Help desk
< May 14	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 16 >

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 15

Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2021

Hi! I'm not sure where to notify other experienced editors about this so I'm posting this here.

The article Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2021 seems to be a bit biased. I'm not sure and it may be my own point of view but it seems like the article mostly portrays facts from only one side of the conflict and there is a lack of facts of incidents(e.g casualties) from the Palestine side and a lot of the information is unreferenced.

Can an experienced editor take a look at this?Pakib007 (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakib007 Generally speaking, the talk page of the affected article is the correct venue to raise issues about a specific article. That said, as I'm sure you can intuit, articles dealing with Israel-Palestine are some of our most controversial, hotly contested articles. Because of intractable disputes, articles in that area and editors working in that area are subject to discretionary sanctions. Because of that, caution is warranted when wading into that area.

I cannot speak to the bias in the article, but you said a lot of the information is unreferenced. I'm not entirely sure what you think is unreferenced. Each section cites at least one source, though I have not gone through the article and verified that the sources support all the information in the section to which they are appended. One thing you can do is to go through the article and put {{cn}} next to any information you believe to be unreferenced.

I hope this helps. It's at least a start. When working in this area, remember to keep your cool, and bring reliable sources for any information you want to add or challenge.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 05:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry VIII

Henry was married to Katherine of Aragon his first wife which in your article shows her name as Catherine which is his last 2 wife's name's!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9500:d0d1:ed77:1877:164a:10b8 (talk • contribs)

See Catherine_of_Aragon#Spelling_of_her_name. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 05:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rotating an image

An article on my watchlist has an image that needs rotating 90 degrees in order for it to make sense. How do I do that? -Roxy . wooF 06:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog: You might want to look into Template:Rotate over at Wikimedia Commons. Inimesh (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image is here, on wikipedia, not commons. -Roxy . wooF 07:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked anyway, and it is above my pay grade. Thanks though. -Roxy . wooF 07:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog: Would you like to link the article in question? {{Transform-rotate}} might do the trick. Inimesh (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first image at Colour fastness needs to rotate 90 degrees anti-clockwise, or 270 degrees clockwise. -Roxy . wooF 09:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear, simple and sensible request. I'll gladly do it myself once I'm at a proper computer; unless someone else gets there first. Maproom (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Maproom (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog: For future reference, any requests for image alterations both here and on Commons can be made at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop (or on my talk page once I've got my damn laptop fixed). nagualdesign 14:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to everybody who took time to help here. -Roxy . wooF 14:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big shout out to all at the Graphics Lab, excellent unsung work. MinorProphet (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please help me how to use wikipedia external links and edit post

by Devid nexa- unsigned (fixed by CX Zoom)

@Devid nexa: Hi and Welcome to Wikipedia. I went through your contributions and it looks like you want to create citations, which cite your own work and is a Conflict of Interest. Please read WP:COI before proceeding. If you want to learn more in depth about editing Wikipedia consider reading Help:Introduction and Help:Getting started. These two articles contain almost everything you need to learn in order to make many good edits to Wikipedia. If you need help, you can ask here. Have a nice day. CX Zoom (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I properly question the verifiability and reliability of a source?

Hello! Recently I came across an article that links to a sketchy low-quality website, which I do not believe is a reasonably reliable source. How do I go about challenging and/or removing this source? --PeanutButterPopcorn (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PeanutButterPopcorn Hello ~~and welcome to the Teahouse.~~ If you believe that a source(and by extention the information being cited) is not a reliable source, or otherwise question it, you may edit the article to remove it(or if the article is protected, you may make an edit request on the talk page). If someone disagrees with you, they should start a discussion on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PeanutButterPopcorn: If a talk page discussion cannot reach consensus right away, then take it to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -Arch dude (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, 331dot. The info has other reliable sources, it is just this one source that seems unreliable and should therefore be removed from the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PeanutButterPopcorn (talk • contribs)

Well, I got that location confused, didn't I. Yes, you may simply remove the problematic source. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need help to be a article blogger

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I'm a fresher on Wikipedia i wanna be a article blogger like portfolio creator or etc. But i don't know how to start or creator a blogging so please help me out... — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Fact Explorer (talk • contribs) 11:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Fact Explorer This page is for asking questions about using Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not a blogging website. If you would like to write encyclopedia articles, you should be advised that doing so is the most difficult task to perform here. As such, you should first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. You may also find it helpful to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox images of people

Hello help desk,

I would like to know how images of people are decided. The two possible arguments that I see on Wikipedia are the quality of the image and how recent the image was taken. I would like to know what criteria images have to be in order to be used in the infobox of a person. Interstellarity (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellarity quite often we have to accept whatever free photo is available. It can be surprisingly hard to find unencumbered photos of living people. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like the rest of Wikipedia, the choice between different images is decided by community consensus. If you'd like to swap an infobox image just open a discussion at the article talk page and explain your own rationale. nagualdesign 14:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarity: However, if there is a free image, even if only marginally acceptable, then a non-free image cannot be used. -Arch dude (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67, Nagualdesign, and Arch dude: Thanks for your response. I was assuming that there are multiple free images available on Commons for a particular person and I already knew that free images should be used if possible so there was no need to tell me that. If I'm understanding it correctly, images of living or deceased people are decided by community consensus, and that are no guidelines to follow when deciding which image to choose. If this is not true or I'm missing something, please let me know. Interstellarity (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellarity if the subject is a living person only free images are acceptable, fair-use images are not permitted. For deceased people fair-use is allowed, but only if a free image is not available. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarity: Your choice of an image is like your choice of wording or layout: a matter of editorial judgement. We try (but sometimes fail) to avoid "process creep", and instead depend on editorial judgement and consensus. In this case, I would think that the "Best" image may not depend on image quality or how recent, but rather how well the image relates to the text of the article. For example, a person known primarily for activities at age 20 should probably have a image at that age for the infobox, not a later image. When there are multiple images, add them within the article at the most relevant points if they will contribute to the reader's understanding or to the appeal of the article. -Arch dude (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude: Thank you for your response. There was a discussion here about the lead image in the infobox on Ronald Reagan which was closed with a strong consensus to use the 1981 first term portrait. However, the discussion on Obama here favored the recent second term image from 2012. I can agree that we should use the official portraits of presidents whenever possible during their presidency, for example, we don't have an image of Jimmy Carter when he was 90 years old in the infobox, but the question is do we use the best quality images for presidents regardless of when they are taken or does how recent the image was taken matter. This is my take on this issue and I hope I'm not going off-topic. Interstellarity (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarity: I strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with WP:OTHER. As Arch Dude and I have already mentioned, the choice of which image to use in any given article is based on editorial judgement, just like the rest of the article content. If you have a discussion in article A that reaches a consensus, it's not necessarily a valid reason to start a discussion in article B wherein your reasoning is "this is what we did in article A". To be clear, there are no hard and fast guidelines as to how these decisions are made. You have to take them on a case-by-case basis. If one article about a president uses a 1st term official portrait for reasons explained in the discussion it does not necessarily follow that an article for a different president should use a 1st term official portrait. The reasoning explained by editors of that article are what you ought to focus on. My advice would be to avoid robotically starting discussions in different articles on US presidents, or looking for 'hard-coded' rationales to apply. nagualdesign 19:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying and I have read WP:OTHER. Interstellarity (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FULL TEXT PAGE EMAILS

Dear Sir or Madam,

Do you know how I can get full pages of text when I email Wikipedia text pages?

Thank you.

John Martine

Hi, John. You can copy the entire page and paste in on your email, or use the "Download as PDF" option to make a PDF file of the page you currently are on, or use the "Printable version" option to create a colored print out, or convert it to PDF. These options can be found at the left side of all pages, below Wikipedia logo. You may also make a Word document by copy- pasting the contents of a page and email the .docx or .pdf file as an attachment. CX Zoom (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Description of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam needs to be corrected

Description of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam in https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Vasudhaiva_Kutumbakam

It currently reads "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam is a Sanskrit phrase found in Hindu texts such as the Maha Upanishad, which means 'let our kids gets tortured and give proctor exams'.[2]" which is incorrect and offensive. Please correct is ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:777F:D272:80E8:E7B9:E1A8:B53F (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text was vandalised at 13.04 today and corrected at 14.23. TSventon (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Hello, could someone please tell me how to create my talk page? Thanking you in advance, --Panther Of France (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just created it. You create a page by clicking on a red link to that page and then putting something in the resulting edit window. The "talk" link in your signature was red, so I clicked on it and then added a standard "welcome" message. And Welcome to Wikipedia! -Arch dude (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

history

ways used by the colonial government to secure African labour for settlement?

You're going to want to ask at the reference desk. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template capitalization

Dear Help Desk. I know template names are not case-sensitive and there seems to be no guideline or policy about the capitalization of template names. However, when writing an article, one would probably like to capitalise the templates in some consistent manner. Is there some kind of a good practice to follow? For example, the recent FA Holocaust in Slovakia seems to try to use all-lower-case for all its templates. However, it balks at lower-casing the template "TOC-limit". It might be that each template has its own preferred capitalisation. For example the documentation of the template "SfnRef" consistently uses Sfn, SfnRef, but harv, harvid, and harvnb. How can one find out what the true name of a template is? Some other articles seem to capitalise template names haphazardly, e.g. the recent FA Battle of Inverkeithing. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannes Schade: Template names are case sensitive, except for the first character. The true name is with upper case first character. Sometimes there are redirects from names with different capitalization after the first character. Redirects have to be created by editors. {{TOC limit}} is the true name. {{tOC limit}} automatically works too but would be silly. There are many redirects but only one with a hyphen: {{TOC-limit}}. The true name is shown at top of the template page, except rare cases where the displayed name is changed by DISPLAYTITLE. It's not important which name is used but if you really want a recommendation then I suggest to avoid redirects and to use the initial capitalization in examples on the template page. If there are no examples then use upper case. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PrimeHunter. Thank you very much for your very useful explanations. Besides, I was wrong about The Holocaust in Slovakia. It uses {{TOC limit}} without the hyphen and it also uses {{Notelist}} with an upper-case initial. I looked at what the template documentations give in their usage instructions or examples. It appears to be haphazard and inconsistant. e.g. {{notelist}} but {{Reflist}}, {{sfn}} but {{SfnRef}}. The documentation itself is inconsistent in how it capitalises the template names, and in some cases even presents more than one capitalisation for the templates that it documents, e.g. {{Reflist}}. I feel I will ignore the usage instructions with regard to capitalisation and use the true names with their upper-case initials. I will also avoid redirects aliases as you recommended. With many thanks and greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]