Help desk
< October 2	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 3

Linking a flag to a different article

The article International Island Games Association also contains Hitra, linking to the Norwegian municipality of Hitra. While this is accurate in terms of the flag, in this case Hitra (island) would be the proper target article to be listed. Can this be done? --KnightMove (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KnightMove: Why? As far as I can tell it isn't just the main Hitra (island) which is in the association but the whole of Hitra municipality whose flag it is. The "Islands" tab at https://www.iiga.org/ shows many island groups based just on "Islands" in their name. https://www.iiga.org/member_profile_12416.html says "Population 4256 (2010)" and the url at "Government Website" is for the municipality www.hitra.kommune.no. https://www.hitra.no/itall/befolkning/folketall-og-befolkningsendringer/ says the total population of the municipality was 4256 in 2010. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... and I see now that the mainland parts of Hitra municipality only joined there in 2020 when Snillfjord municipality was dissolved. Nothing of concern for the IIGA & nothing to be done here. Thanks.

Anyway, in principal: Could a flag be linked to a different article? --KnightMove (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KnightMove: Not with {{flag}}. The purpose of that template is to automatically select both flag and link. Otherwise you can just use {{flagicon}} to select the flag alone and add your own link like {{flagicon|Hitra}} [[Hitra (island)|Hitra]]:

Hitra. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{flagicon}} adds a link on the flag. Use {{flagdeco}} to avoid this. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed external links as suggested at the top of the page

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_and_Dorothy_Tanner

This suggestion is at the top of the Wikipedia page:

This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (July 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

I removed the external links, not knowing that external links would not follow Wikipedia guidelines. I believe the links now are all internal Wikipedia links. I would like to remove the template message and not sure how to do that, and thought that someone on the Wikipedia team would want to see if the page is properly corrected. If you think so, can you give me instructions on how to remove the suggestion at the top of the page?

Thank you so much,

Barry Raphael Barryraphael (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag. You can see in the page history how I did it. Madeline (part of me) 05:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Incentives

What are Wikipedia's rewards for contributors, that is, for the people who create articles, edit articles, make edits. Or are there no incentives? Does everything happen on a pro bono basis? Nataly Yuzhakova (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nataly Yuzhakova: Please don't ask the same question in several places. That one: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Wikipedia Incentives is enough. --CiaPan (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV/ COI issue?

Hello,

I’m looking for guidance/opinions on a page and would appreciate the community’s input.

I believe the following page (1xBet) to be in violation of the NPOV guidelines and have outlined my reasoning below.

The page comes across as being written with an exclusively negative bias. This becomes even more readily apparently when making a comparison with other pages within the same industry, as it omits sections that are commonly found and features mostly only negative ones.

Since the page’s inception, there is evidence that points to the page creator having a vendetta against the company. The first red flag is that they appear to edit this page exclusively. In addition to this, the continued sentiment of these contributions appears to be negatively biased against the company, and they have also left a comment on the talk page stating, ‘ 1xbet bankrupt? My work is done here.’, which implies that the user has a planned agenda.

I have posted previously on the page’s talk page, in addition to the neutral point of view noticeboard which has resulted in some changes, but I believe the NPOV violation still stands. For reference, my original post can be seen here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#1Xbet NPOV Thanks Melancholyhelper (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melancholyhelper Note that the whole url is not needed when linking to another article or page, simply place the target page name in double brackets as I've done here. Please note that if the content in independent reliable sources is negative about a topic, it will be on Wikipedia as well. If you have more positive coverage of the company, you are welcome to offer it. It is probably true that there does not need to be three separate sections of the company's troubles. I don't think deletion is warranted as the problems seem fixable. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melancholyhelper, I've looked for reliable independent sources that discuss 1xBet. I've found many, and all the ones I've read are about 1xBet's illegal actions. The Wikipedia article naturally reflects those sources. Maproom (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your input, After a quick search online, I was able to find several sources that reference information about the company, e.g. length of operation, countries/languages they service, etc. Surely this type of information should be included on the page? I understand and agree that the controversies should remain to some extent; however, in its current form the page doesn’t comply with NPOV guidelines as it is almost entirely negative and split into 4 separate category's.

When comparing this page with others in the same industry (that also feature negativity), it becomes apparent that the sections used are irregular – as other pages have a more neutral and balanced template.

Some examples of sources I found:

https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/news/1263451/fc-barcelona-adds-1xbet-as-a-new-global-partner

https://focusgn.com/1xbet-becomes-official-betting-partner-of-13-football-tournaments

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/newsindia/paris-saint-germain-welcomes-betting-company-1xbet-as-new-regional-partner/ar-AA1168N6

https://en.psg.fr/teams/club/content/paris-saint-germain-welcomes-1xbet-as-new-regional-parter-campaign-psg

Thanks Melancholyhelper (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case of WP:OR?

Scenario: A generally reliable publication publishes an article that quotes an expert. Another editor thinks the expert must have been misled to say such a thing. The editor goes ahead and privately contacts the expert via email. The expert clarifies to them that their quote was taken out of context. Does this justify removing to quote from Wikipedia, or does this constitute original research? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Throast. Whether it's WP:OR probably depends upon whether it's something that can be verified in reliable secondary sources. If the scenario you described is something covered in reliable secondary sources or perhaps by a retraction or clarification published by the original publication from which the quote is taken, then it's probably OK. If the expert self-publishes a clarification (e.g. tweets something from their official Twitter account) or retraction, then it probably is also OK as long as it doesn't run afoul of WP:BLPSELFPUB or WP:ABOUTSELF. If all you have is some private conversation between an editor and the expert, then that probably is not going to be allowed because it's (1) not verifiable and (2) not a published reliable source. Most likely the best thing to do here would be to get the expert to contact the original publication and get them to issue a retraction or correction. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is not allowed to add claims but it can sometimes be used when deciding to omit a published claim. If the publication has a good reputation and the quote is significant to the article and not clearly wrong then I would be hesitant to remove it based on alleged OR knowledge by an editor. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smithson graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Blockhead U.

There are about 160 articles with the phrasing of "John Johnson graduated Phi Beta Kappa from University of Somewhere" is this proper? I asked a few days ago on WP:EDU but that hasn't gotten a response.Naraht (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an obscure foreign phrase it should be explained. DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much not a foreign phrase (relative to the articles) by definition, Phi Beta Kappa only exists in the United States.Naraht (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Beta Kappa should be linked so readers can find the meaning. That seems enough. Your example at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education#Smithson graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Blockhead U is Wes Moore#Early life and education where it's linked. "graduated Phi Beta Kappa" -linksto:"Phi Beta Kappa" finds 76 articles without a link. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunterThank you for the search, I'll take care of them.Naraht (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunterLooks like about two thirds are [[Phi Beta Kappa Society|Phi Beta Kappa]] getting rid of those gives 29, I'll look at them. (As to whether [[Phi Beta Kappa Society|Phi Beta Kappa]] should be changed to [[Phi Beta Kappa]] , I've always viewed that as low priority.Naraht (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the article Phi Beta Kappa does not explain what "graduated Phi Beta Kappa" means. I can sort of guess what it must mean from context, but as a native English speaker, I would rather like to have this obscure local idiom explained when it is used in an article. ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a society so I think it's natural to assume it just means graduated as a member of the society. Google shows it's a common term. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is graduating as a member of this club any more worthy of notice than, say, graduating as a member of the Philately Club or the Real Ale Society? DuncanHill (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an academic honor society. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A purely US phenomenon. Nobody else knows what they are. DuncanHill (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because Phi Beta Kappa has rigorous academic standards and is widely seen as prestigious in the United States, at least by educated people. Those other clubs you mentioned are presumably open to any student. It is not at all an "obscure local idiom". Cullen328 (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's obscure to anybody who isn't American. DuncanHill (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is obscure. In the phrase "graduating Phi Beta Kappa", what is the relationship between the two halves of the phrase? ColinFine (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not correct in formal American English to say "graduated Phi Beta Kappa" because election to the honorary society is independent of the institution granting the degree. We do say "graduated cum laude" because that is an annotation the college or university puts on the degree itself. Such sentences also don't say what degree the person graduated with. Since encyclopedia articles shouldn't be written in slang, use a better statement to express the same thing. Use "Mary Morgan graduated with a BA degree from Essential University and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa." StarryGrandma (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "graduated Phi Beta Kappa" is perfectly correct in American English, unless you're a prescriptivist. Mathglot (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot As in saying "was graduated from..."? Maybe with "Phi Beta Kappa " included somehow? And is Blockhead U. a good school? David10244 (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David10244, very much like that. And I can testify that Blockhead U. is a *very* good school, at least, when I was there. Unfortunately, it was a bit *too* good, and I wasn't able to... That is, maybe I could've studied harder, and... What I mean to say is... Oh, never mind: it's a very good school! Mathglot (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages

Just by curiosity, why are subpages disabled in the english Wikipedia ? Vincent-vst (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincent-vst, as far as I know, subpages are not generally disabled on English Wikipedia. What pages did you run into that were not allowed to be created? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:199.208.172.35 I was reading : Wikipedia:Subpages and it says that subpages have been disabled in the English Wikipedia. I never actually needed nor used this feature. I was just intrigued when reading it. Vincent-vst (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincent-vst, that's only in mainspace (i.e., for articles themselves), not the whole of Wikipedia. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok Vincent-vst (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages are disabled in mainspace, but supported in (for example) Wikipedia and User spaces. I haven't seen a justification, but it's a trade-off. If you have sub-pages, then you cannot have a page name containing a slash. This is a disadvantage for an encyclopaedia, and I don't see an obvious advantage to allowing subpages. ColinFine (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The justification put forward at the page mentioned above is: This namespace (which is where articles reside) does not have this feature turned on because strictly hierarchical organisation of articles is discouraged, and other distinctions are better made by placing pages in other namespaces (e.g. discussions go in "Talk:", and templates in "Template:") 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Vincent-vst (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page and articles

Hi,

I was wondering if somone can explain to me the difference between a page and an article, from what I understood an article is a form of page, so does a page needs to be submitted for review like article drafts or not? What is the difference between the two when it comes to the creating process? RWikiED20 (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are specifically items in mainspace, not talk pages or items in other spaces. Earth is an article, Talk:Earth is not. "Pages" is derived from "webpage" and would be all Wikipedia items. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are one kind of page; but we often distinguish them here on the Help desk and similar places because (at least in my view) it helps to remind inexperienced editors that Wikipedia articles are nothing like pages on social media, even if there are superficial similarities: on the contrary, they are articles in an encylcopaedia, with quite strict requirements about sourcing, neutrality, and tone of writing. ColinFine (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RWikiED20. You can create as many non-article pages as you want, as long as they are for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. These might be sandbox pages where you are developing content, essays about various Wikipedia issues, lists of links that you find useful, and so on. No disruptive content is permitted. There is no formal review process for non-article pages unless you are trying to write a new policy or guideline. By the way, the Articles for Creation process is voluntary and optional for most editors. Cullen328 (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So a page is like a personnal draft right? and it can't be a regular article. RWikiED20 (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RWikiED20, all articles are pages, but we normally call them "articles" instead of "pages". There are many additional types of pages. Drafts are just one other type of page. The Teahouse is a page. Administrative noticeboards are pages. Policies and guidelines are pages. File description pages are pages. Articles for Deletion debates are pages. And so on. Cullen328 (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have about 6.5 million articles and about 56.6 million pages. Cullen328 (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Error i made on 2022 in radio

Can you fix the error i made on the article i did a short while ago please. 98.186.55.18 (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, the title paramater was missing Cmr08 (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Data

I was looking for Massachusetts Median Income, and the page was very useful, except it did not include Cambridge, which is one of our larger Cities. Who do I contact about this, and how? regards -- Cliff CRK-Wenonah (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CRK-Wenonah. I'm afraid that there isn't anybody to contact about this. Wikipedia is created by individual volunteers who work on what they choose. If some information you are looking for is not where you would expect on Wikipedia, you're out of luck. One possibility is that you could go looking for the information youself, and if you find a reliable source, contrinbute to Wikipedia by adding the information to the article. Alternatively, you could ask at the Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Miscellaneous or at WT:WikiProject Massachusetts - there is no guarantee that you will get an answer, but somebody might be motivated to go and look for one. ColinFine (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]