Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 August 27

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.

August 27

reliable sources about computer games.

What are some reliable sources about modern computer games? Redstone catman (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Jack Churchill (1880–1947)

Ref number 6 is all wrong - I cannot work it all out, please repair. Thank you in advance. 115.70.23.77 (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The access date on the source read: "27 August 20024". Please be more careful next time. Regards. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 01:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Articles citing sources allegedly published in the two-hundredth-plus century continue to have quite an overlap with articles eagerly mentioning tangential Middletons. -- Hoary (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Organization as author in website citation template

In the website citation template, how do I add the author when it's the name of a group or organization, like "Editorial board" or "XYZ Research Project"?

I get an error if I fill in Last name only, and if I add a "author" parameter in source.

Thanks! Tsavage (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The parameters "author" and "author1" are aliases for "last" or "last1". Only one of these should be used. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Citations in headers?

I stumbled upon this article Silver thiocyanate that has citations in some headers. Should citations be in headers? Sorry, I couldn't find anything on the MoS. SecretSpectre (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:CITEFOOT said: "Citations should not be placed within, or on the same line as, section headings." So no citations are allowed on the headers. You can move the citations to the body of the said section. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks SecretSpectre (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Want to know about new biography page

how i can make new biography page where is editor Tbz Fertilizer (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The editor, for you, is wherever you found it in order to ask the question immediately above. Improve existing edits, always citing reliable sources. Once you've become adept at that, read and digest Help:Your first article. -- Hoary (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Tbz Fertilizer.

Since it appears likely that you represent the Pakistani fertiliser company TBZ, there are some things that it is very important for you to understand. (If you are not connected with them, then I apologise for my assumption: but you should still change your user name).

First, user names which suggest that they represent a company or organisation are forbidden. You will need to Change username (or abandon that one and create a new one, which must be personal to the individual who is editing).

Next, Promotion of any kind is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. If your purpose here is to promote (i.e. "tell the world about") your company, please find another outlet to do so. If your company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (and only in that case) then there can be an article about the company. The article will not belong to the company, will not be controlled by the company, could be edited by almost anybody in the world except people associated with the company, and will not be in any way for the benefit of the company, except incidentally. Please read WP:PROUD and WP:BOSS

If your company is notable in Wikipedia's sense, then eventually somebody will write and article about it: you are discouraged from doing so.

If you decided to go ahead with an article about your company (or anything closely associated with it, such as its founder, or a product) then please note the following:

- If you intend to work on any article connected with your company, you must read and understand our policy on editing with a conflict of interest, and should make a declaration of this status. If you are in any way employed or remunerated by the company, you must make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor.

- Whoever creates an article, Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

- Creating a Wikipedia article is extremely difficult for new editors, even where they haven't a conflict of interest. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Notability for royal titles?

A question has come up with the article Amina Sabri. I tagged it for Notability because the article does not really talk about the subject herself: it is nearly all about her husband and her (royal) family instead. I also mentioned this on the original author's User Talk page (here), and he/she replied "Amina received the title of Her gloriness Al Nabila & the title of Princess. Would that make her notable?" WP:ANYBIO says that a person is likely to be notable if they have "received a well-known and significant award or honor". So the question is - do those royal titles satisfy the criteria of a "significant award or honor"? Gronk Oz (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Those "titles" sound pretty dubious given that Egypt is a republic, and I notice that there is no article about her husband. This looks very marginal to me. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Sabri married in 1924 and died in 1925 in the Kingdom of Egypt, but I agree notability is not obvious and the article is now at AfD. TSventon (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Gronk Oz, the "significant award or honor" criterion was debated at length in April, see Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:ANYBIO at AfD. I don't believe that it covers royal titles, you could follow the AfD to see what other editors think. TSventon (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Wow, you weren't kidding when you said it was "debated at length"! Thanks for that link - it makes me feel a lot better that I did not know the answer. Apparently nobody else does, either (or everybody does, but they are all different). I read through the first few pages, but it's 4:30 am here and my pillow is calling me. I will be intrigued to see what comes from the AfD.--Gronk Oz (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

how to keep line breaks, in pasted text??

how do i display the line breaks, when pasting a lot of text from another source? below is the page where i need some help with this. please ping me, when you reply. thanks!

• User:Sm8900/nyc_services#formatted_list

Sm8900 (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sm8900: You need to put additional line breaks to make an empty lines between paragraphs. --CiaPan (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want to make separate indented lines, you needn't put additional lines between them, just prepend a colon : to each of them. See my reply here (on edit mide) for an example.. --CiaPan (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You can use {{pre}} to surpress normal HTML formatting.

Please note that user space may be used for activity relating to Wikipedia only. The fact that you have no citations on that page inclines me to think that you are not developing something for Wikipedia. Please see WP:UPNO and WP:NOTWEBHOST. ColinFine (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

i am trying to determine which public resources might have enough published data to be worth noting in an overview article on services for that general region, or else alternately to make an article of their own for these items. Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

ok, yes {{pre}} works. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. In that case, it looks as if you are working BACKWARDS, which is a very inefficient way of writing articles. ColinFine (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

true, but it's not just the content of the list, it is also the placement, visilbility, and overall role and structure. fyi, this seems to be posted at an official court website. i'm not sure why, or the basis for this. i'm just trying to see what's out there, overall. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Sm8900, it appears that you have copied that material from New York City websites that are labeled "all rights reserved". Accordingly, that content is a copyright violation and it must be removed from Wikipedia. Am I misunderstanding anything here? Cullen328 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

it is a public service, provided to the public to assist those in need. there is absolutely no copyright issue if i have not pasted it into an article. and furthermore this is public information that is meant to be disseminated to those in need. new york city also posts severe weather alerts. would it be a copyright violation if i disseminated that text, to the local communities affected? Sm8900 (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

here is the url for the website which provided that material. it is the official website of the federal US Probation Office, for the Eastern District of New York. it is not related to the city government of New York City in any official or structural way whatsoever,

• url: https://www.nyep.uscourts.gov/

Sm8900 (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested Citation

Citations are requested for living persons. I don't know what is needed but would be happy to supply any appropriate information to the editors. DBBorenstein (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, DBBorenstein. I'm assuming from the messages on your user talk page that this relates to the article Daniel B. Borenstein, and that that is about you.

The only thing that can render that article acceptable is to add citations to sources that are reliably published, wholly independent of your and your associates, and contain significant coverage of you specifically - see WP:42 for more detail - and to remove everything from the text which is not supported by a reliable source. (Not all sources have to be independent for this purpose - uncontroversial factual information such as the dates of your presidency can come from the Psychiatry Online article, for example - but most must be: see WP:IS). No other information from you will be relevant to the article, as a Wikipedia article should be based 100% on published sources.

Normally I would suggest that you find such sources, and edit the article to insert them and remove unsourced information; but because of your conflict of interest, that is strongly discouraged. Instead, what you would need to do is to make edit requests on the talk page Talk:Daniel B. Borenstein, making them as specific as possible, and being sure to cite a source for any information you wanted to add.

Alternatively, if you can find several sources that meet the criteria above, if you just put the citations on the talk page, it may be that somebody would be willing to edit the article then. ColinFine (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Notability template guidelines

Hi, so an editor commented that once an article had been previously AfDed and was kept, the article can not be tagged with a notability maintenance template. Special:Diff/1242561008. I think that's a fair interpretation for something that was fairly recent, but in the article in question, that AfD was years ago and the argument provided in AfD from four years ago leaves plenty of questions, such as claim that it's notable because it's listed in something and being in that list is not an indication of notability per the applicable WP:SNG. I know there's a guideline in place that precludes the use of PROD once it's been PRODded in the past, but is there such a guideline on maintenance template? Courtesy ping to @Alalch E.: Graywalls (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. The template instructions are not WP:PAG but this tag's instructions specifically request not to put it on on an article that has already survived a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion as "keep". That is because maintenance templates are for problems noticed by one editor and not resolved by that one editor... for a variety of reasons depending on the tag and the situation, but with this tag it's always approximately: "seems non-notable but I do not want to start a deletion process because I am not sure, as I have not done a thorough WP:BEFORE, and/or can not access some of the sources (etc.), but someone else who is sure either way should start the deletion process--or--remove the tag." And after a whole AfD, when multiple editors have been introduced to the problem and still supported keeping, it's no longer a maintenance issue, it's a consensus issue. A new consensus can be reached in the corresponding process. The tag does not help to notify someone of an issue anymore, people had already been notified, and a particular decision was made.

WP:WTRMT is about this: After an AfD, the issue has been adequately addressed (via AfD), and the maintenance template is not supported anymore given a "keep" outcome. Point 9 is especially illuminating. Some problems can never be resolved. An article on a non-notable topic which was kept in an AfD can only benefit from a new AfD as it's beyond the power of editors to resolve lack of notability. What a prospective notability tagger should do under those circumstances is refer to past discussions (which in the case of a keep outcome exist and provide informative clues), form better deletion arguments, and nominate again, following WP:RENOM. —Alalch E. 17:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

RENOM doesn't specifically forbids tagging article for notability. Also, the article in question is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Macgirl and there's no indication of tagging previously AfD'd article with notability template. Graywalls (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned that essay because I suggested renominating, but renominating shouldn't be done either if it would be too soon, per the essay. What do you think about the other things I said? —Alalch E. 18:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alalch E.:, If it was nominated for notability failure five years ago, but it was kept, because one person said "it's in the list of top 30 places in the city to go eat and it's listed in the state heritage listing" followed by two "keep per nom", there's a cause for tagging notability, absent guideline prohibiting it, as in the case of PROD. Once PRODded, it can't be prodded again. There's no such thing as this for notability and I find the tagging for questionable notability perfectly reasonable. You've not cited policy disallowing it, as in the case of PROD. WP:ESSAY is not a policy. Graywalls (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel like you're disregarding around 90% of what I wrote and are basing yourself on my non-essential mention of WP:RENOM which I retract as entirely not the point. How about the other things I said, including references to the template's documentation and WP:WTRMT? —Alalch E. 21:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

As the editor who originally added this tag, I'd just like to comment as follows:

1) As Graywalls has noted, the tag was added because there is an ongoing discussion at WP:COIN on the notability of the building in question (and several other related articles). A new consensus seemed to be forming, contrary to the old AfD, and it seemed very likely that the article would be going to AfD for a second time.

2) I added the tag (with a link to the relevant COIN discussion in the edit summary) in the hope that new eyes would be brought to the issue and perhaps would provide either new notability sources or a new interpretation of GNG that would satisfy all parties.

3) Two new editors did indeed find their way to COIN as a result of that tagging, which can only be a good thing. Given the circumstances I'm not sure that I can see any genuine problem in trying to get as many eyes on the issue as possible.

4) The addition of the tag could only have been of benefit to those in favour of retaining the previous consensus, even though I am personally in favour of deletion.

Hopefully it's clear that I added the tag in good faith. However, if I added the tag contrary to policy (which doesn't seem clear from the thread here) then I'm perfectly happy to take instruction on that point. Axad12 (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, while I disagree with your reasoning, there is no doubt that you added the tag in good faith, and while there isn't a "green checkmark" policy about the use of such templates, such use is contrary to template instructions which request not to put the tag on an article that has already survived a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion as "keep", and the how-to guide about maintenance template removal also suggests removing and not readding the notability tag during and after an AfD. It's because an AfD always addresses the issue of notability. If it failed to address the issue of notability and resulted in the article being kept, it was defective and should undergo either a deletion review or the article should be renominated (like Graywalls did after I removed the tag). A new consensus about deletion on notability grounds can only form in an AfD. Deletion discussions are conducted through a formal process, and for a discussion about notability to create a consensus to delete it needs to happen within the process. The notability tag is not for inviting editors to COIN. To alert more editors to a COIN discussion that also has to do with sourcing it would have been better to notify relevant wikiprojects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture and Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas (Tribeca West Historic District is a protected area broadly construed). —Alalch E. 13:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

From a practical standpoint I can see that having a discussion about notability at COIN and then having a separate discussion about notability at AfD is simply an unnecessary duplication.

However, that was just how the issue developed at COIN. I don't advise anyone to read the COIN thread because it is very long, but basically some articles were found to be very promotional and the question arose of whether (a) they needed to be significantly re-written immediately or (b) if referral to AfD would be desirable in the first instance to avoid spending time on reworking content which might be deleted in the near future on notability grounds. The notability tags were thus just a very short-term pragmatic expedient while that discussion was ongoing (and evidence to that effect was clear in the thread that was linked in the edit summary for the original tag).

If you have an issue with that then, to be honest, I think you are being overly doctrinaire. Axad12 (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you're doing great at COIN and it's good that you've put the notability tag on the concerning articles in general, as you were unsure about starting the AfDs yourself. However, one of the articles underwent an AfD before, was kept, and it is only with respect to that article that I disagree that it should have received the notability tag. It should have been nominated for deletion again. And that is what happened, and it's good that it did. So overall I don't have an issue, and thank you for what you are doing, but with this minor aspect, I do have an issue. —Alalch E. 13:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Rule and guidelines (both on Wikipedia and elsewhere) are generally there to serve a specific purpose. If the manner in which something was done was clearly in tune with the general thrust of that purpose, but the specifics may have been ever so slightly sketchy, I’d suggest that sweating over the specifics, as you seem intent on doing, is a waste of time. In the case in point, absolutely no harm was going to be done by a notability tag being in place for a few days. Far more harm has resulted from the waste of time caused by those who persisted in removing it, and arguing about overly doctrinaire application of rules. Axad12 (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

No, harm has resulted from putting the notability tag in a situation for which there is a preexisting general sense that it should not have been put, leading to unnecessary friction. Would have been better to choose a non-controversial method to do the same thing. Was not already kept in AfD—great; was kept in an AfD—not great. —Alalch E. 14:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies but I take no responsibility for any loss of time incurred by editors performing pointless acts. If you want to waste your time edit warring over a good faith very short-term notability tag, and then waste further time arguing about it here, then that is on you. Axad12 (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You're unnecessarily agitated about this. You're also accusing me of edit warring, which is simply untrue and that's not very collegial of you. I am not criticizing you specifically. What I saw is a notability tag on an article kept in an AfD, I removed the tag, wrote to the tagger that notability tags don't belong on articles kept in an AfD, I was pinged here, and here I explained my view. What else am I supposed to do? Who's to say it's short-term? You know how it goes with tags. A notability tag on any article kept in an AfD should be removed. You think that it can be in tune with the general thrust of [some legitimate] purpose, and I do not think that it can. That is what I have been explaining, but it's fine to disagree. —Alalch E. 15:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Changing a profile photo

Hello,

I am working with a musician who wants there picture changed on their Wikipedia page. However I haven't got confirmed status.

Can anyone help me? Richard.Scotts (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't have profiles here, we have articles. You may work with other editors to upload an image at Files For Upload. You will need to formally disclose your connection, I will post information on your user talk page as to how. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Richard.Scotts. You might also want to take a look at c:Commons:Licensing and Wikipedia:Image use policy for reference. Uploading an image and then adding it to an article is technically not really a difficult thing to do, but only certain types of images can be uploaded and used. It's the latter part that most people have trouble with because it mainly has to do with Wikipedia:Copyrights and what types of images Wikipedia's licensing policy allows it to host. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Richard.Scotts: Please see WP:A picture of you, which simplifies and explains all the points made above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

How to get article on de.wikipedia.org to be posted on wikipedia.org?

de:Sean Smith (Bassist) – Wikipedia Ssmithbasscomp (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

By translating it. I did it just now: Sean Smith (bassist). If you wish changes to be made to the article, please suggest specific changes on the talk page, and please read the guideline on managing a conflict of interest on Wikipedia. —Alalch E. 22:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Alalch E. for completeness, articles from other Wikipedias should only be translated if they are WP:Notable in English Wikipedia and many foreign language articles do not meet the levels of WP:verifiability that is expected in English Wikipedia. TSventon (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alalch E.: It also seems a bit odd (at least to me) that you translated the article and then added {{More citations needed}} with your very next edit. It would seem better (at least in my opinion) to find the citations first or leave out any unsupported content. In addition, you translated that article within 30 minutes of the OP asking their question. So, you're either fluent in German and a really good translator, or perhaps used AI or some other kind of software. If it's a case of the latter, be careful of WP:MACHINETRANSLATION and WP:LLM. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up but I have contributed 59.6% of edits to the LLM essay, and there probably isn't a single sentence in it (maybe a few) that I didn't either write or change. The article I translated is short with like 30% proper names. When translating, it's impractical to copy over bit by bit and provide attribution for each edit. The claims are supported by references already in the article, they are non-contentious, and it's just about adding the citations, which is not the same as finding and adding references. This is not unverifiable material. The topic is a biography of an eminent bassist, it's a topic I'm familiar with, and I was surprised that there wasn't an article. A minor glitch in the fabric. —Alalch E. 08:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If the article has the right sources but just needs more footnotes, the best tag to describe this situation is {{more footnotes needed}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ssmithbasscomp:, the user name suggests you have a relationship with the article subject with whom you have a conflict of interest with. Do you have a personal/professional relationship with the subject? Graywalls (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no point in asking a user with one edit who wants an article about Sean Smith, bassist and composer and has the username "Sean (s-) Smith (-smith-), bassist (-bass-) and composer (-comp)" if he has an external relationship with the subject and templating them about it several days after they have got their desired article and were notified about conflict of interest in the very first reply they got, and were also referred to the COI guideline via the Wikipedia:About you essay on their talk page (see Pigsonthewing's welcome message). —Alalch E. 22:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

STRONGLY disagree. That's a basis for suspicion, but we always ask, rather than Assume & conclude. Graywalls (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

No we do not "always ask", that is, we are not obligated to be absurd. Please look at what you are doing. You are asking "Sean Smith, bassist and composer" who has only made one edit on Wikipedia, which is to ask about an article about Sean Smith, bassist and composer, if he has an external relationship to Sean Smith, bassist and composer. After he has already been referred to COI by two editors. Suspicion, by definition, is only possible when there is uncertainty, and here there isn't uncertainty, either for you to suspect something or for me to assume something. Directing absurd questions at a new user is being unpleasant. Sending them a warning template with a significant mismatch between itself and reality Hello, Ssmithbasscomp. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Sean Smith (bassist), ... no, he did not write on that page) about the same thing for the third time, only with an extra dose of absurdity, was gratuitous and inappropriate. —Alalch E. 05:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Bot Request: Numb3rs Cleanup

I'm not sure how to do this. There may be a bot that can do the legwork. I've noticed that the TV series Numb3rs/Numbers lists the show as named "Numbers", stylized "Numb3rs". The various pages that refer to the show are inconsistent, with some saying "Numbers", others saying "Numb3rs", and still others saying both. See David Krumholtz, Peter MacNicol, and Sabrina Lloyd for examples of the inconsistency. Of course, in-line and footnote citations should refer back to whatever a published article actually used, so matters are much more complex. It looks like this hasn't been discussed in a decade, and a lot of new links have been added.

Is there a way to make this cleanup happen, without doing so manually? Just as a proactive note, I'm dropping the ball now; I just wanted to put this in the hands of someone more experienced. Thanks! 100.19.66.49 (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, you can request tasks to be done by bots at Wikipedia:Bot requests. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)