Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 September 1

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.

September 1

plot summary for a film mainly composed of unrelated skits

I am editing the Space Monster Wangmagwi article, and intend to replace the plot summary in its entirety (the current plot summary is ripped word-for-word from the store page for the DVD). The only issue is that I'm unsure of how to summarize the plot, since the movie is more focused on various vignettes than the overarching plotline. I know one would ordinarily cut out any incidental scenes and focus only on the important plot points, but doing that there would be very little to write since most of the film is incidental (in fact, the marketing blurb that's there right now actually covers most of the important plot points, only omitting the very ending). Are there any good examples of plot summaries for other films with a similar style, ie films not really focused on the core plot?

HumbleSolipsist1 (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that film (for which, after reading the article, I think I'm thankful?), but what you're describing sounds like an anthology film. I've generated a list of good articles in anthology-film categories here. Or you can peruse Category:Anthology films for (a lot) more examples which haven't gone through a formal quality check. —Cryptic 01:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@HumbleSolipsist1: Consider removing the plot section entirely, and describing the film as a collection of skits, similar to how it is done at And_Now_for_Something_Completely_Different as an example. RudolfRed (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Best way to add page numbers for citation at different places

I see pages where citations are done in multiple ways. e.g. using templates sfn, sfnp, Reference etc. Is there a standard simple way to cite same source at multiple places with different page numbers? e.g. I have used book citation and then used the "rp" template to add the single or multiple page numbers which would appear as e.g. [1]:23 or [1]:23-25 and I found that very easy to understand. But, I was not sure if there is a better way, or is usage of sfn, sfnp, reference etc. also widely used and suggested option to add citation. Thanks. Asteramellus (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no best way. There is the way that is consistent with all other references in the article. There are likely camp followers for every referencing style who are quite content to die on their preferred hill. This is why the best way is to use the style already present in the article. If there is a mix, you can attempt to find consensus on the article's talk page or fall back to the first significant contribution and use that style. If you are the first author, you get to choose.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Trappist is absolutely right, but this subject (i.e referencing) is one of the very worst things about Wikipedia. Everyone has their own pet style, and it causes untold grief and woe just understanding how to master one particular way of reffing (you've done well): and then there are perhaps five more equally valid ways, including this, although it's not recommended. Even the term 'Harvard referencing' as supposedly implemented on WP is a load of nonsense. Every other worthwhile publisher in the world has their own specific style, including Britannica (which is considerably less painstaking than English Wikipedia) but WP is an appalling free-for-all and an utter mish-mash of styles. In practice nothing genuinely needs to get sorted until proposed for WP:GA or WP:FA, but only an alert editor will prevent later additions blighting the article. Personally I would go for {{sfn}} and {{cite}} templates [I believe eveyone should be forced to learn how to use them and make them work, templates *are* the future, but that takes time and effort, ("aargh" they cry)], but some people are blindly set in their ways (read: lazy), and quite why the originating editor's choice should should have pride of place is utterly beyond me. There's always the joke of consensus, but if no-one else responds you should make the changes yourself unilaterally to achieve consistency the way you like it and the hell with the rest. NB This may not be the best advice. </rant> MinorProphet (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Why do burgers?

Burgers are commonly put together as some form of meat patty surrounded by cheese and breading, usually called a cob or a bread roll. Why do they not put burgers on the outside and the bread on the inside, you then get your first bite and taste the meat. Much better. Thankyou. 77.44.75.66 (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP Address. The help desk is about asking question within Wikipedia, and is not a place to spread your opinions about burgers.

Please note that Wikipedia is not a forum. Regards. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 03:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Two reasons: (1) Who wants grease on their fingers? (2) HOT! HOT! HOT! Clarityfiend (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess a little joke is ok, So..

(3) (Similar to idea 2), but you'll likely get some serious burns on your hands (if the meat is still hot)? 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 05:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Just because it's a bad idea, doesn't mean someone hasn't done it. See Double Down (sandwich). --Jayron32 12:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I like to think the bread "absorbs" some of the flavor of the burger, enhancing it's taste. Also I like bread. But in all seriousness, @Layah50 is right, this is a place to ask about editing Wikipedia, not trying to use the platform as a soapbox for your new burger ideas. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit War

Can someone help me with stopping an edit war? The articles on the topic are not helpful to me. Donutholeveronica (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Given that every edit you have made has been improperly promoting the same 'forthcoming novel', stopping the edit war will be simple. Stop promoting it. That isn't what Wikipedia is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Donutholeveronica, I've also seen that you've requested page protection on the article. However, edit warring related incidents will likely be declined. Instead, those should be taken to WP:AN/3.

Also, please note that the user you're arguing with is an admin. I suggest you stop the edit warring before you are blocked. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 05:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for responding so quickly. I have explained a few times in my Talk section (in two different threads) that I was unaware about the book mention not being allowed so I removed it edits ago when I realized what that admin was saying. The most recent edits that were taken down were about an existing story and included a citation to the story. I am confused why there is still an issue. They mentioned something about notability but from the wikipedia documentation that refers to an entire entry not the contents of an entry. Plus this author I'm trying to post about is legitimate and published.

Yes I believe I posted the page protection in the wrong place. But as you can see from my post here about the edit war, the instructions are a bit over my head. That's why I asked for help. I am not trying to start or maintain an edit war. I am trying to end it. I am trying to get someone to understand that my original post has been edited to comply with guidelines. There is an existing piece of literature that belongs in that section and was cited.

I didn't even know what an edit war was before I started googling for some help and came across it. I am simply seeking help for this issue. Donutholeveronica (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Donutholeveronica: If you haven't already, start a discussion on the talk page and gain consensus for your edits. See WP:BURDEN - the burden is on you to gain consensus for what you want to add if you think it belongs and other editors disagree. If others are removing it, the talk page is your only real option. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for replying with something helpful! If I can bother you some more because I am very confused navigating this space. There are two discussions going on in my Talk section. I didn't start either of them. And no one seems to be listening to me just threatening me. Is that considered me trying to gain consensus? Or do I need to click the Add Topic button and start a thread myself? I'm sorry - last question - if I do that, how do I reach out to people to ask for the feedback? Donutholeveronica (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Donutholeveronica, you can ask users by posting a message on their talk page. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 08:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry I don't understand. On whose page? Just go around to users and ask them if they support this? How do I find them? Donutholeveronica (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

If you look at the signature at the end of your post, there is a link next to your username that says "talk", this would take you to your user talk page- most every user's signature(see mine which follows) has such a link. Some users may have edited it to say something other than "talk", but the link is usually there. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not the same user who was helping you earlier, but I think I can clarify a bit here. If you want to gain a consensus about something to add to an article, you should discuss it on the talk page of that article, not your user talk page. Presumably in this case that would be Talk:Euthanasia_Coaster. You won't need to reach out to people, as that talk page seems fairly active. I also think I should make clear that the issue being taken with your citation is that it is a primary source, whereas wikipedia & its community usually prefers secondary sources. See MOS:POPCULT for more clarification about what is expected for something that's included in pop-culture sections. If you can find a reliable secondary source which discusses the story you've mentioned (a review, an article about its importance, an interview with the author, etc) then the admin who keeps reverting your changes may reconsider. Also, take a look at the most recent 2 topics in Talk:Euthanasia_Coaster, as they are relevant to your current issue. HumbleSolipsist1 (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! This is extremely helpful. I will have to see if that's available (a secondary source). If not then I suppose I'll just have to let this go. A citation is required, correct? It cannot be posted without one? Sorry for my confusion. This is confusing and I've lost track of the various links I've read. Donutholeveronica (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I totally understand that it can be overwhelming, there's a lot to be read on wikipedia, and people love linking to it ;) and yes, citations are required. As I recall (though I was fairly young at the time), Wikipedia used to be a little more lax on that sort of thing and a lot of nonsense made it on the site, so they're pretty strict these days. HumbleSolipsist1 (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you speaking to me like I'm a person. Thank you so much. All of my questions are answered now. I hope other people on this platform take your approach. Donutholeveronica (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

They might if you don't accuse them of gatekeeping and having a personal bias. ... discospinster _talk 18:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

LOL no no that was in response to many interactions, me trying to explain myself, and trying to understand what was going on, so don't play the victim here and post such a comment out of context. Your comment is so petty and reflects a serious lack of insight. Had you communicated clearly and not used jargon with someone who clearly did not understand it after you repeatedly and relentlessly taking my post down when, at the time, I felt that I was complying with your requests with the edits I made and that you just kept coming up with different reasons to remove the post then maybe I would not have felt that way. If you can't understand that then that's very telling. Did my post have multiple issues? Yes. Did I understand that? No. Did you successfully help me understand that? No. Did it thus eventually feel like an attack because of such poor communication? Yes. Maybe consider your tactics instead of writing unnecessarily snarky comments like that that exhibit the problematic behavior to begin with. I shouldn't have had to engage with several people just to find someone to treat me like a person and explain things clearly. If you read through the comments above you'll understand that I am new here and do not find this space easy to understand or navigate. Don't assume everyone knows what you're talking about. Speak in plain English not jargon. I wasn't the only one making accusations. The culture in this space is abysmal. Donutholeveronica (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Make that a reliable secondary source which discusses that the story has the Euthanasia Coaster in it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The most important policies

I've been making scattered edits across Wikipedia for around a year now, and I want to move on from basic grammar fixes to larger edits. Whilst I know the basics (Wikipedia:NOT, Wikipedia:Notability, and some of the civility policies), I also want to know some of the more advanced policies. Can anyone link them for me? Industrial Insect (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Industrial Insect, have you seen Wikipedia:List of guidelines and Wikipedia:List of policies? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! That does help. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Industrial Insect, I would go with these: WP:Neutral point of view (all of it; but linger over WP:DUEWEIGHT); WP:Verifiability, WP:Citing sources, WP:Civility, and WP:Consensus. Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I think one of the other "most important" policies are the copyright and licencing stuff but that's kinda boring so I'm going to go with the only one that's left that hsin't been covered, which would be Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. It is very advanced too, our encyclopedia article on it, Ignore all rules points out that if you include the supplemental materials there is... quite a lot of it. So, uh, enjoy? (^_^ but honest, hope you have a good time here) Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Industrial Insect: Policies take precedence over guidelines. Within the policies, (see Wikipedia:List of policies) those in the "Legal" section take precedence over the others. There are only nine legal policies. After that, I feel that those in the "Content" section are the most important. There are only seven content policies. The remaining policy types (Conduct, Deletion, Enforcement, Procedural, Miscellaneous) relate to how we go about making sure we are following the core content and legal policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arch dude (talk • contribs) 14:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Why do my user boxes float

User:Cyberwolf434344/garage the user boxes float i dont know if its a userbox issue or page issue •Cyberwolf• 15:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cyberwolf434344: Hi there! Those are big user boxes! What do you want them to do? GoingBatty (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Just be in a column •Cyberwolf• 16:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cyberwolf434344: Replace the <br>s with a single {{clear}}. Please remember what user pages are for and what Wikipedia isn't: see WP:USERPAGE. Bazza (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes i get it this is my little wikilove-barnstar hybrid project •Cyberwolf• 17:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Questions regarding "automated alerts"

I added a new article today, Bibliography of slavery in the United States, and in moving one of the works listed to another section, I received multiple iterations (4 dozen or so) of the following message: The time allocated for running scripts has expired. The messages, which appear in red in the article's last section, have replaced all but one of the section's listings. Since the edit window shows the replaced content still exists, I assume the individual items will be restored within time. My questions are: What do the messages mean? What did I do to spark them? And is my assumption correct? FYI, the listings are all book citations that include links to books on either the Internet Archive or Google Books. Also, the article has not yet been "reviewed and approved", though I'm fairly certain it will be. Allreet (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The error message does not appear for me so I cannot explain why you are seeing it. When I looked at the article source (usually right-click → View page source), the NewPP limit report said:

• Lua time usage: 3.783/10.000 seconds

When Lua time usage exceeds 10.000 seconds, you will get the script error that you mentioned. The NewPP report also said:

• Post‐expand include size: 1974444/2097152 bytes

That indicates that the article is getting close to its maximum size so you might want to consider splitting it into smaller lists.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Allreet, I think you have too many cite book templates, it might be better to format the bibligraphy as text like Bibliography of the American Civil War. There is a somewhat technical explanation at Wikipedia:Lua error messages. TSventon (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to both for the speedy, helpful replies. I already intended to deal with the size problem by creating categories within the bibliography and by introducing links to other bibliographies. As part of this, I'll be transferring listings to those articles. So what I've learned will speed the need. I've also read the article TSventon mentioned and understand the gist. And finally, I'll be forwarding this information to the primary editor/creator of a similarly lengthy bibliography for their consideration. All good to know, for lots of reasons. Allreet (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what caused the problems, but since about twelve years ago have never encountered any such problems caused by the size of an article or the amount of links it may contain, bearing in mind that a cite template is just a grouping of links in the given format. I've created and expanded a good number of bibliographies over the years and have never encountered any script issues or any other problem. So until such time, I'd rather not fix what isn't broke. If there are 'actual' and persistent problems with a given article, the issue should addressed, and the necessary measures taken that may resolve matters.

Wikipedia contains many millions of links, so I don't see how one article could pose any problems. Twelve+ years ago I warned someone that a list had too may cite templates and that it took a long time to load into (my) personal computer, but the problem was with my computer -- not very fast -- which may have triggered a loading error somehow. I was informed, however, that Wikipedia at that point had gone through several major upgrades in its hardware infrastructure, and was more than capable of dealing with links in a particular article, and with today's computers, they are more than capable of dealing with one article, regardless of the number of links. Until it's certain that the article or list 'size' is causing the problem I'm not inclined to breaking up a given article into separate articles. If there are specific categories/bibliographies that a list can be distributed among that would be fine. Having said that, we can move the list of slavery sources in the Bibliography of the United States Constitution to the new Bibliography that Allreet has just created. That would reduce its size, not that this was causing any issues in the first place.

Btw, good work, Allreet. There are many FA and GA articles that far exceed the size guideline so I wouldn't let that be any issue all by itself. I'll keep an eye out for any additional sources the new Bibliography could use. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I have to wonder if there isn't some misunderstanding here. Here is the first {{cite book}} template from the top of Bibliography of slavery in the United States:

{{cite book |last1=Adams |first1=Catherine |last2=Pleck |first2=Elizabeth |title=Love of Freedom: Black Women in Colonial and Revolutionary New England |date=2010 |publisher=Oxford University Press |url=https://archive.org/details/loveoffreedombla0000adam/page/n5/mode/2up |isbn=978-0-19-538909-8 |ref=adams2010}}

That wikitext template is 314 characters long and renders like this:

Adams, Catherine; Pleck, Elizabeth (2010). Love of Freedom: Black Women in Colonial and Revolutionary New England. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-538909-8.

Under the bonnet the actual rendering looks like this and is 912 characters long:

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000006-QINU`"'<cite id="adams2010" class="citation book cs1">Adams, Catherine; Pleck, Elizabeth (2010). [https://archive.org/details/loveoffreedombla0000adam/page/n5/mode/2up ''Love of Freedom: Black Women in Colonial and Revolutionary New England'']. Oxford University Press. [[ISBN (identifier)|ISBN]]&nbsp;[[Special:BookSources/978-0-19-538909-8|<bdi>978-0-19-538909-8</bdi>]].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Love+of+Freedom%3A+Black+Women+in+Colonial+and+Revolutionary+New+England&rft.pub=Oxford+University+Press&rft.date=2010&rft.isbn=978-0-19-538909-8&rft.aulast=Adams&rft.aufirst=Catherine&rft.au=Pleck%2C+Elizabeth&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Farchive.org%2Fdetails%2Floveoffreedombla0000adam%2Fpage%2Fn5%2Fmode%2F2up&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AWikipedia%3AHelp+desk%2FArchives%2F2023+September+1" class="Z3988"></span>

It is that 912 characters number plus some that contributes to the Post‐expand include size I mentioned above. When Post‐expand include size exceeds 2,097,152 bytes MediaWiki will stop rendering templates and add the article to Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded. For an example, see List of Ang Probinsyano episodes §§References and External links for what exceeding PEIS looks like. As I write this, PEIS for Bibliography of slavery in the United States is at 1,904,085 bytes so there is some headroom (2,097,152 − 1,904,085 = 193,067 bytes). As an experiment, I copied Bibliography of the United States Constitution § Slavery and the Constitution to the bottom of Bibliography of slavery in the United States and previewed. The PEIS grew to 1,990,874 leaving 106,278 bytes of headroom.

When I mentioned Lua time usage above, that is not necessarily the loading time. MedaWiki does not translate every page from wikitext to html every time a page is served. Instead, it does the translation once, caches the result, and then serves the cached html. This Lua time usage has nothing really to do with how long it takes MediaWiki to get the page to your browser unless the cache has expired. The error message complained about in Editor Allreet's OP means that at some point, Lua spent more time creating the cached html than it should have. Apparently, no one other than Editor Allreet has seen this happen with Bibliography of slavery in the United States so the event that caused the error may have just been a transient hiccup.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The technical details are beyond me but for the sake of providing a bit more information: Only the first cite in the For younger readers section displayed and its other 45 entries were replaced with individual error messages.

I don't think this has anything to do with my laptop, which is about five years old but serviceable for my purposes in terms of speed and other functionalities. And I tend to agree that this was probably transient, because I haven't been able to replicate the problem, nor has anyone else experienced it. In any case, I will be following the approach TSventon recommended, not solely because of size, but because the categorization and linking would be more useful to readers. Allreet (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Allreet and Trappist the monk: For what it is worth, I saw the same error message as Allreet on 1 September, but don't now, even when looking at the 1 September version. Presumably the bibliography will increase over time so some headroom below the maximum size is useful. I am happy to be corrected as Trappist is clearly more familiar with the technical details than I am TSventon (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

200k bytes isn't much headroom so unless the bibliography is complete (highly doubtful, that) splitting it now will avoid the inevitable headache when it becomes necessary.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I may have gathered most of the more important books on the subject, but there are no doubt hundreds more. As for journal articles, they would have to number in the thousands. One indicator is the University of Virginia's online bibliography, which includes 25,000 works. While they also cover World Slavery, my guess is that upwards of half these entries would be related to the U.S. In addition, they've applied very strict criteria for inclusion. BTW, while I didn't use the UVA site in my research, I probably will in the future, given the potential of applying categories that reference related bibliographies. Allreet (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Anon Moos

Hello, my name is Larry Bostic, I recently saw a wikipedia article that was made by Anon Moos, and the site is:

On this site, it states Licensing This work has been released into the public domain by its author, AnonMoos. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: AnonMoos grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

However, I have written a book, and on the cover, I want to use this SVG Diagram. My Publisher refuses to allow me to use this diagram unless I receive explicit permission from the author. Can you give me explicit permission to use this diagram so that I can pass this along to them, or can you pass this message to Anon Moos and ask him/her to give me explicit permission to download the image, transfer it to Christian Publishers and then use on my book for mass-production? Thank you

Larry Bostic Lbostic10 (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Lbostic10 it should be fine to use in a book. It's in the public domain. The explicit permission is already under the licensing section. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Pinging User:AnonMoos. Deor (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lbostic10: Wikipedia cannot help you here, since the copyright does not belong to Wikipedia. AnonMoos might choose to help, but this is a burden on that generous person. What you really need to do is to educate your publisher. The wording of the copyright declaration is clearly an "explicit writing" as required by copyright law, and that "writing" is unambiguous. You would be within your rights under copyright law to make a trivial change in the SVG file, declare that the result is your own work and so state that to the publisher, without attributing anything to AnonMoos. You might consider non-attribution to be unethical: that's between you and your conscience. -Arch dude (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lbostic10: However, Wikipedia also cannot affirm or deny the assertion by AnonMoos that it is "own work". It is a re-drawing of an earlier commons file version, but that version itself derives as a translation/interpretation from 16th century works, e.g., [1]. -Arch dude (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Lbostic10 -- I give you permission for whatever good that does (it's legally not necessary). AnonMoos (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. ;-) MinorProphet (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

A.I.

Will Wikipedia ever make an A.I. chatbot to help people navigate Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.36.226.1 (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure this is exactly what you had in mind, but you might find this interesting. Mathglot (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)