Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2025 January 3

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.

January 3

Automatic taxobox system: Way to display all entries in a page's Template:Taxonomy hierarchy (preferably automatically)?

For pages that use the template {{automatic taxobox}} (and related ones such as {{speciesbox}}), the taxonomic hierarchy displayed in the "Scientific classification" sidebar does not come from the page itself; rather, it comes from a different template which is automatically included. For example, the page Mammal automatically gets that information from the template {{Taxonomy/Mammalia}}. However, it only displays a limited subset of the information from that template, mainly (but not necessarily entirely) of the "Kings Play Chess On Fine Gold Stools" type. So you'll notice that the "Mammal" page displays seven levels, whereas the "Taxonomy/Mammalia" template that it pulls them from knows about twenty-five levels.

I get the reasoning -- it's like a "Greatest Hits" album -- but I like seeing the whole thing. I understand you can click on the editing icon next to "Scientific classification" to go to the associated taxonomy template, but I'm wondering if there's some way to have them displayed inline on the page instead of switching to a new page. Preferably I'd like this to be automatic, like a preference setting or maybe a user CSS setting. Does anyone know of such a thing? Thanks. - Rwv37 (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Rwv37, does Template:Automatic taxobox/doc § Forcing a taxon to display not describe what you're trying to do? Folly Mox (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Folly Mox, thanks, but no, that's not the same thing: What I'm hoping for is when I go to an article like Mammal, In it's sidebar, I will see the whole taxonomic tree from the {{Taxonomy/Mammalia}} template. What you've mentioned is a way to force one specific item (not all of them) from the taxonomic tree of the template to show up in the article's sidebar for everyone (not just me). Thanks again, though! - Rwv37 (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand better. There's nothing in the html of the rendered page that lists all the less popular clades, so I don't think what you're trying to achieve can be accom­plished in css. A javascript would probably be able to fetch the other template for you. WP:VPT might be able to help you out with that. Folly Mox (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Question about an article

What is the closest article that has a similar infobox to a country, but for the whole world? Interstellarity (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Interstellarity, do you perhaps mean "Among articles that have as their subject the entire world, which has/have an infobox that is closest to that used for an individual country?"? If not, please elucidate. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary To be clear, yes, that is what I was talking about. Interstellarity (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, Interstellarity, I don't know. I did guess, however; and what I found surprised me. We have Coal mining and Coal-mining region, and exploring the latter we encounter Category:Coal mining regions by country and Category:Coal mining regions in the United States. As coalfields can of course cross borders, it makes sense that Coal mining in Wyoming, for example, is independent of "coal mining regions". Still, it's somewhat odd. None of the (few) coal-mining-related pages I looked at have infoboxes; but it's easy to imagine how a single infobox template could be used for regions; for provinces, etc; and for nations. -- Hoary (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Which place to go to for help in resolving a dispute

I find myself in a disagreement—a dispute, I’d have to say—with other editors of a biographical article on Ian Stevenson, an American psychiatrist who researched cases in which children claim to remember past lives.

I have been seeking to resolve the dispute through polite and constructive talk, but given the responses so far, it seems we may need some help. My question concerns which avenue for dispute resolution would seem most appropriate.

The issue in brief: On December 6, without prior discussion, one editor, being bold, deleted from various parts of the article 16,703 bytes of text. On the same day, he was joined by another editor, who deleted 1,009 bytes more. The edits undid roughly a year’s worth of work by me and other editors. The deletions consisted largely of material from high-quality reliable sources.

To complicate matters: On the Talk page and the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, the first editor went in for what might reasonably be seen as personal attacks.

Given the overwhelming extent of the sudden edits, I suggested on the Talk page that we restore the article to its previous state and then use a process of “talking and editing” to go through proposed deletions. Several editors quickly responded that we should do the opposite: Leave all the deletions in place and then incrementally consider what I might wish to see restored.

It appears to me that the editors responding are like-minded souls, at least some well known to one another—a “local consensus”—and that we would benefit from “outside” input.

My question concerns how to proceed. Should I post an RfC? Should I go to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard”? Or what? I especially ask because although this essentially seems to me a content dispute, it also involves behaviors, such as personal attacks and disruptive editing, that would seem to deserve review.

I have practically no experience with dispute resolution outside of discussion on Talk pages, so I would be grateful for advice.

Thank you.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If there has been extensive discussion on the article talk pages, and whatever content issue is not resolved by either editors involved (i.e. no consensus was able to be reached), than the DRN is the place to go. If behavior issues are in play, and such editor(s) fail to respond accordingly and with no regard for our policies and guidelines, than report it to admins. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 02:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

BTW, I took a good look at the talk, and I would suggest taking into consideration what Psychologist Guy has told you for the last year and a half as far as that is concerned, especially about fringe theories. If it's a simple dispute (at this rate unlikely) between you two, than try getting a 3rd opinion. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 02:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

O Govinda has repeatedly attempted to rewrite the article about Stevenson to present him in a more favourable light spanning over half a decade, and been repeatedly opposed every time. Govinda should probably WP:DROPTHESTICK at this point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I note here that O Govinda was yesterday indefinitely blocked from both Ian Stevenson and its Talk page because of their disruptive editing; specifically, for pushing fringe views against consensus. This discussion can thus be closed. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Page incorrectly marked as extended-protected

I have the user preference set to see hidden categories on pages like Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects, which is part of the Category:Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected pages, despite not actually being protected. I was wondering how this could have happened, and whether a request over at WP:RFUP would do anything. Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The page is ECP-protected for "move" not for "edit". DMacks (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Google Indexing Issue for Camdenmusique

Hi, I noticed that the "Camdenmusique" article is not appearing in Google search results. Could someone please help review it for potential indexing issues or explain why it might not be showing? Thank you! GD234 (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Camdenmusique isn't an article; it's a draft. Google doesn't spider drafts. There's a template on the draft, inviting you to submit the draft for consideration as an article. -- Hoary (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It was an article, but I moved it to draft. See related discussion at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@GD234 What is your personal connection with Camdenmusique? Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I have a personal connection as someone involved with Camdenmusique's work. I’ve disclosed this on the Talk page in line with Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest guidelines and am focused on ensuring the draft is neutral, factual, and well-sourced. GD234 (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Where do I ask questions if the wikiproject is practically inactive

Recently asked for help on wikiproject law enforcement, it's been a day already and nobody has responded(other than an update by me).

May I ask where to ask for help if the wikiproject is practically inactive?

If I have to, i might also ask for help on wikiproject china but doesn't seem like it is particularly active either.

(also if possible help out on fixing wikipedia articles on chinese law enforcement and the wikimedia commons category, the entire place is a huge mess) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

My advise is to be patient, a day is a really short time to wait for response here in Wikipedia. You should be aware that Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and are not obligated to keep up with quotas or progress. For your requests, you basically need to wait for someone who is interested in these topics to help out. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand, but I just want to know where to ask for help since wikiproject law enforcement is considered to be only semi-active Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Thehistorianisaac. There isn't anybody. A WikiProject dies because nobody (or not enough) volunteer editors are willing to spend any time on it. The talk page, or talk pages of associated WikiProjects, are the most likely places to find people who are interested in reviving it, but there is no guarantee you will find anybody. It's a bit like asking "Where can I go for help to revive my local tennis club/book club/drama society that seems to have died?" ColinFine (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That's sad

But good news it is still sort of semi-active, and sorting out wikimedia categories is stuff most people can do Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that (semi)simple commons-category cleanups probably don't require project collaboration. For example, if there are two different cats, one for each of two different topics, but files are mis-placed, just change the cat. If one topic with a cat is a subtopic of another, likewise easy to put all the subtopic's files in a subcat rather than the parent-cat. There are some tools we have on commons that can help if there are lots of files to do at once. Let me know if you need help with that. DMacks (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to help, so far the first problem i found is just simply people put the category for armed police(gendarme) in the category for people's police/public security bureaus(local civilian police) when it comes to categories for police inside a city; for this i will make another category for law enforcement in that city to split apart local civilian police and the armed police.

After this it's mostly just adding categories to other categories. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. A tag like {{About|what this one is about|what the other one is about instead|other cat name}} in each could help both readers and editors make sure they understand what is where. DMacks (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Will start to work on it when i have time. Anyways, thanks to you'all for helping me out Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

David Ekserdjian

Ref number 7 is all wrong and in "red". Please fix. Sorry, I cannot work this one out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SrBernadette (talk • contribs) 10:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You can't spell February! See this fix. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Names of media

I'm working on the article about Jorge Lanata, a journalist from Argentina. It is needed to mention several non-fiction media releases he has worked in: TV programs, newspapers, magazines, documentaries, etc; all with names in Spanish, and only some with articles to link. Which is the correct way to write them? Simple prose, as if the names are words like any other, as in Periodismo para todos? Quotation marks, as in "Periodismo para todos"? Italics, as in Periodismo para todos? Cambalachero (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see MOS:TITLE. ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I think best way is to use italics for TV programs, magazines, and newspapers (e.g., Periodismo para todos) and "quotation marks" for articles or episodes.

Italics: For TV programs, documentaries, newspapers, and magazines (e.g., Periodismo para todos).

Quotation Marks: For articles, episodes, or smaller works (e.g., "El Robo del Siglo"). Ayohama (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Accidentally created new article

I was in the process of creating an article for one of Abraham Lincoln's descendants when I saw that there was an AfD discussion for deleting it some time ago. I already published the page anyways as I was planning on coming back to it to continue editing before I saw the discussion. Any help on deleting/un-publishing? Thanks. Qqars (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Qqars: I have marked the page for G7 speedy deletion for you. Next time, you can just add {{db-author}} to the top of any page you made that you want deleted. JJP_Master (she/they) 17:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! I did see that but I wasn't sure if it would work since I didn't think this was in my own user space. Qqars (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Qqars. {{db-author}} isn't limited to user space, but it is limited to files with no significant contributions from anybody else. ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Qqars: Another possibility for the case of wanting to continue working on it can be to move it to draft space; so "Foo" becomes "Draft:Foo". Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)