Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 December 12

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 12

just a question

so how far does 2.75$ get wiki like just from one person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:E78F:BF00:5079:2FB1:A4D2:600E (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not clear on exactly what you are asking, but questions about donations should go to donate (at) wikimedia.org RudolfRed (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Deceptive and incomplete or inaccurate information

How can you ask for a donation to a site that is full of inaccurate , incomplete, and blatantly propagandizing disinformation and incomplete facts? Shame on you!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.11.17 (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You must have us confused with https://donate.donaldjtrump.com/lets-keep-fighting. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Please direct your concerns to donate@wikimedia.org. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 07:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP Editor: There are currently 6,206,211 articles on English Wikipedia - and there are hundreds of different language Wikipedias, plus many other big Projects such as image hosting on Wikimedia Commons, WikiData, etc. Each one is a 'work in progrees', and across these projects we have seen 4.5 Billion (not million) edits to date since 2001. The five worlwide Wikipedia servers that provide you with content consume 5 Gigawatt/hours of electricity per annum. Someone has to pay the fuel bill for these, and maintain and develop the software we use. Wikipedia is in the world's top ten most visited websites, and the Wikimedia Foundation employs c.300 staff worldwide. But the editors themselves are all unpaid volunteers. If you would care to name which article you have found errors in (and supply a Reliable Source to help fix it), you are most welcome to post your concerns on the relevant article's talk page so that someone might be able to improve it if you are not confident to do so yourself. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Because all in all, WP is pretty great. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• If you just want to be told what you want to hear or what fits with your world view, you don't need to come here to do that. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Please tell us exactly what specific sentences are incorrect, so we can fix them. We cannot respond to broad generalizations, since we have more than 6 million articles. We want to fix things regardless of whether or not you want to donate. -Arch dude (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Advice

Hello there, I’m trying to help fix someone’s personal page as it has incorrect information. We have added correct fact & sources but it’s been deemed as having an issue by an editor. Is there someone I could please talk to on phone to get advice and help to have the page corrected? It’s been locked for vandalism. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.186.202 (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

FYI, this appears to be about Vashi Domínguez. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you in any way associated with Dominguez? The spree of edits to that page seem like reverted editors have at the very least a conflict of interest or are doing some undisclosed paid editing, the latter of which is an absolute no-no. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 10:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello. First, there is nothing on Wikipedia that matches the term "someone's personal page" (apart from a User page, which is a page on which a registered Wikipedia editor may if they choose share about themselves as a Wikipedia editor). I believe that what you are referring to as "someone's personal page" is in fact "Wikipedia's article about someone". It does not belong to that someone, and that someone (and their associates) do not have control over its contents. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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.. --ColinFine (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Nagging for contributions.

I contribute every time I'm asked. But the other day I deleted all the cookies stored by my browser. I did this some time ago as well and I ended up being nagged for contributions. How do I shut the nagging up?

Dave Hooper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:BE60:A9:61C7:25EA:AB19:3964 (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You need to keep the cookies, which will record that you closed the donation request banner. You can also create an account, and suppress the donation request banners in your account preferences(this will allow you to clear the cookies and still not see the requests). If you don't do these things, Wikipedia has no way to know that the person sitting at your computer at any given moment has seen the messages and/or donated. You don't need to donate every time you are asked. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

De-archiving a talk page when an archived template is affecting other pages (eg. dashboard).

So there was an edit request showing in the Wikipedia dashboard, but when I went to look at it - it was on an archived talk page. Okay. I figured I've got three options:

1. Leave the archived talk page alone, but then the dashboard will never get updated.
2. Respond and close the request in the archived talk page - that just seems clearly wrong.
3. De-archive the offending section and respond to it on the Live talk page.

I went for option three and the sky didn't fall on my head so I figured no-harm-no-foul but really what are the rules about this? Are archives generally understood to be untouchable, even when templates in them are affecting other pages? --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Paul Carpenter: Archives are not untouchable. "Do not edit the contents of this page" is meant for attempts to start or continue discussions. I have often removed unwanted categories from archives or fixed code errors which damaged the rest of the archive. Your solution is good. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Hmmm. It doesn't seem like unanswered edit requests (or other "open tasks") should be archived to begin with, should they? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably not. I haven't found mention of it. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Using G7 to foil AFD

With regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transition (2020), the creator tagged the article with WP:G7, and when the AFD was closed as speedy deleted, immediately recreated the article. Am I right that the recreation cannot even be speedied for WP:G4? This doesn't seem right to me! —teb728 t c 12:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I've just G4'd it anyway as that seems in the right spirit of the rule. --Paul ❬talk❭ 12:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

How to fix a LUA error in Module:Location map

Is anyone willing to fix this error for me. The Module:Location map/data/Thailand Northern TMD and Module:Location map+/data/Thailand Northern TMD/doc get the remarks: LUA error in Module:Location map at line 422: No value was provided for longitude. SietsL (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@SietsL: Template:Location_map~#Parameters says lat_deg and lon_deg. Spaces and underscores are interchangeable in wikilinks but not in parameter names. Fixed by [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

invalid capture index %2 in replacement string

When I try to do "Excerpt|Wind power" surrounded by double curly brackets I get the above error as you can see here:

Excerpt content

This section is an excerpt from Wind power.[edit] Wind farm in Xinjiang, China Electricity production by source Wind power is the use of wind energy to generate useful work. Historically, wind power was used by sails, windmills and windpumps, but today it is mostly used to generate electricity. This article deals only with wind power for electricity generation. Today, wind power is generated almost completely with wind turbines, generally grouped into wind farms and connected to the electrical grid. In 2022, wind supplied over 2,304 TWh of electricity, which was 7.8% of world electricity. With about 100 GW added during 2021, mostly in China and the United States, global installed wind power capacity exceeded 800 GW. 32 countries generated more than a tenth of their electricity from wind power in 2023 and wind generation has nearly tripled since 2015. To help meet the Paris Agreement goals to limit climate change, analysts say it should expand much faster – by over 1% of electricity generation per year. Wind power is considered a sustainable, renewable energy source, and has a much smaller impact on the environment compared to burning fossil fuels. Wind power is variable, so it needs energy storage or other dispatchable generation energy sources to attain a reliable supply of electricity. Land-based (onshore) wind farms have a greater visual impact on the landscape than most other power stations per energy produced. Wind farms sited offshore have less visual impact and have higher capacity factors, although they are generally more expensive. Offshore wind power currently has a share of about 10% of new installations. Wind power is one of the lowest-cost electricity sources per unit of energy produced. In many locations, new onshore wind farms are cheaper than new coal or gas plants. Regions in the higher northern and southern latitudes have the highest potential for wind power. In most regions, wind power generation is higher in nighttime, and in winter when solar power output is low. For this reason, combinations of wind and solar power are suitable in many countries. References

Should I report it as a bug and if so where please?

Chidgk1 (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chidgk1. It does seem to be a bug as {{Excerpt|Science}} works fine. The template documentation is Template:Excerpt but I don't see where bugs get reported. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Module talk:Excerpt * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: I'm trying to isolate the problem. I copy/pasted Wind power into User:Arch dude/Wind power test and began stripping it down. So far, the problem persists unless you dummy out the lede or you remove the reference section. Further isolation will be more tedious, but I will keep going until I get bored. The article uses an unusual (to me) referencing scheme. All refs are defined and named within the reflist itself, and are then invoked by name only within the article text. -Arch dude (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Arch dude: Thanks for that info - I have worked round the problem by removing or moving cites from the lead. But I guess it might recur if someone added a cite to the lead in future so thanks Pppery. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Related discussion: Talk:Fossil fuel phase-out#Using excerpt from Wind power. Certes (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Arch dude: You could just have previewed different versions of the article with <noinclude>{{Excerpt|Wind power}}</noinclude> added at the bottom. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Articles that start with Death of with the person's name redirecting to that article

I've been looking at articles that start with Death of such as Death of Diana, Princess of Wales and Death of Michael Jackson where the subject has their own article. I've also been looking at articles such as Death of JonBenét Ramsey and Death of Caylee Anthony where the subject's name redirects to that article. I've looked at policies such as the MOS and WP:AT and couldn't find anything to support this. If someone could drop by and explain why the titles are that way, that would be great. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity, my guess is that it's because of WP:BIO1E. Some people are only notable in the manner of their death, while others have acquired notability for other means reasons and their death is highly significant. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 17:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thank you for the info. I think that is a reasonable explanation. Interstellarity (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I am having problem with content add.

Hello, wiki fellow. I tried to add some content on List of cancelled games for Microsoft consoles. I provided proper ref and verified stuff but nothing happened after edit. So what should I do to add some info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albarmahadsanwal (talk • contribs) 19:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Albarmahadsanwal, for one, please find a reliable source (FANDOM wikis are user-generated, so they're not considered to be reliable), and don't randomly add a column into a table that has no use. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 19:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you got it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albarmahadsanwal (talk • contribs) 20:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

A fully cited section was removed by an anonymous user, no need to prove

 Courtesy link: Kellogg Community College

In August of 2017, added a fully cited section to Kellogg Community College in Battle Creek MI about the Civil Rights violations that had occurred. I cited the news, the lawsuit, and additional articles. In September, a month later an anonymous user saw to deleting it stating it was "factually incorrect".

I did not see a notification or any email letting me know it was being disputed. Is that really how this works? Identified users toil over collecting facts and citing sources and unidentified people can come along and just delete their work? So anyone can go on anonymous mode and delete things from articles that I don't feel like they want people to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkylarLeeClark (talk • contribs) 22:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

SkylarLeeClark, when you contribute to an article, you are by default adding it to your watchlist, which would let you see changes made to it. Discussing it on the article's talk page would be the best thing to do, and if there was no response you could have reverted it. It seems like it's been brought back recently though. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Army navy game

Article says the Game is held in Philadelphia because it’s midway between West Point in Annapolis. LOL. West Point is over 100 miles from an Philadelphia and Annapolis is about 40 miles from Philadelphia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.50.199 (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

According to Google Maps, Philadelphia is roughly 147 miles from West Point and 129 miles from Annapolis. Regardless, if you spot an error in an article you can either fix it using citations to reliable sources or you can start a discussion on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia glorification of Nazi criminals

I demand immediate update of several pages eg Werner Brauns page. Werner Braun was a Nazi war criminal who stole all the information he gained regarding Rockets from Concentration camp prisoners. He never developed a rocket in his life. He forced people in concentration camps to develop and build his rockets.

He also stole information from US rocket scientist Robert H. Goddard.

On Wiki he is glorified as Rocket hero.

This is not the first case. Over all it's is very obvious that Wikipedia is glorifying Nazi criminals and crediting Germany with invention they never came up with.

It's is no surprise though as all silicon valley companies are extremely pro Nazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A310:8340:6A00:24E9:9015:22C6:7347 (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

He never developed a rocket in his life. Citation needed. If you have a reliable source that attests to such a claim, please provide it on the relevant article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 23:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, weren't people supposed to claim Wikipedia has a left-wing bias? JIP | Talk 00:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Demands and attacks will not get you very far. This is a collaborative effort. If you are interested in civilly working with others to achieve a consensus as to what an article should say, please go to the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

So concentration camp prisoners were qualified to conduct rocket research? And who did he get to do the work he supposedly did later at NASA? The Disneyland workers at Space Mountain? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure. An edit with the best quality citation is a demand of sorts, it just takes more work and wherewithal than a demand on the help desk, and requires and requires that you know what you are doing. As is an RFC. Wikipedia responds to these "demands" through consensus decision making, but it's still a little demandy. Talpedia (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The article discusses the plagiarism and slave labor issues. If you have information to add, please provide sources. Tom Lehrer is not a WP:RS. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)