page ... (Fort Myers Eight).

Because I was correcting a misspelling, I figured that Fort Meyers Eight should redirect to Fort Myers Eight ... since that was the search term that the reader was looking for, but was misspelling.

Someone reverted my change and said "no double redirects" (or some such).

What is the proper way to handle it?

My thinking was that if a person misspells a search term, they should be redirected to the correct spelling of that misspelled search term (even if that, itself, is a redirect).

But who knows? Please advise.

Also ... this same exact conversation / issue above applies to the articles for Fort Meyers 8 and Fort Myers 8.

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirects don't work, so they must all redirect to the Conahan page. See Wikipedia:Double redirects.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) wp:double redirects is our document about this situation. While it doesn't have much of the reasoning, it does mention that the software fails at dealing with double redirects. Rmhermen (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shantavira: ... @Rmhermen: ... Thanks. OK, that's fine. And, I guess, it's not really an "issue". Just one thing I don't understand. You both state that "double redirects don't work" and "the software fails when dealing with double redirects". But, the thing is ... the double redirect worked just fine. I "tried it" several times. So, I am just curious. What do you mean when you say that it "won't work"? It did work ... no? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: I just tested using Firefox and undid the redirect to test, and the double redirect didn't work. The first redirect took me to the second redirect page, rather than the final destination. Maybe a browser specific issue? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reflecting what the WP:2R page says: "Wikipedia's MediaWiki software is currently configured to not follow the second redirect. The MediaWiki feature which will allow it is not mature yet. If someone is redirected to a redirect, the chain stops after the first redirect". That is aso demonstrated by an example that follows, which seems to confirm this. However, there is a hint there that it will be allowed in future, so...--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Assistance with the Creation of a Wikipedia Page

Hello, my name is Tia Latrell and I am an IMDb Verified Actress writing to inquire about the completion of a Wikipedia Page? I wanted to find out if any of your editors provide assistance in the completion of a Wikipedia page, and what is the criteria for a Wikipedia page? If your editors do assist, would I need to provide my IMDb page link? What all would be required to do from my end?

I have also created a new Wikipedia Account today, 6/22/21 not realizing that I had previously created a Wikipedia account two years ago. Could someone also assist me with deleting the page that I created today? Thank you so kindly in advance.

Hello TLatrell and Welcome to Wikipedia.

WP-editors are volunteers, WP is pretty much a hobby (for editors). There is a page for requests, WP:Requested articles, but it's backlogged and again, people work on what they feel like. You can attempt to do it yourself, but there are hurdles.

WP:s criteria for an article about you that will "stick" can be seen at this link: WP:BASIC. Based on my quick googling, I don't think the reliable sources (WP:RS) required exists, but I can be wrong. Reliable sources excludes imdb, blogs, wikis, your websites, etc, etc.

If you read WP:BASIC and conclude "Yeah, I have those sources, no problem!" then you can try to make an article if you want. Guidance at the following links: WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, WP:COI and WP:YFA. Again, unless you meet the criteria at WP:BASIC, this would be a waste of time.

About your 2 accounts, just abandon the one you don't want and never use it again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TLatrell: To add on to Gråbergs Gråa Sång's response, you may want to also get acquainted with WP:AUTO. Writing about yourself isn't strictly forbidden, but is strongly discouraged. If a draft you create ends up getting approved, you are strongly urged not to directly edit it any further (unless it's to remove stuff like obvious vandalism), and should restrict your edits to edit requests on the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, TLatrell, please be aware that if Wikipedia ends up with an article about you, it will not belong to you, it will not be under your control, it will not be for your benefit (of course you may get some benefit from it, but that is no part of its purpose) and it will not necessarily say what you want it to say. Please see An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. --ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I restore accidentally-deleted text to an article using Edit History page with lined-through deleted text?

Courtesy link: Ulster and Delaware Railroad

SEE article “Ulster and Delaware Railroad” I edited. Text to be be restored is 7705 bytes accidentally deleted on 6/21/21. Can someone please just do this for me? I am 77 years old and computer-illiterate. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16ConcordeSSC (talk • contribs) 21:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 16ConcordeSSC, if you ever make a mistake, you can often go into an article's history at the top of the page (e.g., Special:History/Ulster and Delaware Railroad), click on the relevant blue timestamp (the diff), and click "Undo" that appears in the right-hand column of the change. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I also undid it, a couple of minutes after Tenryuu, and it didn't complain at me. PLease check that it's right, 16ConcordeSSC. --ColinFine (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine, your undo seems to have duplicated the relevant content. I've undone your undo. – Rummskartoffel 22:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

publish without a system of review

I think that it is not reliable for wikipedia to be in system of use that publish without a system of review like the Arabic wikipedia where all change from a non-editor will be suspended until be added by the users to be checked in a project page that is special for that gool. i hop you can reach with this to the Admins of your en.wiki and create similar project.. regards --Bmt3s (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:PC, where changes need to be approved. This is only done for a relatively few articles here at en.wp. There are more than 6 million articles here, it would not be practical to enable it for all or even a significant portion. RudolfRed (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bmt3s, en.wp has flatly rejected FlaggedRevisions as unworkable simply because the project is too large. (As I understand it, FR backlogs are an issue at the German-language edition, where FlaggedRevisions is on.) That is why we use the much more limited in scope WP:Pending changes instead, and even then it's constrained by what our protection policies allow, which means we do not use it to enforce content quality. WP:GA and WP:FA exist for quality-checking. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 01:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bmt3s, Wikipedia acknowledges that it is not a reliable source, because to enable the crowd-sourcing that allows such a huge depository of information to be assembled in the first place, the possibility of vandalism or error is always present. Usually the first is detected and corrected very quickly and the second perhaps less quickly, but sometimes they can slip past, and it may have happened only seconds before one looks at the article in question.

Also, research marches on, and something everyone believes to be correct today might turn out to be incorrect tomorrow. Wikipedia and all the articles in it are works in progress that in principle can never be completed, which is true for any Encyclopedia or other Tertiary source.

Instead, if correctness of given "facts" is critical, one should always check the source(s) that are cited to support them, and where necessary atribute those sources rather than Wikipedia itself. If no such sources are cited, be suspicious. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.59.177 (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all, I still think that it is possible to enable WP:PC even if large project and that's by giving some privileges "fast" to reliable users so they can edit with no needed review. And i add an idea; colorful the article-history by colors that indicates to which level of trust the user who make the edit is. (By the privileges he has), that will ease watching even in the future. So by that user like me can easy know which info's are reliable and which less and needed more attention (more attention is by looking at their sources more carefully).

I want also to "give" attention that; "every thing is need source to be added in wikipedia(ar version)" they restrict about that and that makes their wiki grown more fast more reliable (fast because being more reliable attract more contributors-(good-users)) we all should always look for better systems to apply. And that is one to have. --Bmt3s (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nonstarter. Autoconfirmed and XCP do not equal trust, and trust level can vary based upon one's conscious and unconscious biases such that it is impossible to display any sort of quantifiable and usable "trust value". I would trust a user who has issues around cryptocurrency to write about, say, pet animals, but not to edit anything around cryptocurrency/blockchain/NFT. In addition, the suggestion that people be automatically given the power to review pending changes based on AC/XC status has been soundly and repeatedly rejected. Reviewing edits requires a skillset that not every editor can have (it's closer to "vandal-hunting" than "scholarly confirmation"). Administrators have it as part and parcel of their kit only because the rest of their tools fall into the same use cases of preventing disruption to pages by vandals, and they're required to go thru a Hell Week to even be able to access those tools in the first place. The discussion about Arabic Wikipedia is off-topic here and is only going to get you "Mu" as a responce. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]