Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 February 6

= February 6 =

NBA All-Star Game Logo
Can you Please upload the 2021 NBA All-Star Game Logo Please 68.102.42.216 (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto
Hello does anyone have the page to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto from 214-2015 before all the editing? would be grateful if you could find a way of finding this. If you find the original please email me the age at

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:B2C2:803:A300:8088:AF48:1481:A2CF (talk)


 * All previous versions of the page are still available. click on the "view history" tab at the top of that page, then go back as far as you like and click on dated link. -Arch dude (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sense of humour
Why can't I show you a sense of humour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2A07:E900:F80C:F7CE:15C5:AE41 (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as there's no crying in baseball, there's no humour in Wikipedia generally (with a few exceptions). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * We are generally very humor-less in article-space. It can be ok otherwise, but the text-only environment can make it difficult for humor to come across as intendend to all who read it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Humour's pretty subjective, but there's some eyebrow-raising content on here like toilet paper orientation, where the humour (in my opinion) is that an article about this subject was made, and you'd never see something in so much detail in other encyclopedias. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And that article has versions in 15+ languages. That's funny in itself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The best reason: It would undermine Wikipedia's credibility, assuming you're talking about injecting humour in articles (aka mainspace). Clarityfiend (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia attempts to be serious and factual. Seriousness is almost by definition not humorous. Articles are backed up by reliable and often academic sources, which are generally not filled with hilarity. Facts are generally not funny. The Simpsons article is not funny, although it deals with a humorous TV series. Uncyclopedia may be what you are looking for. MinorProphet (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions?
Wouldn't it be great to get wikipedia music/album/artist info available and integrated through music apps (spotify, others)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordon RT (talk • contribs) 04:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia was built by unpaid volunteers. The information on Wikipedia is available for anyone to use for any purpose. The paid priofessional employees of the companies behind those apps are free to integrate the information if they choose to do so. Please make your suggestion to them. Good luck with that. -Arch dude (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Some already do. Check out, for example, the online Radio Paradise. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.40.121 (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are industry databases and services like Gracenote that seem to serve that purpose better than I believe Wikipedia can. It really doesn't aim to be a reliable, exhaustive database of anything. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 07:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Question about tables
Hey all, I was wondering what the guideline is for the chronological order of items in tables. I couldn't find the answer in the Help section, only that an example given was from earliest to latest: Manual_of_Style/Tables. In most tables I've encountered it goes from earliest to latest. As in List of epidemics, List of Chinese films of 2018, List of films based on actual events, List of natural disasters by death toll. But then when I got here: List of mass shootings in the United States and World_population it's from latest to earliest. Why? Is there a reason for this? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a common sense editorial decision that is taken as per the topic. That it. Lourdes  14:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lourdes, what do you mean by that? They do it so it's easier to edit the page? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The term "editorial judgement" is used throughout the publishing industry. It means that an editor is responsible to see that the material meets a publication's standards and contributes to the reader's understanding or appreciation of the material. In this case, it means the editor should pick the presentation that best contributes to the reader's understanding of the topic. At Wikipedia, we usually use the term to mean "when there is no explicit guideline, then you, the editor, should act on behalf of our readers." Even when the guidelines are explicit, if the result is detrimental to the reader's understanding: See WP:IGNOREALLRULES -Arch dude (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for answering. How come there's no guideline that says all tables should always be from earliest to latest? This would avoid a lot of confusion and also meet WP:TITLECON. It's weird to see some tables upside down. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no need for such a rule. Many tables in Wikipedia (including the two you are complaining about) are sortable. This allows the reader some control over how to view the data.  For example, at World_population, you can click the Year column on the table and it will go from earlier to later, and click it again, it will go back the other way.  So you can see it with either 1951 first or  2020 first.   RudolfRed (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @ et al.: MOS:FILMOGRAPHY says Ordered from oldest to newest.. WP:DATELIST says Chronological lists, such as timelines, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order.. WP:SALORDER says the same. Personally, I find newest first a more useful order, but that's clearly related to the subjects of articles I read and what I'm trying to find out. Bullet-lists aren't sortable, either. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 07:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Roxanne Russell article
I need help. Trying to publish this but cannot figure out how. --RussellRox (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit the draft. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

subject: Heathfield Senior High School Gateshead
on 5 Feb 2021 there was multiple deletions of notable pupils following my research. How can these be restored in a manner not to be deleted again

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatesheadhistorian (talk • contribs) 13:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears that most of your additions either did not have articles about those people, or independent reliable sources describing their alumni status. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For more information please read our policy on WP:ALUMNI.--Shantavira|feed me 14:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Generic Question - Do Wikipedia Admins "Speak for Wikipedia"?
So my question is slightly weird, but one I have been wondering for a while. In the context of discussion (Like Afd, Rfc, ect...), when an admin closes the discussion with a message (more than like a "Consensus was delete"), does that mean that the Admin "spoke for Wikipedia"? For example, if a topic was chosen to be deleted, does that mean the closing admin just said Wikipedia believe this is true? Context in a sentence would be like "Wikipedia concluded that the 2021 Myanmar coup d'état was an important topic in the news. The Wiki foundation doesn't have any liability for topics on Wikipedia, I know that, so in that context, would the admin that closed the discussion be the one making the discussion that Wikipedia agreed or disagrees with a topic?

That might have not made sense at all, so if you are confused, let me know and I will try to state the question better. (P.S. I couldn't find a good place to ask this, so I asked in on the Help desk, which I know is for how to edit Wikipedia, but the reference desk isn't for this question.) Elijahandskip (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Admins have no more strength of opinion than any other editor. Generally admins close discussions as they have the technical ability to delete pages, but any editor in good standing can close them.
 * The closing of the discussion is just a summary of the discussion. It's worth mentioning that no one speaks for Wikipedia, it's just a website (well a series of websites), and consensus can change. The only thing that someone might speak on behalf of might be the Wikimedia Foundation. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When an admin makes a statement like that, they are stating their conclusion: that the Wikipedians who participated in this discussion came to a consensus. This does not make the admin infallible, merely a person stating their perception of what the portion of the community involved in the discussion thinks. I would never ever write, "Wikipedia concluded that"; I would say, "[this discussion] led to a consensus that", with the brackets containing a link to the record of that particular discussion.-- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  20:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would just back up both of the above comments. No one individual speaks for Wikipedia, that is sort of the whole idea of how this works. Content decisions that require discussion are discussed by interested community members, then an admin or other experienced user will close that discussion if that is what is needed, and their closing statement, whatever it may be, is intended to reflect the consensus arrived at. Conduct issues are dealt with in roughly the same way, although in many cases it is more desirable that an actual admin close those discussions as it may require the use of admin tools to enact the consensus, but even arbcom does not "speak for Wikipedia". Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above, I think. I would say "the English Wikipedia community decided in 2021 that..." if the discussion had sufficiently many participants that it seemed representative, but not "Wikipedia decided that..." Otherwise, "a group of volunteers", "a group of contributors", "some Wikipedians" etc.
 * If the sentence you give as an example is about WP:ITN then definitely the latter (ITN participants are a sub-community, not representative of the opinions of the wider community). Maybe "volunteers at Wikipedia's 'In the news' homepage section..." The admin has no more power to "speak for" Wikipedia than a non-admin. They're just taking a content or policy action, which is no more "in the name of Wikipedia" than an unregistered user uncontroversially redirecting a page or boldly adding text to a policy. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

two mountains with same name
Hi in Greenland there are two mountains who have the name Alanngorsuaq. What would be the name for the second mountain (there's the wikilink it:Alanngorsuaq (monte))?--Ḥdiddān 21:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In the English Wikipedia, you could use something that helps further disabiguate it such as "Alanngorsuaq (northern)" if the second one is further north. That is assuming that each one is notable enough to have its own article.  For the other language Wikipedia, you will need to ask there, since each Wikipedia has its own rules/guidelines for naming.  RudolfRed (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh, interesting, we have an article on Alanngorsuaq, which shows it substantially to the northwest of the mountain identified in the Italian article. The reference used to cite the Italian article does indeed show two mountains with the exact same name. So for the second one some sort of disambiguator is needed, I would suggest maybe Alanngorsuaq (Kujalleq) as that specifies where it is. Given that there is also a fjord by this name, if such an article is created a bisambiguation page may be in order to help users navigate the three separate topics. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Is the one near Kujalleq notable? Here is a source that states: "Alanngorsuaq is a hill and is located in Kujalleq, Greenland. The estimate terrain elevation above seal [sic] level is 1 metres." Another source, accessible (at the moment?) only through Google's cache, has this: "Alanngorsuaq, Kujalleq, Greenland [...] Type: Island - a tract of land, smaller than a continent, surrounded by water at high water". Are there other sources besides the Gazetteer of Greenland  compilation that make a mountain out of this hill? Also note that this compilation has several nearby mountains that are significantly higher (e.g. Valhaltinde (1690m), Illerfissalik (1662m), Sulussugutaasaa (1660m)) but that, as far as I can see, are also not notable. --Lambiam 08:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lambiam I think yes, the mountain near Kujalleq seems to me encyclopedic, instead that hill does not seem absolutely encyclopedic, moreover on itwiki is a simple redirect. For sources I couldn't find anything though.--Ḥdiddān 08:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * PS geoview makes a lot of stupid errors like is -9999 meters.--Ḥdiddān 08:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)