Help desk
< May 8	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 10 >

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 9

Article on Australian politician Moira Deeming showing clear bias towards her.

The birgraphy in Wikipedia about Moira Deeming contains a paragraph which has clear bias and in essence falsehoods about a so called anti trans rally that was held. It was NOT an anti trans rally but was a rally in support of womwen's safety and was called "Let Women Speak". There are arguably a majority of people who do believe that biological women's spaces should be sacrosanct and clear evidence exists of this being abused unfortunately by individuals by the mere claim that they identify as a women. There are also serious concerns about women's safety and fairness, in women's sports. Now no matter how strongly you feel about this, I was always told Wikipedia is a space open to all points of view, as long as they are expressed in an acceptable non abusive way. Is this the case? Or is Wikipedia yet another media outlet which only allows one narrative to be expressed? It amazes me how people will refuse to allow debate. That in itself, implies their argument must be very weak? 192.28.122.75 (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you mean a bias against her, rather than towards her. HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my ideolect 'towards' (in this context) means 'regarding' with a hint of 'against'; it certainly doesn't imply 'in favour of'. YMMD. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.175.176 (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The best place to bring up concerns with how the article is written is on the Talk page for that article. Mokadoshi (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WIP template

I remember there are WIP templates for articles; e.g. when you want to perform many edits or major overhaul on a specific article, you add WIP template to it. Template name? Thanks for the help. --Mann Mann (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Under construction}} may be what you're looking for. Best, ayakanaa ( t · c ) 03:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mann Mann and Ayakanaa: {{In use}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-language Links to Image Files

I want to include a picture in an English Wikipedia article based on an image file from another Wikipedia server for a different language. How do you make an inter-language link to an image file within the standard image file display coding? The following is the coding for one of the images I have attempted:

File Name: Tiedosto:Ttr europe.jpg
Wikipedia Server: Finnish (https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiedosto:Ttr_europe.jpg)
Attempted Coding: [[File::fi:Tiedosto:Ttr europe.jpg|thumb|right|The box cover of the European version of the ''Ticket to Ride'' board (Europe 1917).]]

I have tried a few variations in the coding, but it always fails to produce an image. I have also searched the image coding pages in Wikipedia help, but I cannot find where this issue is discussed. Can anyone help me? SMargan 04:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images must be hosted on the local wiki itself or on the central Commons wiki. Files hosted by one language's Wikipedia site cannot be displayed in articles on another language's Wikipedia site. That file is not free, so it's forbidden to upload it to commons and it's forbidden by some languages' site policies to use it at all (one of the reasons to prohibit one language from using another's files). If you have a legitimate WP:Non-free content use-case, you could upload it here to enwiki for use here on enwiki. DMacks (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks (talk) - Thanks for the heads-up on that! I am really unsure about how the image system works. Indeed, I thought all the Wikipedia servers for each language were part of the same organisation, therefore, the content was usable by everyone when uploaded ... it seems not. In that case, can I post a request to the account of the person who uploaded the image on the foreign language Wikipedia server, and use that as a permission for uploading the image to Wiki-commons or the English Wikipedia server myself? I am a little puzzled as to why this process has not been accounted for by Wikipedia, i.e. why does Wikipedia not ask the uploading account for permission for any account to use the image when uploading it, or at least have a easy way of another user to ask for such permission etc. SMargan (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The licensing of this file (based on who actually owns its creative content) does not allow anyone to upload it anywhere. Some *wiki allow uploading of this sort of "non-free" content in certain cases (which might vary site-to-site), and others do not. So any *wiki that wants the file needs to handle it locally to make sure it complies with the local rules. The uploader does not ever have to grant special permission directly: whatever they upload is documented as part of the upload process, and in this case they don't even own the image enough to grant you permission anyway. So you are allowed to download the file from one *wiki and re-upload it to another *wiki as long as it complies with that second *wiki's rules. But as uploader to that second *wiki, it's up to you to make sure you are following that one's rules, rather than having the original uploader have to know every different site's rules. The goal is to avoid supporting license violations as much as possible but allow anyone who knows the rules to follow them. If the file actually had an open license, the wiki platform makes it much easier to share and use among different sites, because that's one of the goals of open licensing. DMacks (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to flag what seems an irrelevant section of an article

I'm editing an article on Mackinac Island and was quite surprised to find several lengthy paragraphs about Masonry there. Because I'm not aware of any particular connection of Mackinac with Masonry, and the discussion seems irrelevant to all but those interested in Masonry overall, I'd like to flag those paragraphs for the author or other editors to consider the question of relevance WITHIN the article, sort of like a CITATION NEEDED, rather than at the Talk are of the article.

Is there a way to do that, or would that be frowned on rather than going to Talk? Augnablik (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the material is uncited to a reliable source, you are free to simply remove it, as the burden is on those adding material to add a source if challenged.

The material on Mackinac Island is cited (though arguably the primary newspaper sources are not reliable here), so to directly answer your question, there actually is an inline maintenance template that does precisely what you want: {{Undue weight inline}}—there's also a box listing similar tags on that page. Cheers!Remsense诉 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense and @Tenryuu, because you both gave me different but seemingly good options, could you both weigh in as to why you believe yours is the better of the two recommendations? Augnablik (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both seem fine approaches that achieve the same result, it's largely personal preference. An inline tag would be most clearly suited for passages of a few sentences, while a banner like Tenryuu posted is suited when most or all of a section has the same problem. Remsense诉 10:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Helpful. Augnablik (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If for some reason you want to leave it on there for the time being to discuss, there's the maintenance tag {{off topic}} that might be useful. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense and @Tenryuu, because you both gave me different but seemingly good options, could you both weigh in as to why you believe yours is the better of the two recommendations? Augnablik (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Remsense's suggestion is just as valid as mine and neither is better than the other; I just think if there's as much off-topic content as you say there is, the template I suggested would be helpful. Everything else is up to your editorial discretion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it’s not like the whole section is off, just those two lengthy paragraphs — and they’re not right next to each other. Augnablik (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a business Wikipedia page?

How to create a business Wikipedia page? UnnatighoshHCL (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UnnatighoshHCL Short answer: You probably can't. Longer answer: WP:PAID, WP:NCORP, WP:BACKWARD and WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I have made some edits and they have been rejected. Can I now make the changes in the same using Paid contribution? UnnatighoshHCL (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UnnatighoshHCL, you can make edit requests on the talk pages. For instance, the HCL Commerce talk page is at Talk:HCL Commerce. To make an edit request, you can either read and follow the instructions at {{Edit COI}} or use the Edit request wizard, whichever is easier for you. 57.140.16.48 (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UnnatighoshHCL: You have already been provided with ample advice on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your advice. UnnatighoshHCL (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk archiving

It seems the bot who archives this page does so per age of thread, not paying any attention to activity, so a very ongoing discussion sometimes gets archived. This is not what I expect on a page like this in this day and age, so if someone good at archiving wants to look into that, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, try asking at User talk:Scs. — Qwerfjkl talk 18:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This question comes up from time to time. It's probably more appropriate for the Help Desk talk page, where it was last discussed this past January. You will probably want to review that discussion. In brief: the current bot has no capability to archive by anything other than fixed ages, but there are other archiving bots which behave differently, and there's no reason this page couldn't switch to another archiving strategy using one of those other bots, if consensus to do so were achieved. —scs (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article Deletion

The article written by me for a 60 year old company has been deleted, the citation provided were all reliable and neutral. How can I raise a concern to reinstate the article. Here is the link to the article Akhare 2024 (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akhare 2024 So you linked to the deletion discussion, not the deleted article itself. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about the existence of a company, what it does, and its offerings; Wikipedia articles about companies must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond just telling of the existence of the company and what it does and goes into detail about what the sources see as important/significant/influential about the company. Being a 60 year old company in and of itself does not contribute notability, and a lack of notability is why the discussion reached a consensus that deletion was appropriate.

Unless you can show that a gross error in policy was made- which seems unlikely- there isn't much you can do about this. If you are able to address the concerns of the deletion discussion and offer sources that show this company is notable, you may create and submit a draft for an independent review via the Article Wizard. I fear that as a marketing agent for this company you are too close to it, or too much of a marketer, to be able to write as Wikipedia requires. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you read WP:BOSS and have those at the company who hired you read it too. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing this, I have already mentioned COI. And all my citations were from independent reliable source. Is there a way to re-evaluate the deletion and get the article back up again? Akhare 2024 (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is very unlikely that your article was deleted in error, unfortunately. Please ensure you're familiar with how we define reliability and neutral point of view before making additional contributions to the encyclopedia. I recommend following 331dot's advice. Remsense诉 10:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that one of the contributors to the deletion discussion, @Helpful Raccoon, said specifically I can't find any independent sources that provide in-depth coverage. You say that the sources you provided were reliable and neutral, which sounds as if you have missed the third requirement, that of significant coverage. ColinFine (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what the others said, journalism that is entirely based on one of the company's press releases is not independent per Wikipedia:ORGIND. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article comply with NPOV now, or is it still too promotional?

For the article about emailSanta.com, I added in criticisms of the site made by various sources, including Wired and the owner himself on the Search Engine Journal. This article was originally written by the owner of the aforementioned website (User:Kringle Claus) in AfC. I was the one who accepted it, but now I regret accepting it, because I think it's too promotional. Do you think I successfully balanced out the promotion and made it WP:NPOV? I am contemplating whether I should start an AfD. Félix An (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement about repeated links on list articles

Seeking a third opinion, see and read our arguments here. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 11:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to get minor fixes made on a protected page

At the IRC help disclaimer page, I noticed a small grammar fix was needed and so I started to make it. But an alert came up that I couldn’t because it’s a protected page. I’m guessing there’s a way to ask for help in doing it. But how?

The sentence in need of minor surgery is this: “There are things on Wikipedia that shouldn't be, adding another article that shouldn't isn't going to help.”

— To take care of the comma splice, I was planning to insert “so” just before “adding.”

— And for a little better flow in the sentence, I was also going to insert “also” just before the 2nd occurrence of “shouldn’t.”

Augnablik (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Augnablik, you could suggest this at Wikipedia talk:IRC help disclaimer. I wouldn't add "so", perhaps "and" would work. I don't think "also" is needed. TSventon (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the article’s Talk page. A much simpler solution.

That aside, it seems you agree with me that a conjunction is needed after the comma, just not the choice I made, My reasoning was that “so” shows the direct connection of why adding another useless article isn’t a logical thing to do. I think using “and” wouldn’t do that even though it would at least fix the comma splice.

As for “also,” I thought it would buttress the direct connection all the more. Augnablik (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"So" isn't exactly the right word here. I'd change the comma to a semicolon. Uporządnicki (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AzseicsoK, I am not a punctuation expert, but a semicolon sounds good. TSventon (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A semicolon is fine as far as punctuation rules go. But I just wanted to add a little more connection between the first clause and the second, so as to emphasise the undesirability of adding another “thing that shouldn’t be on Wikipedia.” To help drive the author or last editor’s point home more.

At any rate, no changes at all can be made unless and until an editor with a master key to the protected page comes along. Augnablik (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page is only extended-confirmed protected. Everyone who commented here other than you, myself included, has "the master key" in this context, and you will too if you make 80 additional edits (but make them meaningful, don't arbitrarily try to inflate your edit count), which at your current rate of editing will take only a few days

See WP:Edit requests for the general process of attracting the attention of people who can edit protected pages, for future reference. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how can i delete this page that uses my name for something I didn't do

this is the link: File:UBCO MENA logo, 2020.jpg. 89.26.165.5 (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that it is another person by the same name? 331dot (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you User:Panteha Emtiyaz who uploaded the file in 2020 and made User:Panteha Emtiyaz/sandbox? If yes, do you mean that you are not the author of the image? If no, do you mean your name is Panteha Emtiya but it's not your user account? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to freeze the Menu bar on the left rather than it changes to TOC of the article

Recent update to the Wikipedia UI now changes the sidebar to the TOC of whatever article is being displayed, rather than keeping the Menu items displayed. I usually scan thru several Random articles, which is now difficult to do, since I have to go back to the 3 bars and select menu each time I want a new article. How can I freeze the Menu (like it used to be) on the sidebar and only change it to the article's TOC when I want it?

And what happened to the Wikipedia globe on the Main page and left sidebar menu? We miss it.

Thanks for your assistance. Truthanado (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC) Truthanado (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have found my answer. I wasn't logged in. Not sure when I got logged out since I always stay logged in. Looks like a not-logged-in user gets a different UI from a logged-in user. Now that I'm logged in again, I get the same UI I've always gotten. Apologies for any confusion. Truthanado (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need help fixing incorrect page move

Hi, I accidentally created User:Gymnastics_Federation_of_India by moving my sandbox subpage User:MickGarner/sandbox/Gymnastic Federation of India into the user namespace instead of article namespace. I thought I reverted it, but I guess I didn't do it correctly. I managed to get the article published here (Gymnastics Federation of India) but my sandbox subpage still exists as a redirect to the published article, and the user page redirects to my sandbox subpage. Could someone please help me out, I don't know how to fix this. If you could also give me some pointers on how to avoid this in the future, that would be great! Thanks in advance, and sorry for the trouble. MickGarner (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MickGarner you can tag the unwanted page with {{Db-author}} or an admin may see this conversation. You can avoid this problem by not selecting user namespace instead of article namespace, but obviously mistakes do happen and then you can just delete the incorrect page. TSventon (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you! MickGarner (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]