Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 September 29

= September 29 =

Article and talk page don't have the same title.
Hello everyone, this page here: Kibō no Tō was recently created, though it has been changed between Party of Hope (Japan) and the current article title (as can be seen here: ).

The Kibō no Tō article currently has a talk page that redirects to Party of Hope (Japan). I think what happened was the most recent user did a redirect instead of a move (as seen here: ), so the talk page wasn't moved to the current article name. I tried moving the article page back, but the current talk page is already titled "Party of Hope (Japan)" (so the move wasn't possible).

Can an admin fix the situation?

Thanks.David O. Johnson (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have moved the talk page, merged the page histories of the article, and will tell the cut-and-paste mover not to do this again. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Blur tag number in a photo of a car?
I've see several of photos with the tag number blurred out. Is this necessary? I have a photo that I took of a car about 30 years ago, so I'm pretty sure it doesn't have that tag number anymore. I want to upload it - should I blur the tag number? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * hi. Perhaps the issue may be BLPPRIVACY, where numbers can be associated with living individuals and that might not be desirable. On the side of caution, you could consider blurring the number. Thanks.  Lourdes  08:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * By tag I presume you mean the vehicle registration number? In the UK old vehicle registrations can be transferred from one vehicle to another, old registration plates from 1903 are still in use. So the country the car is from could play a big factor in it. - X201 (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * as far as I know, the only reason for blurring plates is for privacy. This is one place that confirms this. --ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll just comment that 's link doesn't actually confirm that it should be done, only that privacy is the reason it is done. A subtle distinction, but a distinction nevertheless.  The article actually makes it quite clear that blurring the number plate is pointless.
 * It's also worth pointing out that in the UK (don't know about other countries) you can look up details about the vehicle, but not the owner using the number plate as a reference - and indeed it's commonly used to check the MOT and HP status of vehicles prior to purchase, or even to decide whether it's worth contacting the owner of a car that may be for sale.
 * Funnily enough I actually used the above service on my own car less than a week ago because I couldn't remember when the MOT was due. November, as it turns out.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Think the OP will find it is a bit more simple. Blurring is done in journalism to avoid being reprimanded for committing jigsaw identification.  This phase is a bit of a neologism but the wonderful BBC includes the phase in their Editorial Guidelines. Were reporting media not to blank out all registration plates as a matter of course, then a trial may get halted due to  Trial by media and Abuse of Process. For editors  here on WP, most are contributing what would be regarded as documentary images and thus don't require blurring. If one uploads a image of a car with its registration just as the owner is climbing into it and 20 minutes later the police find his former wife in a pool of blood that is also  not  journalism but a photo of a car and does not need blurring. Of course,  if one  already know that such a crime has been committed,  deciding whether or not to upload,  encompasses  a moral distinction, which as a human beings, the right choice should be clear to any unloader. Does this help? Aspro (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Even though the car is from 1959-60 and the photo is at least 28 years old, I decided to blur the tag before I upload it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hey I stumbled upon this article List of countries by electricity production from renewable sources and the name seems pretty long, maybe it could be changed to 'Renewable energy by country' ? Greetings Dreamian (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Dreamian. Looks like there are about 60 people who have that page on their watchlist. So probably the best place to start would be posting your suggestion at Talk:List of countries by electricity production from renewable sources.  G M G  talk   10:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Multiple failed attempts
I've been receiving numerous notifications/alerts (currently nine, since two days ago) about ‘multiple failed attempts to log in to [my] account from a new device’. They seem to appear at about 7 am to 9 am UTC. Should I be concerned about this?  RAVEN PVFF  (talk) ~ 11:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a new feature apparently Village_pump_(technical) - X201 (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See this mediawikiwiki:Help:Login notifications for further info - X201 (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Change official website
How do you change an "official website" URL?


 * @ user:80.203.99.17 Please sign you post with ~ Aspro (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you worked it out and changed it yourself both here and at Wikidata. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Monobook problems
Note: The following copied / moved from TP. Eagleash (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I use monobook, and problems have emerged. Yesterday or so there are now gaps between items, and the two alert buttons have disappeared leaving a gap (I can still click on the space where they were and they will appear, but are not listed anymore). Just a few minutes ago the top line (user name, alert buttons, alert notices when clicked, talk, sandbox, etc.) has become very small. It was normal size a few minutes ago, now is tiny. Please wave the magic tech wand and bring Monobox back to normal, thanks! Randy Kryn (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The font of the top line is indeed small but alert buttons are present, though they do not work due to javascript errors. Ruslik_ Zero 18:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Page not archiving properly
Does anyone know why Talk:2017 Barcelona attacks is not automatically archiving properly? Please ping me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ one letter out on archive location. - X201 (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

2018 In American Music
Can you move the 2018 in American Music from the talk page to the draft page please. I would accept that. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅. IPs can create pages in the draft namespace. — MRD 2014  Talk • Edits • Help! 18:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding internal citations
Hello,

I have my references in place for the article, now I am trying to internally like. When I use this,, it creates a new references and links to that. How can I link to an existing reference?

Thanks


 * Answered at the Teahouse. Please don't ask the same question in multiple places. --ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The biography of a living person I created haven't been reviewed and approved yet.
Hello Editors,

I created a page of a living person sometimes ago but it was deleted. I requested for the reason why it was deleted and I was given the reasons and the solution to get my page back and was asked to recreate it in the draft space. I provided all the necessary links and I recreated it in the draft space but no action have been taken on it. I want the page to be reveiwed and if it has no problem, it should be published. Please help!

Here is the link to the page I created in the draftspace- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Abayomi_Rotimi_Mighty

Thanks.

Best regards,

David Davidleinvictor (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You should edit the page, and replace the New unreviewed article template with the  template (just copy and paste the bit with the grey background. This will submit the draft to be reviewed. You can find out more about this process here.  Seagull123  Φ  19:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Davidleinvictor. There are currently 1717 pending drafts to review so yours will take a little time. Read: Category:Pending AfC submissions. Also, think that the logo you uploaded   goes against Wikimedia Commons  policy. It maybe OK to use it on WP under fair use however. Who  designed this logo and also who took this  photograph  here which you uploaded:Abayomi Rotimi Mighty ? Aspro (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi  Seagull123 

Thank you for the guide. I have done as instructed. Davidleinvictor (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Aspro

Thanks for reaching out. I work at Women Trafficking and Child Labour Eradication Foundation (WOTCLEF). We designed the logo together with my team and the photograph  I uploaded is our work. The one in the photograph is my direct boss. Please reveiw the page and help get it published. Thanks. Davidleinvictor (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Findagrave
Where is the official policy on using Findagrave as a reference in articles? I want to link to it at the top of the Findagrave article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd think that would run afoul of WP:USERGENERATED. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As well as FINDAGRAVE there is External_links/Perennial_websites.--Shantavira|feed me 08:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Neither link contains any official policy, one just concerns using it as an eternal link, I need the policy that is being used to systematically delete them from biographies. User:Nikkimaria routinely deletes them at Wikipedia and Wikidata, she was asked to stop at Wikidata, but I was not able to discern what official policy she was following. I would love to link to it at Findagrave so others can see what the official Wikipedia policy is. The link can be at the top of the discussion page if it is not official Wikipedia policy. We link to Wikipedia policy in Wikipedia space all the time: see AFD. At Wikidata this was the discussion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't meet standards for a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Show me the link to the official policy page where this is discussed, so we can link to it from the Findagrave article please. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

If anyone else can find the official policy page please let me know. This is my third time looking for it. If Findagrave links are going to be deleted en masse I would like to have the policy linked to from the Findagrave page, so all can see it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Find a Grave is sometimes the only source (and best source) for pictuers of gravesites. It shoiuld be usable as a link.  That is what they do.  I know that it is opined that it is 'unreliable' because it is a wiki'  So we don't use it as a reference.  But as a link it is useful ande almost indispensible.   7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The link is always in Wikidata, even if not displayed in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * No need to name all the bad sources at WP:USERGENERATED......especially sites like Findagrave with zero credibility.  That said External_links/Perennial_websites was made to explain the main problem sites.--Moxy (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Zero credibility" is a personal opinion, show me some data comparing the error rates to similar sized data sets, then we can discuss errors per 100,000 records, the standard for large data sets. And once again, this is not about using it as an external link, but as a reference. Nikkimaria's deletions at Wikidata were reversed as against policy, I want to see the actual policy here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , while Wikipedia does have policies, they're rarely helpful for resolving disputes about specifics, and attempts to use them that way often look like wikilawyering. Wikipedia works on consensus. Please see DR. --ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pls review WP:QS...Find-a-Grave does not exercise editorial control, and the material added to the site by enthusiast is not vetted.--Moxy (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see a lot of "extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion". I see where people are buried and a picture of a tombstone. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes wonderful pictures some times...but the fact remains that most bios at Find A Grave are not sourced to anything and inputted by interested parties who maintain the site with zero authoritative oversight. It's basically a fan site WP:FANSITE. we don't use sources from user-generated content including ourselves here.--Moxy (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it is likely that volunteers who take photos of gravestones are unreliable in that aspect. The unsourced biographical info that can sometimes be found there is clearly unvetted user-generated content that can't be used. But very basic information, such as who, where buried, dates of birth/death, especially if verified by a photograph seem uncontroversial enough to me. I think there is a middle ground here. MB 16:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good example of the problems that come up are bios like Joan Crawford. Dates don't added up....bio says 1906.....picture of tombstone says 1908. With zero effort to inform the reader as to the problem this as a source is useless.

I believe the policy that you are looking for is WP:VERIFIABILITY. I'm sure Findagrave is a fine and useful website, but it is not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia and discussed in that policy. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * One data point does not make an indictment, Encyclopedia Britannica had dozens of uncorrected errors in its last iteration, which were discovered when it was compared to Wikipedia in an academic study. Once again find the error rate per 100,000 records, the standard for large data sets. I agree the biographical text should not be used. But what we have is the systematic deletion of references, leaving the facts without a reference, or as sometimes the case, the deletion of the fact of where the person is buried, even though that fact will remain in Wikidata. Also for Joan Crawford the Wikipedia article does not know her correct birth date, so it really isn't an error as much as not giving the details of the problem. Wikipedia has a whole category for people where their age cannot be verified because the primary documents are missing or they conflict. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Findagrave is not mentioned there at all, nor is it demanded to remove it as a reference, or to remove the place of burial, as is currently being practiced by User:Nikkimaria on a large scale. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If it is not a reliable source, it should not be used as a reference. If it has been used as a reference, the information should either be removed or backed up by a reference from a reliable source. You asked for a policy, I gave you the policy. If you think that Findagrave should be given some special treatment here (like IMDB or similar specialty sites) then you should start that discussion on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Don't get your hopes up. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * [ec]The point is that it should never have been used as a source to being with.....so mention of its removal in our policies is a mute point. There are literally thousands of better sources that can be used for this info. Sourced information is provided by books like .--Moxy (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer review not showing up on lists
Today I put up my first article for peer review. After using the template and filling in the topic, I can't find it on either the main or unanswered list. Any help is appreciated.

Archive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Solar_eclipse_of_May_20,_2012/archive1

Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Solar_eclipse_of_May_20,_2012

I did edit the nomination after putting it up due to not filling in the topic in the first place. Could this have affected it? Should I delete the review and put it back up? Codyorb (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Codyorb. The page is displaying fine at Peer review. For that reason, I suspect that you viewed the peer review page before transcluding the nomination; your computer cached it to save space/load time, resulting in your browser displaying a prior version of the page when you go there. So, all you need to do is clear your cache, if this is still the situation. The page is not, and will not be listed at Peer review/List of unanswered reviews, because it generates its list by finding entirely un-edited pages, and so once you edited your nomination, after creating it, you took it out of the page's detection capacity. This issue is noted at the PR instructions page, at items 6 under "Step 2: Requesting a review", where it is advised that "If this has happened, add your peer review to Peer review/backlog/items". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Codyorb (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

help me
what will i do next — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martins1234 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the desk for assistance in editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question in that context? Eagleash (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)