Help desk
< April 30	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 1

Need to move/delete a page

Hi all, I created Jane stickle, realized my naming error, created Jane Stickle which of course now means I can't move the former to the latter. Sorry and help. H0n0r (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@H0n0r: Looks like it's already been taken care of for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

translated to chinese

i will like to translate the article saxbe fix to zhwiki, but i doesn't rrally know what is the "fix" mean here, please give me the answer in simple english word.

Jonathan5566, I read it as "solution, correction", see [1] #1. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Smukler died on February 22, 1971

Dave Smukler was my father. In your article about him, there are three possible dates for his death. He had a massive heart attack at the lA International Airport on February 22, 1971, due to a broken wire in his pacemaker.

Thank you for making this change, Karen Smukler Hudson— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.20.904:56, 1 May 2021‎ 04:56 (talk • contribs)

Hello, the article at the location linked above has the DoD at February 22, 1971 although there is a note in the contnet that some sources have a slightly different date. Google (who often display information in a way that implies it comes from Wikipedia) also have the date at February 22. If there still seems to be an issue from your point of view, please provide a link to where the error can be seen. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody to delete my files. I really want then deleted. Please help!

Can someone help with thouse files. I put then on Delete Log several times but nothing happens and this files make me upset. Please help!

This is a matter for Wikimedia Commons; we here at English-language Wikipedia can't help. I see that both images are listed here. As the images are not in use anywhere, I would expect them both to be deleted when the administrators at Commons find time to consider them. Maproom (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing section title on talk page or help desk

I know the guidelines allow for the editing of comments before anyone has replied to them, but could anyone please tell me if it's acceptable to do the same with section titles?--Thylacine24 (talk) 11:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not Thylacine24, if, as in the guideline you pointed to, it was your own section header and you were for example correcting a typo. If you were being ultra-cautious you could use <s> and </s> tags to ~~strike out the bit you removed~~ Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: Thanks.--Thylacine24 (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

copyrigh

i have written a book about working horses accepted by a UK publisher There are a number of photos attributed to Wikipedia I wish to include Can you give your permission to do so Any photos used will be attributed to Wikipedia Regards Sleeman 11:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)~

You don't need formal permission (we are all volunteers here, not employees) but you DO need to follow the guidance at Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. Ask at the Commons Help Desk if you have any detailed queries. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, most publishing house editors (such as I once was) routinely source, arrange, check, caption, and ensure correct attributions for pictures used in the titles they edit, as necessary. (Much of this falls under the job description of Picture research, for which we perhaps should have an article, IMHO.) They also often have staff devoted to ensuring that all copyrights and other legally required permissions have been obtained. Congratulations on your acceptance! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.135.95 (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Computer error while making edit

I made a trivial edit to an article, and at the Preview stage instead of an actual preview I got the following error message: "{"type":"https://mediawiki.org/wiki/HyperSwitch/errors/internal_error","title":"TypeError","method":"POST","detail":"Cannot read property 'tagName' of null","uri":"/wiki.riteme.site/v1/transform/html/to/mobile-html/Principle_of_indifference"zero}" I believe the actual edit took place correctly - but as a complicating factor I have found on previous occasions that although the preview displays my edit correctly during the edit process, afterwards when the system returns me to the original article I see the "before" version not the "after" version (and if you can suggest how I could force it to update I would appreciate that). I was in an article about Bayesian statistics. A similar error message came up for another small edit in a different article a few minutes earlier. I am using a Samsung Galaxy tablet (which is inconvenient for editing so I keep them small). Thanks, Steve 1.136.107.50 (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem I can see, IP user. The capitalisation you made to Student was correct and is in place in the article, as is your edit summary. Your local issue of what you see is probably a cache issue: try closing and re-opening the app. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a problem with the edit tags, but the ones that eventually got saved on your edit look normal. m:Wikimedia Apps/Android FAQ#Reporting bugs says to send bug reports via email, but I’d expect there would be an on-wiki discussion page that the dev team watches(?). I wonder if it is a problem specific to previews, or just a transient glitch. If it’s reproducible I'd file a ticket on Phabricator. Pelagic ( messages ) – (07:58 Tue 04, AEST) 21:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why does my recent page not show up?

Why does my recent page not show up through search nor can I link to it? Whenever I try to link the ship wreck to the location article it reports that the page does not exist.

I've noticed many new articles show up immediately (for example deaths of well-know people or major aviation accidents).

Additionally, if the article is yet to be approved, how many months should we wait?

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Nornen_(shipwreck)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Antari (talk • contribs)

The article is showing up just fine. Have you tried flushing your browser cache? What way are you linking to the article in? Also note that approving articles is not automatic and there is no standard wait time. It is all done by Wikipedia editors who are human beings just like you and me. JIP | Talk 13:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Nornen the correct article? It has just been re-named as the shipwreck bit wasn't needed. It is already in Main Space and can be found by standard within-Wikipedia searches. However, new pages are deliberately kept from Search Engines like Google until they have been reviewed and accepted by so-called "New Page Patrollers" who are volunteers who monitor pages that haven't gone through the article for creation process. That's to prevent rogue editors from publishing articles and having them externally indexed without any oversight. I would expect an article like that (created 31 January 2021) to be reviewed by now but I believe that it will anyway get indexed after 90 days. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha Antari: I see you previously tried the wrong syntax [[https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Nornen_(shipwreck)|Nornen]]. The right syntax was [[Nornen (shipwreck)|Nornen]] to produce Nornen. After the rename it's just [[Nornen]] to produce Nornen. See more at Help:Link. [https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Nornen_(shipwreck) Nornen] with single brackets and a space instead of a vertical bar produces Nornen. This links the right page but in articles we only use that syntax for external links. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need Wikipedia page

Good afternoon,

I’m trying to see if anyone would be interested in creating a page for me?

Here is some notable press I’ve gotten:

https://www.fayobserver.com/story/news/2020/09/05/fayetteville-man-amazon-prime-movie/5697440002/

https://www.vegasmovieawards.com/post/forbiddenlove

Thanks for your time!

Very respectfully Jordan Eugene Lane173.95.91.131 (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one "needs" a Wikipedia article(not just a "page"). In fact, there are good reasons to not want one. Wikipedia is not concerned with your internet presence, enhancing search results for you, or aiding your career. You are, however, welcome to post at requested articles, though the backlog there is severe.

Interviews with you do not establish that you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable actor. What is needed is significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about you. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, we don't have a problem with lack of topics to write about. My personal list of things to work on could stretch easily to last five years' worth of writing if I worked 24 hours a day without sleeping, eating or resting. If you want to improve the encyclopedia, help us by writing and editing (with particular attention to providing reliable sources)—but not by creating articles or writing about yourself or making edits to raise your profile or further your career. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I write notes about the sources that I read for editing an article?

I am currently editing Falsifiability. One of the reason why Wikipedia articles on philosophy are difficult to write is that philosophers write a lot about (their interpretation of) what other specific philosophers have written. Things get specially complicated when they disagree, usually not consciously, about what another philosopher, say Popper, has written. In contrast, in mathematics and science, the experts refer more directly to knowledge, theorems, laws, etc. which are a shared body of knowledge. Anyway, this is just the context. Given this specific level of complexity, I need to take more notes about what I read in the literature when I edit an article and I like to keep these notes in Wikipedia, because it is a natural organization and it might be useful to others. My question is where are the suggested locations, if any, for such notes. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dominic Mayers II. The usual place for this sort of thing is on your user page User:Dominic Mayers II, or if you prefer, a user sub-page that you create specifically for this purpose, for example User:Dominic Mayers II/Falsifiability. Like all pages in Wikipedia, that will be public, though people normally won't notice it unless you draw their attention to it. If you want other interested people to see it, you could put a link to it in Talk:Falsifiability. Alternatively you could put the material in that talk page in the first place, as long as it conforms to the Talk page guidelines. --ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would work, but I felt that creating a subpage of the talk page would be more inviting for others to participate. So, I hoped that it was also acceptable. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's another solution, Dominic Mayers II. People still won't know it's there unless you tell them. --ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there typical names for sections on "who said what"?

I am editing falsifiability. There is already a section Controversies, but I feel it is inadequate for opposing views that are not directly about the subject and not even openly stated as opposed. The particular cases that I have in mind is when, for example, some authors attribute a concept to Popper and another attribute it to Maxwell and they don't refer to each other in doing so. In that sense, they are not usual controversies and the body of knowledge is the same in both cases: only who said what is different. The body of knowledge being the same, it has no direct influence on the subject per se, but yet it is clearly related because a critics of Popper's falsifiability, based on a given interpretation, is often presented in the literature as a critic of falsifiability. I do not want that people think that I do not present all points of view, including these interpretation-based criticisms, so I want to cover them. Yet, they have to be fairly presented for what they are, so there is a need, I feel, for a section where these problematic interpretations are presented in a neutral manner, including all the relevant ones, so that readers can have the big picture. In the hope that I am making sense and that you share my concern, my question is what would be a typical name, if any, for this kind of section. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Mayers II, this looks like a question for WP:WikiProject Philosophy, I think you'd get better assistance there. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon disservice

Hello Wikipedia help desk assistant.

I've just this minute searched for Falcon on google, expecting the Wikipedia website to offer me the first result (which it did) and as I looked to the large image icon for the more obvious result, instead of a finding an image of a bird named Falcon, it shows an actor from Marvel Films known as Falcon. The species of bird has made second place in the list to an actor...? So my question is this, why are Marvel Film actors taking priority over the species of bird I was searching for? Who makes that decision? And if it's based on search results, how is this going to benefit anyone if Marvel Films continue adopting animal names for future characters?

Wishing you all the best.

Kind regards, Tom

That's a search engine issue that's probably affected by your search history, not Wikipedia. No troubles viewing Falcon on my end. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The matter you are asking about is completely outside the control of Wikipedia. Google and the other search engines don't publish their algorithms. But my guess would be that in the 21st century, an awful lot more people search for actors than for birds. --ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The information box (Google Knowledge Graph) at the top right of many Google searches is made by Google and not Wikipedia. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that Google copied this paragraph from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. I guess you refer to the box "See results about" below Google's information box. That box is also made by Google and not Wikipedia. The title of the Wikipedia articles are "Falcon" (the bird) and "Falcon (comics)". This means that Wikipedia considers the bird to be the primary topic for the name. The comics character has lately received far more page views [2] but that's because The Falcon and the Winter Soldier ran in March and April. We are unlikely to suddenly change the primary topic due to a short-term peak interest like that. See Falcon (disambiguation) and Falcons (disambiguation) for lots of other subjects we have articles about. Both pages start with a link to the bird before listing other meanings. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interlinking language to Nový život

Please help me by interlinking Nový život to its Slovak language. It's currently connected to Henrieta Mičkovicová. The Supermind (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. There was an ILL to Mičkovicová in the infobox which did not have a leading colon, so that was taken as a page link, overriding the Wikidata link. --ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I suggest a possible edit? Not sure if I remember a specific fact correctly from 70 years ago.

Subject is a radio program called "Stop the Music". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snidelywhiplash944 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia only accepts content that is supported by a reliable published source. Theroadislong (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Snidelywhiplash944: you can edit the page yourself! Wikipedia is written by its readers, like you and me. However, a reliable source must be provided for every fact you add or change, like Theroadislong says. If you're unsure what the facts of the matter are, you can start a discussion on its talk page. If you link the article and describe the situation in greater detail then maybe I can give more specific suggestions. — Bilorv (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Stop the Music (American game show) (Not to be confused with Stop the Music (Australian TV series)). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.135.95 (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States senators in the 115th Congress by seniority

Hi,

The page List of United States senators in the 115th Congress by seniority should be linked with the French Wikipedia page Liste des sénateurs du 115e congrès des États-Unis; however I cannot do that. Could someone help? Thanks.

2A02:A420:69:64BE:3546:5BBC:E8A0:DE6A (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technically those aren't the same - but anyway, I've linked them (it looks like that is the standard. the article should probably be renamed to remove "by seniority" here) Elli (talk | contribs) 01:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]