Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 December 4

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.

December 4

Huggle issue

For some reason Huggle stopped showing any edits for me. I can't figure this out for the life of me. Any ideas? Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 02:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Knowledgegatherer23: In Huggle, go to System (top-left) and then Change provider and then choose Wiki. https://i.imgur.com/3wPIY7n.png Polygnotus (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Issue with {{translit}}

Working on Glossary of sound laws in the Indo-European languages and a {{translit}} tag which was originally working has begun to trigger an error. The {{lang}} code orv for Old East Slavic works just fine, but the translit template keeps firing that red error. I don't want to use the Proto-Slavic tag sla-x-proto since OES is attested while PS is not. Any idea how to fix this? Thanks in advance. ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence of the {{transliteration}} template documentation reads:

This template is used to mark up text transliterated or romanised from a non-Latin alphabet script to Latin alphabet script. – emphasis in original.

The fix is to write romanizations using Latin script only. You are seeing these errors because the transliteration texts are a mix of Latin and Cyrillic scripts.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Life-saver, thank you! The yers are a field-specific convention. Is there any way I can circumvent this issue? I would like to maintain that convention if at all possible. I have a (suboptimal) workaround if no, but I would like to preserve the convention if I can. ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @ThaesOfereode. I suggest you ask at Template talk:Transliteration. ColinFine (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk page templates

Hi there! I'm just wondering if someone can help me insert any required templates onto the Talk page for Online Safety Amendment. I see other articles' Talk pages have templates but I don't know which ones to use. Qwerty123M (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be appropriate, and perhaps helpful, Qwerty123M, if the talk page had templates of relevant "WikiProjects". The article (which I haven't read, sorry) starts (after markup-stripping): "The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 is an Australian bill that aims to restrict the use of social media by minors under the age of 16." Therefore WikiProjects related to child protection, Australia (especially Australian society/legislature), and "social media" would be relevant. Offhand, I can guess what these would be, but I don't know for sure and therefore would check. So for example I'd go to Talk:Facebook (as a social medium) and copy what was there (editing out quality/importance ratings, of course). Ditto for the other aspects, and indeed for WikiProject-unrelated templates. Wikipedia:Template index/Talk namespace might help you as well. It's all easier done than said. -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M:  Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

More accurate VS. more common?

If a statement that is easily understood or for other reasons is widely used in news and other occasions, but is inaccurate and controversial; and there is another accurate statement that is less well known, which statement should Wikipedia choose?

My personal opinion is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is used to know all aspects of things, so I think the most accurate statement should be chosen. However, during the editing process, I received objections from some editors saying that "this is not the statement of most reliable sources".

I don't want to give examples just yet because that might create bias. ?8 (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Donttellu8 That raises the question: how do you know which statement is the more accurate? We should simply report what reliable sources say. "Controversial" and "well known" don't enter the equation. If the sources disagree, then the article can say so. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say about a topic. "An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight." – WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC. "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." – WP:WEIGHT. Perception312 (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

While I can understand what you're staying, it would seem like you're introducing what is essentially WP:OR into the article, which is generally not appreciate. However, you certainly can engage your own intelligence to help guide you in finding reliable sources to make that statement for you. For example Fossil fuel is widely considered to be a misnomer because the vast majority is from organic decomposition, not actual fossils. However, that does not mean that we simply discontinue the use of the term, nor find quotes that avoid the use of that term. Rather that is the wide-spread, common name and often quoted in both reliable and academic papers. Regardless of its semantic accuracy, it is indeed the accurate title for the article, and any other article where a citation or statement references fossil fuels is acceptable. Another situation that comes to mind is a politician which makes a statement that is widely reported in reliable sources, and I guess I'm not clear on if your question is regarding if the statement is factually incorrect (ie the politician said something wrong) or if the reporting of the statement was either misrepresented and/or changed (ie thinking about Trump and drinking Clorox bleach). In all of those cases, again, it comes down to reliable sources, especially WP:SECONDARY sources that talk both about the truth and the misrepresentation, and then ensuring that proper weight is applied to both the statement and the discussion regarding the concerning aspects. And beyond everything, weight is probably the most important, as people often spend too much time debating all aspects of the controversy (in article) that results in a single statement becoming WP:UNDUE for the overall balance of the artcile. TiggerJay (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's time to bring up this example. The consensus on Wikipedia is that Taiwan is a country, because many "sources" call it that. Taiwan does function like a country, but it is undeniable that no new government was created after the ROC government retreat, nor did it become an independent Republic of Taiwan. According to this logic, it is appropriate and avoids controversy to describe Taiwan as a rump state of the ROC. This statement is also supported by reliable sources, as this shows. I know the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory, but Wikipedia usually make such vague terms more specific, like we won't say Bermuda is a country, we say it a territory while it can be in the country list. ?8 (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan looks like a country and [qu]acts like a country. It's a country! Some may want it to be otherwise, but wishing doesn't make it so. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You are ignoring what I mentioned earlier about no new government was created after the ROC government retreat. ?8 (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

And this is not the place to argue about it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Finding someone to draw a diagram for me to use in Wiki

I need a diagram drawn, to show a certain gearbox, to add to a WP article. I recall there used to be a page where you could request a diagram, and some volunteers, if they had time, would draw it. Where is that page, if it still exists? Noleander (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Noleander: Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. I don't know whether you can find a volunteer for such a request. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter - thanks for the info. I posted request there. Noleander (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

There's also commons:COM:GL/I, which is a bit more active than the one here. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi - Thanks for the info; I posted a (second) request there. Noleander (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter and @CanonNi, would that graphics designer get an automatic copyright on the diagram? Augnablik (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik: If it doesn't count as a derivative work of something which is already copyrighted then they can choose the license when they upload. It would presumably be uploaded to Commons with a license allowed there. See more at commons:Commons:Licensing. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)