Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 April 14

= April 14 =

Sherbet lemon
The section about sherbet lemons was removed from Sherbet as unreferenced. Even though not being British and never having eaten a genuine British sherbet lemon, googling for "sherbet lemon" reveals oodles of sites verifying these sweets exist. The thing is, pretty much all of them go to single manufacturers or retailers of sherbet lemons, which may not be notable and which might be considered promotion, although I am not in any way affialated with any of them. What could be considered a reliable source? J I P &#124; Talk 00:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please confirm that you are referring to the Sherbet disambiguation page, or are you referring to a different article? Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry, I was referring to Sherbet (powder). J I P  &#124; Talk 00:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * One way to do this would be to be bold and restore the sections with a couple references. Another way would be to provide some references on Talk:Sherbet (powder) and invite the user to who deleted the section to discuss the options.  GoingBatty (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that all I can find by googling "sherbet lemon" is sites selling sherbet lemons, which verifies sherbet lemons exist, but I am not sure if they qualify as references. So I don't know what to use as references. Or should I just select some site selling sherbet lemons and use that as a reference? J I P  &#124; Talk 15:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you start a discussion with the websites you found on Talk:Sherbet (powder) and see how other editors who are knowledgeable on the topic can help. GoingBatty (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is at least better than a commercial site. Registration is free. You can also try WP:REFD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and used this as a reference. I found it funny that Sherbet lemon redirected to Sherbet (powder) while Sherbet Lemon redirected to Sherbet (powder). All this is making me want to taste actual sherbet lemons. Maybe I'll find one of those commercial sites that deliver outside the UK and order some. J I P  &#124; Talk 23:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Lord of the manor
Ref number  17   was  tricky  to  do  (there is  no  publisher)  and  it is  in  red   - please  fix. I cannot. Sorry 175.33.49.35 (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ! All you needed to do was to change April 142020 to April 14, 2020. GoingBatty (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, changing to 14 April 2020 is the better option to be consistent with the other references. GoingBatty (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Lupton family
Ref number  34 =  DISASTER -  Apologies, I  cannot  work  it  out  at  all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.49.35 (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please help us understand what you cannot work out? You just need to change 14 April 20200 to 14 April 2020 - same as the errors you posted above.  GoingBatty (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read the section above that's titled Bullock family. Additionally, at the top of this page, you'll see the following: "If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page." This is something we overlook for people who are clearly inexperienced or have unusual (or interesting) requests; I'm told that you have been making humdrum requests like this for years. -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Archived.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I  will  try  to  fix it up. Please  don't be  angry.  175.33.49.35 (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not so much angry as frustrated. We don't understand why, if you can mis-type the date as "14 April 20200", and you can see the error message that tells you the problem is with the accessdate, you are unable to correct it to "14 April 2020". Several times. What are we missing? Can you help us understand your issue? —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 02:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about a Wikipedia policy (or lack thereof)
I am trying to determine if policies exists regarding a set of related topics. I will introduce the topics in the form of questions.

Before I list the questions, let me say how these questions came up for me. Another editor kindly reviewed a new article I had written that was languishing in the Draft articles queue. I appreciated his efforts and I wanted to "pay it forward", so I asked to become an Articles for Creation (AfC) reviewer. You can read the results of my request to join and my dialogue with the administrator, Primefac at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Please note the following:

→ I am not challenging, disputing, or calling into question Primefac's decision. I do not mind being "on probation" as an AfC reviewer. My concern is with the policy (or lack thereof).

Here are my policy questions:


 * Do we tell editors that Wikipedia tracks their "votes" in AfD discussions?


 * Do we inform editors that if their AfD voting history shows a "low" accuracy score, as computed by the AfD Statistics Tool and interpreted by AfC administrators, that administrators might regard the editor's accuracy score as a negative indicator?


 * Do we have any standards or guidelines regarding the interpretation of AfD Statistical Tool results? For example, if an editor has a 40% accuracy score is that good or bad? A 30% accuracy score? 25%? (I think you get my point.)


 * Have we conducted any studies to determine the interrater reliability, criterion validity, or predictive validity of administrators' interpretations of AfD Statistical Tool accuracy scores?


 * Are the AfD Statistics Tool scores accurate and precise?

Measurement methods
Measurement methods can be evaluated to determine if they are consistent (reliable) and accurate (valid). An administrator's subjective judgement of AfD accuracy score meaning is a measurement method. Some measurement methods are consistent and accurate; other methods are consistent, but inaccurate; etc.

Interrater reliability.
Imagine we select 10 experienced editors at random; ask them to examine AfD accuracy scores for five different editors; and then determine if that editor should:

(1) be allowed to review Articles for Creation (AfC) without restriction;

(2) be allowed to review Articles for Creation (AfC), but on a two-month probationary basis; or

(3) not allow them to conduct AfC reviews at this time.

We could then analyze the 10 editors' determinations (Yes; Yes/Probation; or No) and calculate interrater reliability statistics, which would tell us if experienced editors' subjective judgements of AfD accuracy scores are reliable or not. We could conduct a similar study with administrators.

I can explain what I mean by criterion validity & predictive validity in this context, but I think you get the gist of what I'm asking. If not, let me know!

Conclusion
So my two questions are:

1. Do we have any policies in place about the above topics?

2. If not, who are the "powers that be" for policies in this area?

Many thanks  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  02:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a very well-stated set of questions. The help desk is not the place for them: we try to answer questions about using or editing Wikipedia here. I will wander away and try to find the appropriate place for you to post the question set and get back to you, unless a more knowledgeable helpdesk denizen answers first. -Arch dude (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Arch dude. I searched and stumbled about the Wikipedia help pages for 30+ minutes looking for the proper place for this topic to no avail, so I really appreciate you helping! I have this page on my Watchlist (or feel free to let me know on my talk page). All the best  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  06:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , my belief is that we don't assess editor reliability like that (or if there's someone who does, they don't publish their findings). If we did, it would reduce editors' effectiveness, because they'd concentrate on improving their ratings by giving what they thought would be approved decisions, rather than on making just decisions. In other words – we'd be converting competent and intelligent editors into jobsworths. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: "we don't assess editor reliability like that" - I honestly don't know how most AfC administrators assess reliability. I based my questions on my experience, which the statistics folks would say, "is an n of one", i.e., my experience might not be representative of typical assessment procedures. In fact, this uncertainty is one reason I asked my set of questions. I don't think we need a rigid set of rules, but it would probably be a good idea to reach a consensus re: reliable and valid methods to assess AfC volunteers. ¶ Thank you for using the word "jobsworth", a word I had never read until today - as a dedicated word geek I love learning new words, idioms, etc. ¶ There are different opinions about how to best respond to other editors on a talk page. Responding immediately under the person to whom you are responding makes the most sense to me. But if that's not the way it's done here, please move my responses as you see fit. Thanks! All the best   - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  14:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , with respect, I think you're asking the wrong questions.
 * The criteria for AfC reviewers are presented here. Criterion 5 is the key one here I believe - in order to assess whether there is reasonable evidence that a volunteer has an understanding of the relevant policies, it would seem sensible to look at their participation in deletion discussions, as well as how they apply CSD/PROD tags. A low number in the AfD stats is obviously a bit of a red flag, but an admin wouldn't necessarily just look at the numbers - you'd look at the quality of the arguments made, and whether those arguments indicate an awareness and understanding of policy.
 * As to whether we inform users that their votes are tracked - surely you know that all of your edits to any article or discussion are logged permanently? I'm sure it tells you that in the Terms of Use somewhere, which everybody reads thoroughly before they click 'Publish changes', right? That tool just extracts and presents the information. What's a high or a low score? That's a bit subjective, and would depend on a few factors - there aren't any hard-and-fast rules about that. In your own case, given that you seem only to have cast a clear !vote in five such discussions, the metric itself isn't what I'd look at - I can go to each of the discussions themselves. I don't see anywhere in any of them where you are referencing any notability criteria or the deletion policy in any of them - so, there is no evidence there that you have an understanding of those policies.
 * There aren't any specific 'powers that be' that govern all this stuff - no single or group of people is in charge, it's led by consensus. If you want to propose a change in the way we assess AfC participants, you could head over to the talk page, make some suggestions, and see if anyone thinks they're good ideas. I'm not sure how many people you will find who know what you're talking about though. If you actually want to contribute to the AfC process, I'd suggest you dive in - you've been given probationary membership, read the instructions, and go and do good work - that will provide reasonable evidence of an understanding of the policies, and you will pass the probation. Hope that helps. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: Your first paragraph, what you write makes sense to me as a general principle. I am suggesting that we put those general principles (not rigid rules) in writing to facilitate consistency and transparency. ¶ Re: "surely you know that all of your edits to any article or discussion are logged permanently?" - Yes, I do know that and it's a fact that seems to be made clear to editors. My point is that editors should know that not only are contributions on AfD pages logged, they are also analyzed by a stats tool and interpreted by an administrator if one volunteers to help review AfC articles. ¶ Re: "What's a high or a low score? That's a bit subjective, and would depend on a few factors - there aren't any hard-and-fast rules about that." - I agree. I am arguing for less subjectivity, but not to the point of hard-and-fast rules. Your explanation of how you (would) evaluate understanding of notability criteria and deletion policy is a good example of something that could (if consensus was reached) be put into writing. (And I will read the reviewer criteria again to see if perhaps I missed or misunderstood relevant information.) ¶ Re: Your last paragraph - thank you, that is exactly the guidance I was looking for. I will follow your advice. ¶ I appreciate you taking the time to reply and for explaining how things work - it is very helpful. :) Best regards   - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  15:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

✅ - You all have provided me with the most important information I needed, namely "Where do I go from here?" As I noted above, I will follow Girth Summit's advice, i.e., I'll gain some experience conducting AfC reviews and after a few months, I'll start a discussion about these interrelated topics on the AfC talk page. Thanks y'all! ¶ (P.S. I am open to any additional advice either here or on my talk page.)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  15:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about COI
Hi! I've got a question regarding the COI policy. I was reading through it and noticed that while it explicitly states that investors are subject to the policy, It doesn't say anything as to if stock traders are also required to disclose. On first glance, I would think they would need to disclose, since stock trading is basically just the short-term form of investing, but on the other hand, they don't really have a permanent stake in a company. How exactly does it work for traders? Is this an intentional omission or just a weird edge case? TheAwesome Hwyh  04:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My opinion: As opposed to a "paid" relationship (WP:PAID), COI is more a matter of self evaluation and possibly evaluation by other editors. If you think you might have a conflict of interest, you probably do, but it's not black and white: there are many shades of grey. At some level, every editor has an "interest" in every edit they make that is not just a format change. So when you think your "interest" may be beginning to bias your edits in a particular article, then disclose, and if your interest is getting serious, then start making edit requests instead of direct edits. -Arch dude (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I know 😊, to be clear I'm talking in hypotheticals here. I am curious if the policy should be amended to explicitly include that sort of stuff, but that might be too broad. TheAwesome  Hwyh  04:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It depends. There are stocks I have traded for which I might consider myself to have a COI, and others, not. If you're involved a lot with fundamentals, know the company well, and routinely trade it, you might have a COI with regard to anything subjective or controversial about it. Simply keeping objective stuff like financials up to date, though, seems perfectly fine. If it's a stock that you trade in and out one day because it's getting attention, and pay no further mind to it after, I don't think there's a COI there, other than perhaps on that day you're trading it. I think I've probably seen something wrong on the WP article for a company while in the trade and come back later to fix it – nothing wrong with that, AFAICT. Anyway, that's my read on it as a trader whose strategy could mostly be described as market-making or scalping. Longer-term investors obviously are more conflicted. —[  Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 13:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding Category:Sportspeople from Castro Valley, California to Sportspeople from California
Hello all,

I have already found a few athletes originally from Castro Valley, California and would like to create the category on subject. However, I'd like to make sure it's categorized properly in Sportspeople from California, specifically under Sportspeople from Alameda County, California. Can someone explain me how to make sure it's integrated properly? Thank you :-) Luzz (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at similar categories before creating a category, in this case other subcategories of Category:Sportspeople from Alameda County, California‎. They all include code of form . Copy this and the other code with the name replaced and add it to Category:Sportspeople from Castro Valley, California. Preview to see if the links are blue. If they are red then search for blue replacements or omit them. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, I managed to create it and put it in the right place. Thank you for the help! Luzz (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Levine Museum of the New South
I'm just making fun of the pages in the Levine Museum of the New South about the new languages it's called PronunsGlish Pronunciation English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1106:6292:F242:1CFF:FEC3:41DC (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. Your unconstructive edits were reverted a minute after you made them. Maproom (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Renewal of reference required
Hi to all, Today I went through Shamsheer Vayalil article and I found that the reference number 9 is not working. The issue is big because that reference contained important information of his early life phase. So, the reference need to be fixed properly. (223.230.163.181 (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC))
 * Reference 9 is working for me. But as it's to a magazine article based on what Vayalil has said about himself, I don't see it as important for the Wikipedia article. Maproom (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have checked it's working now for me also. I guess earlier my internet server was not working well that's why the pdf couldn't get downloaded.

As you told that you didn't find that pdf important, then I suggest you to see the last line of "Early life" section of the article. You'll definitely get your answer. Best regards. 223.230.163.181 (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The reference is not important to the article as it is not independent of the subject. Eagleash (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: may be the latest IP address of somebody whose other user IDs have been blocked. To learn more, please read this. Eagleash (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Animated gifs
Such as File:HRR.gif. Do we have any tutorials on making 'em, d'you know? WT:GL seems poorly attended these days :( all the best!  ——  SN  54129  11:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You can ask to C:Commons:Graphic Lab or other big wikipedias lab if the image is very relevant User:Serial Number 54129--Pierpao (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed I could, many thanks :)  but since en.wp uses hundreds if not thousands of the things I assumed we'd provide instructions on how to do it!   ——  SN  54129  14:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to do it yourself, you have to use a gif editor. It's not much different than a normal picture editor; you have to edit every single frame and merge together. Actually only nominally merge as it is made by the gif editor, automatically. You can easily find a free gif animator on the web User:Serial Number 54129--Pierpao (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

incorrect information
Why does the wiki insist on using incorrect information? Myself and several others have tried to insert correct facts about a few things but the edits get removed and replaced with incorrect information? Why is the wiki trying to intentionally spread false information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.120.87 (talk • contribs) 14 April 2020 16:00 (UTC)
 * Hello, Wikipedia reports on what has been written in reliable sources. It seems from the messages at your talk page that you have been trying to change information to what you might think it should say rather than what the sources say. If your changes are not supported by a reliable source, they are very likely to be removed and the page restored to a sourced version. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you share your specific concerns on Talk:Resident Evil 2 (2019 video game) and/or Talk:Resident Evil 3 (2020 video game), and provide reliable sources to show other editors the correct information. Happy editing!  GoingBatty (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not decide what is "false" and what is "true"; it only summarizes what independent sources state. It's up to readers to decide what is true and false for themselves. See WP:TRUTH. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Pagelinks template with just edit/talk/history
I am aware of the pagelinks template and it's many variants, but I am looking for one that just has the edit, talk and history links next to it, rather than the additional links-to, watch and logs. I can create one if it doesn't exist, but I thought surely one must and that it would be pointless to make one if it exists already? Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you do not receive an answer here, I suggest you ask at Template talk:Ln. Hope this helps!  GoingBatty (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't looking for help with using the template itself, rather just if one existed in a condensed form! I guess from the lack of replies, it may suggest it doesn't or isn't known about! Cheers. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Johan Cruyff
Btw, Johan Cruyff played for the New York Cosmos in 1980 fyi.... i joined his team for a match in Indonesia...

Thanks.
 * If you have a suggestion for improving an article, please start a discussion on that article's talk page. We can only include information from reliable published sources, not just your recollection.  RudolfRed (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Johan Cruyff does state "He had previously been rumoured to be joining the New York Cosmos but the deal did not materialize; he played a few exhibition games for the Cosmos." Maybe you're thinking of one of those exhibition games?  If not, I agree with the suggestion of you starting a discussion at Talk:Johan Cruyff.  GoingBatty (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on usernames
Are Wikipedians allowed to use a username named after a notable fictional character? --Kilographography (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no restriction on using the name of a fictional character as far as I can see in the username policy. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you. --Kilographography (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But user names named after groups are forbidden - so what about groups of fictional characters? If someone names their account "X-Men", could they be banned because the account represents several X-Men? J I P  &#124; Talk 21:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The "X-Men" (to use your example) is not an actual group as far as I am aware. The policy on group usernames is for actual groups. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) That part of policy stems more from the prohibition against multiple people using one account. I suppose if there was evidence that Cyclops, Wolverine, and Professor X were sharing User:X-Men, that probably wouldn't be permitted. But I think it's safe to assume that if it's a username named after a fictional group, there's probably a single fan behind it.  bibliomaniac 1  5  21:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If, say, you were to call yourself Tom Jones and were to suggest in your edits that you were this singer, you'd get in trouble. If you responded "What, me pretend to be Tom Jones? Certainly not! Yes, I like his music, but we're unrelated. My username? It's a tribute to the protagonist of Henry Fielding's novel", people would not be amused. Ditto for the very many other cases where the name of a fictional character is also used for an actual human. -- Hoary (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If should take into account that if a character is really notable, I am 100% sure that its name is already used as someone's username. Ruslik_ Zero 20:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, Username policy doesn't apply to signatures (the text that actually appears when you post stuff) IMO it should, but it doesn't, and Usernames for administrator attention doesn't deal with signatures. Thus, if your username is (let's say) "Anodyne" but your signature (set in your preferences) is "Hitler did nothing wrong" or "Eat Kraft Cheese" or "The guys down at Mickey's Garage" or whatever, those are not username violations, although they may still not be allowed for other reasons (disruptive or whatever), and you'd have to go to WP:ANI for relief. Herostratus (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)