Help desk
< October 8	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 9

Martineau family

Is the publisher for reference number 10 OK? Please help. Thank you 115.70.23.77 (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be using a WordPress blog as a source. See the explanation at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources RudolfRed (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 11 needs fixed. Currently it is raw search url which is non-rs. Cite the specific paper and put the "Genes Reunited" in the via property of cite news. An attempt should be made to find the publisher of the specific paper your citing. Always cite the sources as in 10-50 years, the archive may not be there, but the paper will always be there. So always cite the source document first and foremost. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 23:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martineau family

Is reference 6 OK? I could not ascertain the publisher. Please assist of you can. Thanks 115.70.23.77 (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. You should use a full cite book reference with the page number, even if its in wikisource. I think there is a template, but I always use cite book with a url to the wikisource, so the reader knows exactly what is being cited, without doing a double click. Page number and volume are equally important and if it is in a book series. Ref 63 is completly knackered and should be replaced as should Ref 35. Ref 35 should be completly replaced or actually referenced to the source document. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 11:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the fix the Volleyball 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles schedules and the schedule for Breakdancing at the Hangzhou Asian Games 2022

I need your help to fix and upgrade the schedules for the Men's and Women's Volleyball in Los Angeles 1984 Olympics and the schedule for Breakdancing at the Hangzhou Asian Games 2022. Can you do that?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volleyball_at_the_1984_Summer_Olympics

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakdancing_at_the_2022_Asian_Games 108.21.67.83 (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The best thing to do is to post your request on each article's talk page, with details on what should be changed and a reference to the correct schedule. GoingBatty (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of wikimedia reading tool

I clicked the box to provide feedback with the Wikimedia reading tool and now I don't know how to get rid of it. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to another browser did not help for me (I hoped that clearing the browser cache would help). And I cannot find anything under "Preferences" that allows to deactive the "Wikimedia reading tool". I hope for an answer in the Mediawiki. --Kallichore (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copying a response from mw:Talk:Reading/Web/Accessibility for reading#How do I close the "Wikimedia reading tool" window?:

Hey @Kallichore, Jc3s5h, and Lajmmoore: thanks for reaching out to us :) In the widget, right above the buttons, there's a sentence "Click here to remove this tool." In addition to that, soon we'll disable this tool on English Wikipedia because we have plenty of replies already. I hope this helps! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jc3s5h (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the lead image in an article different than on Commons?

The infobox image in Farhan Ahmed Jovan is completely different than the one I see when I click on the image. The one that's actually on commons doesn't have the other image in its history either. Is it just me? ~Anachronist (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see the same image in both. It's been deleted on Commons before; maybe you're seeing a cached version either here or there? —Cryptic 14:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It may be something at your end. I've just been to the article, clicked on the image and gone straight to WP:File:Farhan Ahmed Jovan.jpg which looks to be identical. I then clicked on "description page there" to go to the commons version, and that is also the same. I do note though that the copyright declaration is signed by user Iambroh, but the photograph is stamped "Atiq Rahman Photography" which looks commercial. Is there a possible copyvio here? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've tagged it. Tineye couldn't find it and google's newly-crippled reverse image search was, as usual, entirely useless, but I was able to stumble onto a two-year-old prior use by searching for the photographer's and actor's names. —Cryptic 15:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the same image for me, a man in a green shirt. Sometimes a specific image size is wrong. If I right-click the image and select to open image in new tab (a browser feature) then I get https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Farhan_Ahmed_Jovan.jpg/300px-Farhan_Ahmed_Jovan.jpg, still the same image. @Anachronist: Do you have such a feature and what does it give? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: @Cryptic: I get this when I right click on the infobox to open the image in a new tab: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Farhan_Ahmed_Jovan.jpg/440px-Farhan_Ahmed_Jovan.jpg - for me it's a guy in a brown blazer, not a green shirt like on Commons. Maybe it's my own browser cache. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: Your 440px link is the green shirt for me. Try to bypass your cache on both the article and 440px link. Note you have to hold down Ctrl in Windows browsers when you reload. It's also conceivable that some but not all Wikimedia servers still have a deleted image for some resolutions. I assume your brown blazer guy is one of the deleted files at [1]. The "File history" section on a file page doesn't show deleted files but only files which have been updated with "Upload a new version of this file". Click the "View history" tab and "View logs for this page" to see any deletion logs for deleted files. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checking back in, now I see the green-shirt guy when I click on the link I posted above, but still the brown-blazer guy in the infobox and when I right click and load the infobox picture in a new tab - even when I bypass the browser cache. I tried in three different browsers (Chrome, Edge, Waterfox) all with the same result. Because I had never looked at Wikipedia before in Waterfox, I can only assume it's a server issue and not something on my end. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

huh, i see it too ltbdl (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garín v Garin (spelling error)

The "í" of "Garín" in the title of the Felipe Garin Llombart article should be an í-acute (as per Felipe Garín Ortiz de Taranco). I don't know how to change this while also making sure that the other spelling is maintained as a redirect. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cl3phact0: I moved it to Felipe Garín Llombart, with the original name redirecting to the new one. If you do a page move, you are given the choice of leaving the original name as a redirect. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you are an admin or page mover. Moves by people without special rights always leave a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cl3phact0, @Anachronist: I added {{R to diacritic}} to the redirect page. GoingBatty (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. Appreciate your help with these subtle, technical nuances of the project. I've got some studying to do! -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to remove mischaracterizations/libelous statements from the HISTORY of a page?

Hi: I have a faculty colleague who is unhappy that text that had been added to a Wikipedia page and then removed is still visible in the history of that page. He would like that text excised from public view. While I understand that the purpose of the history is to show the actual changes to a particular page, in this instance, he feels that continuing to enable people to see what he describes as a false narrative designed to impugn his reputation is doing just that. For instance, he became aware of this language when a colleague noticed it in the history. Is there a way to remove mischaracterizations/libelous statements from the history of a page?

I'd appreciate anything you can do and any additional information you can provide.

Best, Jack 35.2.64.61 (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is technically possible. See Wikipedia:Revision deletion#How to request Revision Deletion and Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Criteria for redaction for when the community allows that tool to be used. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jack, and welcome to Wikipedia. Well, you can ask. See WP:REVDEL, perhaps specifically WP:REVDELREQUEST. Good luck. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous South Park episode articles have incorrect episode numbers tampered by IP editors

I was going through some South Park articles and noticed that many of the Episode numbers have been messed up by IP addresses, specifically IPv6 ones. Usually each IP does only 1 edit.

I am by no means an expert but I am certain there is more of these to do.

I fixed Make Love, Not Warcraft and Mystery of the Urinal Deuce but it requires an investment in time to look at the other more than 300 episodes that have been put throughout the years and make the proper changes. Time I don't have.

Where should I go from here? Urbanracer34 (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Urbanracer34: Hi there! You could ask for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation/South Park task force. GoingBatty (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Thanks for responding! I'll see if they can help. Urbanracer34 (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

How long does a discussion on a talk page need to be opened? I have multiple articles that are being merged and I what to know how long should I wait until the merge idea would be dropped. What is the best way to come up with an answer? It’s only one other person with the idea so I do not know what to do. LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be helpful, the following articles have been suggested for merging: Luxembourg Rebellion, USCG Auxiliary Flotilla 6-9, The United States and the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, Luxembourg Rebellions and Luxembourg Republic. Four of the five proposals are from my hand. The Banner talk 22:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MERGECLOSE, which says wait until a week has passed since the last comment. TSventon (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qs on writing references

This is in regard to the article Paul Martin (illustrator). 1. Notice reference no. 276. I inserted those two links into that Ref. a long time ago. Notice how only the column appears when clicking the links. Is that okay, or should the links be changed to go to the entire page instead? It doesn't seem to make any difference, as long as link rot is not likely to happen in the first (going just to the column). 2. Is putting a comma after the year and before the "p." really necessary? (Re Ref. 276.) If yes, it seems like an awful lot of redundancy to insert over one hundred commas into the article. Maybe an alternative would be following the example in the featured article Mary Shelley. In its references, the "p." abbreviations are omitted, but when the link is on the page number a dot comes before it (see refs. 210 & 212). Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JimPercy: No that is fine. Its really helpful for the reader. scope_creep^Talk 23:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK so will keep as is. That page style (w/o comma) is consistent in the article, and links only going to the column is rarely done that way in the article. JimPercy (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JimPercy: How goes it. I must have been half asleep when I replied, late last actually, half-asleep or probably fully sleeping and still trying to work. Anywhats what on the article is a whole series of what is called bare urls Wikipedia:Bare URLs. I would suggest converting all the references to full citations. It does take a bit of work but can be very rewarding. Please take a look WP:REFB which is a small tutorial on how to create a citation in the correct. Bare urls don't have a long lifespan and tend to decay relatively quickly and considered the worst kind of reference. It a really nice well-written article and really deserves it I will do a few to get you started. If you need help ping me. scope_creep^Talk 10:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I just don't see any of the Refs. as bare. Doesn't that indicate the URL is in a Ref. and nothing else (or no way to locate the source in case of link rot)? Every Ref. in this article has the source, full date, and page no. (However, I understand that other formats are more in vogue.) Also, none of the links in Refs. go to blogs, but rather to solid ones like the LOC and Internet Archive. Yes, there are about ten URLs that go only to the column. Example: Ref. 276, but I can easily fix about seven of them if that would be better. For instance, I could change the first of two URLs in Ref. 276 to: https://archive.org/details/sim_new-york-times_1921-10-17_71_23277/page/n11/mode/2up. There's only about three that would be hard to change (ex. Ref. 141), since it's only viewable on the Internet via a subscription to Newspapers.com. The second link in your email goes to a page with the following excerpt that may apply to the Martin article. "Note: This is by far the most popular system for inline citations, but sometimes you will find other styles being used in an article. This is acceptable, and you shouldn't change it or mix styles. To add a new reference, just copy and modify an existing one." JimPercy (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JimPercy: It could be that, but more the fact of missing information that is crucial to identify the source document. There is other problems with the article like for example, in reference 3 where you have 4 urls in one reference, which is completely non-standard reference format. Also the excessive use of wiki dictionary links in place of wikipedia links, is non-standard. I see you have use an external link the body of the article. Don't use ext link in the main body ever. The excessive detail around the tennis career will probably need to go. Its almost fan written and is excessive for a biographical article. scope_creep^Talk 16:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Another editor made about four of the corrections you suggested. I deleted two of the Refs. in the one you mentioned. However, that was originally necessary to establish credibility. Some advertising characters mostly unknown today, were very famous in the past. You said the tennis section was too long. But Martin was an illustrator; hence, it seems noteworthy that he played in sanctioned tournaments against many future Hall of Famers. The number of tennis final appearances helps establish notability. There is a bold-print subheading titled "Featured match." That could be eliminated, as it's mostly of general interest. It's an excerpt by a famous tennis writer reporting firsthand on a sanctioned match involving Martin and World No. 1, Bill Tilden. The objective of this article was to capture every detail; otherwise, some would be lost to history. I am not aware of any slant. I still don't note any defect in the Ref. style as full detail (sometimes including additional info) is given to prevent loss of source through link rot, even if it involves links to Haiti Trust or Google Books. This article was created in 2010 when this "old" style was more in vogue. JimPercy (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that is probably part of it, I think. It is a older way of doing of references. I think over time it needs to be modernised with a better reference format and more accurate and accountable reference format, where they're is 1 or more reference per sentence, that can access a full reference, instead the block type that is there at the moment. Generally I would favour using short from references (sfn) with a proper bibliography section with a further reading section put in. It would quality into a quality article really. Also, that way bibliography citations are available for reader to use in there own content. Currently the references are locked into the articles, and average reader would need to do a lot of work to get a proper reference of any particular sentence. If you something, like for example, Black market in wartime France that I did with some mates, you can see how clean the biblio section is and citation are clear and easy to navigate and more so, use by the Its something to think about certainly. Regarding the tennis. Generally you put in the most notable stuff. Having an extreme listing of every tennis match he attended isn't the way to go, as many of them will be non-notable and most of it won't be read by the average reader. Its known through research, they're eyes glance at it and that is the last they see it. So the work going to waste and by long consensus says its got to be slimmed. There is stuff. The life sections needs moved up to the top to follow the WP:MOS layout guidelines, so it needs a wee copyedit. Also if you can, avoid Wikipedia link-spam. Again listing the names of everybody he played with is not the purpose of Wikipedia, only the most notable folk should be listed. scope_creep^Talk 19:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will look over those links later and the more proper Ref. style. The Refs. in this article often include additional detail to the sentences in the body that come right before them. I think they are clear when reading the text and then clicking on the Ref. no. at the end of the sentence. I listed the 30-finals he was in since trophies were awarded to both the winner and runner-up. My guess is that Martin played in over 150 sanctioned tournaments, so isolating on just those 30 doesn't seem like overkill. Tennis Hall of Famers from that era would be unknown to just about all sports fans except for Tilden, and maybe Richards and Borotra. But one can also click on their names, as they all have their own WP article. Oh, and move the Life section up. JimPercy (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]