Help desk
< July 11	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 13 >

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.

July 12

Request Category Removal For A Wikipedia Article

The Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas Wikipedia article has two incorrect categories listed on the page that need to be removed:

1) American People Who self-identify as being of Lipan Apache Descent

2) Unrecognized Tribes in the United States.

The page itself says at the top they are a state recognized tribe. Can someone remove those categories from the page?

Thank you Whitewolfdog1 (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page doesn't seem to be protected, I suggest you WP:BOLDLY remove those categories if there is no source for them on the page. Or you can leave an a comment on the talk page. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. I'll go ahead and do that then.

Are there any special instructions for deleting categories? Whitewolfdog1 (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the edit button at the top of the page. Scroll down to the very bottom where you will see a list of categories of the form

[[Category: category name]]

Delete the categories whose categorization is not sourced in the references of the article or that are directly contradicted by the references in the article. In the edit summary, give a short description of why you made the change and be sure to mention that you believe the article has not given a source for the claimed categorization given by the categories you are removing. Eg: "removed category x, no source for the claim that article y is in category x." If you check back later and find that someone reverted your changes, go to the talk page of the article and give a longer explanation of your view. Be sure to inform the person that reverted it by using the formula @[[User:UserWhoRevertedYou|UserWhoRevertedYou]] eg. @[[User:Whitewolfdog1|Whitewolfdog1]] which will look like @Whitewolfdog1. If nobody responds to your point after one day then you can change it back to what you believe is appropriate. Most likely this will not be necessary but it may be useful here or in future edits you make. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! This is all very useful information.

Happy editing :) Whitewolfdog1 (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewolfdog1 I have queried whether the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas are a state recognized tribe on the article talk page as the article seems to contradict itself. TSventon (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors affiliated with the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas have used Wikipedia from promotion for years (for example, these folk). I am beyond sick of trying to keep up with it all and trying to convince editors to stick to secondary, published citations (right now there's a Facebook post as a citation). I answered on the talk page. There is widespread misunderstanding and misinformation about state recognition. The only entity at this point who can assert state recognition for a Texas tribe would be the State of Texas itself. There was a recent proposed bill to state-recognized the LATT; however, the bill died in committee in 2023. Any fresh, non-involved eyes on this and related articles would be beyond welcome. Yuchitown (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me @TSventon.

I took a look at the sources for state recognition and thought they looked good. It looks like some other editors have already commented on the apparent contradiction, but I'll look in on the discussion if warranted. :) Whitewolfdog1 (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convention for romanization of author names from foreign language sources? [Resolved]

Resolved

I can see that we have {{citation}} parameters for the translations of titles, chapters and quotations of non-english for instance:

|title=Tōkyō tawā |script-title=ja:東京タワー |trans-title=Tokyo Tower

However I cannot see the equivalent parameter for author names. e.g:

|script-last1=ko:홍 |trans-last1=Hong |script-first1=ko:이섭 |trans-first1=Yi-Seop

Therefore, how are these situations best handled? Is there a MOS?

Example approaches I can think of:

Romanized: Hong, Yi-Seop (2011) [1971]. 세종대왕 [Sejong the Great] (in Korean) (9th ed.). Seoul [서울]: Sejong the Great Memorial Society [세종대왕기념사업회]. ISBN 978-89-8275-660-3.
Original script: 홍, 이섭 (2011) [1971]. 세종대왕 [Sejong the Great] (in Korean) (9th ed.). Seoul [서울]: Sejong the Great Memorial Society [세종대왕기념사업회]. ISBN 978-89-8275-660-3.
Both using first and last fields: Hong [홍], Yi-Seop [이섭] (2011) [1971]. 세종대왕 [Sejong the Great] (in Korean) (9th ed.). Seoul [서울]: Sejong the Great Memorial Society [세종대왕기념사업회]. ISBN 978-89-8275-660-3.
Both using author field: Hong Yi-Seop [홍이섭] (2011) [1971]. 세종대왕 [Sejong the Great] (in Korean) (9th ed.). Seoul [서울]: Sejong the Great Memorial Society [세종대왕기념사업회]. ISBN 978-89-8275-660-3.

Ideally, I think we should provide both to broaden SEO in both languages... but there doesn't seem to be a "clean" way of doing this? Or is there? In the absence of being able to do both via different parameters, is there any community consensus on how to best approach this? Any advice appreciated. Nonabelian (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see a parameter for that either. I took a brief look at Korea-related FA's and most of the Korean authors only had their names' romanizations listed. WP:MOSKOREA seems to imply romanized spellings are preferred in most places. Per WP:CITEVAR though, you should use whatever style the rest of the article uses. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, WP:CITEVAR seems to imply there is some discretion. I through I remember reading somewhere that for GA/FA articles, references should be provided either in date order (preferred for science) or alphabetical order (preferred for history)? Maybe I'm imagining things, but clearly romanized references would be easier to order alphabetically. Would it be the {{citation}} talk page that the time, effort and need for paramenters like |script-author1= |script-last1= |script-first1= etc. would be discussed and considered by the community? Nonabelian (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That talk page should be a good place to start, yes. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the order of references, as they are usually ordered by where they appear in the article. Unless you're talking about a WP:GENREF section, in which case I agree romanized spellings should be easier for English-speaking editors to work with. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Yes, for instance on this article here on Augustus citations are in order of appearance but the references themselves are listed alphabetically. Nonabelian (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonabelian and HansVonStuttgart, the most recent major conversation we had about this problem was last November at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 92 § Proposed script-author parameter. I participated.

Although no technical changes were implemented, it's been enough time that another conversation on the topic wouldn't be unwarranted.

I remember my citation style following that discussion changing to |last= Romanised surname|first=Romanised forename|author-mask=Romanised Name (Full Native Name). This was recommended as "best practice", but |author-mask= is clunky and requires incorporating punctuation literals when multiple authors are attributed.

Best, Folly Mox (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

requires incorporating punctuation literals when multiple authors are attributed. You should not be including the names of multiple authors in |author-maskn= Each name gets its own mask.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean for in between e.g. |author1-mask= and |author2-mask=. Typically, names are separated by a semicolon, which |author-mask= suppresses. So for example Prehistory of China#cite note-15 is formatted as

|last=Chen |first=Mingyuan |last2=Jin |first2=Minbin| author1-mask = Chen Mingyuan (陳明遠); | author2-mask= Jin Minbin (金岷彬)

Folly Mox (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Module:Citation/CS1 isn't (will never be) clever enough to understand what you put in |author-maskn= so it leaves it to you to correctly punctuate the mask text; a specified number of em dashes does not require (or allow for) punctuation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Folly Mox and Trappist the monk: Thanks for guidance on the |author-mask= field, that was not something I was aware was used for that purpose. I just tried implementing it here. I suppose however, this means you are forced to chose between this particular use or that of dashing out an author's name who has multiple references. When I have time, I'll read through previous talk page discussions and possibly put in a RfC there for parameters such as |script-author1= |script-last1= |script-first1= depending on what has previously been said. Nonabelian (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nonabelian: Do not, do not do this:

| journal = Journal of Ethics [{{korean|윤리연구|倫理硏究|labels=no}}]

When you do that you corrupt the reference template's metadata which renders the reference unusable by those readers who consume our references by way of reference management software. See the note at Template:Cite journal § COinS. When you use {{korean}} in a cs1|2 template the reference metadata get this as the journal name:

<span title="Korean-language text"><span lang="ko-Hang">윤리연구</span></span>&#59; <span title="Korean-language text"><span lang="ko-Hani">倫理硏究</span></span>

None of that HTML markup should be in the metadata.

Templates that use {{korean}} can be rewritten:

|script-journal=ko:윤리연구 |trans-journal=Journal of Ethics

Choose one of Hang or Hani for the value assigned to |script-journal=).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: Yet another aspect I was unaware of. This presumably is another reason why author implementations like |author=Hong Yi-Seop [{{korean|홍이섭|labels=no}}] are a bad idea, and |author-mask= is preferred. While we are at it, what then is best practice for the publisher parameter for books? It looks like, just like author parameters, there is no equivalent script parameter? Nonabelian (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no script version of |publisher=. Include the publisher name in |publisher= as written in the source that you are consulting. If the source provides both Korean and English, choose the English (because we are en.wiki).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Company profile

How can I add my company profile on this website 197.156.107.12 (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot. Wikipedia does not host company profiles. Your company's website is the right place for its profile. -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS Whether you're an employee, the boss, or an intern, please read Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not confirmed

Hi, I have met the criteria for autoconfirmed status (my account is 5 days old and I have made more than 10 edits), but I am still not listed as autoconfirmed. Could someone please help me understand why this is the case and what I can do to resolve it? Thank you! ~~~~ Thyme4563 (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thyme4563, your account was created on July 9th, and today is 12th. Even allowing for time zone differences, that can't be 5 days. Maproom (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh i must have misread my info Thyme4563 (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have 18 edits, so about 2 more days and you will be autoconfirmed, if I did the math right. -- ThatOneWolf (^Chat_Edits 15:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... or indeffed for promotion, in this case (see two sections below). Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to make any edits

I'm unable to make any edits or additions to Wikipedia if the source originates from Republic World. Here is the website link: https://www.republicworld.com/" Let me know if there's anything else you need help with! RBangla (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RBangla. That is correct. Republic World has been shown to fabricate quotes, fake news, and hoaxes. See here for more details. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be confirmed

I have ten edits and my account is only 3 days old and its about to be 4 so and i also need to upload an image for my page. Can you confirm me? Thyme4563 (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can request this at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. DonIago (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about Draft:Aoban, please don't waste your or our time trying to upload images to it. Even if they are acceptable with regard to copyright (and the images that beginners try to add are very often not acceptable, because they often do not spend any time learning about Wikipedia before trying to add them) they will add absolutely nothing to a piece of unsourced advertising which will shortly be deleted.

I always advise new editors to not even think about trying to create an article before they have spent some weeks or months practising editing and learning how Wikipedia works. This is even more true of editors with a conflict of interest.

Please read what Wikipedia is not very carefully, especially WP:NOTPROMO.

The only circumstances in which Wikipedia might possibly accept an article about Aoban is if the article were entirely based on what people wholly unconnected with Aoban had chosen to publish about it in reliable sources. Your knowledge of Aoban is of no use whatever in creating an article about it, and nor is anything written, published, or commissioned by Aoban or its associates. (which is one of the reasons why editing with a conflict of interest is difficult). ColinFine (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thyme4563, your (deleted) draft tells me We are working on the Aoban Movie. We are? I am? If so, then where is my paycheck, Thyme4563? -- Hoary (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't add interlanguage link

I have made more than 50 edits and this account has been around for quite a long time (definitely more than 4 days). When I try to add a language, it says I can't because the page is semi-protected. It keeps saying that the account has to be created for longer than 4 days and have 50 edits. Can you help me? Jusoengpp07 (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jusoengpp07: Interlanguage links are added at Wikidata where you only have two edits: wikidata:Special:Contributions/Jusoengpp07. If you link the pages you are trying to connect then we can probably do it for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just want to link this page to the English version of Artificial intelligence because It's not currently available in my native language yet. Jusoengpp07 (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this one too if that's possible. Jusoengpp07 (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jusoengpp07: I have connected km:បញ្ញាសិប្បនិម្មិត to artificial intelligence (Q11660), and km:ធរណីវិទ្យា to geology (Q1069). The Khmer articles now have interlanguage links to all articles in those Wikidata items. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Jusoengpp07 (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No stashed content found

What does this mean? and how do I fix it. Wiki won't publish my content. Chalco48 (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This means the editing interface has been open too long and the cache has been cleared on Wikipedia's server. If you can copy your content, and paste it into a freshly opened editor in a separate tab, you can save your work and publish your changes.

To avoid this in the future, it's best to try to publish your changes frequently. I prefer to limit myself to twenty minutes between publishing, and don't encounter this error anymore. Folly Mox (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This only ever seems to happen in the visual editor. I've never seen the problem in the source editor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it with the source editor. I think I left it open overnight, but it could have been as brief as two hours (it was last year). We probably have sampling bias in play, since the people most likely to experience and report this issue are newer editors, who are significantly more likely to use the Visual Editor. Folly Mox (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a proposed edit (<thinks> "No worries. it'll only take few minutes"</thinks>) turns out to be a super-complex undertaking, often because previous editors have been particularly obtuse or obfuscatory—or even ignorant of what passes for accepted knowledge—and you wonder if they even know which way the world turns. Then you try to make sense of everything you have just learned in order to improve this particularly uninformative set of statements; and then you try to paraphrase their collective understanding in a single meaningful paragraph or so (with RS refs, obvs), all of which which can take can take several days. Some super-cautious editors instead/also copy the entire section/article they are working on, and then paste it into a Notepad-type .txt file on their local device, just in case. Anything can happen, and it usually does. MinorProphet (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vector reference popups are broken

Reference popups on Vector (?useskin=vector) now have huge text, bigger than page text. Maybe this is because of the font increase in the new skin. It looks broken. 78.3.197.2 (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ReferenceTooltips.js#Update request 9 July 2024. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyvm, good I'm not the only one who said something. 78.3.197.2 (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please can you explain why my long held wikipedia entry has been deleted? Thanks

Leela Floyd Meedper (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Meedper The article was deleted in 2022 after this discussion. As in many cases, the issue was that the sources did not demonstrate notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Meedper, an article with that title was deleted in December 2022, following this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leela Floyd. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Meedper: please dont edit archived, closed dicussions. They are kept for the sake of transparency and editing them after the fact undermines that. -- D'n'B-t -- 21:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meedper, Notability in terms of editing Wikipedia does not mean importance; rather it means "enough about this subject has been published (in reliable sources) on which to base a properly cited Wikipedia article."

If enough has been published about you, personally, to demonstrate your notability, then someone could (re-)create an article about you titled Leela Floyd, but the 2022 Deletion discussion did not find enough material. Note also that Wikipedia:Autobiography is strongly discouraged here because it is very, very difficult for an individual to write about themselves with the necessary detachment and neutrality.

It is more likely that material could be found to validly create an article about your book titled Indian Music (textbook) or similar (red because there isn't one yet).

If you can, in this thread, give us links to and/or bibliographic details of at least three pieces of substantial length, written by people unconnected with you and published in WP:Reliable sources, that discuss the book, someone might well be willing to create an article about it. Possible sources would include contemporary reviews in reputable music, educational and other journals and periodicals, newspaper reports (have you kept cuttings?), paragraphs in books about music education, and so on.

What gets recorded for posterity (and can therefore be used as a Wikipedia source) is sometimes chancy, but Wikipedia insists on using published (and independent) material only in order to uphold its fundamental policy of WP:Verifiability. Hope this helps {The poster forrmerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.82.201 (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using pdf of newspaper articles which aren't in established archives

I have several newspaper cuttings from many years past that I would like to use as citation references in my article, but they haven't been archived by the publishers (Bristol Evening Post being one of them). I have original cuttings which I have digitised, can I use a pdf of any cutting as a citation? I can provide copyright details and date of publication. As these are from published newspapers am I right in thinking they are in the public domain, as long as I credit where they come from? Jjarchivist (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on the copyright law of where the newspapers originated from. Based on doing a mini search, the Bristol Post is a United Kingdom newspapers. I'm not sure when Bristol Evening Post changed it name to Bristol Post but I believe they are the same thing. I would suggest researching the copyright laws in the United Kingdom and/or reach out to the publication company to see if they are fine of having old newspapers uploaded to the Internet Archive and cite them here. Soafy234 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be online.

The important parts of a citations are bibliographic information such as author, title, date, publication, page number (if available): a link is a convenience for the reader or reviewer, not an essential part of the citation. It follows that if you have only hard copies, you can still cite them - as long as you have the publication, date, etc. There is no need to upload the cutting (which in many cases would be a copyright violation anyway).

No, your cuttings are not in the public domain, unless you can positively show that there is a reason why - age is one possible reason. See WP:Public domain. ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]