Help desk
< November 5	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 7 >

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.

November 6

Wikipedia Content translation tool

I am trying to use the Wikipedia:Content translation tool but it says it is limited to extended confirmed editors which are “editors who have been registered for at least 30 days and have made at least 500 edits to the English Wikipedia”. I believe my account meets that criteria as I have well over 500 edits and have had this account for at least 2 years, yet I’m still unable to use the tool. Can someone advise on this problem? I’d like to use it to translate an article for English Wikipedia.

Thank you! CMD007 (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CMD007, where do you have a problem? What happens when you click on ”Wikipedia:Content translation tool” and then on ”Go to Special:ContentTranslation”? TSventon (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, when I follow those prompts I can select the foreign language article I want to translate, but after I press translate it just disappears. The caption “On the English Wikipedia machine translation is disabled for all users and this tool is limited to extended confirmed editors (see WP:CXT).” is on the page the entire time. I guess that makes sense if all users aren’t able to translate, but then why have the tool? CMD007 (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CMD007: I found this summary. RAN1 (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. CMD007 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CMD007, when I select a Swedish article for translation and click “start translation“, I get a page with two columns, Swedish with the original article and English, which is blank. When hovering over the English column I see “+ Add translation“, which adds the Swedish text to the English column. I can then overtype the Swedish text with my own translation. What language are you trying to translate from and what do you get when you select a foreign-language article for translation? TSventon (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: Hello, I’m trying to translate a Spanish article, Imperial Order of Saint Charles [es], an imperial order. I can select the article, but When I push Start Translation, it just disappears and nothing is there. CMD007 (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CMD007, I get the same two columns for that article as for the Swedish ones. You could try asking at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Content_translation if you don't get an answer here. TSventon (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ TSventon: Interesting, I must have to check my settings or something. Ok, thanks for the help! CMD007 (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CMD007, in my experience most of the work in translating an article is not the translation of the text, but making sure the article is suitable for en Wikipedia, see Help:Your first article. For example your article on the Imperial Order of the Mexican Eagle has been tagged with “Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable“ and “This article relies largely or entirely on a single source“. Also, it appears to be a translation of the es Wikipedia article and that should be mentioned in an edit summary, see Help:Translation. TSventon (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ TSventon: I did omit that it was a translation in the creation summary, it was an overlook. I have added more references/sources since that labeling and plan to add more soon. I believe it is as suitable as any other article on Italian, French, or German royal orders, but more work needs to be done as far as references. In fact, an article like Military Order of Savoy has zero sources/references that I can find. We’ll have to work on that, Thank you. CMD007 (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CMD007, I have added a credit for the es Wikipedia source as that can be done retrospectively. I also added some categories and a link to the es Wikipedia article in the Languages section via “Edit links“. I think that the tags added by the New Page Patroller meant that the article was generally suitable, but that more work needed to be done on the references. Wikipedia prefers journalistic and academic sources over sites which sell products, see WP:VENDOR. All the references so far are just urls, it is better to use citation templates or a manual equivalent, so important information like a book's title and author can be displayed, see Help:Referencing for beginners. Military Order of Savoy was created ten years ago, so it is possible that standards were different then. TSventon (talk) 11:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of family names

I wanted to know if this edit [1] by an editor was actually constructive? I can name millions of article that include FIRST NAMES of the family. Yet what they BLP policy mentions is to avoid using FULL NAMES in such cases. Should I re-add them back? Also since the article subject is already dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejoy2003 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is, but they're not. But yeah first names of children are published sometimes, sometimes not, there's no rule. But since the names were just added recently, and since an editor objected, WP:BRD is in play I think, so you should not restore them, but rather go to the talk page and hash it out. If it was me I'd let it go. It's not really a BLP violation to include the first names, but the spirit of BLP is to err on the side of privacy if possible, and there's little reason to include the names I don't think.Herostratus (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPNAME says The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects.... Names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced. So it seems to me that the children's names should not be included unless there are reliable sources for them, and probably not even then unless the children's names somehow helps the reader understand the subject of the article. I don't understand the distinction the OP is making between full names and first names, given that the family name is known. CodeTalker (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with CodeTalker. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We include children's names in some circumstances if they have been widely discussed in reliable sources. In this case, the cited source is Goan Voice UK, which bills itself as a newsletter, and seems to be a one man project run by Eddie Fernandes. He aggregates news published by other outlets that is of interest to people from Goa. If you look at that newsletter, I think that it is obvious that he is not doing independent fact checking. Therefore, the reliability of the original source is what matters and that source should be cited, not the news aggregator. The original source of this information is an obituary and it is a dead link. Obituaries written by professional journalists are reliable sources, while obituaries written by family members are not. At this time, we have no way of determining whether this obituary is reliable, and therefore, the names should be excluded, in my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Rejoy2003. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

Hi. Without naming any names, I'm concerned that I have come across a few editors who are tag-teaming on a bunch of articles and propagating a biased perspective which I think violates WP:NPOV. There's a general topic which I have some cause to believe is not very well represented on the English Wikipedia, for a whole set of social and cultural reasons which perhaps may be complicated for "outsiders" to understand. However, this is also in a very significant topic and in this case, what is on Wikipedia can also have outsized effects off-Wikipedia too. I've been on Wikipedia for more than a decade and I think I have a fair amount of awareness of Wikipedia policies, but I'm not an active editor and don't have much experience. Does someone have any advice? I'm happy to go into much more detail (including names) privately, but I'd rather not name anyone or anything publicly yet. Arceus775 (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arceus775. Have you tried discussing your concerns with these editors on the relevant article talk pages? That's probably the first thing you should try and do. If they respond positively, then perhaps together you can cleanup whatever NPOV issues you think need to be cleaned up. If they don't respond positively, you can work your way through WP:DR and try other things. You might also want to take a look at WP:RGW for reference because it's possible (based upon the for a whole set of social and cultural reasons which perhaps may be complicated for "outsiders" to understand part of your original post and the small number of edits you have made so far with this account) that there might be some things about Wikipedia that you don't quite understand. It's hard to say which is which without you providing more specifics; however, in general, content disputes are expected, for the most part, to be resolved through article talk page discussion, whereas behavioral issues sometimes end up needing administrator involvement to be resolved. In either case, there's really no way to avoid naming names and providing proof (either of the inappropriate behavior of others or in support of your position) in order to resolve such disagreements since the vast majority of Wikipedia-related issues need to be resolved on Wikipedia at some point for transparency purposes and to make it easier for other members of the Wikipedia community to participate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks for making the effort to not bite. I'm being cagey intentionally, but I'm quite certain discussing directly with the relevant editors on talk pages is not going to be productive. Anyway, if there's anyone out there who's willing to do a reasonably quick sanity check and let me know if they think it's worth it for me to pursue this, please reach out. I've just created u/burner20221106 on Reddit. Arceus775 (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arceus775, does this concern this thread? Quisqualis (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to report or block a disruptive editor

A disruptive editor is vandalizing a wiki page Joshkabab (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshkabab Vandalism, efforts to deface an article(preferred term instead of the broader "page"), may be reported to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to assume Assume good faith before you try to report them. A vandal is someone who purposely tries to deface an article. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish skaters

You are missing Jason Brown. 75.63.50.14 (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link(s) to the article(s) concerned. Also, depending on the criteria involved, it may be a case where a list would only contain 'notable' persons; which would mean only those whom Wikipedia have an article about. Eagleash (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing where he is missing. Jason Brown (figure skater) is included in List of Jews in sports#Figure skating. I haven't found other relevant lists. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Create wikipedia Page

How can i create a wikipedia page for a media company . When i try to create i got always rejected even i show the government proof . JANAKKAFLE121 (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JANAKKAFLE121 A government has no role in the presence of a Wikipedia article(the proper term, instead of "page"). Not every company merits a Wikipedia article. A company merits an article if it receives significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Press releases, interviews, brief mentions, announcements of routine business activities, and the like do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joining a WikiProject

Hi! I quite recently discovered a WikiProject of interest that I like; but I'm very badly stuck on how to join it and become a member, and start contributing. How do I become the member of the WikiProject? Wikipedian10282 (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian10282 I don't know which project you refer to, but for most if not all of them, you just say you're a member. Some projects have member lists you can just add your name to. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that narrows it down. I initially thought that there were some requirements on how to join, but I'd never imagined that it was this easy. I really appreciate your quick and informative response. Wikipedian10282 (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian10282 The project pages I've looked at all have at least a section--some have a special tab--for members, or for joining. Under those sections or tabs, they generally give instructions for joining--typically by editing the section to add your user name to the list. And they'll typically provide a template for adding a UserBox to your User Page to say you're a member of the project. Of course, it's all optional. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a sockpuppet

I don't know if this is the right place to raise the issue, but I discovered that I'm suspected to be a sockpuppet. What can I do to prove that I'm not? -- Lucretius (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI in question was ten years ago, and I will quote from it: CU is one hell of a mess[.] I believe the CUs opted not to block you because of just how tangled the CU results were. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That SPI does not appear to pertain to this user. The user it pertained to is now at Lucretius~enwiki after SUL unification. THIS Lucretrius registered 4 years after the SPI. -- ferret (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that would explain things. Apologies, Lucretius. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 03:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucretius, perhaps you could ask at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations if WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Lucretius/Archive can be updated to say that it relates to Lucretius~enwiki. TSventon (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TSventon, thanks for the hint! I'll try. -- Lucretius (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prisha Shroff

I would like to respectfully propose an section for young inventor, Prisha Shroff https://www.linkedin.com/in/prishashroff/ Romishshroff (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean an article, Romishshroff, and if Prisha Shroff can be shown to be notable according to Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and if you can base your draft for an article on what Wikipedia understands to be reliable sources, then click on Draft:Prisha Shroff and create a draft. I notice that your user name includes "shroff": please read and digest Wikipedia's simplified guide to conflict of interest. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but I'd be willing to bet that LinkedIn is considered absolutely useless for establishing notability. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]