Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 April 28

= April 28 =

Translation of already posted document
How do I give credit to a document that I am translating to a different language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.249.65 (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There should be a param in Template:Cite web. Sungodtemple (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To avoid plagiarism, you must attribute the source. In a footnote, place the wording "translated from" and then a full citation. A translation is a copy under copyright law, so you cannot publish or otherwise make your translation available unless the copyright of the original is licensed to you or the work is in the public domain. Your translation is a "derivitave work", so you own the copyright in the translation: that means other parties cannot copy it without a license from you AND a license from the original. You do not need to publish or otherwise provide you translation to use the original as a reference here at Wikipedia, just cite the original. -Arch dude (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to an external document or an existing Wikipedia page you are translating to another Wikipedia language? Please link the document if it's online and say which language you are translating to. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

How to detect the locations of comments on talk pages using JavaScript
I was going to use JavaScript to detect signatures, but many users (including me) customize the signature. Is there a way to detect the locations of comments on talk pages? I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 03:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm looking for something like what the Discussion Tools here does. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 03:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * a better place to ask technical questions would be WP:VPT. Hope you find assistance there ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales
I used to talk directly to Jimmy Wales and contribute. It is the best source of information available. I sometimes add to posts that are incomplete. Tonight it was pandemics. Not editing but adding additional information. I could be an editor. Educated, Intelligent (an IQ over 140 and I use it to study and research. Eidetic memory correctly defined in the Oxford Dictionary. What should I do You don't want my Email My cell is [redacted] Jim Davis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:231A:1358:4448:ADE1:35F7:249A (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Jim! You will notice that I have redacted your cellphone number. Firstly, it is a very bad idea to post your number in a public place like Wikipedia: scammers are likely to exploit it. Secondly, Wikipedia will not communicate with you by phone or (normally) email; any replies will appear in the same place as you post the questions.
 * You do not (and should not) mention your age, so this might not be relevant to you, but in case it is you might like to study the essay Guidance for younger editors.
 * I will leave it to others with more experience to discuss how you can best contribute to Wikipedia. I suggest that someone with admin powers expunge the OP's phone number from the page history. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.88.97 (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Personal info removed from public logs. Mjroots (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, Jim. I don't know quite what you're asking. You evidently know how to edit this page - this means that yes, you are editing. Adding additional information is editing. So is removing wrong information, adding references, improving grammar, reorganising articles, explaining unclear paragraphs, and lots of other activities. Have you looked at Help:Introduction? ColinFine (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @IP editor, if you are saying that you have an eidetic memory, it let you down with your left and right parenthesis count... :-) 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Puzzling subcategory
Category:French people of Azerbaijani descent is listed as a subcategory of Category:French people of Iranian descent. Does that make sense, and if so, why? Bruce leverett (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Makes no sense to me, so I removed it. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, there is Greater Iran, which includes what is now Azerbaijan, but that's a cultural construct, not a genetic one. The subcategorization needed to go. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Article truncated on mobile device
When I visit Magnus Carlsen on my iPhone 8, software version 15.3.1, the list of sections doesn't show any sections after Magnus Carlsen. (The later sections, such as Magnus Carlsen, are displayed, but they aren't shown in the initial list.) What is going wrong here? Bruce leverett (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There was an unclosed table "swallowing" the following section headings. Fixed by . PrimeHunter (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking for a template
I can't remember what the template is called that would allow me to include a hatnote at the top of an article that says roughly "for a similar thing see this article." Could someone remind me what it's called? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit tagged as "use of predatory open access journal"
Hello, this edit was tagged as "use of predatory open access journal". In it, 4 new references were added:. However, I'm not sure which one is responsible since I was not able to find any of them on Beall's List. Does someone know how to figure out which one triggered the automatic filter so it can be removed? I assume it is either "Global Social Sciences Review" or "International Journal of English Literature and Culture" but I do not want to remove them just on suspicion. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Could be the International Journal of English Literature and Culture. It is part of https://www.academicresearchjournals.org/, the generic name of which sends up red flags for me.  -- Jayron 32 18:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Also WP:RSN might be a better place to ask this question. The regulars there may have better knowledge of the topic.  -- Jayron 32 18:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, I'll try my luck at WP:RSN. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * . I installed the script User:Headbomb/unreliable yesterday, which was widely advertised via MediaWiki. I can now see immediately that your issue is with ref #3 as IJELC is a predatory journal. The other refs are fine. On the basis of this limited evidence, I can thoroughly recommend that script. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I've used that script for ages - it can be very useful in identifying things like that. For those who don't have it installed, on my screen the link to that ref is highlighted in scary pink, and it is underlined by a zig-zag line - it makes it very very obvious that there are issues with using it as a source. Girth Summit  (blether)  11:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I also gave the script a try, it seems to be very useful for spotting all kinds of problematic sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Apparent autobiography
So, I tagged an undersourced (no indication of notability) *autobiography* for PROD. After doing so, I'm not sure if that was the correct deletion procedure. Someone please review Jazmin Lopez and it's creator's talk page (User talk:Jazlope) and check if I used correct deletion procedure & rationale. If you find any issues, feel free to undo any of my edits. Thanks! &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I note that the creating user drafted it in their user space and, instead of going through WP:AFC, they waited until they became autoconfirmed and moved to article space themselves. It's possible they were well aware this wouldn't get through AFC and this was deliberate. PROD is a lightweight deletion process, so it's fairly reasonable to use it in a case like this as anyone who disagrees can simply remove the tag and that's the end of it. I'd suggest WP:AFD of that does happen as this looks pretty thin. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Same video citation, but different time stamp, YouTube
I was editing the page of Manav Singh and there I was using a YouTube video as a source. In that video I had to use multiple time stamps for multiple additions to the article. In YouTube links, you add a timestamp by adding &t=XmYs to the end where X is the minute count and Y is the second count.

In the mentioned article, I have to use this video 5 times, with the only difference being the time stamp at the end.

I have used the SFN template while editing history related pages and I really like the feature it has where you could just use a simple template to point to the same link with a different page number. This is exactly the kind of functionality one would require in the situation I am right now. Is there any such tools available, that could be used to specify the time stamp for the video at the template instead of making 5 different citations? >>> Extorc . talk  20:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that a WP:RS? I'm not sure that it is.  If you can convince yourself that it is WP:RS then this might be an option for you:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Trappist the monk, Just for clarity, the kind of information I am deriving from the source is
 * How many days between suicide and FIR.
 * How much time between chargesheet and FIR and longevity of faulty investigation.
 * Sourcing the fact that the Gurgaon court was reached under Section 156 clause 3 of the CrPC.
 * Allegation that investigation is influenced by Money.
 * For 1, 2 and 4 - I have presented them as "According to", "Alleges" etc. The source is reliable to state what Manavs father allege and how the investigation was faulty.
 * For 3 - The TIO source also says that the Gurgaon court was reached through CrPC 156 c.3 which is consistent with the source. >>> Extorc . talk  22:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Extorc, as @Trappist the monk says, I do not think that YouTube video is reliable.  It looks like a 28 minute  interview where the person being interviewed is making assertions.  Where are HIS reliable sources that a reader could verify? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, kindly watch the video. The 2 persons are the victims father, and his lawyer talking about the faulty investigation. They dont need a source to make allegations. >>> Extorc . talk  05:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , a YouTube video of the is pretty much the exact opposite of a reliable source. It is contrary to policy to use a source like this for any contentious claims about living people or recently deceased people. You must rely on fully reliable sources with an editorial staff and a reputation for accuracy and correcting errors. A random YouTube video does not qualify. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, the article already has an elaborate mention of the faults in the investigation. What I've done is just add the allegations by the father. None of it is contentious, the reliable sources already say that the cops weren't properly collecting evidence and not progressing investigation.
 * Moreover, this is not a "random" YouTube video. Amish Aggrawala is the fathers lawyer. And this is his YouTube channel. >>> Extorc . talk  06:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read Reliable sources. There is no way round this core policy. Or look at it this way: we don't know that you are who you say you are, and we only have your/their word for it that those people who are they say they are. This is why we draw content only from "reliable sources". Shantavira|feed me 08:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The video is obviously self-published, and so there are limits to what assertions it can be used to support. There's also the question of whether any of this belongs in the article - if someone's allegations have been reported on by reliable independent media, they might be suitable for inclusion in the article; if it's just stuff he's said in a YouTube interview on his lawyer's channel, it is WP:UNDUE, and should not be in the article. Girth Summit  (blether)  11:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with the others that this video is a problem per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS. Interviews, even print interviews, are WP:PRIMARY sources to begin with in almost all cases as explained in WP:INTERVIEW, which means there lots of restrictions placed on how they may be used as a citation. Morever, the fact this this interview seems to be "self-published" and makes claims about other living persons makes citing this as a reliable source even more questionable. I guess a discussion about this could be started at WP:RSN, but I don't think there's much of a chance of this being considered a reliable source, at least for Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Extorc, How do we know that the people in the video are the victim's father and his lawyer? I could claim that they are not.  I hope you see the issue here --  to echo what Cullen328 said, WP likes published sources with a reputation for editorial control and oversight,  which are presumed to validate this kind of thing before publication. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Extorc, I realize that you are "just" saying that these people are alleging certain things... but BLP articles are held to strict standards. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Moreover, this is not a "random" YouTube video. Amish Aggrawala is the fathers lawyer. And this is his YouTube channel. >>> Extorc . talk  06:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read Reliable sources. There is no way round this core policy. Or look at it this way: we don't know that you are who you say you are, and we only have your/their word for it that those people who are they say they are. This is why we draw content only from "reliable sources". Shantavira|feed me 08:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The video is obviously self-published, and so there are limits to what assertions it can be used to support. There's also the question of whether any of this belongs in the article - if someone's allegations have been reported on by reliable independent media, they might be suitable for inclusion in the article; if it's just stuff he's said in a YouTube interview on his lawyer's channel, it is WP:UNDUE, and should not be in the article. Girth Summit  (blether)  11:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with the others that this video is a problem per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS. Interviews, even print interviews, are WP:PRIMARY sources to begin with in almost all cases as explained in WP:INTERVIEW, which means there lots of restrictions placed on how they may be used as a citation. Morever, the fact this this interview seems to be "self-published" and makes claims about other living persons makes citing this as a reliable source even more questionable. I guess a discussion about this could be started at WP:RSN, but I don't think there's much of a chance of this being considered a reliable source, at least for Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Extorc, How do we know that the people in the video are the victim's father and his lawyer? I could claim that they are not.  I hope you see the issue here --  to echo what Cullen328 said, WP likes published sources with a reputation for editorial control and oversight,  which are presumed to validate this kind of thing before publication. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Extorc, I realize that you are "just" saying that these people are alleging certain things... but BLP articles are held to strict standards. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)