Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 September 15

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 15

New Farallon Is. Pictures

My Dad look up W7LR, was on Farallon Island during WWII and I have some interesting pictures I'd like to share but have no idea how. 73.157.20.9 (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:UPIMG and WP:FUW can help you get started. Essentially you will need to confirm the copyright status of your image before uploading. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Phil May (caricaturist)

Please fix up references numbers 4 and 8. I am sorry. Please assist. I only got number 8 wrong - not number 4. Thanks 175.38.37.197 (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Photo uploads

How does a newbie post a NASA image of Nantucket Sound on that article page. There is a notice there, saying a good photo is needed. I think I have one that must be in the public domian. Rockawaypoint (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

If it's an image directly from NASA, or you personally took the image, you may go to Commons and upload it(see WP:UPIMAGE for more information). New accounts cannot directly upload images to this Wikipedia specifically, but they can on Commons. Files For Upload can offer help for uploading other types of images to this Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll link to Commons specifically- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:First_steps/Uploading_files 331dot (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

how i upload my company details in Wikipedia

its how me some error. I need support how to submit our profile Trade Aira (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Trade Aira: You do not submit a company profile because Wikipedia is not a business directory. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

User blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Aras War

Reference help requested.

Thanks, Dasaking7 (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Dasaking7. The immediate problem is that you haven't given a title, and the {{cite web}} template requires one. The title appears to be "ARMENIA/KARABAKH: 1918 - 1920", so you could insert that.

I am a little unsure as to whether that is a reliable source by Wikipedia's criteria, though, as it appears to be self published. However, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 280#conflicts.rem33.com, four years ago, suggested that Andersen was a "subject matter expert", so it might be acceptable. A source from a reputable publisher would be better. ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Help nominating an article for deletion?

I want to nominate the article V/Vm Test Records for deletion, since it violates WP:GNG by having no sources or notable news coverage. However, I don't really want to create an account. Is there a way to get this done? 74.108.22.119 (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a way for you to do that, though it requires assistance see WP:AFDHOWTO for more information. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

How can I ensure accuracy and neutrality when adding information to Wikipedia articles?

Hello,

I’m interested in contributing to Wikipedia by adding well-sourced information to articles, but I want to make sure I maintain accuracy and neutrality in my edits. Could you provide some tips or guidelines on how to best approach this? Are there any specific resources or tools that seasoned editors use to avoid unintentional bias or misinformation when editing articles? Anas Raza01 (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Anas Raza01. Probably the most important skill for a content writer on Wikipedia is the ability to evaluate the reliability of sources. WP:SOURCE contains the policy language. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is a place where you can search for previous discussions about the reliability of a source, or ask about a source that has not previously been discussed. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is a non-comprehensive list of assessments of sources that have come up repeatedly. The next important skill is is the ability to summarize a reliable source accurately and succinctly in your own words, avoiding copyright violations, plagiarism and close paraphrasing. The Neutral point of view is the core content policy that explains how to write balanced, even-handed content. Cullen328 (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Advice

Say there are two books. They were published several years apart, have completely different titles, covers, structuring. The authors and publishers say and discuss them as separate books to this day. Each is well over the floor of NBOOK. However, having read these books myself, I know that the second is basically an altered and expanded+updated version of the first, sharing about half the same content, while leaving half of the first one out and adding more, but a lot of shared content. None of the sources address this, discussing them purely as two discrete works. I wish to cover both books on Wikipedia. How do I address this? Do I make two articles even though there is a content overlap? Or do I make one article even though that would be a mess and feel like SYNTH because no sources say they overlap? PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: Please provide specifics. When I see a hypothetical scenario or a lack of details on the help desk, I get the feeling that the user is trying to get support for a particular position. -Arch dude (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Knowing @PARAKANYAA I doubt that's the case, but I too would be interested to know what the books are. -- asilvering (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Arch dude @Asilvering This isn't really to "support my position". The first book is Les Chevaliers de la mort, the second is Les secrets d'une manipulation (warning, bit of a depressing topic). I own both these books. Both books have several reviews. All the sources that mention both books (including the documentary on the three author's investigation into the case and the books) discuss them separately. The book itself presents them as two completely separate works (listing it as another book from the same authors). PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You've got a good spot in that article to add that info: A second book on the OTS was written by the same three authors in 2000, - you can say something like "A second book, incorporating much of the same content, was written...". It's not synth or OR to read two books and observe that they contain the same content. If you think you have a whole article's amount of new text to write on the second book, I don't see any reason not to do so, especially if the reviews don't really deal with the two books as a united body of work. You can always merge the articles later if you change your mind or someone else develops strong opinions about how best to cover them. -- asilvering (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering Thanks! Will do something like that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

When I first read this question I assumed these books were fiction. I now understand they are non-fiction? There are inevitably many books on history, biography, biology etc that repeat content. In particular there are many autobiographies written at different stages of the writer's life that repeat content. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of @PARAKANYAA's question is not that they repeat ideas but that they literally repeat the exact same text. That's certainly not inevitable, and usually books that do this are marketed as "updated" versions of the previous book. -- asilvering (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am talking about text directly, not ideas. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Requesting an entry

Hello. In the early 1960s (maybe even in the 1950s) when I lived in New York City there were TV commercials for a product called Nu-Fizz. It was eitheer a small round product (like a Necco wafer) or a powder that one could add to a glass of water to make a personal-size sparking soda-like drink. I am surprised there is no entry for it in Wikipedia. (I'm also surprised I can't find one of the old commercials on youtube.com.) I don't recall enough about the product to write about it, but perhaps someday someone will add information about Nu-Fizz in Wikipedia. Thank you. Fred Ost, Skokie, IL Fred137Ost (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

There would need to be significant coverage in secondary sources for a separate article and so this would probably not qualify. YouTube is a useful source of old TV commercials, but this on its own would not be notable. As you have said, a web search on Nu-Fizz doesn't bring up anything.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Fred137Ost: FWIW, this sounds exactly like Fizzies. Fabrickator (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Fred137Ost, take a look at the photo of the sales display in that article labelled "new! FIZZIES". I am 72 and remember that product. Cullen328 (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Pseudoscience Listings

I'm reaching out, not because I have a disagreement with elements included on the list on this page (cited below), but because some of the material is being dealt with in such a culturally dismissive and insensitive fashion. I am not a fan of pseudoscience. However, as an anthropologist, I am a big fan of cultural respect. When the facts do not support a thing, clearly, we must go with the facts. But when entire cultures have been using a school of medicine for centuries and continue to use them even now, for example, being respectful is not going to damage those facts. If anything, it might engage those individuals within those cultures to read on. They might then, in turn, consider expanding their options to include alternatives that could save lives. Of course, my opinion and $10 will buy you a small cup of coffee at SB's, but here it is for what it's worth. Thank you for all that you do. In all these years, this is the first time I've found something serious enough (in my opinion) to contact you about. As records go, that's excellent! D Rice-Bassett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience Donna Rice-Bassett (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Donna Rice-Bassett. All Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; but having said that, they should summarise what the reliable sources say on the subject, and if the preponderance of sources are dismissive of a subject, the article mayd reflect that.

Nevertheless, there is always a degree of editorial discretion in the writing, (and indeed, opportunity for editors to disagree, and discuss the matter to reach a consesnsus: see WP:BRD).

You are as welcome as any other editor to edit articles that you think can be improved; but that particular article has been semi-protected so that new editors cannot edit it directly. But you can raise an edit request on the article's talk page (here Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience). It is always good to be as specific as possible - you haven't specified here any examples where you think the article could be worded better. An edit request should be of the form "Add X after Y", or "Remove X" or "Replace X by Y". ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Places to seek/get help editing

Is there a project-namespace page for putting things that another editor could fix/where editors can find things to fix. I mean thing such as lead-paraphrasing and similar, that an editor doesn't "feel like" doing instead of putting them on a workList. Luhanopi (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You can write at the article talk page or you can use cleanup templates. Some Wikiprojects may also collect improvement suggestions. Janhrach (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

For example, if an article's lead needs to be improved, an editor might put one of the introduction cleanup maintenance templates on it, such as {{lead extra info}} or {{lead rewrite}}. This places the article into Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup. That isn't technically in the project namespace – it's a category, which automatically displays a list of pages that have been placed into it. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I am referring to a page where any editor can drop a link and anybody else can help. If it does not exist maybe it can be made Luhanopi (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no such centralized page. As I said, some Wikiprojects may collect improvement suggestions about articles related to them. Janhrach (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hebrew transliteration

I noticed a lot of Hebrew text is transliterated with Society of Biblical Literature Academic scheme. However {{transliteration}} and {{#invoke:Lang/data}} seem to accept for he only ahl (Academy of the Hebrew Language) and iso as parameters. Could you suggest a workaround? Perhaps adding add Society of Biblical Literature Academic sbl-a and Society of Biblical Literature General sbl-g?-- Carnby (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Since (as far as I can see) the transliteration scheme is only for the reader, and has no effect on the operation of the template, it should be straightforward to add it. I suggest putting a request on Module talk:Lang/data (there is a "Request edit" button at the top). ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Before you do that, you might want to consult with whichever wikiproject has cognizance over Hebrew text transliteration at en.wiki. I know, for example, that WikiProject Japan prefers Hepburn romanization so perhaps there is a similar preference when transliterating Hebrew.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

My Wikipedia page

Annalisa Berta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I wish to correct and add info on my page.

i began employment at SDSU in 1982 not 1989

in 2022 I was elected a Felloof the Paleontological Society Annalisa Berta (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Annalisa Berta, I have made the corrections. Information on Wikipedia needs a reliable source, but I was able to check the information online. TSventon (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Punctuation for an "ABC list"

Timetable. The tire mascot went through three stages. As follows: a. 1910–28, 1935–intermittent intervals. The creator was Burr Griffen, an agency art director; b. 1929–30. Yawn turned into smile—anonymous; c. 1930–34. Modernized by Paul Martin.

The above is an excerpt from the article "Paul Martin (illustrator)." Should there be a semicolon or period at the end of the a and b sentences? Does "intermittent intervals" or "intermittently" or "1935–onward" make sense? The mascot had appeared in ads on-and-off since 1935. It depended on whether or not the tire brand was being produced. The word "anonymous" means that the artist who made that change is unknown (never given credit). Clear enough? The phrase "As follows:" seems to be needed for completeness. Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I find the first paragraph above very hard to understand. If I came across it in an article, I'd try to figure out what it means, and then rewrite it using sentences with verbs in them. Maproom (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

When I first read that I thought it was an image caption, which might have required some finagling to parse better. Without an image to refer to, the use of lettering like that in prose is bizarre. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe it should be rewritten into complete sentences. In actuality, someone might read the two references after that word "Timetable" and it would be clear though. Nonetheless, I'll just rewrite it into a short paragraph instead, without trying to be so precise. JimPercy (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Timetable.The pajama-clad boy went through three stages. As follows: a. 1910–28, 1935–. Created by Burr Giffen. (An agency art director.) b. 1929–30. The boy's yawn became a smile. Uncredited. c. 1930–34. Modernized by Paul Martin. [Maybe this way is clearer. I'll have to re-look at it later.] JimPercy (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Why talk about "three stages" at all? How about something like:

The pajama-clad boy, created by Burr Giffen, was first used in 1910. In 1929 or 1930 the yawn was replaced by a smile. Between 1930 and 1934, Paul Martin modernized the image.

(This has the advantage of clarifying what the dates actually mean - I don't understand them in your excerpt above, so they're probably not right in my version). ColinFine (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought it simplified and summarized things by putting the trade character into three distinctive different periods. The alternative is to lose accuracy. I actually deleted the part "An agency art director", yesterday. So that makes it clearer. JimPercy (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The article has a number of other issue, not least of which is having citations in the form:

Path: hathitrust.org>select "full text">enter the above title (with quotes)>hit "search">view "Report v. 21-30." It's about the third entry down.

@JimPercy: Your commons uploads include artwork "passed down the family line... from my own collection." Are you related to the subject? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

No blood relation. Not related. That pass down part is through the wife of the artist. I was given the picture from a relative of the wife. The artist and his wife had no children. JimPercy (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

That sentence you mentioned "Path: hathitrust.org>select"full text..." is meant as a backup in case it becomes a dead link. If that's confusing then it should be deleted. (However, if it ever becomes a dead link, it will be hard to recoup since it's under a different title.) The references all go directly to highly stable (and usually vintage) sources, unlike a very large pct. of articles. Half of references or more give additional notes. I think they should stay combined. JimPercy (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)