Help desk
< February 19	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 21 >

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 20

External link section

I have always thought that the external link section at the end of an article was for sources not cited in the article and for content that meets Wikipedia's criteria for sources. As a result, I frequently update the external links section, removing social media and links to items listed as unreliable on WP:RSP. But I am still unclear about primary websites. If a primary website is included as a source for the article and is listed in the infobox (2 uses already), does it also need to be in the external link section (as a third listing)? I thought not, but some editors seem to think it is "standard" for the primary website to be included as an external link, even if it is a duplication. Am I reading WP:EL right, that both are correct and neither is prefered? Rublamb (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rublamb. It is considered appropriate to link to the subject's website in both the infobox at the beginning of the article and the external links section at the end of the article. In that sense, it is "standard" and common practice. Usage of the website as a reference in the body should be limited according to WP:ABOUTSELF. Most commonly, this would be to a subpage of the website, not its main page, and the website is of no value in establishing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rublamb There is no requirement for external links to be "reliable" in the sense that we normally mean by WP:RS, for the simple reason that they have normally not been used as sources for the article! To give some concrete examples, the template {{IMDb name}} is used in about 150,000 places to link to actors' profiles on IMDB and the template {{IMDb title}} is used for about 185,000 films/TV. They are valid as external links despite having consensus as not being reliable. You should not be removing these external links, although there is a case to remove them when used as citations. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very helpful example. Am I correct in thinking that IMDb is allowed as an external link, but not most fansites (WP:LINKSTOAVOID) because, although both are user created content, IMDb is overseen by enough editors to be considered accurate/reliable? Would All Music be a similarly allowable external link for musicians? I also have noticed Find a Grave being used as an external link, but it tends to be a single individual's research and may or may not be accurate. Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of medal record of Carly Patterson

I need your help. I ask if you can fix any of that correction of the medal record of Olympic Gold Medalist Carly Patterson. Thank you. 100.2.114.167 (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. Please post a well-referenced edit request at Talk:Carly Patterson, where nobody has commented for about 15 years. Other editors are unlikely to get involved unless you formally begin a discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might find it easier to use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Thanks for your interest in improving Wikipedia! GoingBatty (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R from less specific name - question

Following the edit of another user, I have added Template:R from less specific name in aircraft type redirects such as Bf 110 and Fw 190. Now I have noticed that P-51 has instead the much more specific Template:R from US military aircraft designator. Given that there is no Template:R from German military aircraft designator, I ask for feedback if setting the template Template:R from less specific name was even correct here - and if it would be appropriate to also add it in P-51 and in like cases? --KnightMove (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KnightMove: {{R from less specific name}} seems wrong here. It would only work if Bf 110 was a wider class of planes than the target Messerschmitt Bf 110. I suggest {{R from short name}} instead, and maybe also {{R from military designation}} PrimeHunter (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Thank you. Do you think it would also be appropriate to set both templates for a specific redirect, or rather only one of them? --KnightMove (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KnightMove: Two redirect templates inside {{Redirect category shell}} is fine if they both apply and one isn't a subset of another. {{R from military designation}} has documentation about the usage. I don't know which short names are used as military designations. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Last question: How do I check is a template is a subset of another? As far as I can see, {{R from US military aircraft designator}} is not marked as a subset of {{R from military designation}}, although it logically certainly is. --KnightMove (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KnightMove: There is no official definition unless maybe if the redirect category is a subcategory. It's not in this case but probably should be. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with editing tables in VisualEditor

Hello! I just wanted to report that, since a few days ago, I've had problems with editing tables via the Visual Editor.

I still can create new tables and add columns and rows, but for some reason, I'm not able to write inside the cells anymore: the double-click just won't work as usual...

Is it just me, or is this a problem that has already been discovered by other users?

[I forgot to mention: the text editor actually works as expected, which confuses me even more.]

Oltrepier (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: It's a recent bug reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#VisualEditor "double click to edit cell" stopped working and phab:T329983. You can click once and press the Enter/Return key. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter Seems like it's just a Firefox problem, then...

Anyway, your suggested method actually works, so thank you very much for your help! Oltrepier (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: I have now added "(in Firefox: single click and press Enter)" to MediaWiki:Visualeditor-tablecell-tooltip which is shown when you hover over a cell. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter Perfect, thank you! Oltrepier (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Jehovah’s Witnesses

Stop engaging with these users who write intentionally inflammatory posts just to get attention. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Wiki article on the Jehovah’s Witnesses is misleading as they are referred to in it as a ‘Christian’ organisation. Respectfully, they are the opposite, to call them Christian is to perpetuate their lie. This is not a matter of opinion but of Biblical fact. Their bible has been rewritten by a panel of men to suit their pre-determined doctrine and is totally different to a genuine mainstream Bible. For example, from the NKJV, John 1:1 reads ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ In their bible it reads ‘a god’, making a world of difference in meaning and robbing the Lord Jesus Christ of His deity. If you check the Wuest translation, one of the most accurate translations available and written by an eminent international Greek scholar, he uses the words ‘absolute deity’. This happens three times in his New Testament. Can’t get less ambiguous than that! If Wikipedia insists on calling the JW’s a ‘Christian’ organisation then they are helping to perpetuate a dangerous lie. You see, ONLY the REAL JESUS can actually save you. Their Jesus is a false Jesus and an anti-Christ! He can’t save you because he isn’t even real. You are actually helping to condemn people to Hell for which you will answer to the triune God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob one day. I mean no offence and apologise if any is taken. But if I can turn just one person to the truth then it’s worth it! This is probably the wrong place to try to correct this but it was the most promising that I could find. May you all find the Truth and the Truth will set you free! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6E00:1F84:B600:1029:3BB7:1198:24E1 (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please raise issues with that article at its associated talk page, Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. Please understand that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a topic. If those sources are not being summarized accurately in the article, please detail the specific errors. If the sources are summarized accurately, but are in error, you will need to take that up with the sources, or offer you own more recent sources. Original research or your personal interpretation of the Bible is not permitted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not claim to be the truth, only that what is presented can be verified, please see WP:TRUTH. You are free to believe as you wish. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should be based on what is written in reliable independent published sources. I doubt that the Bible qualifies as reliable, nor in this case as independent. Maproom (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not in the business of judging religious disputes, such as what the genuine mainstream Bible would be. There is a passage at Jehovah's_Witnesses#New_World_Translation regarding the (lack of) accuracy of the JW’s Bible translation. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So they are anti-Christian? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Policies/guidelines about the phrase "notable Xs include"

What are the policies/guidelines about using the phrase "notable Xs include" (e.g. "notable contestants include") in article prose? I'm aware of WP:CSC's "every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia" criteria, but that guideline is about the inclusion of an entry in a list article, not the existence of the phrase itself in article prose (like in The Bachelor (American season 27)#Casting and contestants, Survivor: San Juan del Sur#Contestants, and The Cut (1998 TV series)). LightNightLights ^(talk) 11:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is policy here. But it seems to me that "notable" is mostly like other evaluative words such as "famous" and "popular". that should not occur in an article in Wikipedia's voice, but only if cited to a reliable independent source that calls them notable.

Having said that, the fact that Wikipedia has its own special definition of "notable" does muddy the waters a bit. But since the two senses of "notable" do not coincide (each includes names that the other would exclude), I'm inclined to think that it shouldn't be used in an article unless cited as I said above. ColinFine (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LIST covers standalone lists and lists within articles and refers to "notable members (i.e., those that merit articles)". A subsection MOS:LISTBASICS says "Use prose [for lists] where understood easily". Another section WP:SOURCELIST discusses what to include in a list. TSventon (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: I'm unsure whether MOS:LIST covers prose enumerations like "notable Xs include A, B, and C". Reading it, the guideline only seems to cover standalone list articles (which, reading WP:SAL, use bulleted/numbered lists or tables) and bullet lists that are in the middle of articles that consist of prose, not lists. LightNightLights ^(talk) 17:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LightNightLights: MOS:LIST says "The content of a list is governed by the same content policies as prose", which means that guidance about the content of a list would also apply to a prose enumeration. It also discusses when to use prose. TSventon (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{in title}} template: why is it not working for me?

On Banshee (disambiguation), I added {{in title|plural=yes|banshee}} to the "See also" section. But on following the resulting link, the only search result is the Banshee page.

I had simply copied and altered the corresponding template from the Time (disambiguation) page where it works as expected, bringing up many search results.

What's gone wrong here?

--A bit iffy (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A bit iffy Looks like a restriction: see H:LOPS. The last sentence contains a link to a more detailed explanation which is interesting if a bit heavy. Bazza (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazza Thanks for the response. Not which 'last sentence' you mean though. --A bit iffy (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A bit iffy "See mw:Help:CirrusSearch/Logical operators for a more detailed explanation." Bazza (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A bit iffy: The plural parameter of {{in title}} is broken and I don't think it can be fixed with the current search engine. OR appears to just be ignored for intitle searches. {{in title|plural=yes|banshee}} at Banshee (disambiguation)#See also produces intitle:"banshee" OR intitle:"banshees" which gives the same as the implied and in intitle:"banshee" intitle:"banshees". {{in title|plural=yes|time}} at Time (disambiguation)#See also is also broken. It produces intitle:"time" OR intitle:"times" which gives the same as intitle:"time" intitle:"times". There are currently 81 results but that's just the number of articles which have both "time" and "times" in at least one of their redirects or own title, not necessarily in the same title. For example, the first result The Times of India has a redirect from Time of India. Banshee has a redirect from Banshees. Otherwise you would have gotten zero results. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Got it, many thanks PH for that clear explanation. --A bit iffy (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed {{in title}} to make two separate search links for plural.[1] {{in title|plural=yes|banshee}} now produces:

All pages with titles containing banshee or banshees

PrimeHunter (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can pdfs be cited?

I saw some articles using pdf as sources. But can I use pdf as citations as long they are reliable? That includes other documents. Thank you. —2600:1010:B1A7:5CE1:F888:A176:26F6:1B94 (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pdf is just a file format, and has no bearing on reliability. Note however that we require published sources, and that a pdf needs to be hosted appropriately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More examples of that? —2600:1010:B1A7:5CE1:F888:A176:26F6:1B94 (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using pdf in sources. —2600:1010:B1A7:5CE1:F888:A176:26F6:1B94 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't given any examples. I have answered the question you asked. Whether something can be used as a source or not doesn't depend on the file format, it depends on the criteria laid down in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least half a dozen references to pdfs in, for example Nepal. Look through the references list, and you'll see the PDF icon in various places. ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing inherently unreliable about PDF, just as there's nothing inherently unreliable about paper, text, HTML, photos, etc. They're used often. --Golbez (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your help, please

Me and a new editor are disagreeing on which image to use at Talk:Isaac_Abarbanel#Reply_to_question_at_my_talkpage. Please tell us what you think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of request should be placed at WP:3O, not at the help desk. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a WP:APPNOTE, it worked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The help desk is explicitly only for questions about using Wikipedia, and a dispute about which image to use hardly falls under discussions that have a wider influence such as policy or guideline discussions as per WP:APPNOTE. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing content is not using Wikipedia? My wish was to "draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion." Per WP:3O, "thoroughly discussed on the article talk page" didn't apply (also "not mandatory"). Sure, I could have picked The Village Pump instead, but this page seemed a good choice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're stretching. The help desk for that kind of a dispute? Take the criticism and move on. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalism

Recently editor Ishnolead uploaded a photo and entered content [2] at Tom Willett which seems dubious and certainly without RS. I removed it and brought it to the Talk Page: Talk Page. Another editor Yonhope also made edits at the same time. It appears they may be the same editor. How can I put the image up for deletion? There is no corroborating claims that the photo is what the uploading editor says it is; and the description points to it being "manufactured". Should there be any investigation into SP? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I provided sources for all of the edits for the Tom Willett page. I do apologize if the citations were not perfect; I am a novice at Wikipedia editing. But the photo and information are certainly not vandalism and can be verified independently. Ishnolead (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ishnolead The claims you are making against a BLP here at WP are extremely serious. The one source you provided is not reliable to back such claims. Law.Justia.Com is a "company" site and is not considered reliable. Please provide other sources that meet all WP policies regarding WP:RS. I cannot find anything online about this purported issue or the photo claim. What newspaper did you find the image? There should be an accompanying article to support the image. I will also post this on the Talk Page. But unless you can provide such sources, the photo needs to be deleted from WP. Also, are you editing as Yonhope? Maineartists (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just responded on the talk page. My tone is firm only because I think it is important for the public to be aware of this case as it contradicts Mr. Willett's public persona. Firstly, I am not "Yonhope" and I have no idea who that editor is. Not sure why Justia would be unreliable, but I digress. The case itself is cited in other Nevada court rulings. All of the media coverage stems from the Las Vegas Review Journal. There articles are not easily accessible but I have managed to collect photographs of all pertinent articles regarding the case. I understand these are serious claims, but I would not go through the effort of informing the public if this was simply a prank or joke. When I was a stupid teenager, maybe. I considered myself a loyal fan of Mr. Willett's content for years, until I discovered his involvement with this. As I mentioned in the talk page, I am open to working with yourself or someone with better experience editing to accurately add all of these sources. Ishnolead (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ishnolead, I live on another continent and have never heard of Tom Willett before now, so my question is purely informational. How do you know that the Thomas Willett in the court case and the actor Tom Willett are the same man. I'm not saying they're not, but the photograph you have used is too poor to be able to tell for sure, and I see nothing in the Justia article that confirms it. If there are other references that do, they would need to be used. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.55.125 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it should not be difficult to discern the authenticity of the sources. Only one Tom Willett lived in Las Vegas Nevada in 1973 employed as a musician. But don't worry, I lack the time to "correctly" include this important information on the Wiki page. Like I've mentioned, the deck is stacked against those with limited technological skills here. So a convicted abuser (and public figure) will be free to not be accountable for his past. Again, I'll happily send whoever is skilled at editing all of my accurate and published sources, but otherwise I give up. Ishnolead (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ishnolead: I've tagged the file that was uploaded as a copyright violation. Photographing a clipping from an old newspaper doesn't make the clipping your own work under US copyright law per c:COM:2D copying unless you somehow are adding enough of your own creative input to generate a new copyright for your photo so that it would be considered a WP:Derivative work. Even in that case, the copyright for the photo and text of the original clipping would still need to be taken into account. Such a photo could only be hosted by Commons if it can clearly be shown that the photo was in the public domain. Finding stuff online and freely being able to download doesn't automatically mean it's no longer or never was protected by copyright, and creating wikt:slavish reproductions of such stuff doesn't make it your own work. So, regardless of the WP:BLPIMAGE issues associated with using it, there are also copyright related issues which mean it shouldn't be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Ishnolead (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ishnolead Please don't "whatever" these far more experienced editors. Believe it or not, they are trying to help you. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, the subject of the article was convicted of terrible crimes, which seem to be of no importance here. Additionally ( not on this thread), the subject of the article has been caught editing their own article to favor and reflect positively on them. I understand there are several thousand "rules" that a more experienced editor may comprehend at a greater length than myself, but that does not mean their responses are helpful. A medical doctor surely knows more about medicine than myself, but that does not mean a lecture on the intricacies of nasal passages will cure my runny nose. Ishnolead (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ishnolead, please see WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS for Wikipedia's stance on this. ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Website

Are you aware that on the opening page of your website there is no place to entire the subject you want to read about? This didn't use to be the case and it's an inconvenience to people like me who use the site often (and contribute to you). 2600:1700:53B0:19CF:2C51:F72D:9130:9308 (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The search bar has moved to the other side of the top of the screen(the left, whereas it was on the right previously). If you create an account, you can set the appearance of Wikipedia to the old one in your account preferences. Note that we editors have nothing to do with the donation process. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Best advice seems to be to create a username, then you can log in and use the old Vector skin. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on window size, you may have to click a magnifying glass icon to get the search box in the new default skin. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that the IP user meant "preview" instead of "entire" in the first sentence (not "search"), because the page preview is broken on today’s featured article. I reported it at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Preview_fail_on_today’s_featured_article (with a link at WP:ERRORS). If so, thank you for reporting it. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want my ideas published on Wikipedia.

I am a poet... Have written several poems; and I need my poems published on Wikipedia. How do I go by it? Please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.89.46.84 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to publish poetry or other literary work, sorry. 331dot (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not advised to publish articles about yourself, per WP:COI, also poetry and literary work isn't allowed here. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 02:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do one go about uploading a bio

How does one go about uploading a bio and 2 pictures onto Wikipedia.org for an artist? How does that go, Can you walk me through? 100.14.16.72 (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 100.14.16.72. Before doing anything else, you should take a close look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything to gain a better understanding of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia doesn't host bios per se, but it does host Wikipedia:Articles about persons who are deemed to meet Wikipedia:Notability. Basically, it will all depend on whether the artist you want to create an article about can be shown to be Wikipedia notable; in other words, it's going to need to be shown that the artist has received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. If you can demonstrate this, an article about the artist can probably be created; if not, it most likely can't. For artists and other creative persons, there is some guidance given in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals about how to assess Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume for a moment that this artist can be shown to be notable, and thus that they merit an article. You may have readied a carefully assembled biography or profile of, or article about, the artist. But it's very unlikely that an article written for any other purpose will be suitable for Wikipedia. You'd better first get some practice improving existing articles here about artists. -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can create a draft article and ask for feedback from other users. This is the best option if you are new to Wikipedia. If the article is about yourself or someone that you are linked to, or it is written like a social media profile, it has little chance of making it into article mainspace.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]