Help desk
< January 3	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 5 >

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.

January 4

Martineau family

Ref number 95 is in red - I have double checked - please fix, it is hard on my device to fix it myself. thanks 175.38.42.62 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed There was an extra "4" in "2024" in the parameters, and I've fixed it. In the future, you can check the article yourself and edit it so you can help improve Wikipedia too. Cheers and thanks for catching that ‍ Relativity 00:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong picture on my information

I just looked at my information on Wikipedia and I noticed that you are using the wrong picture of me. 96.230.2.174 (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have around one million biographies of living people. Please link the Wikipedia page with the problem, and check that the problem really is on the Wikipedia page. Many similar reports turn out to be about a problem on a Google search results page where Google added a wrong picture which was not taken from Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are we talking about? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Give back my post, which was taken away by filter.

I wrote and contributed my first Wikipedi article, but the filter saw it as a round-up of other people's articles. I did cite other people's articles, but I never copied them in their entirety. I spent a long time working on the text of that post.I do not have a copy of the text of that post of mine.　 Please return my article. 比良奥山 (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@比良奥山: This is the only edit by your account at the English Wikipedia, and it has no filter hits here. If your post is about the Japanese Wikipedia then you have to ask for help there. I don't know Japanese. If it's about the English Wikipedia then maybe you were not logged in but we might be able to find something if you give the title of the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

頁のタイトルは　寺内孝の経歴と業績　です。比良奥山 (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

頁のタイトルは　独立研究者　寺内孝の業績　だったと思います。比良奥山 (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask for help at the Japanese Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia cannot help you. Remsense留 02:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will.　Thank you very much. 比良奥山 (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@比良奥山さん宛: 残念ながら、これは英語のWikipediaの権限以外です。日本語のWikipediaで相談してください。 —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

あなたの助言に感謝します。私にはWikipediaに関わる勉強不足がありました。反省しています。比良奥山 (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

比良奥山, you seem to be attempting a continuation of this discussion about something written for Japanese-language Wikipedia (ja:WP). Yes, as PrimeHunter says, if deletions (etc) on ja:WP should be discussed, then they should be discussed at ja:WP, not here. However, the discussion there is over. And one point: it's alleged there that the material that you posted was largely taken from an external web page titled 独立研究者　寺内孝の業績. If the analogous deletion happened here in English-language Wikipedia and you asked for restoration of the deleted material, it would not be restored, because restoring it would repeat the copyright violation. I have no idea who 寺内孝 is, but if he merits an article in ja:WP then you should start afresh, carefully following the policies of ja:WP. -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that the English Wikipedia is the "boss Wikipedia" or the "master Wikipedia" or the "most important Wikipedia" that decides what other language versions must do is incorrect. Each language version is autonomous. I would never think of going to the Japanese Wikipedia to try to resolve a dispute on the English Wikipedia. And yet people come to the English Wikipedia expecting us to deal with problems on the Japanese, Russian, Hebrew, Portuguese, Arabic, Serbian or Urdu Wikipedia versions. That is not going to happen. Cullen328 (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But as for ja:WP, an interesting contrast with en:WP: Here's the history of the last 50 edits to ja:Wikipedia:利用案内, which is ja:WP's help desk. Currently number 50 (at the foot of the list) is an edit made on 20 November '23. Currently number 50 in the history of this page is an edit made just yesterday. -- Hoary (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Japanese editors are on average more skilled at searching for help pages on their own, and perhaps they have a smaller influx of brand new editors worldwide. Perhaps Japanese culture discourages spamming and self-promotion. Cullen328 (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

they just recently established a national user group, which has been making strides in expanding the active editors base on jawiki. We can expect to see their help desk being more utilised in the near future. – robertsky (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind advice. 比良奥山 (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

potentially stray comments by OP

I cordially appreciate advice. I have recognized that I have to study Wikipedia. Thaks again. 比良奥山 (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

あなたのコメントに感謝します。比良奥山 (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

あなたのコメントに感謝します。ありがとうございます。比良奥山 (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

私にはWikipediaに関する知識が不足していました。反省しています。比良奥山 (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

あなた様の助言に納得しています。私のWikipediaに関する知識が不足していました。申し訳ございません。反省しています。比良奥山 (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The OP had previously scattered these replies, seemingly meant for this topic, across other topics. I've collated them here instead. Remsense留 07:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pop ups misdirecting / fake pop ups

New Year's Eve main page had an article on the House of Habsburg. When hovering over the link to "Holy Roman Empire" in the third paragraph, a completely weird pop up appeared about non existent organisations and people (eg the 4th reich and Queen Elizabeth !!!). BY 01 Jan it had been fixed, but I took a screen shot of it. The link though when clicked was to the real wiki Holy roman empire page. How do these pop ups work? Yesterday I thought I would try to fix it but obviously that has now been done. But i am interested anyway Thanks Thanks Virgobeach (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have skimmed through the history of both pages, and it seems like you accidentally caught this bit of vandalism on the other page before it was reverted—moreover, going by the edit timestamps the vandalism seems to have only been there for 10 seconds, so it likely got fixed before you had a chance to click through. Remsense留 03:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Virgobeach: The popups are created automatically from the target page by mw:Page Previews which says: "The Page Preview shows a cached version of a page. If the page has been edited and you want Page Previews to show the new version right away, you can purge the page." It's annoying that vandalism can remain visible in this way long after it has been fixed. It's not as bad as many years ago where unregistered users (meaning most users) often saw an old version of an article when they were viewing the article itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi I can't find how REMSENSE found that source code in the edits but yes that is it. And the same user IP address also messed this one up. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenisha_Pratt&diff=next&oldid=1192517997 So how does one then deal with that type of regular vandalism? thanks Virgobeach (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at a page's history, where you can find a link to compare revisions of a page like the one above.
If an edit is pure vandalism, editors can remove it by undoing the edit, usually. Multiple edits in a row can often be rolled back. Also—there are a lot of automated tools and bots running under the surface that can identify and sometimes automatically undo vandalism if it's obvious enough. Remsense留 05:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi I can't find how you found that source code in the edits but yes that is it. And the same user IP address also messed this one up. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenisha_Pratt&diff=next&oldid=1192517997 So how does one then deal with that type of regular vandalism? thanks Virgobeach (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virgobeach, my suggestion to all serious editors is to use the original source editor, which is robust and fully functional. The visual editor, on the other hand, is not fully functional despite being "in development" for over 11 years, if you can believe it. Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple PD notice template

Hi Folks!!, I got this template here {{PD-notice}} It states "This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.". I've put it on a book which has multiple articles, collected in the book. Is there a more suitable PD attribution tag that would available. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 03:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: {{PD-notice}} does not appear to have any magic side effects, so you can simply use whatever text you want to use instead of using a template. -Arch dude (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:, well, it's not magic, but the template does categorize articles into maintenance and tracking category Source attribution, so if you do a home-brew message instead, you could always add that category at the bottom. Mathglot (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: I never thought about creating a homebrew effort, although its a good idea. There could be 50-100 articles in that book, for all I know. I think I will give it try in the next few days, make the message specific to the article name. I might ping you for some help, if your up for it. scope_creep^Talk 19:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It actually got a source parameter where you can specify the name and details of the article. I must be going off my head. Thanks folks. scope_creep^Talk 19:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help me to publish a new page

I need help to publish a page on a up and coming professional athlete. Thank you Alex118White (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See your first article. But please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a place for social media profiles, CVs etc. The person should meet the general notability guideline. Also, if you have been asked or paid to do this, there will be a conflict of interest situation occurring here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain that he meets all the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)? If not, the "up and coming" implies that it may simply be Wikipedia:Too soon for an article.

If this is the Jacob Bradshaw you have discussed on your Talk page, then the answers already given there contain as much advice and relevant links as anyone on this Help desk could provide. By and large, Help desk/Teahouse respondants are not likely to undertake co-writing or extensively researching for a Draft of an article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term "up and coming" almost certainly means that it is far too soon for an article about this person. A person must have already arrived and been noticed in order to meet the definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See "Up-and-coming Next Big Thing". --Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to publish an article but receiving no stashed content alert?

Hi, i am trying to publish an article but every time I hit publish I receive this red alert:No stashed content found for 1190716733/92fef679-9e69-11ee-bd29-d094663b40e2. I'd really appreciate any help. Thanks Naomicreative (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would firstly recommend that you use the WP:AFC process to start a new article and be advised that it is the hardest task here! Theroadislong (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naomicreative, your account is too new and lacks the minimum experience to create articles directly. The autoconfirmed user right requires an account at least four full days old that has made at least ten edits. Cullen328 (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I have submitted it for review now- Template:AfC submission. it says, Review waiting, please be patient.

This may take 2–3 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 503 pending submissions waiting for review.

Is this what you were referring to? Many thanks Naomicreative (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Naomicreative, I cannot find any draft submitted by you. I wonder if you submitted it while logged out? What is the name of your draft? Qcne (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:John Cameron (British Antiques Expert and TV Presenter) Naomicreative (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: thread now being answered over at the AfC helpdesk. Qcne (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Middleton family

Reference 61 is in red and I don't know why.... Please fix and I hope I got the Publisher correct. please help. Sorry again. 175.38.42.62 (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think has an error message because the date provided in the "date" line is only a year. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the access date was listed as 4 January 20024. I removed the excess zero and that solved the problem. Cullen328 (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, you seem to regularly accidentally add in errant zeros into the date fields of references (e.g. making the date the year 20024 instead of 2024 in this example). How can we help you to ensure you don't continue to make this mistake? Qcne (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google Knowledge Panels

Hello, happy new year! I'd like to ask a question about google knowledge panels. A few months ago I was trying to make a wiki page for a musician and it got rejected for lack of enough notability. Very recently I noticed that the respective musician now has a Google Knowledge Panel. Would this help to prove notoriety and legitimacy when creating a wiki page? And, on that note, my page was rejected. What if the musician I was writing about gets enough press and achievements to be considered notable on Wikipedia? Since my page was rejected I cannot resubmit my page, no matter how many important information I can add. What can I do in this situation? Thank you in advance for your replies! Ingridach (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Would this help to prove notoriety and legitimacy when creating a wiki page" No it would not. "gets enough press and achievements to be considered notable on Wikipedia?" Everything can be resubmitted, but I'd very much advise caution. The bar is pretty high. I also note that your articles often concern individual artists that are part of bands. That means that essentially these artists already ARE in wikipedia. Just not as individual articles. That only raises the bar for an individual article even further. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notoriety and legitimacy: an odd combination! What you could do, Ingridach, is here, in this thread, present links to three informative web pages, independent both of each other and of the musician, about the musician outside the band of which he's a member. Then we'd be able to make a guess at the musician's level of (Wikipedia-defined) notability. -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ingridach Rejection is not final for all time- it just means in essence "we won't consider this again until something fundamentally changes about it", such as new sources that now establish notability that did not exist before. Typically the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer to ask them to reconsider given new information- but as Hoary says, feel free to offer sources here so we can give a better opinion. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your quick replies! I understand the notability criterias. The only thing that confuses me is seeing that other members of the band have Wikipedia pages with less information and sources (or sources which only discuss the band, and not them individually), so it makes me wonder why I can't manage to get mine approved. I am making a page about a musician which also has a prolific career as an A&R manager, that's why I believe in his ongoing relevance.

As you requested, here are three links I picked. Some are from printed magazines but I provide scans in this drive link.

1) Hard Working Class Heroes Festival 2018, Paul Jones Keynote (podcast link + bio written by the festival)

2) Molenda, Michael (December 2000). "'The Art of Noise: Elastica's Justine Frischmann and Paul Jones fuse feral riffs and pop hooks'". Guitar Player Magazine. p. 67-70 (attached in drive; the article is less about the band and more of an extensive dive into their guitar gear, inspiration and equipment they use)

3) Elastica - Their @rse, Our Place". Disorder Magazine. July 2000. pp. 25–27. (attached in drive; Jones appears on the magazine cover with the band, and the article is mostly about his induction in the band)

Hope that is clear. I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts about this, thank you in advance for your replies! Ingridach (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the other two, but SoundCloud isn't reliable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ingridach: It seems you are interested in writing an article about the musician Paul Jones. Hoary asked you to present links that are independent of the musician. The podcast and both articles you provided are interviews, which are not independent. If there are problems with articles about other members of the band, you may improve them, add maintenance templates, nominate them for deletion, or ignore them, but trying to use them to justify another problematic article won't be successful (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, a Google Knowledge Panel is just a snazzy form of search-result, info taken from algorithm-knows-where, though fairly often its Wikipedia. It does not help the case for WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there I am the real owner of outfit7

Hello there evergreen they are not the real owners of the game. I have met the real Talking Angela that look look like a nine years old when I was at their event in Hollywood on Dec 20 2012 I left due to an my own mental condition. What did she write on a paper and the picture if they are the real one. they have been taking advantage of a young woman and harassed her and her parents life not only did they take her games and never paid her ones time. They have cause identity theft issues. I hope you people do the right thing and give this game back to the person who created this game in the first place

Regard, Kenny KennyChesney55 (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change some information in a Wikipedia article, please link the article you want to change and provide an appropriate source for your claim. We can't change stuff just because you said something here. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links for the curious: Talking Angela, Outfit7. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

linking to other articles

When linking to other articles, should I use the redirects that match it, or should I use the article page? For example, if I wanted to link to snapping turtles, should I link it as snapping turtles or as snapping turtles? Thanks! Qwaabza (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwaabza: Hello! I'd say it doesn't matter, but I personally prefer the former, because it looks better in the source editor. If you are worried about the performance (using the redirect), read Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/About fixing redirects. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the info! Qwaabza (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qwaabza, the first is better, because it's shorter, it's easier to read for other editors looking at the wikicode, and it gets you to the same page as the longer version. See WP:NOPIPE. Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]