Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 February 15

= February 15 =

Why do so many commonly-used templates use MODULES? When they don't need to?
Such as Ambox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomegranatecookie (talk • contribs) 00:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Why don't you go ahead and nominate the modules used by templates you think use modules unnecessarily for deletion, as I have been doing for the past few years? * Pppery * it has begun... 01:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm nominating it for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomegranatecookie (talk • contribs) 19:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a number of factors that guide the decision to use a module instead of writing the code entirely in a template. In favour of templates, there appear to be far fewer Lua programmers available to maintain modules than there are editors who are comfortable enough with the Wikipedia template syntax to maintain complex templates. In favour of modules, the Scribunto implementation is capable of doing jobs not possible in templates alone, and for programmers it is easier to understand and maintain a well written module than the corresponding template, once a certain level of complexity has been reached. --RexxS (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, but why not use the command? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomegranatecookie (talk • contribs) 21:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes you think editors don't use ? For example, we use it twice in reflist, a template used in 4,651,029 articles.  --RexxS (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Why don't they use  to replace the module for Ambox then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomegranatecookie (talk • contribs) 22:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Up until 2012, there were seven separate templates for the different message boxes commonly used. All of these had a lot of code in common, so when the Wikipedia Scribunto (Lua) extension became available, took the opportunity to create a single Lua module to implement the functionality of all seven. The module contained the common code for all of the boxes just once, and selected the type of message box by a parameter which could call on a predefined configuration for that type. That allows another type to be added easily in future if needed, and for routine amendments to the common code to be done in one place. If he had decided to use template coding alone, the switch would be able to select the box type, but much of the common code would be repeated in each section of the switch. That would have defeated most of the advantages gained from consolidating the different boxes into a single piece of code. --RexxS (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Lupton family
Ref 167  is  in  the  red. Please fix,  I  cannot. Thanks 175.33.49.35 (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, just a tab character in the ref. MB 04:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Fix NOINDEX articles
Hello I'm a new user and I recently created a translated English version of a page but it's been many hours since I finished it and it still isn't showing up on google results.How can I fix this?Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnslps (talk • contribs) 06:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, new articles are not indexed by searh engines until they are marked as reviewed or for 90 days, whichever is the shoretr period. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I recently created an article and it was indexed almost instantly,thats why I'm frastrated!How can I get it reviewd? Thank you!Gnslps (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you can't 'force' a review (as it were). There are about 7,500 pages awaiting review and there is no set order. FWIW, about 3,300 pages were reviewed this week. Eagleash (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So the 90 days can be from 2 to 6000 as I can understand!Then I guess im just waiting!Thank you very mutch!Gnslps (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * New pages that are not reviewed in 90 days are then indexed. (They are still subject to review though). Eagleash (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * this hurts my ocd though... Gnslps (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, we do not index items on google until they have been patrolled. The 90 day limit is to stop items from not being indexed due to a lack of a review, it's quite uncommon for an item to reach this length. I'd assume you are talking about Xanthi Carnival, which would need substantial cleanup before we would want it indexed. I'm not convinced it meets WP:GNG to be honest. Someone will be around to review the item at some point. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Only Archived pages are available
Hi, wikipedia i found a Topic in news websites by wayback machine. But original links are not working only archived links are working. Should I use those archived links as reference / sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabroom.in (talk • contribs) 07:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You should put both into the cite web template. If it's a link that doesn't work, put in |url-status=dead. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If archive-url is specified, dead is the default and so does not need to be added for a dead url. If the url is dead, add live. If the url has been redirected to another unrelated or potentially harmful site, specify unfit (or  ) and possibly report it to WP:URLREQ. See Citation/doc#URL. —[  Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 08:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a deeper issue here, and I don't know what our policy is. Since you personally never read the original URL, but you are citing this information, it's not clear that you should mention the original URL at all: you got your information from the archive. This differs from when an editor comes along later and adds an archive link to a reference with a dead link, where the original editor presumably used the original URL. -Arch dude (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding a hotlink
I am trying to edit the entry for Tenterden Kent and cannot see how to add a hotlink to an information page. Please advise. Nick Hudd, Tenterden, Kent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nphudd (talk • contribs) 08:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "hotlink": I think you simply mean a link to a site outside Wikipedia. These are called "external links", and Wikipedia policy is quite restrictive on what you may link to - see EL for details. --ColinFine (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Confusing message appeared after a message I left on someone else's user page (and then disappeared).
I recently left a message on someone else's user page (here: []) and after my message, there appeared an automated Wikipedia message that said something along the lines of "your account has been blocked because your username gives the impression that you represent a group or people or an organization. Please create a new account" (or something like that. I'm not exactly sure). The automated message has since disappeared from their page. I was/am uncertain what it meant or to whom it was addressed. Does it mean I am blocked? Does it mean the user Favonian is blocked? I can't imagine why my username ("Skllagyook") would be thought to represent a group or organization (I'm pretty sure it does not - it is based on an Inuit surname I heard once - which I probably misheard). "Favonian" does not sound like any group or organization I know of either. I am rather confused. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If you look at the history link from User talk:Favonian you'll see that the message to which you refer, claiming that Favonian's account had been blocked, was not an automated message but was vandalism placed (a number of times) by 182.68.244.81 who has himself now been blocked. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I understand. So I am not blocked then? Skllagyook (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you are not blocked, and never have been. if you were blocked you would have been notified on your own user talk page, not on another user's page, and you would have been unable to post here.  Favonian wasn't blocked either, but sadly there are many stupid people who vandalise pages on the encyclopedia as in this case;  if they persist in such vandalism they are soon blocked. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you very much (I was a bit worried). Skllagyook (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus
Hello

I'm Mongolia. I'm translated article "2019 novel coronavirus" and saved in my computer. I want to add a this article in translated list in wikipedia. But mongolian language is'nt have in language list of 2019 novel coronavirus and i can't editing language list of article because this article is semiprotected. please add mongolian language in language list of 2019 novel coronavirus

thank uoy for your attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.34.83.41 (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Interlanguage links are handled by Wikidata, not the English Wikipedia. To add a translation to the list of links, please make a request at wikidata:Talk:Q82069695, using wikidata:Template:Edit request.  Alex Noble    - talk  15:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Else, you can go to "edit links" on either page and add the other page, and it will fix this. I couldn't find a version on the mongolian wiki yet. You will need to publish this before you can do anything else. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

15-23
Any new information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Protectorwolf (talk • contribs) 14:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , you're going to have to give us more information here. Do you have a question about editing or using the English Wikipedia?  Alex Noble    - talk  15:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. JD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:8201:DCF0:3181:5B15:C66B:3426 (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text at article "Josephine Donovan"
Would like to add this reference: 1. https://english.umaine.edu/people/josephine-donovan

Thank you, Josephine Donovan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:8201:DCF0:3181:5B15:C66B:3426 (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * That reference had been in the article before your edits, but you deleted its definition as a named reference. I have reinserted it in, and also removed the misplaced external link which you placed in the article text. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You need to read about conflict of interest and about autobiography. You ought not to be editing the article yourself, but you can suggest edits using the article talk page, supporting your suggestions with references to published reliable sources which are independent of yourself.  --David Biddulph (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

About article approval for Publishing
Hi!

I would want to ask, when can I submitted an article for its evaluation to publisihing? I have been working a draft ´´Anamaria Font´´ (an oustanding Venezuelan Physicist woman) and I think, maybe I am wrong, that it has a good minimal content for publishing.

Thank you for help me.

Joselen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joselenpena (talk • contribs) 16:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd assume it's Draft:Joselenpena? I have nominated this for articles for creation on your behalf. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Photo Copyright
I am new to editing Wikipedia and want to correct and update the page about my Mother in Law, the actor Daphne Anderson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Anderson

The photo that is on the page is not of Daphne, but of somebody else. We have an extensive collection of photos of Daphne which passed to my wife on Daphne's death and I would like to upload one of her publicity photos which would have been taken some time in the 1950s. There are similar images of her online in photos which were obviously taken at the same session, but I do not have any copyright information about the photo (photographer, whether they were taken for a film etc.). Is the fact that the photo was passed to our ownership enough to give us permission to upload it?

Many thanks

ColinAGStratford (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the copyright is likely to belong to the photographer, or the photographer's heir, and you're unlikely to be able to identify them, let alone get their permission to relinquish control of them and let them be used in Wikipedia. This is a common problem oo Wikipedia. (If it were for my own web site, I'd think "what the hell – no-one's going to sue me, and even if they do, I'll just apologise and take them down". But Wikipedia, with its millions of articles, acts responsibly and strives to obey the law.)
 * I'll look into the photo now being shown, and may remove it. Maproom (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the picture from the article, and left a comment on the picture's talk page.
 * I'm not fully aware of the details, but I believe that Wikipedia allows low-resolution versions of copyrighted images of deceased people to be used, if no "free" version can be found. You may be able to upload such a version here on English-language Wikipedia, though not to Wiklimedia Commons. Maproom (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for the prompt response. I'll get on to finding an image which we can use! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.218.94 (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * is correct: you can upload and use a copyright picture on English Wikipedia as long as all the conditions in the non-free content criteria are met. These can hardly ever be met for living people, because there is usually at least a possibility of getting a free picture; but that particular criterion is usually met for pictures of deceased people. --ColinFine (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * With regard to your first paragraph above, : please make sure that any information you want to add to the article is referenced to a reliable published source; personal knowledge and unpublished documents are not accepted as sources for information in Wikipedia articles. Also, as a family member, you are regarded as having a conflict of interest, so rather than editing that article directly, you are recommended to post edit requests on the article's talk page Talk:Daphne Anderson. --ColinFine (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Where should Short Descriptions be hosted?
Hello. I've written some short descriptions for some pages but I'm confused about one thing; where should they be hosted? I add them to this wiki, then they sometimes get auto-moved to Wikidata (for example Godzilla (Q83050393) ). I remember reading something on The Signpost[where?] about moving all short descriptions from Wikidata to Wikipedia once Wikipedia reaches 6m articles (which, hasn't happened), so should they not be there?

Should short descriptions be hosted on Wikidata or Wikipedia? – Toxi  Boi!  (contribs) 21:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * They should be hosted here, see WP:Short description. Information on Wikidata is out of our control. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , when you use the short description helper script to add them here, it will add them to Wikidata if there isn't already one there.  Alex Noble    - talk  23:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Lupton family
References 168 and 171 are the same. Please fix up in the way Wikipedia do it. Leave in quote. I cannt do this so Thanks. 175.33.49.35 (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Both instances were in the one group of refs at the end of a paragraph and seemed to be in verification the same statement. Therefore, removed the second instance. Eagleash (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Bloated articles
Are there WP policies/criteria which warrant condensation/deletion of portions of an article which seem like irrelevant ramifications or borderline information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.178.94.32 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:SPLIT for article that are too long. Generally, we would split the article into chunks, as most topics of long length are actually about more than one thing. We should strive to push a streamlined prose/narrative throughout all of our articles. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Very long taxonomic lists
I'm writing an article for a large group of animals and wish to know if there are any guidelines on what to do with huge taxonomic lists (I've already checked Manual of Style and Manual of Style/Organisms). Specifically, am I allowed to make biological taxonomic lists collapsible? In this case, I have an Order (which is only divided in families, genera and species), but most genera are extinct and only have one species each. Should I list every species, or can I stop at genus-level and link the pages to the one species in each genus? Or maybe list the species binomial names directly after families? Should I make a separate page for the entire list of species, instead? For reference, the list of living species is 150 lines long, but I can't really estimate its size once I add the extinct ones. Can that actually be called a "long list", by the way? Thanks a lot, and forgive me if this is not the right place to ask this. -- QueijoQuente (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's always OK to start at the help desk, but sometimes we must direct you elsewhere. In general, you should use your editorial judgement. In this case, you might want to take your question to the talk page of the appropriate Wikiproject, perhaps with a recommendation if you have formed an opinion. You may wish to cross-post to the talk page of Manual of Style/Organisms. -Arch dude (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to post it to the talk page of Manual of Style/Organisms, then. Thank you for the answer :) -- QueijoQuente (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The question of how to organise very large articles or lists is discussed at Splitting and Summary style. The answer to your specific question is "yes, but not by default". The reasons are laid out at Manual of Style and Manual of Style/Accessibility . HTH --RexxS (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the answer. I had already read those guides you mentioned, but since there were no specific discussion on how to handle species list and I didn't remember any article collapsing them, I decided to check here for specific guidelines first. I think I'll start a discussion on the article's talk page and refrain from adding the full list on the page for a while - maybe splitting is really the best option here. Thanks again for the help ^-^ -- QueijoQuente (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)