Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 January 22

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 22

Changing password or email

If i change my password or email, will my contributions reset to 0 and all the rights that i have will dissapear? Vitaium (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vitaium: No, nothing will change. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vitaium: If you never want to use your account again, you can change your password to something you can't remember. After that, you can start a brand new account, and start building a new contribution history and gaining user rights. OR you can change the user name of your account, if you want to retain your contribution history and rights. To change your user name, see Wikipedia:Changing username.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

How to use wikipedia

I don't know how to use wikipedia and search some information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:32FF:B:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! To use Wikipedia for find some information, you can use the search bar at the top right of any page. Or go to http://www.wiki.x.io/ and use the big search bar there. For more information, see Help:Contents. Enjoy! GoingBatty (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

With the skin changes the search field may either be at the centre top of a page or on the left-hand side of the sticky header. Just click on the icon and start typing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

How can you add a portlet menu like Twinkle's?

RT. I can't find anything on Help:Customizing_toolbars. Thanks. --魔琴 (Zauber Violino) (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@魔琴: Yes, although it requires some complex skin-dependent javascript code. See MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js#L-250 and following for how twinkle does this. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Is the script dependent on something? I got a "too many errors" warning when I tried to fork it. --魔琴 (Zauber Violino) (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@魔琴: that particular function (Twinkle.addPortlet()) is only dependant on jQuery, though the overal Gadget-Twinle is dependant upon a ton of other stuff as visible on MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, some of which are the menu entry submodules. Amongst others:

• MediaWiki:Gadget-morebits.js
• MediaWiki:Gadget-select2.js
• mediawiki.language
• mediawiki.api

Note that in particular the subgadgets might have dependencies too. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The whole thing is also visible (slightly improved) on Special:Gadgets, though that one includes all submodules. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Oh thanks, I didn't see the (window, document, jQuery). Can I ask one more question? Where was Twinkle.defaultConfig.portletArea defined? --魔琴 (Zauber Violino) (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Its literally defined in the exact spot your link goes to (well for the vector skin atleast), the others are in the like 20 next lines of code. If you mean Twinkle.defaultConfig thats defined further up the page in the same module. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still working on it. Thank you so much! --a js-0 user, 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Biology

Reproduction system — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.153.219 (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear IP editor, this is the Help desk where you can ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia articles. Did you have a question?--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Reproductive system may be what the OP is looking for. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.231 (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

replacing an article with a fuller, longer one

Is one permitted to delete an existing article and replace it with another fuller article, written by someone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:44F1:4A00:9CE3:68AA:7E2A:69C (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to say without specifics, but it doesn't sound like a good idea. One obvious problem would be copyright, as all text on Wikipedia has to be free to redistribute. The other problem is WP:CONSENSUS. This is built up over a period of time and should not be overridden. If you want to propose major changes to an article, it is best to discuss them on the article's talk page first.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It would help us to give a better answer if we knew the article involved; there are circumstances where that might be okay and ones where it might be not okay. I assume with "replace it by another, fuller article written by someone else" you mean that you would be the author. 10:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 331dot (talk • contribs)

I suggest that in most circumstances it is better to modify the existing article incrementally with (well-referenced) additions, corrections and rearrangements. Consensus can then be established for each step change, rather than making one giant leap which might be hard for other interested editors to swallow in one gulp. Rome was not rebuilt in a day. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.231 (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

2A02:C7F:44F1:4A00:9CE3:68AA:7E2A:69C, assuming you mean that you want to entirely rewrite a Wikipedia article, you will want to bring it up on the article's Talk page. Be sure to state the deficiencies of the article, as well as the sources, or types of sources, you intend to base your new article on. It is polite to ask if any other editors might want to pitch in with suggestions for the new article. If anyone becomes upset at your offer, and no other editors come to your defense, bring the situation up at the Teahouse before proceeding. --Quisqualis (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC closing question

Hello I have a question about RFC procedure at Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory. An RFC is currently running about a passage in the article here: Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#RfC:_Original_research_issue? opened by RaiderAspect.

RaiderAspect has removed the passage in question saying that "consensus has been reached" despite the RFC having not been formally closed. I reinstaded the contested text because the RFC is still ongoing (and Raider has reverted me again). What is the correct way forward here? I was under the impression that while an RFC is running, it should not be enforced (and certainly not by the person who opened the RFC). Thanks Mvbaron (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, my understanding is that this is a procedural dispute rather than a content dispute; all of the RfC participants, including Mvbaron, have agreed that the text in question fails verification. I would not have made these edits if anyone had defended the passage, or if the RfC hadn't already been fairly well-attended. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree it is procedural, but isn't the correct way to wait for an (uninvolved) closer of the RFC? or at least propose a close at the RFC and then proceed to close? Right now, the RFC is still ongoing but the text in question is already removed. Mvbaron (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The content in question, and any other attempt to suggest that Feldman is making an 'argument' about etymology, does not have a SNOWball's chance in Hell of surviving the RfC.  Tewdar (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC is now closed.  Tewdar (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

omg, you can't close it either. You're involved. Mvbaron (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I proposed a move to close at the RFC per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs: "The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time, and one of them can remove the rfc template."--Mvbaron (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Comment - RFC has been closed by an uninvolved editor. and the policy-discussion has been moved here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC_involved_closures --Mvbaron (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Why are you being bought by big pharma ?

I will not donate another cent and now consider you useless source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.143.4 (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

What are your sources for this extraordinary assertion? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

We are not being bought by big pharma, we don't allow advertising, and editors are volunteers who couldn't be controlled if the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia was paid off by big pharma. In case you think we are unfair to alternative medicine, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). PrimeHunter (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

We're being bought by Big Pharma? Then where is my payment? I've always wanted a Lamborghini, and maybe I can buy one when my money from Big Pharma comes in!--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Do not respond to posts that are intentionally worded to seek a reaction instead of a dialogue. Just revert it off. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello anonymous editor. Wikipedia's content standards do not take the Wikimedia Foundation's financial needs into consideration. At all. And thank you for your previous generosity.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC with no concensus

About 30 days ago, I opened a RfC but no one has answered it. What can I do to find a consensus? Dr Salvus 15:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Dr Salvus It would help if you linked to the discussion. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

331dot, Here's the discussion. Dr Salvus 16:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Dr Salvus You started a talk page discussion, but it is not marked as a formal Request for Comment(RFC, which is a specific thing). This is why no one else has replied. Please read the instructions at that link for information on how to start a formal RFC. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Bias on Wikipedia

I would like to be directed to the correct page on where to go if I have concerns that the bias on Wikipedia leans towards a liberal side rather than addressing both liberal and conservative. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: this comes up a lot, but the short answer is content is based on the sources that are used. Perhaps start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Systemic bias. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Interstellarity (ec) Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias. Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. Wikipedia does not provide equal time to all sides of an issue irrespective of how sources cover it- coverage of an issue depends on the sources. See WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Wikipedia does claim to have a neutral point of view in terms of how information is presented- but again, this is different than claiming to be unbiased. If you have a concern that a partcular article does not present the given sources neutrally, or that the sources are not accurately summarized, please discuss that on the associated talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. That helps a lot. Interstellarity (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It has been observed (in a satirical context) that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.231 (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: another point: the English Wikipedia has editors from all English-speaking countries and from other countries. Many non-US people consider the US to be fairly far to the right, Even US "liberal" positions seem to be to the right of center. US liberals are still fighting for "progressive" things that are taken for granted in many other places, such as universal health care, free education, paid maternity/paternity leave, and free child care. -Arch dude (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

What happens if one is proposing a merger but doesn't get any reply?

Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ak-eater06: Hi there! In general, I suggest reviewing the guidance at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. If you provide the articles in question, we can provide more detailed suggestions. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

User:GoingBatty I'm talking about this: Talk:Domestic policy of the Stephen Harper government#Merger proposal. Ak-eater06 (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ak-eater06: That's helpful - thank you! It's been less than 24 hours. Responses may take several days. Looking at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers#How to propose a merger, you've done step 1. Next, you could do step 2 and determine if step 3 is needed. GoingBatty (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This has no banned symbol but is tagged as such

this file claims it contains nazi imagery, this is not corret. can i simply remove the category? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deutsches_Historisches_Museum_2019-10-13_lowres_Nazi_Germany_uniform_tunic_shoulder_straps_Dienstrock_eines_Forstdirektors_des_Deutschen_Staatsforstdienstes_Forest_director_German_State_Forest_Service_1936-1937_3915.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bindestriche (talk • contribs) 19:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bindestriche: I don't understand why the "Summary" description has 30+ other images, some of which contain the Nazi swastika. I suggest you ask at the Commons help desk: commons:Commons:Help desk. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

thank you --Bindestriche (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Citation template for a patent

I'm trying to cite a patent (it's something I have never tried before), and, while my citation looks OK, it is sitting within the text of the article, rather than in the references section. I followed the example here. What went wrong?--Quisqualis (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: It was missing the <ref>...</ref> tags, which I added in this edit. Hope this is what you were looking for, and thanks for improving the article! GoingBatty (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, GoingBatty. After spending some time on the intricacies, I forgot the basic format!--Quisqualis (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Usage of "he" rather than "his government" in politician articles

For example, on Franklin D. Roosevelt, there are many parts that say, "he did this, he did that" (like, "He also instituted major regulatory reforms related to finance, communications, and labor, and presided over the end of Prohibition."). But isn't it supposed to be "his government" as it's realistally impossible for him to have done this alone. Or is there some rule on Wiki I'm not aware about? Ak-eater06 (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Ak-eater06, it's standard practice nearly everywhere, including on Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ak-eater06: Standard practice by politicians, press, and people in general to credit the politicians for all the good things that happened, and criticize the politicians for all the bad things that happened, regardless of how the politicians themselves actually influenced the outcome. GoingBatty (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ak-eater06:To clarify, if you are concerned that, due to such language, a certain article on Wikipedia isn't neutral, you can compare it to similar articles on WP and note whether it preferentially and excessively uses the style you describe. Note that,,as an encyclopedia striving for brevity, WP may use such language as a sort of shorthand, particularly in the lead sections of biographies, which summarize the rest of the article.

Roosevelt, for example, was a popular president; many sources give him credit for the accomplishments of his administration. The sources used for the article may take a similar approach. Wikipedia aims for stylistic consistency among articles, provided the consistency doesn't come at the expense of accurately restating what the sources say.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Robert Hugh Miller

Yesterday I edited the page on Robert Hugh Miller (my great-grandfather). His year of birth was previously shown as 1826, which may have been based on some biographical encyclopedias. However, there is a photograph of his tombstone on Find-a-Grave, showing his year of birth as 1828. That seems to me a more certain datum. My question has to do with how to properly show the reference source on this. Wm. J Pease.William J. Pease (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@William J. Pease: Hi there! Since you have a conflict of interest, you should not be editing articles about people related to you. I reverted your edit to Robert Hugh Miller based on the date mentioned in reference #2. (You also didn't change the year everywhere in the article.) I suggest you post on the article's talk page Talk:Robert Hugh Miller with the {{edit request}} template, a link to the Find a Grave page, and any other reliable published sources you have about his birth year. Or, you may use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@William J. Pease: Note that according to WP:RSP, Find-a-Grave contains user-generated content and is therefore considered unreliable on Wikipedia. You should find a better source for the change that you wish to propose. CodeTalker (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@CodeTalker: Well, I don't know how much difference it makes, but he actually said it was a photograph of a tombstone ON Find a Grave. So in this case, the "user generated content" is a reproduction of what might be seen as a primary source. (Although, I think a tombstone, surprisingly, might not be the most reliable of primary sources.) Uporządnicki (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a photograph of a tombstone is certainly a primary source, but not a particularly strong one, because there's no guarantee that the grave is actually of the subject person and not another with the same name. "Robert Hugh Miller" is not an uncommon name -- a quick Google search reveals a number of different people, some living and some deceased, with that name. CodeTalker (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, my own thought was this: My father marked his own father's grave with the date of birth my father had been told. But for years, my father suspected that his father was a few years older than my father had been led to believe. His father was born in Poland (as my own father was), years before two world wars marched back and forth through that country. The point, of course, is that people who don't die tragically young are typically buried by survivors who weren't around when they were born. So unless they have the official documents, they're going on what they personally have been told. Uporządnicki (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. There are a number of reasons why information inscribed on a tombstone might not be accurate, especially something as long before the inscription is made as the birth date. CodeTalker (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It also strikes me that 1826/8 is a surprisingly early date (though not of course impossible) for the birth of a great-grandfather of someone active today. It would apply, for example, if the OP's grandparent, parent and himself were all born when their parents were on average about 40 (an unusual sequence), and he himself were 74. One hopes that the OP has other corroboration, such as preserved family records, for this being the correct Robert Hugh Miller. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.231 (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)