Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 December 28

= December 28 =

Page References Cite Error
I made a edit to a page (Atari VCS (2021 console) which used a different cite source. This was done in the infobox. Everything looks good except in the References section the old source shows as Cite error: The named reference Atari Annual Meeting was invoked but never defined. I am not sure how to remove this error. I am not sure how to resolve this.

Atari VCS (2021 console) Elosnoc (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Elosnoc, in your edits you replaced a named reference, "ref name="Atari Annual Meeting", with a different reference with more up-to-date information. However the reference is also used elsewhere in the infobox and your removal of the definition caused the problem. I will fix it by copying the full reference definition back in. Visual Editor, which you were using, usually takes care of this automatically. But it seems to have problems when the reused named references like this are in a template like the infobox. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Print Edition
Where can I buy the print edition of Wikipedia, how many volumes is it, and how much does it cost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.58.224.147 (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

143.58.224.147 (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See Size of Wikipedia. Currently about 2657 volumes the size of a volume of the Encyclopedia Briticannica. You can download it and arrange to have it printed at an approximate price of $10.00 per volume.-Arch dude (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ummm, WOW. Nicely illustrated.
 * This article might also be helpful: Version 1.0 Editorial Team. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Only £26,000 for all of Wikipedia? Sign me up.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's now up to 3087 volumes, but maybe you can get a discount. Please note that this is the text-only version. It will be quite a bit bigger if you want the illustrated version, and each volume will cost more to print because of color printing. -Arch dude (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Print Wikipedia * Pppery * it has begun... 21:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Userboxes
This question might not belong here, but where can I find a list of all the userboxes? InfernaIBaze (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is maintaining a complete list of every userbox in existence, but several incomplete lists exist such as Userboxes/Galleries. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! InfernaIBaze (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of them should be in Category:Userboxes and its many, many subcategories. There are thousands. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much!! And happy new year! InfernaIBaze (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Chippendales
There is something weird going on at Chippendales, the article is poorly written  and controlled by people who admit a WP:COI. I added WP:RS and paraphrased the info. I did not read the talk page first. Who does? There seems to be an attempt keep the page written as an advertisement for customers and not an encyclopedic article. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:0mtwb9gd5wx&diff=1129878831&oldid=1129849784
 * 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , there has been an ongoing campaign for several years to add the name Bruce Nahin to that article, and to overstate and inflate his importance. I have semi-protected the article for a year as a result. I see that you also tried to add Nahin's name, and also used the unreliable clickbait Newsweek site as a reference. That article is obviously promotional. See WP:NEWSWEEK. As for the editor with an admitted conflict of interest as a former employee, that editor limits himself to edit requests on the article talk page, which is entirely appropriate. In my opinion, Nahin appears to be a fabulist and his claims about himself are without merit. Cullen328 (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Your stories
I have been donating to support your website for several yrs now and yes did so this yr. However, this is likely the last time that I will. The reason for this is that I’m seeing over and over again, how people are able to edit material on themselves and so your articles are not completely factual. It’s happening more and more over time. If I’m going to your site to find information, I’m starting to question the authenticity of your material.

Until I see this change I will no longer support your site financially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.171.12 (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As someone who practices skepticism, I encourage people to critically think about the material they ingest rather than accepting it as gospel. People are strongly discouraged from creating or editing articles about themselves per WP:AUTO, and those that cross the line find themselves blocked eventually. If you want to take your money elsewhere that's totally fine; the Wikimedia Organization isn't hurting for funds anytime soon. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * All editorial decisions and actions hare accomplished by unpaid self-selected volunteers, so for this particular problem, your donation decision has no effect. If you want to help fix this problem, start editing articles. Revert those bad edits. Add notices about WP:COI. You have just as much authority and responsibility as the rest of us. Start small by commenting on the article's talk pages until you get some experience, and then learn a little about how we handle COI, and then jump right in. Good luck! We need you. -Arch dude (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to refresh this page which now has new information that can be added.
A page directed me here to say this but the user detailed under the section ‘Editor's edit summaries (language, tone)’ is highly disruptive and I was wondering what can be done about it.

Here is the thread :)

Hey all, good morning.

I'm concerned by and the tone they use in edit summaries. This has been in the back of my mind for a while, and I've stopped myself from making a big thing about it, but I think maybe we've got to a point where a little advice is needed. I'm not an admin so my actions are limited.


 * 1) . Use of the phrase "stupid new inclusion" and "cancerous" here -
 * 2) . Removal of a large amount of content without a summary here -
 * 3) . A run of edits on Leeds Council election articles using somewhat theatrical language here which I did mention in the project page here  where I tagged Sparkle1 without their input to date.

At the beginning of the month they had some back and forth on their talk page with very harsh and uncooperative language ("I am completely not interested") here.

I would like to ask if I'm right to be concerned by their tone and language, whether I am being too "soft" in being concerned here? They seem to be very constructive editors in some ways but there are moments of conflict and temper that I now think might need guidance in dealing with. Once I've posted this here, I'll put the link on their talk page. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this page isn't for resolving editor issues. I hope to find the time to write an essay collecting all the recommendations for dealing with "disruptive" editors. Unfortunately, I've only gotten as far as collecting links to some of the "how to" pages. Here's my list:


 * ● https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests/Guide


 * ● https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests


 * ● https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_user_conduct_disputes


 * ● https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors


 * ● https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Competence_is_required


 * Hope this helps. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, this should be dealt with. The user in question has many notices on their talk page for changing an article to suit their opinion, especially on LGBT rights articles. In talk pages, the user uses lots of biased information and is ready to start edit wars on purpose in order to get their way.
 * The user also has been known to swear on talk pages and threaten people while editing in the edit summaries, and seems to think that they are always correct and they have the power to accept others’ contributions.
 * 14:19, 4 December 2022 diff hist  −2,318‎  Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill ‎ →‎Opposition to the bill: lets not play the spin game these are just anti-trans groups not women's rights groups they can call themsleves women's rights groups but the fail the duck test also tone town the JRK pushing
 * 12:44, 9 October 2022 diff hist  −818‎  User talk:Sparkle1 ‎ Undid revision [tel:1115006426 1115006426] by Sahaib (talk) Please do not interact with me on this platform again unless it is in relation to content on an actual discussion page of an article, Think first before making such absurd comments, as you have just come across inflammatory and a hypocrite.
 * 10:13, 9 October 2022 diff hist  −636‎  User talk:Sparkle1 ‎ Undid revision [tel:1114921452 1114921452] by Sahaib (talk) Don't waste my time complaining then do the exact same thing I did you bad faith wally
 * 15:26, 16 December 2021 diff hist  +83‎  2021 Batley and Spen by-election ‎ Shove your shitty formatting, shove your two decimal points and shove your New up your backside. Have some respect for how is should be done and not some bastardised lay criminal way Tag: Reverted
 * 01:33, 12 December 2021 diff hist  +14‎  North Shropshire (UK Parliament constituency) ‎ →‎Results: Fixed formatting which was criminally bad and eliminated the horrendous use of New instead of N/A
 * 22:26, 2 August 2021 diff hist  −2,007‎  User talk:Sparkle1 ‎ →‎August 2021: You are using bad sources and stop trolling and making rubbish up do not post here again or i will report you for POV pushing and failing to use reliable sources Tag: Manual revert
 * Bias and swearing in talk page: Talk:Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill “You clearly want reasoning here so here goes. First of the only lack of neutrality is in your head, there isn't actually any, you are seeing a lack of neutrality because it goes against what you want to be portrayed in the article. You hammer on about this 'revolt' crap; 7 I repeat 7 members of the SNP out of 64 voted against it. Leave the hysteria in the Guardian, the Scotsman and other news publications. This is not a news site. This is an encyclopaedia. Calling it a revolt is POV pushing and that is not going to happen in this article.   The group you mentioned, such as "for women Scotland" and "Fair Play for Women", have a single purpose of removing the rights of trans people and excluding them from society. LGB Alliance calls itself an LGB group but in court revealed it is mainly supported by straight people. They are also well documented in pushing anti-trans agendas, and in Australia were recently designated an anti-trans hate group. So they get called what the are Anti-Trans groups. The duck test says they are anti-trans Wikipedia is not for their propaganda. trans-exclusionary is just a fancy term for anti-trans. These are groups who bring lawsuits to try and exclude trans people from society and try and remove the rights of trans people in court.”
 * On user talk page: “Please don't remove talk page posts that other editors have replied to. You may be able to collapse them or archive them.”  (Sparkle1) “It is perfectly acceptable to remove posts that are off-topic, against Wikipedia rules and are vandalism. Using the Hubbard talk page to push transphobia is perfectly fine to delete. Wikipedia is not a forum and talk pages are not a sanctuary where anything posted is never subject to deletion. the rules are strict and the bar is high but pushing transphobia and intentionally misgendering is grounds for removal. Please fully read the rules on talk pages.”
 * On user talk page: “Hi Sparkle1! I noticed you keep re-adding a change to Abigail Thorn that I have removed with the justification of MOS:OVERLINK. This is edit warring as you are not attempting to discuss your changes, either through edit summaries or talk pages. Note that edit warring can apply to any number of edits over any time period. If you would like to respond with a reason, I can bring this explanation to Talk:Abigail Thorn to see what other editors think. Otherwise, can you please remove the link? Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)” “It is a standard explainer and not an overlink. Nothing more to say about the content. Now turning to you as an editor, stop acting like you own the lede. You are also going on about edit warring, when you are doing the same. Pot Kettle Balck stinks. Please do not post here again. You are not the owner of any article or space on Wikipeida. You are free to start any discussion you like but I am not going through you as a gatekeeper. You do not own the Abigail Thorn article or any other article, you are not able to gatekeep any other editor and you need to cease with this kind of softly-softly patronising, lording it over, and article ownership by the above gatekeeping ludicrousness of 'if you would like to respond with a reason, I can bring this explanation to Talk:Abigail Thorn to see what other editors think". If you want to start a discussion go for it but I am not giving you my replies for you to then offer them to others. Get stuffed and grow up. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)”
 * Scientelensia (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 132

Scientelensia (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Scientelensia: This is not the appropriate venue to raise these concerns. Please go to WP:ANI and read the instructions there carefully. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The OP now has a topic ban as an arbitration enforcement sanction. - David Biddulph (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, I didn't want to clog up the question board, but what is an arbitration enforcement sanction? I've only used Wikipedia to read from, I'm still very new to this side of Wikipedia. Do you know if there's just a page that just describes all of contribution stuff? I've noticed I've seen a lot of WP:XXXX that describes all of the contribution rules. WhatDoesOneChoose (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

What is the difference between - and – ?
I have found the 2022–23 Bangladesh Premier League players' draft article and the 2022-23 Futsal Club Championship article to have different dashes used between the years 2022 to 2023. The first uses   while the other uses.

(Google is having trouble giving me results as it just keeps deleting these dashes in the actual search and just keeping the 'vs' so I'm asking you all!) ==== edit: I think according to Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Ranges the second article's (2022–23 Bangladesh(...)) name should be changed. Am I correct? ==== 3point1415 (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See MOS:DASH. 2022-23 Futsal Club Championship should be moved to 2022–23 Futsal Club Championship.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply! It seems like my findings contradict yours, would you mind taking a look at my new edit? 3point1415 (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The specific guideline about the use of en dashes in date ranges is MOS:DATERANGE. The short answer is that 2022-23 Futsal Club Championship should be moved to a title with an en dash (2022–23 Futsal Club Championship) rather than a hyphen, which will leave a redirect at the title with a hyphen to allow it to be searched for in that way. Deor (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

More significantly, this is about a future event, and contains no real independent references. So I have boldly draft-ified it. Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Wrong birth date
Hi if you check my Wikipedia page it has my birthday wrong - it is 31 December, not 13… Thanks Chris Stringer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regnir (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Immediately above where you posted your message it says: "Ask your question at the bottom of this page ...", so I have moved your message from the top of the page to the right place chronologically & added a section heading. Your message will presumably not have been noticed where it was misplaced, but I think the answer would have been that the previous date of birth in Chris Stringer wasn't supported by any reference to an independent reliable source so ought not to have been added. Please note also for the future that messages on talk pages such as here ought to be terminated with a signature. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Regnir Note that Wikipedia has two articles for Chris Stringer, namely Chris Stringer and Chris Stringer (footballer). The former had an uncited DOB which has now been removed. Our guidance at WP:DOB points out that articles should only include such private information if it has been widely published in reliable sources. Should you wish to have the information included at Chris Stringer (and there is no reason why you should), please make an edit request at Talk:Chris Stringer citing such sources. You should not directly edit that article yourself owing to your obvious conflict of interest. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Can I retrieve my edit summary when I encounter an edit conflict?
I generally put some effort into each edit summary. When "Publish changes" fails because of an edit conflict but I still want to make my changes, can I retrieve my edit summary from somewhere so that I can reuse it? Peter Brown (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The edit summary is in a normal edit summary field on the edit conflict screen. It's not at the bottom so you have to scroll up if you start from there. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist - Google
I got the above error message when I tried to save a page where I'd used the url - https://www.google.com/url? search (this page won't let me save the url either), followed by sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjS4ofBgp38AhUETGwGHW4SAcwQFnoECBwQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tasman.govt.nz%2Fdocument%2Fserve%2FBiodiversity%2520Overview%2520Information%2520on%2520the%2520Special%2520Native%2520Animals%2520and%2520Insects%2520in%2520Tasman%2520District.pdf%3FDocID%3D28027&usg=AOvVaw2m4QdIbHPH1Ih9OVHw_eUg.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests#google.com/url? MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common requests] says I should find an alternative, but I've searched www.tasman.govt.nz and can't find the page. What's the solution please? Johnragla (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The blacklist is complaining about Google's URL shortener, not the page you're linking to. Linking to https://www.tasman.govt.nz/document/serve/Biodiversity%20Overview%20Information%20on%20the%20Special%20Native%20Animals%20and%20Insects%20in%20Tasman%20District.pdf?DocID=28027 directly works. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I must have used a space, rather than slash when I tried to convert it. Johnragla (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Johnragla Google queries are not good references, because the specific results that Google returns can change from minute to minute, and they won't  be the same for the next reader.  You can USE Google to find sources,  but when you cite a source in a draft or article,  you should use the exact page link that has the info, not the search query. David10244 (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Notability
If the only sources I can find about a person are obituaries, is that person notable enough for an article? Mucube (talk • contribs) 21:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Possibly. It depends on whether those obituaries are 1) reliably published and 2) independent (eg., were they written by a family member or colleague of the deceased, or by somebody with no particular connection?). There is also a question of how many obituaries, and whether they are actually different or some are recycled from others. ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Sharing Of Wikipedia  Articles
I would like to share articles with associates via e-mail. Major sites such as YouTube, et al have 'Share' deals where one can send copies via e-mail, Twitter and so forth. But Wikipedia does not seem to allow such sharing. Am I missing something?...If so, please advise...If not, Wikipedia should immediately add a prominent link to allow such sharing. Thank you for any assistance.

TOM 2601:88:8001:F1E0:707D:3D4:CFBB:262D (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * TOM: Sites such as you mention are all social media sites. Wikipedia is a reference work, and there is a strong aversion among our editors against any feature which reeks of a social media interface. On the other hand, it is quite easy to copy the URL of any given article from your browser's address box, then copy and paste the URL into an e-mail or text message to your associates. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're using Google Chrome, there's an innate share function on the right-hand side of the address bar. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)