Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 September 28

= September 28 =

Creating a page
I wish to know how to create a page

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireflywash (talk • contribs) 05:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , if you mean that you want to create a WP-article, take the time to read Help:Your first article. WP:TUTORIAL can also be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

What is Wikitia? Why Article not shown on Google Search
Hi team, I have a small query. My client written an article on Wikipedia. But still not approved since 2 months. But I see, same article about Director/Producer is published on Wikitia.

Will it be shown to wikipedia also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaganmehra93 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As you were told on your user talk page, if you are editing on behalf of a client you need to make the mandatory declaration as laid out at WP:Paid editing before you make any further edits. If you tell us the name of the article, we can look to see why it hasn't been approved. Wikitia is an entirely separate encyclopedia, not connected with Wikipedia.  You will see from the front page of Wikipedia  Wikitia that it has 3,793 articles in English, whereas Wikipedia has 6,165,466 articles in English. David Biddulph (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Suchetgarh Railway junction
There is no such station in Pakistan. It was a station in JK India. Now abandoned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramakant Wadkar (talk • contribs) 09:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Ramakant Wadkar, If you have a reliable source and can cite it, you should feel free to add the abandonment information to the article. Apparently, it did not survive partition.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

How to Edit Deadlink please?
Anyone can help me with guiding me, how to edit deadlink? thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruhulksagor (talk • contribs) 09:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For guidance on how to dead with a dead link, read Dead link. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

User Contributions that *aren't* latest revisions
I note that there is an option for Special:Contributions to. This only shows the edits that are marked (current).

Is there any way to reverse this, that is, for pages I have contributed to, only show edits later than my most recent revision?

I would like an easy way to spot if somebody has edited an article or responded to a talk page I have contributed to (without having to watch all those pages).

Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you open your browser console you could enter  to achieve that effect. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've written a userscript for this: User:Þjarkur/Not latest contributions – Thjarkur (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Fetching last revision date and time
I'm looking for a block of code that fetches the last revision date and time of a WP page and displays them in Nepal Standard Time (NPT) in the format. I want to bypass the need to manually update the "Last updated:" part in Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Nepal medical cases by province and district. Best, Inimesh (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Would it be sufficient to just mark the day when the template was last edited? If so you can use  → "//" – Thjarkur (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Following up on that:
 * → June 29, 2024 → June 29, 2024
 * df-cust accepts the formatting codes used by.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, and ! Inimesh (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that this experiment is a fail. Whenever someone edits  (as a whole-page edit or as a section edit),  will be re-rendered.  Re-rendering apparently uses the article's new revision timestamp.  I confirmed this by making .  The date displayed in the template agrees with the time of my edit:
 * → June 29, 2024
 * You might want to take this question to WP:VPT.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I have removed the Notes section from COVID-19 pandemic in Nepal. There was just one footnote in it, which is now incorporated into the article text. This should work for now. Thank you for your time. Inimesh (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

How to reference that sources banned from Wikipedia eg InfoWars, Daily Mail spread conspiracy theories?
Hi

I'm working on the article for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (a far-right, antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims Western Marxism as the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture) and I'm compiling a list of organisations which promote or spread the conspiracy. Both InfoWars and Daily Mail have used the term and promoted the conspiracy however I can't use their articles as references because they are blocked. What is the policy for referencing this kind of thing? I've actually found a number of sources which Wikipedia considers reliable which also spread the conspiracy e.g The Times and the The Spectator but I'm unsure if I should link to these directly.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , you must find reliable sources that name these newspapers as sources that spread the conspiracy theory. So don't cite the things themselves, cite a reliable source that says it about them. Popcornfud (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Citing those sites' own articles to support claims that they advocate the conspiracy theory would be primary-source based original research. What you really need are independent sources saying that those sites spread it (e.g. a NYT piece or Routledge book saying "InfoWars spreads this conspiracy theory"). Ian.thomson (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks and, could you point to the policy page for this? I'm confused because it doesn't seem like original research because they use the term outright e.g Toby Young wrote an article called "Are the cultural Marxists in Retreat, or Lying Low?". Is it true that I should find sources that reference them spreading this conspiracy even for sources that Wikipedia accepts as sources, or only for those that don't? John Cummings (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY, but that is somewhat contextual. There's also the argument (not exactly policy but commonly accepted consensus in many other cases) that we would need an independent source to establish that the (say) InfoWars article wasn't an anomaly or that it was noteworthy.  Ian.thomson (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , if a source says something like (to make up an example) "Cultural marxists are the biggest threat to the world right now", that doesn't show that the source is wrong, or that cultural marxism is a conspiracy theory. You need other sources to say that. Does that make sense? Popcornfud (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks, the fact that its a conspiracy theory is clearly established in the article already, all I want to do is provide references to show that InfoWars, the Daily Mail, The Times, Spectator etc are spreading it. John Cummings (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, to do that you will need secondary sources saying that the Daily Mail etc are spreading the conspiracy theory. Otherwise it's WP:SYNTH. Popcornfud (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I'm not explaining myself very well, let me try to ask it another way... What are the rules for quoting text from a source that is not considered a reliable source? John Cummings (talk) 09:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , why would you want to do that? It's not a reliable source.
 * I think I understand what you're trying to do, anyway. It's like this, right?
 * Source A, reliable: "Cultural marxism is a conspiracy theory."
 * Source B, unreliable: "Cultural marxists are killing the world!"
 * You want to cite source A to show that cultural marxism is a conspiracy theory. Then, this established, you want to quote source B, and say: "Look! Source B is spreading the conspiracy theory."
 * If that is what you want to do... then you can't do that. You are applying source A to source B and creating a new claim, which is: "Source B is spreading the conspiracy theory." This is WP:SYNTHESIS.
 * Instead of using source B, you need a different source saying that source B is spreading the conspiracy theory. Popcornfud (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ok, I understand what you're saying, thanks for taking the time to explain it. Where I do not follow the logic you've used is that I'm creating a 'new claim' by quoting someone's writing who very clearly promotes the conspiracy e.g an article called "Are the cultural Marxists in Retreat, or Lying Low?", they're literally saying the name of the conspiracy in the title of article. John Cummings (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , it comes down to a question of original research.
 * You can't just look at Source B and say "Look! They're spreading a conspiracy theory." That's your own personal analysis. That doesn't cut it. You need a secondary source to say that about the first source. If Source A doesn't say anything about Source B, then you need to find a source that does. Popcornfud (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If that is what you want to do... then you can't do that. You are applying source A to source B and creating a new claim, which is: "Source B is spreading the conspiracy theory." This is WP:SYNTHESIS.
 * Instead of using source B, you need a different source saying that source B is spreading the conspiracy theory. Popcornfud (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ok, I understand what you're saying, thanks for taking the time to explain it. Where I do not follow the logic you've used is that I'm creating a 'new claim' by quoting someone's writing who very clearly promotes the conspiracy e.g an article called "Are the cultural Marxists in Retreat, or Lying Low?", they're literally saying the name of the conspiracy in the title of article. John Cummings (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , it comes down to a question of original research.
 * You can't just look at Source B and say "Look! They're spreading a conspiracy theory." That's your own personal analysis. That doesn't cut it. You need a secondary source to say that about the first source. If Source A doesn't say anything about Source B, then you need to find a source that does. Popcornfud (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't just look at Source B and say "Look! They're spreading a conspiracy theory." That's your own personal analysis. That doesn't cut it. You need a secondary source to say that about the first source. If Source A doesn't say anything about Source B, then you need to find a source that does. Popcornfud (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't just look at Source B and say "Look! They're spreading a conspiracy theory." That's your own personal analysis. That doesn't cut it. You need a secondary source to say that about the first source. If Source A doesn't say anything about Source B, then you need to find a source that does. Popcornfud (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation, I think where I was confused is on Deprecated sources it says 'Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint.'. John Cummings (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, it's not straightforward. You could potentially cite the Daily Mail if you wanted to show an example of the Daily Mail's position on cultural marxism, but you couldn't use that to show that the Daily Mail was propagating a conspiracy theory. In all honesty, your safest bet is to find other, reliable sources that describe these sources. Popcornfud (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks, I'll keep looking. John Cummings (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

RFA
Hello, could I request for admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BossDragon64934 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, you will probably not be nominated for adminship as you have made only 19 edits. However, to answer your question: see WP:Requests for adminship/Nominate  Heart  (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You have made 19 edits ever to English Wikipedia, so you are not experienced enough. Most admins will have at least a couple of years of solid editing and at least 5,000 good edits. Note that you don't need admin permissions to do most things such as create and edit content on Wikipedia. WP:RFA is the process for it, but I advise that if you do try, you don't have a chance right now of being successful. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have to agree with, you are not yet ready to become an admin. That said, there are a lot of ways to contribute to Wikipedia without being an admin, and contributing in those areas will help you learn the ropes and the rules and policies that admins are expected to implement, and in a year or two you may be able to demonstrate that you are ready.  I recommend looking at the task center and maintenance areas for things you would enjoy doing.  Get your feet wet doing copyediting, fixing typos and grammatical errors.  Then move on to referencing.  Category:Articles lacking sources is a good place to start; look for things in your local library or on the internet that verify the information in articles that are lacking sources and add citations to the articles.  At some point you will naturally migrate into deletion discussions; especially if you come across an article that is a hoax or totally unverifiable.  By participating in activities like adding sources and deletion discussions, you will gain an understanding of notability and sourcing and how they play together.  At that point you'll be ready to try writing an article.  Perhaps you'll find a red link in an article you're copyediting and be curious about the topic, or maybe a source you're using for one thing will have information about something we don't have an article about, or maybe you'll want to take a look at requested articles and see if there's something you either know something about or are curious about and want to write.  Research and write the article.  Nominate it for the did you know section on the front page.  Work to develop it to Good or featured status.  Then do it again.  Do a few articles.  Keep an eye out for vandalism and fight it.  Maybe get into new page patrol (especially once you've written a couple articles yourself).  Do NPP for a while, and then you'll be ready. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * BossDragon64934 may sound like "just another Help desk naif", because he apparently is the same troll behind all of them. A veritable institution on this page and the WP:Teahouse, playing a repetitive game involving feigned idiocy. This account was one of several he created at the start of the pandemic lockdown. After a subtlely vandalistic launch, BossDragon went into "sleeper" mode; he's now active again to waste the time of others in reverting him or, worse, giving advice. Asking for adminship or to be a host appears to be one of his hallmarks.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

2021 Major League baseball season
Can you fix the error i made about Ron Roenicke being Fired please. 68.102.42.216 (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There were a number of problems with both cites in that section, not the least of which was that neither link pointed to the article intended. There were a number of typos in parameter names for the cite templates as well. I think I found and cited the correct sources. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 17:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

citations help in wiki translator
Hi, So my attempts at using the translator from wiki failed miserably in the citations area. My atempts at searching to find a guide or further info simply found me really random stuff. The named reference inline citations dissapear in the translated text (as the linked terminology works, I find this odd). It also shows up with tons of errors, not a single citations was correct. Is the best practise to sinmply go through and re-enter citations by hand into the new language? I am thinking there I am not the only one with this problem and that there must be a fix.... I hope a non-manual one. Thanks for the help BF (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some details, like which translator, which source and target articles, etc.? Different Wikipedias have different ways of doing citations, not all of which are necessarily supported on all others. I can imagine (though don't know) that some translators don't know how to deal with cites well or at all. The talk or other support page of the translator itself is probably a better place to start, though. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 17:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

My Spanish to English & English to French both failed. Either there has to be a go-to method or there isn't, I would be very surprised if this was a special circumstance. --BF (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC) BF (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, please provide both of: 1. a link to the translator you are using; 2. a link to a Spanish source article that failed to translate to English. Have you tried asking at the translator's talk page (if a wikipedia tool) or other support page, where you are more likely to find people familiar with the translation tool? —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 21:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The page is Draft:María Ortega Gálvez, which was translated from es:María Ortega. The problems are apparently with the Spanish-language cite parameters, which can be seen in this version. I don't know anything about the translation tool used. kennethaw88 • talk 22:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like the red error messages provide accurate suggestions for English names of the Spanish parms. You just have to search/replace  with   using the magnifying glass icon on the advanced editing toolbar at the top of the edit window and check "Treat search string as a regular expression". Do that for each of the parameters as needed. As to whether the translation tool can do it for you, I have no way of knowing without knowing what tool it is, but I have no special knowledge of them that can't be gained from looking at their docs or asking at their support pages. —[  Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 00:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note, too, that the date values in cites are rather fussy. The first letter of the month name must be capitalized. (MOS:DATE) —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 00:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help! I've asked for further info on the translations talk page—I hadn't realized that would be a good place to ask. Your workarounds were helpful, but I am hoping there might be something in the program itself.BF (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You still haven't told us what program you were using, so we can't help you there. David Biddulph (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Interview as Source
Hi, My article on The Word Balloon podcast was not approved because it said I did not have enough reliable sources. Most of the information about the background of the podcast came from an interview/discussion I had with the creator/host of the podcast. How can I site this so that my article gets approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddy DalPonte (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Interviews are not useful for proving notability as Wikipedia defines it, full stop. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 20:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * - the article Draft:Word Balloon Podcast appears to be sourced primarily with a blog, itself not a reliable source. Without broader coverage, it will be hard to show that the podcast is notable. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  20:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * When you say it's primarily sourced to a blog, do you mean Bleeding Cool? Wikiproject Video games and Wikiproject Comics both consider it reliable. Now, I would agree that it needs broader coverage than just one publication in order to be notable, but I don't think Bleeding Cool is unreliable, just not enough by itself. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 21:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * good to know - I didn't check to see that it also has an article - I was going on first impressions of the layout, and the fact that it was pretty much the only site used as a source. So I stand corrected on reliability, although few blogs meet that threshold. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  21:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Such an interview is of no help in establishing notability. The reliable sources need to be independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition to what everyone above said about establishing notability (and arguably more important than notability) an unpublished interview is not something that is verifiable by other people. If you talked to someone and wrote a Wikipedia article based on your conversation with them, there is no way for anyone else to verify that that conversation took place as described.  Even if the interview is published, the fact that you conducted the interview constitutes original research, which is not allowed.  Now, if someone else did an interview and published it in a reliable publication, it would then be able to be cited for facts, but it still wouldn't contribute to notability, because notability requires sources that are produced independently of the article subject.  So, if you find a published interview, you can cite it for facts but in order for the article to remain on Wikipedia there also has to be multiple sources besides the interview which satisfy the requirements imposed by the notability guidelines. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)