Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 December 9

= December 9 =

Fixing Odd Formatting on Article
I have found an article (World Sight Day) that has very odd formatting: the reference section appears in the middle of the page and a table on the article does not appear in the section which the syntax says it should be in. I have tried correcting it by moving the reference section, but for some reason, the reference section won't move. What can be done? CircleGirl (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone fixed it with this edit. The problem was that the table was not closed. —teb728 t c 10:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources for a song article
I want to create some song articles. Would the following websites be considered reliable or acceptable sources for a Wikipedia song article?
 * 1) http://www.irvingberlin.com/
 * 2) http://graciefields.org/wordpress/gracie-on-film/
 * 3) https://www.rnh.com/
 * 4) https://www.songfacts.com/
 * 5) http://digitalcollections.oscars.org
 * 6) https://www.lyricsplayground.com/
 * 7) http://lyrics.wikia.com/wiki/
 * 8) http://www.musicvf.com/

Thanks. J ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 10:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you read Identifying reliable sources? If yes, it should be crystal clear to you that a Wikia wiki is not a reliable source, ever. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

good article
Does every article have the potential to be a good article? If not, is there or should there be a way to know when it's the best it can be? Benjamin (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Benjamin. Every Wikipedia article can and should be of good quality: see Writing better articles for tips on ensuring this. However, you may be thinking of the specific Good article process within Wikipedia. Lots of articles could be expanded or improved so that they meet the Good article criteria; however, for topics where there are simply not enough reliable sources, in any form, anywhere in the world, on which to base more than a very short article or stub, then the Good article process is unlikely to apply Noyster (talk),  12:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, of course, but is there a way of knowing when this is the case? Benjamin (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you mean when can you say "there are no further reliable sources to be found anywhere" then of course it's impossible to prove this with absolute certainty (and yet, most "delete" votes at AfDs depend on just such an argument). Depending on topic, of course you'd carry out any relevant Google searches including Books and News archive, then see what The Wikipedia Library has to offer, then try a municipal library, or a university library if you or your friends have access. If there's still an active WikiProject in a related field then post to its talk page to ask for help in tracking down sources, or ask any editor whom you know to have a specialist interest in your field. After you've given it your best shot then you can say&mdash;as far as you're concerned&mdash;there are no more sources available. Then, ask does the article fully and correctly represent what is in the sources you do have? Has it been polished for clarity of expression, format, layout, spelling and grammar and so on? Neutral tone, no copyvios? Pictures? External links? All useful wikilinks all there, and incoming links from other articles? When you have reviewed all these aspects you can say that for you at least, "the article is the best it can be"! Noyster (talk),  00:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Should there be some designation for such a status? Benjamin (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is the Content assessment system, and you could put the article up for Peer review Noyster (talk),  08:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've seen that before. Sorry if I didn't express myself well. By "such a status" don't mean simply, for example, "C class, but with plenty of unutilized sources", but rather, "C class, but with no likely way to improve it much further, because of a lack of sources in existence, or whatever". Benjamin (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Benjamin, just caught up with this. You have a point here that once someone has done a lot of work on an article and concluded that no further improvements are possible, how can other editors be informed of this? Maybe you're thinking of something like a cleanup tag, but giving the reverse message that there may be little more to do on that article? Some may decide not to waste their effort; some may take it as a challenge and try all the harder to find improvements after all. You may want to work up a proposal and suggest it at Wikipedia talk:Template messages, or perhaps at the village pump Noyster (talk),  21:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I will consider making a proposal. Benjamin (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Article is full of discredited information, but I have a conflict of interest
The Wikipedia article on XMRV, which was once suspected of being a human pathogen, is full of discredited medical information. The same discredited information is now being used by various quacks and conspiracy theorists, and therefore it is vital that Wikipedia not present this information as true.

The Wikipedia article is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenotropic_murine_leukemia_virus-related_virus Much of the information presented in the Wikipedia article is debunked by Snopes at www.snopes.com/fact-check/scientist-vaccine-jailed/

For five years, the article's Talk page has said that the article is badly outdated, but no editor has yet fixed the article. I am the author of an article that presents a theory that competes with the theory discussed in the Wikipedia article. Therefore, I have a conflict of interest and cannot edit the article. Also, I have not edited a Wikipedia article in years, and no longer really remember how.

If no one knowledgeable about the topic is available to fix the article, a much shorter article based on information on Snopes could be substituted. If no one is available to even do that, I believe the article should be deleted. It's better to have no Wikipedia article at all, than an article full of discredited medical information that is likely to be exploited by quacks and conspiracy theorists.

-- J. Sarayda Shapiro, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.161.232.54 (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It might be worth asking on WT:MED as that is where our medical-minded editors hang out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * added template will look over, time allowing(left op note)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

License translation
Where shall I upload the English translation of the license to Draft:Star_Heritage_(1995_video_game)? This license is very important for the maintenance of the article and the publication of screenshots.Ant 222 (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the license on the draft is not CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL? If so that is not acceptable: all articles (with the exception of brief quotqtions) must be licensed under those licenses. —teb728 t c 16:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * While all of your contributions are irrevocably licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL when you click the "Publish changes" button, you can multi-license them with any additional licenses. See instructions Multi-licensing – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant the license to the original game, rather than to the article about it. I want to refer to that license in the metainformation for the screenshots. I beg your pardon for the confusion. Ant 222 (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean the license of the file File:StarHetitage-Title.png which is used in the draft? If that's the case see the license summary at File:StarHetitage-Title.png, you should also add the website from were you got it. In the meantime I've commented out the image in the draft, non free images can only be used in main article space. So when the draft is accepted it can be used properly. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Also the file description page for the title screen indicates it has a non-commercial license, which is of little value on Wikipedia, for non-commercial means non-free. The use of non-free content is highly restricted; see WP:NFCC. So you should not count on being allowed to use non-free screenshots.
 * As to your original question, you could copy the license (or preferably a link to it) into the file description pages, and IMO the official license would be preferable to an English translation. —teb728 t c 09:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean the license under which the game Star Heritage (described in my draft) has last been released by its author. Regarding the source, I took the screenshot myself. After you commented-out the image, it has become an orphan and been scheduled for deletion. Shall I have to re-upload it when/if the draft is accepted?

Non-free screenshots, they are used extensively in videogame articles, e.g.: File:AITDscreenshot.gif, and File:Dune_2_screenshot_attack_on_base.jpg, so I see nothing wrong with uploading a screenshot for Star Heritage.—Ant 222 (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My point is that noting a non-commercial license is of almost no value here. It may make reuse possible on commercial sites, but it doesn't make use any easier on Wikipedia: Each use here must conform to all 10 criteria of WP:NFCCP including minimal number of items (which may explain why your example screenshots were the only screenshots in the articles where they were used), use must increase reader understanding, and use only in articles (which is why your title screen can't be used in a draft). —teb728 t c 18:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

How can I get more feedback regarding "Safran Seats"?
Aside from posting at Talk:Zodiac_Seats_U.S., what can I do to get more feedback from other users on moving Zodiac Seats U.S. to "Safran Seats"? I have not heard back from anyone to date. Please ping me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia policy is to name an article according to what its subject is usually called. None of the references cited in Zodiac Seats U.S. uses the word "Safran" at all, so the article should not be moved. Maproom (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, you did not ping me when you replied. Also, please see the Zodiac Aerospace internet site and this Gainesville Register article, which details the name change.  Furthermore, you did not answer my question.  What can I do to get more feedback from other users on moving Zodiac Seats U.S. to "Safran Seats"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * when I replied above, I included the template, which ought to have alerted you to my response. I don't question that the name change has officially happened; but what  matters, for Wikipedia's purposes is what the subject is usually called. And when Wikipedia policy is clear, I doubt the relevance of feedback. Maproom (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, this is the second time that you have failed to ping me. My user name has two sevens in it, not 1, please look carefully at your ping.  This is why I did not get the ping.  Because of the name change, I would like more feedback.  I tried to do an RFC, but someone deleted the RFC template from the talk page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, yes, I left out a 7. (I can't advise you on RfCs - the only time I tried to create one, I had to withdraw it.) Maproom (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Metallica songs
I am trying to start a discussion about a potential Metallica songs navigation box. How do I get the split tag at Metallica to show a blue link to Metallica songs? Please ping me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * : I added I link to bottom of the template. SportsFan007 (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007
 * : split template fixed! SportsFan007 (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

Password problems
Wikipedia has sent me a message a few times saying that failed attempts have been made to change my password. However, when I tried to change the password, I first have to use the original password. Nevertheless, the original password is not allowing me to log in to do that. What's next? I have check the routine problems such as accepting cookies (yes), etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedgehead (talk • contribs) 20:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you cannot log in with your original password that means either it's been changed or you forget it. Do you have access to your current email address?. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have only used one password and I am currently logged in. I tested this by starting to edit a page. However, when I try to change the password, Wikipedia asks me to log in again and that fails.  My email address has not changed if you want to send me email.  I hope I am formatting this response correctly so you will see it. Maybe I should log out and then try to change the password. –Sedgehead
 * Okay, if you indeed want change the password, click Special:PasswordReset and provide either your username or email address attached to your account. A new temporary password will be emailed to the email address. Then you can use it to login and then change to something that you like using the Special:ResetPassword. If you choose strong password, you can safely disregard those failed login attempt notifications by disabling the feature at Special:Preferences. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)